conceivable that you would believe the fake news is real because it looks real. it doesn't have the feel of something slapped together. it's easy for kids who know how to code to put it up and make it look real. we could say civic education and educate high school students about news literacy, but but it's hard. you have a phenomenon of people who have been nominated or chosen for very high and responsible positions in government who seem to have been taken in by this. so underline the phenomenon of fake news is the willingness of people apparently to believe the craziest worst of people in the pizza gate situation in which i

have been -- it turns out to my surprise because i was caught up in a weird way and pizza gate, i myself am a pedophile caught up in a child sex ring because there are some pizza gate things. i got nasty tweets but i've also gotten sincere e-mails from people worried about this. so we are now in a society that not only is inundated with fake news but where a lot of people are so happy or disgusted, or angry angry that there disposed to believe it. that's the other part of the fake news problem that we'll have to figure out a way to address. >> i would like to say a media literacy for a minute. i think that is critically important with the environment that we have now. i've always learned that the answer to the bad speech is more speech to correct the speech. i

don't know if that is possible. that would that would be going to the source, media literacy is going to the recipient. i like your views on which might be the more productive and what you think if any thing either the news media itself or government should do. we have another campaign coming up in two years and a presidential and four, what we want to think about and start doing to enhance our ability to discern what's been said to us? >> i looked at the statistics i'm sure you see me stew about how many people are tricked by fake news. it's shocking. something like 80% of high school students couldn't differentiate between the fake news story and a real new story. you could go on and on. there's interesting statistics out there. there needs to be an education

campaign. what format that that should take? maybe that's through the media or maybe it's to the government. maybe government should play a role in in that. i think that's an interesting question. i'm not too hopeful about the next ministration taken that on, but we will see. i would encourage them to. one thing there hasn't been enough discussion on is the native advertising. i don't know if people know what that is. it's sort it's sort of evil genius as i would say. if you go to a media site or many websites, advertisers are companies or people who are trying to advertise to is called native advertising with the materials presented looks exactly like a new story, exactly in the format of the outlet their advertising on. no that is confusing. so yes we need a media campaign

but are we making it harder for people, individuals were busy and maybe they're just trying to find ruth's column or try to find information. i think that's a problem. we are in a stage where it's easy to differentiate when you're watching television watching, this is us, my new favorite show. if you're watching a show like that and it's a commercial you know it's a commercial and you a popcorn or snack. >> for years the ftc was worried about saturday morning television when bugs bunny would run for 20 minutes and the bugs himself would sell toothpaste or sell it was normally sugared cereal or other such things and they insisted on breaks and the following is a paid commercial advertisement and it cannot be bugs bunny or even captain

kangaroo, it had to be a different type person. speak and spoken as a regulatory expert. so this is the point. there have been laws and policies that have been put in place about media and advertising. i'm not a lawyer and i don't play one on tv. but they have been put in place as a result. we had a stage where on my media and advertising has been exploding over the past couple of years. to a need to take a closer look at how it is approached from a government perspective as well. >> that makes me nervous about government being involved, more nervous than facebook to decide what's real news and what's fake news or what's trusted news unless trusted news.

but any government or just tell people how to figure it out, it just makes me nervous, it makes me nervous for it any nervous administration. >> even if those even to say were now going to break for commercial announcement? >> for example the ftc which i know a little bit about having been married to someone who worked there got involved in requiring bloggers who received the freebies to disclose that it was a freebie. that seems like a perfectly legitimate disclosure role. but i have this instinctive and too busy to government involvement in telling people how to consumer understand news.

that feels like another slope i don't want to go down. >> to we have questions from the audience? >> apparently we do. >> let's begin with this one. self equivalency. someone in the audience wants to know how the police would deal with false equivalency. and if i can append something to that, your reaction in that regard to the editor of new york times and the traditional standards of journalism in the context of the election record suspension that's to say that there had to be somewhat more editorial judgment in the news reporting process. >> sure, that's that's totally fair and legitimate question, i think this campaign and the particular campaign who are running in this campaign they did require taking fact checking

from a sidebar situation and incorporating it into the main story. i think that took some time and adjusting on our part. i think it has potential downside issues of going too far in turning off. you you want to make sure that to the extent possible your readers are going to trust you. when you use a word like false that seems to me to be okay as long as you can prove that statement is false. when you use a word like live, that to me feels like you are connoting intent and going further than you need to go and you're not going to necessarily convince people with that. i think we had this campaign of education institutionally among different news organizations

about how far we were willing to go and how we wanted to do it in terms of calling out false news or false assertions and how we are going to deal with them as news organizations. i think that's still a work in progress but we have moved in a pretty good place there. on the false equivalence question and i get this a lot, i simultaneously spent a lot of the selection writing brutally critical things about donald trump. i also spent some of the selection writing brutally critical things about hillary clinton. i think both of those were pieces of doing my job. but for me it wasn't half-and-half. there's a lot of different ways to calculate these numbers.

i think both candidates came with different magnitudes of flaws but they did come with flaws and for us to ignore once flaws because the other ones were greater is also not doing our job. i think to ignore substance across the board is not doing her job. but it is a fact of journalism kind of like a law of journalistic physics that are outrageous statements are going to trump boring policy statements and scandal and issues relating to scandal or questionable activity are going to trump policy statements. so was there too much attention to clinton's e-mails given the

scope of other things going on? perhaps. but that doesn't mean it wasn't a legitimate and important source of discussion. i wrote both that her handling of it was problematic, the original decision to do it was problematic and it was clear to me well before james comay said it was clear to the fbi that it was in no way close to a criminally prosecutable matter. losing a lot of sloop of night these days but not about false equivalent. >> revisit in the media so she's the expert, but i will add that one of the things that i think was challenging out of super media was there is a long tradition in the country of elected officials and their staff same things that are accurate or true and i think

that went out the window a bit in this election cycle. whereas historically a story may lead was something i candidate, or a senior staffer might say or a on television might say that and that's totally normal especially cassettes how to use is being made. it took a while to figure out or unwind how to handle that. that was not always the case. >> here's another question. one of of the audience noticed and i'm quoting, it establish media more of a left or more of the right? is that a fair case statement. is it to compete with more and at her attention grabbing online sources? should we be worried about this trend?

>> are we to left her to write question work. >> is the idea that the presses sorting out across the board into publications with the fine points of view that are creeping into news and not just appearing in editorials. >> i think what what we should be concerned about his people, it's a snippet way of saying we should be concerned about people not getting their information from reasonably neutral news organizations whether they are networks or publications like the new york times, the washington post, or whatever. but just sorting themselves out to glean information from left sites are right sites, or you only watch fox news or yearly watch msnbc, they are not equivalent, but i think to the extents where you don't get the

full gamut of news, your depriving yourself and it's clear the social media algorithm is making that easier or harder and harder to avoid. i do not think that we feel an institutional pressure to go in one direction or another. we have news pages that you news news reporting and we have an editorial page that simultaneously can make jen's white house unhappy and donald trump on happy. and that's a cheap way of saying we must be doing something right. but i kind of think we are doing something right. >> i would just say that there are a lot of news organizations that have been around a long time included the washington post and local newspapers that are not as young as the mine outlets. some of the online outlets are not left or right, there's some down the middle as well. the benefit of ruth's point of

getting information from well-known outlets is that there are days when we are cursing the washington post editorial and there are days we like what they have to say. the same is true of others. so this is an area where there's a lot of individual responsibility and one that people don't think about enough. what the president often says to us is read broadly including with people you disagree. i think that's the best advice i've received and would pass on to others. it's painful to do but it's important to do. i often will turn on fox and see what they say about what were doing because it's important to know what they're saying and what the view was and what a

certain population of the country's hearing. >> this is a question about a different form of potential, not talking about your biased but whether or not a media organization might be in its editorial board to miss something because the demographics and the politics are unfamiliar. the question is, is, this group of white non- college-educated rust belt voters that surprise the campaign was [inaudible] there. meaning the campaign's radar. why weren't. why were they [inaudible] the medias either? >> i think they were. as we saw the polls the polls might not have been right on the precise state-by-state basis but we heard a lot about white, non- college-educated working-class, particularly male voters during the campaign. there was a lots of reporting

about them and interviewing of them. you're not can i have an editorial board with non- college-educated people on it. we talk a lot about the benefits of diversity of the newsroom. certainly an editorial board is a strange place to talk about ideological diversity and newsroom is probably the better place but you don't really want to be conscious of it because you don't want to pick ideologues for your news reporters. images be clear, i'm not arguing that we were totally on top of the pulse of the people nor were we will place to be in the top of the pulse of the people. i don't think it's fair to say that we were somehow ignorance or not cognizant of what was

going on. >> your thoughts? >> everybody missed it. i think this is a case for everybody to some degree. there are some reporting the campaigns had some sense, you have some sense because you spent enough time in the country, not enough and some of this is the problem of echo chamber in washington a people only hearing and talking to each other. how to get out of that? it's harder than anything. but it's clearly a case where everybody needs to do more. the democratic party, the republican party, media, because clearly we were not hearing and listening to what was happening in the country and what people were feeling and what they're not feeling they were not getting from the government. certainly from the losing campaign. >> i want to respond to that which is six excepting a little

more responsibility. in the older days dave taught young political reporters that we need to go talk to voters so we need to do or not. you would knock on the doors and ask how they're feeling and what they're concerned about what they thought about candidates. we got mesmerized about models and analytics in the predictive ability of science and we forgot that we are the best focused group conveners and interviewers of all because that is what we do or are supposed to do for a living. so to the extent that this campaign makes us less reliance on near-perfect science of polling and a little bit more going back to what dave taught

us come i think that would be a very good thing. >> the truth is it's the same listen though a different objective for campaigns. clearly democrats do not just lose the white house. democrats didn't lose senate seats that everybody thought they would win. the only the only 16 house seats. so clearly this is a time for some self reflection and part of that is not listening to voters in line too much on data. data is compelling, interesting and tells you something you could never gather in terms of the full scope as a reporter or as a government or campaign official about the country but it is imperfect. clearly something was missed. there is one communications lesson here to which is what we shouldn't to as communications professionals is get too far down the data-driven

communications where it so dissected into different sections of society of who we are communicating specific messages with. if you don't have to attend poll of what you're trying to say than the tent is going to fall down because nobody's hearing what your overarching passion and messages. i think that's something that democrats need to take a look at coming into this campaign as well. >> were coming close to the end of this. i want to read one question that looks like the person was quite anguished about the failure of media. the question is the following. how is it possible that with respect to one of the most important issues of the day, climate change, not one question was asked of clinton and trump at the debate?

the journalists failed. right or wrong? >> i don't think i'm going to be in the position of defending the lack of questioning on that subject. i think it's an important subject and there was a question at the town hall from a voter that touched on energy but did not touch on climate. i think that's unfortunate. all i can say in our defense and this goes back to the bright shiny objects point i was making earlier in the way that really to cooler from what we should've been doing during the campaign is that when donald trump came

to the editorial board we did ask him about climate change. he said he was not a big believer in the human contribution to climate change. it was very different than what he said to the new york times after the election. i think it bears some further questioning. debate questions are not, three presidential debates, as important as they are cannot be the totality of our questioning of cat candidates. as much as voters look at them and use them. the paradox of donald trump is that there's never been a candidate who made himself more accessible during the time, more accessible to more media constantly and was not adequately questioned about many things. i could list two things that he was never questioned about during the course of the campaign that he should have been asked. >> i think everything you said was fair, everybody does does not see the totality of every

interview. for every elected official does, even media doesn't see every questioning they do. on climate change this is something the president cares deeply about and he said this is the issue i want people to know that focused on i care about. i said i don't think people really know that. and i. and i don't think people have digested that. the reality is, we had had to work really hard at that because it is not an issue that felt sexy or edgy. it probably should be but what was interesting in several months went by and we did a couple of trips that were more visual but we do not interview with cbs where we pitch them on doing it climate change focused interview. and they said were we care about that issue so we did that, the climate change portion of the

interview had a farther reach, more people watched it then watch the news of the day portion that aired. which was surprising to them, it was thrilling to me. and i think some of this is not at this stage governing is different than campaigning. not underestimating the intelligence of voters, people including millennial's. which is i think is a i think is a mistake often government makes her elected officials make about what issues millennial's care about. this is one of the issues that i think has been slow to come to the public radar in a way that it should. we've looked at polling and the percentage of people who care about climate change is a lot lower than it should be. i don't know why that is, should be higher but that's something that

will need more work, put on the long list of things anymore work. >> social media played a major role in the tooth out in 16 presidential election in the new york university conference looked at the future of social media and political campaigns. >> 's time to settle in and we come to the fourth panel of today. our moderator today is can who is general counsel and actor secretary of the department of commerce where he led the departments internet policy passport. he is now serving as senior counsel and is primarily in the privacy, security, and information area. thank you sally.

>> we have been through the panels, to the party make any difference? does money make any difference? does media make any difference? now we're on to does technology make any difference? or is alternatively this technology to blame for all of the sins that we have heard about today. certainly the technology and campaigns has transformed with the explosion of information communications technology. the explosion of data. it is is changing every kind of enterprise. campaigns are no exception. we've come a long way from a discussion i remember early in

2004 campaign when jim jordan, the campaign manager said, there are no votes on the internet. and at that time we were watching the howard dean campaign takeoff powered by the internet. in the early 2000 campaigns had websites, that was about it. 2004 we're still in the air of e-mail and dialogue. but we saw particularly the explosion of e-mail, email is a fund-raising tool. in 2007 along comes the iphone and things really began to change and we recall the obama campaign in 2008 harness that

technology, harness social media and many other things as well as data and analytics. and and things have built on that sense. we have with us on a panel today some of the breakout stars of those earlier campaigns and so i mentioned the dean campaign is really the first campaign to harness the power of the internet and technology, joe led the digital component of that campaign and went on to found to blue state digit and lead the obama campaign digital effort in 2008 and work on 2012 and numerous other campaigns.

scott goodstein followed a similar path. he worked on the obama campaign's social and mobile campaigning, founded. >> but you went off on your own to found revolution messaging which helped to develop the digital engine of the bernie sanders campaign. and then on my left we have nate who is the james professor at stanford law school is an expert on the machinery of democracy. elections, fundraising, campaign-finance and has looked at the impact of digital technology on that. so let me start there because

nate, you just helped organized a similar discussion of this sears campaign, particularly the role of digital technology out on the other coast in silicon valley. and i think we heard that mention this morning. so let me ask you and i will ask each of you to pick this up in succession. how technology was, give us an overview of how technology was used in the 2016 campaign. set 16 campaign. set a baseline for the discussion here. and what was new this year? 2004 was the year of e-mail.

what was 2016? and lastly, how is it that that campaign, it was widely perceived as the more digitally sophisticated campaign bringing in the expertise of obama in 2008, it didn't prevail. so let me start with you for that overview and then i will ask you scott and joe to look at that from your perspective and particularly what the technologies were that you worked with in this campaign and how you saw those having an impact. >> first let me think everybody here who organizes. my sometime employer, boss and comrade bob, i have often been deemed as the spawn of the demon

spawn. i see see trevor morrison here my former colleague at columbia and dear friend. thank 70 people who i have worked with. we had a conference at stanford last week on the digital campaign. when we plan this conference ben ginsberg and i can about six months ago i thought what it was going to be about is here so hillary clinton's campaign marginally improved on barack obama's campaign of 2008 or 2012. here's the new digital tools and how she won. needless to say how she won. needless to say we had to change the topic. in part not because there's a surprise victory but there's all kinds of other issues dealing with the campaign who knew we would have to talk about macedonia teenagers putting up websites or fake news. that was not something that could be forecasted within the last eight months or year.

so there is a to say. your question is a big one. then we talk about three things. first, digital tools are only tools, the fundamentals of a campaign and the quality of the candidate are not affected by those tools. secondly, there are things that trumped it in this campaign which were innovative, unexpected and not well know the need to be talked about. third, a larger question as to what the digital campaign is in this environment given how many changes we've seen in news and the like. so on the first point, it's an obvious point but we need to stress it. victory has 1000 fathers but defeat is an orphan. so maybe it is the case that we attributed to much of the digital tools of yesteryear. there are is so critical to

obama success and now they're saying the tools failed hillary clinton. the truth is, we had credible candidates and barack obama wasn't a credible candidate and hillary clinton had certain flaws that maybe were apart from the digital campaign and maybe had some strengths. the fundamentals of the campaign and political models that we use were different this time the four years ago. we should not over emphasize the use of digital tools and being determinative of a campaign. secondly, donald trump's operation was not as people looked at the two operations in the summer and fall and it looked like hillary clinton had a digital operation and donald trump to not have one. to some extent what we have learned, few features.

certain things donald trump to the lake he did spend more money on facebook than hillary clinton did. he did spend half of their money on digital and flipped it between digital tv and she spent more on tv. the amount of money spent on digital in this campaign is three to four times more than the previous campaign. the media buys and how they spend their money was radically different. for example donald trump but zero michael cable tv advertising. something you would've thought everybody would've been doing. because his was more of a ramshackle impromptu or improvised operation he ended up outsourcing a lot of his campaign architecture and

platforms as opposed to putting it in house because hillary clinton had an operation that had been in development for so many years. one of the reasons he spent more money on facebook than hillary clinton did is because he use the people there to help them with the digital operation. what are some of the things he did that were different than previous times, i give you one example that has come out which is the way he covered the third debate. it is never happened before that the campaign actually ran because i television studio to cover its own debate. in the third debate the lifestream of what we thought was trump tv which was trump's own digital fraud in 9,000,000 viewers and it was more than the abc news lifestream on facebook which was the official lifestream. he. he was able to raise $9 million from that one production and it was totally different type of

experience than we've seen before. the use of live video and even though it was polished like when they have to live video going on with mike pence if you can handle that. that was something they revolutionized were experimented with. there digital operation when you look at what they did it doesn't seem like it is so different in its basic strategy than what you would've expected from any other digital consultants. there are certain things they did which were affected. one things that they mention before that it don't think is how they use native advertising. they did put native advertising to places like political.

i do think the big story is how you do find the digital campaign in the age of trump because it is hard to figure out where they campaign ends and whatever his non-campaign begins. so to think about this, how do you describe the digital campaign when breitbart is putting a story on trump or clinton and the campaign manager of trump's campaign is breitbart work, is steve been and donald trump then retweets a bright box story. so where's where's the media and not immediate distinction. now switch you for long time that those barriers have been breaking down particularly in the digital environments. it's difficult to figure out where those boundaries lie. you could talk about where did digital begin in non- digital

began. the story with donald trump is his ability to use the twitter feed to command attention. it's not just the power that he has on twitter, is the, is the fact that his twitter feed became the platform where legacy media would end up putting up his tweets for a larger audience. that has always been the case that you try to use paid media in order to get earned media. but now the lines have been blurred. there's more to discuss trying to figure out the line between foreign and domestic in an age when you have russian twitter bots being used in an election let alone fake news sites people to. we don't really know the impact of fake news on the selection. it will be very hard to study that problem. no doubt it had an effect, we just don't know how big of an effect.

one study by amelia at usc, 20% were done by bots and while that seems like a large number even twitter admits roughly half% of tweets are done by bots. that's something we need to investigate. they're talking about before this is now a worldwide phenomenon. she was talk about regulatory issues trying to look at how different countries regulate the system were looking at at stanford, the phenomenon of the populace, internet focus campaign is not unique to the united states. what was on italy last saturday or last sunday, what we see with a five-star movement there, the pirate party in iceland which is the second-largest party in iceland, they use the internet by the premise of india. what we're seeing is ability for parties and nontraditional

politicians to go over the media and run their campaign through different means. >> i think -- first thanks for having us and i appreciate the opportunity to have the conversation. i think the part i agree with most from nate is the credit goes to the candidates, that every every campaign is a reflection not just of the candidate but of the person and their message but their personality and management style and leadership tendency.

obviously those things amount to a band of potential outcomes that are affected by events and personnel and strategy. one of the best parts of working for barack obama is his leadership style and personality allowed for a special mix of the type of things you need to run a digital campaign really well. there's there's part of obama that is a cautious rule following very deliberate person in a person who wants to get things right and be deliberate about things but there's also what i do opposes a dumb war community organizer who wants to shake things up and do things differently. those aspects of his personality and biography were reflected in the campaign in a creative tension between operatives who came from politics and a bunch of folks who came from the outside. i was 25 on started and they were a bunch of us who were more of the insurgent side of the

discipline of the profession and we managed to coexist together and put something together that was consensus driven and in service of a different type of way of campaigning in a different approach to politics and the other campaigns were taking. . . >> >> in louisiana bottom half

of the outcomes because if you look at the campaign for all of the things you point out they really did get started date they did not build much of that during the primary and with compound interest the organization that he put together from scratch is more effective and intelligent and powerful as you go. in the end for all of that tax bite and christmas ornaments he will raise about as much as a mitt romney or maybe less. so we need to be relative to obama that is in both campaigns so we need to be careful what we are thinking about specifically digital. for the outside

gabelli, innovations of 2004 and 2008 and 2012 for in the campaign apparatus that they had outsource big parts of the infrastructure and so we didn't have the ability to control or innovate but for them most part those word taking those forces that there was like in 2016. literally they are in cahoots with to be embedded from that organization battle so from macedonia and the robots and those hackers

that tried to take down the organization through the illegal activity that is what we saw and fought back and could. the that was a much bigger operation. what is it mentioned the enough this time is the weapon nuys outside forces but also the of mechanization of abuse that had the toxic effect to have a conversation with a sofa with a campaign for all of arrest but also related to being asleep at the switch and not necessarily in foreseeing what they would otherwise in terms of policies of how the platforms ought to be as a

public space and that is something that was unfortunate and not anything had an answer for an appeal to the better angels of our nature but to drain that small but abuse that was of very big force there is a level of denial. you saw incremental moves but the big changes romeo side of the campaign. >> echoing what joe just

said fall lot of the discipline and some plate tactic is devolving to become a part of the campaign if you think of the obama social reprogram we were creating the rules as we went we wanted them to be embassies of the campaign so we created those rules if you said misogynist things then we would kiki laugh of the platform and he said things about the platforms we would take you off of the of platform we give you factual answers and links to find the truth and and it was created tell us the truth or fight the fear

campaign to do search engine and optimization. but my point been a is this share resaw the exact opposite being elevated not only the candidate but to be talked about in the media and everybody. enviable only use social media, the internet has grown up and now we are elevating the darkest corners of social media in a way that is not good for politics in my opinion. so technology keeps an evil thing right would be standing up here talking about how he is writing

books about how great my space is. we are pretty humble to figure out what is working and what is not. but there is the way like the south by southwest conference and now is a bunch of venture capitalist in reporters nobody is actually working in technology at these conferences. so this is the periscope election, the vine, snap chat election and people were racing to call it something new with the evolution that more people on mobil, 30 percent came from the mobile phone on bernie sanders campaign. is that sexy and headline word the -- word the light

the election you have never heard of? probably not. but there was a rush to be that and instead the bernie sanders campaign we did not invent a lot of tax but we used blues eight digital and facebook. i disagree we spend more money on facebook and hillary jumping up and down. >> i don't disagree with that. >> i just say that not that technology is not involving - - yielding but i have to give credit 12 david axelrod word for allowing us to set in the right place at the right time. if everybody was paid equally pollsters word paid

that means if i had this eighth cool scrap the idea we could do that quickly the wasn't fisa to process like mitt romney campaign because making stuff up in the middle of the night. we word burning up laptop computers so maybe the trump campaign did something different. no with live streamed video. >>. >> he is left out of all of these.

i which is comparing the clinton campaign. and not only how they use facebook but also fund-raising. i hope was in and minimizing the importance of technology despite spending money on the democratic side. >> what does it say in 2016 barack obamacare showed up at south by southwest? >> i do agree one -- obviously if they come look at what you are known for.

in b did not perceive the crowded republican primary as a petri dish and with the tools and techniques and approaches donald trump was doing something very different but that was not a different set of innovations but these two operations we didn't see those models play out. if elizabeth warren had been there or others had been there in the campaigns would have looked downstream from

their personalities but those who came up through the obama campaign that was ready to run that scrappy campaign with chris dodd in to prove those models and innovations would have then beneficial. intake that infrastructure whether digital tools the mobile platform and just go. so the results of the to obama campaigns from the grassroots organizing perspective to rapid response and messaging the

barrier has never bend lower and we missed that opportunity. getting into uh data analytics and in that context. this ties into what you talk about the of what the trump campaign did to outsource

did they learn those mistakes to develop those own model and technology? named for the mother of computer science, a dell lovelace and that was an issue with the allocated resources when and relied heavily on the bottle. -- model. >> alternately the campaign where i've learned this from at american university is time people and money ultimately you figure out the right to ecovation and that's it.

if you are able to talk to elders in the field in wisconsin who both the these folks with the obama and 2008 and 2012 they tell you there is a problem and you listen to the labor unions and they tell you there is a problem, i have been very clear in my assessment to say all the data and modeling the best tools and technology in the world don't mean anything if you cannot actually have a message to connected resonate with voters. the models may have been ingenious but not with voters in this is where the art and not the science comes in and if you build them in or out of house callback to the regional of

time people money so on the bernie sanders campaign we couldn't build that system for because it was rebuilt off the shelf to build his tools and eventually buy your own servers but that is out there. facebook defense is very powerful i had that when i was doing organizing media would not have done a website just use facebook defense i dunno if they should be building warships and trump may have stumbled into that because he did not have the type and the people to build his own warship. >> so let's talk about where things go from here in some respects campaigns don't change abraham lincoln said

to be organized to come to the polls to make a perfect list of voters to keep a constant watch. have the talk to those whom they have the most confidence on election day. essentially it is the same today how this technology change that? >> what do you see next? what are the innovations of the next cycle? >> uh great saying about technology from the campaign perspective is to do things better smarter maury efficiently so that will be

the of question that sticks out for home they have the most confidence in how they stand behind their candidates with their role in and the election is on the table from a civic perspective. with the use. online on the new york city's subway abuse it is troubling undermines the civic m. political fabric. so what we will see before the next presidential campaign gets started is more politicians and organizations reinforce that trust to spend that social

capital with their family and work place to be out there standing for something handed it is the equivalent thanksgiving conversation next year and in the year after and the hereafter and the year after to influence purses' let's just agreed not to talk about it as what happened this year. >> into treat out demotion i don't agree with the sock contents -- contents but

that's over 24 hours to change the entire conversation is impressive that i urge every democrat with the opposition leader to be doing right now. i am watching all lots of democrats with millions of followers not actually getting in the game the wayside joe biden earlier to talk about his emotion of leaving office and we felt that. people in the audience were tearing up. that is something very different. hours spent was around a 30%

other say it is a pensive it is 23rd year 40% with the branding of persuasion type tactics. andy increase the technology is growing. early advertising money is like yeast. with compound interest but the fact that bernie sanders first gave us enough money to do acquisition to have repeat donors gave 20 some dollars at a time was super important but one of the

apollyon problems studying this but the established in the campaign those folks will get older so to expect that trajectory to continue. and the boundaries of the campaign are integrated whether it is up platform or the organization to figure out more broadly how to integrate these gray areas that our relevant to the campaign the media name

recognition of the $2 billion of three-year media he received was just from the primaries by the way. very few candidates you just announced can earn that but with those new digital tools >> so list setback in with

the voter democracy. and among other things to create a world where anyone anywhere from could express beliefs. you brought cup what is going on parallel a round of world with the negative impacts of social media. when technology is to blame or not to blame for those challenges for the civic discourse.

>> the platforms was taking place with more controls band-aid were exercising laugh with the standard of decency from what they already have been backed is what needs to be addressed. more people voted in this election than any other end fating is since spite of a concerted effort by people to prevent republicans to prevent people from voting. [laughter] that is an important reality there are silver linings like automatic voter registration and that will provide a fascinating set of data with a broader registration on turnout.

so my a hope is the peculiarities of the electoral college in that voting process will hopefully become more of the focus of attention but bipartisan and less polarized issue. i am not sure of the political path but that is the key aspect and i s and the courage the fight is on and we are seeing some progress. but it is tough times out there for civic life the politics is not helping. but with progressive and advocacy groups me part of

the time also five '01 seats charities -- 501(c) charities with these advocacy groups that are fighting for civil rights have the big uptick as it has been reported in the medium also 501(c) charities are seeing historic endeavor year fund-raising. so while the social bbs scene is one depiction the civic life what we can see on the back and people brcs seeing a bright in the aftermath to those that they thinker on the "frontline"

whenever the policy consequences are so that gives me hope. >>. >> so where's technology taking so to go back to the year earlier panel the zero leaders are not there were other political parties or those organizations it was of very different situation when a candidate talks to his twitter followers with have to pay money to get airtime so that has troubling consequences that we have seen so only the utopian view of anything it interrelated power to the

people everybody has said he '' plays with the megaphone but one with those more racist fringe to have a microphone as well as democracies mediators to aggregate interest to effectuate policy with those 300 million people yelling but the wave at i think of of consequences moving toward internet democracy is the effective in anonymity and of going viral with the political discourse one of the consequences that enables that hateful rhetoric if you run a

television ad through the mass audience because of the anonymity of twitter and other platforms you have to take responsibility for speech so that facilitates that hateful language that we have seen. second the idea of sovereignty that when we look at television to communicate to voters, you did not have to worry about the fact holy in that manchurian candidate since of foreign influence you don't know the origin of internet communication from anywhere in the world. but third with the fake news for of the political currency it is not about truth but what is popular so

the key fact is to try to get your message to have as much popularity as possible in this the problem for the platforms. listen to what facebook says when mark sector bird talks about the purpose is to have been teaching experience amy for lending gaging experience but that has nothing to do with truth that kid do with faye all the signals that you want to hear the same is for search engines. figuring out the message that is relevant that has nothing to do if is true or not that is very different. >> we have time for only one

in question from the audience because we have the next part of the program ready to go. because of the universal accessibility social media is used at a higher rate of people with disabilities voters with disabilities are 36 million but the turnout is only 42 percent of d.c. campaigns using social media to average this type of voter gap in the future clacks the should be fairly quick but i would like your best view on this. >> when i was doing social media platforms originally for obama before facebook allowed you to have other

addresses for your e-mail or have a certain amount of followers. there was a platform than disabled americans platform you could have intelligent conversations with people with these niche based platforms rehash african american planet and over 500,000 followers for barack obama but you need to organize and talking in unique ways and to figure this out it is super

important and now through much easier advertising you can engage the technology is not there whether viral or engaging want the has 15,000 dues and iowa and to this wave more strategic. >> think very much henry will express our appreciation for the panel. [applause]

[applause] good afternoon did is great to be here today apologize for sitting down it has been a long year. [laughter] pet other parts of my body need rest. is an honor to be here to help walk all of them through what happened on november 8 and what it means going for word if i am a little distracted i apologize the only thing more important to talk to me is my daughter's middle

school basketball game. dave are playing right now i and the official statistician for the team as upholster when senate would not be there today and they said zero yet you are the guy the said hillary clinton would win the be somebody else will do our statistics but not to confirm public polling. were the most part that the numbers almost right at the end of the day to win the of popular vote by two points in aggregation of all the of publicly be these polls

nationally the last 10 had the average clinton margin of 3.4% number two that was part of pulling this 5% then disadvantage over polls when you go to the of polling booth or for a lawyer ballot at home you have to options voting for one of the candidates or not voting in that race in the polls we

offer the undecided options so whereas on election day there was no one undecided which if you take that plus the 3% or more added to the of volatility if you take it one lovell down obviously we don't elect presidents by the popular it is the electoral college if you think about those dynamics in the national polls it was even more prevalent especially wisconsin michigan and pennsylvania. bottom line it was volatility have if you look at those three states for

the presidential campaign was one or lost in addition to the volatility of public opinion research there was volatility in real life and one statistic that try to remember is any exit polls in the state of wisconsin 10 percent of voters who were surveyed said they made up their mind on who to vote the last couple days of the election the last couple couple-- could of been monday air-to-air stare sunday the second letter hit friday afternoon so in the state of wisconsin among the 10 percent who voted the last couple days of the election, i would wager most

of those were after the second letter where trump was ahead so one of those unstated question is what happened with of polling one the margin of error, the and decided and the fact there was 7 percent in real life so that is the normal volatility in the of volatility in fluidity in real life. we would be having a slight indeed different conversation between wisconsin and michigan and pennsylvania mrs. clinton lost those three states but

couple of other sayings their reeds three election day. i will argue because they're really believe what happened november 8 in short-term one in did not have been the last three-year four days since a timber and arguably lot of what happened during did not happen november 8 is dave result of long term trend with the national surveys his shows it was in

the 70% range pat when asked with the electric wanted major changes. we essay question of the social and economic systems of this country are biased against people like me getting six years 65 percent of americans suffer through the same surveys to suggest they have added vantage electorally few concede the signs of discontent within the electorate in one of the

things i will speak with for myself and not republican colleagues but one of the things we are trying to reckon with it is i do believe there are some things the polls got right and they do think donald trump was the most unpopular person to run for president as a major party nominee i do believe that is true. exit polls will show that alatas of trump voters voted for him not because they were voting for him but voting against somebody for but how can somebody with numbers and negatives thrifty eight or 59 or 60? that was a tremendous negative but the fact he could win despite that is what we still try to figure out.

if you want to give the trump campaign and donald trump baird do it is not just people voting for it was clearly something they might have been voting for their are some states where it is not clear there was the trump phenomenon with the state of california in 2016 chris van holland one negative ascendancy by 25 points. there are areas in maryland where a lot of blue caller voters live in the voting

for the governor by 20 points. if there is a trump and phenomenon pdf and they could win 520 points in 2014 but now with the same place they voted for hillary clinton over donald trump by 17 points. in the presidential election in. as a pundit and toward analyst is one thing to look at the numbers nationally but would they do need to

look depots individual localities that there is a uniform trend as to what happened in november and something to look for what those analysts have noted is the increased or higher turnout of small-town rural america and in essence read america editing matter that we need to be careful about applying want a uniform theory to the entire country but there are parts where areas that romney and mccain did well trump did even better if not the same

may be a middle hire. then those areas like that that come to mind to me of what happened to democrats in 2016 is elliott county kentucky it is in eastern kentucky and number one this variate democratic some states don't have party registration for me every of one republican there are 10.5 democrats elliott county kentucky voted for every democratic candidate for president 1868 through 2012 every single presidential election they had voted for the democratic candidate for president.

in 2008 barack obama defeated john mccain 61 / 39% planted 211 negative 2012 he defeated near romney 50 / 47 in 2016 donald trump defeated hillary clinton 70 / 26%. now that is one of the interesting things about numbers now feels like montgomery county they have 40000 registered voters so is this a small sample size but enclosing the blast me in particular is a democratic strategist, what happened in pennsylvania? what happened in michigan?

what happened in wisconsin? seriously we are still looking through all of the be sold its but the anecdote of kentucky was replicated of pennsylvania and michigan and wisconsin and 40000 votes by itself does not sound like a lot but there were 30 counties like that it does make a difference i would argue a historical close election and one of the things on our side of the aisle democrats will attack us some of the urban areas of the country which hurt democrats but also the issue of the place that voted for barack obama by 33% eight years ago what happened to make them turn

around. [applause] >> we have time for a few questions before the reception i would start by asking you so if i understood you correctly that is the analysis i don't want to hold huge year-old theory that how could that have occurred? >> now we are talking specifically and what would

have been expected and what had driven the of politics of that electorate quite. >> don this county is in eastern kentucky not close to but the region that borders west virginia solana and it was economics and job loss over the last few decades, jobs that had not come back in there is a famous saying that it is the economy stupid i do believe part of what happened in the kentucky's of the world but that is not the only thing

but the pollsters would ask the electorate was the most important issue to you then they'll look at who voted those issues though the top issue 2016 nationally was the economy they said how it is the most important issue that is a good margin and she did win doc popular vote we would have hoped the advantage on the economy would have been greater. there was another set of questions which one of the following characteristics or approaches to you want the next president of united

states to have? the plurality of someone who will bring change to washington. among those voters they voted for donald trump. so there were competing variables out there it was about the economy and jobs but there was another strain out there that what happened in november 8 was not just november 8 the day culmination that historic satisfaction with washington not just democrats or republicans but it wasn't working for people like them in donald trump was the most

popular person to run for president also clearly one of the most unique people and if there is a strain now bear of voters of americans wanting dramatic change, what better way to express that they and voting for someone who is as different than anybody else who was once ran for president. >> we're getting a lot of questions here we'll be here until 10:00 p.m. [laughter] so without knowing which particular order to begin the sinning that the poles were more or less closed the impression that people received that secretary

clinton was on the road to victory is there an issue but that is a great question since i have been relieved of my duties from the middle school team might have time so which came first? the chicken or the egg? if you are a political analyst cable broadcast looking at a lot of different factors to basically a understand what is going on in polling plays a role in that the 10 national polls that i look at the 5% undecided that i

referring to only one had trump ahead if you are a political evidence looking at the national polls for of those last 10 polls nine and then show hillary clinton ahead then you will say hillary clinton will probably win. and then one poll had trump ahead but i am not saying they run the election but that poll whiff was wrong because mrs. clinton did win the popular but the one critique that it would make

a polling and those who analyze the polls if they see a number that is 44 / 40 to think that to means 44 / 40 and not taking into account the undecided for the margin of error. sodium the way answer that question is whether there were no polls? everybody clap if we didn't have any polling where would that leave us? i am not as old as i looked i have been doing this 30 years and it is amazing when

i started off if there is a is a poll i got excited let's look at it. there is a pull from illinois in 2016 there were literally dozens of calls every day not treating every poll the same house along with the in the field? i do believe that the fact there was volatility with voters to the end is some of the reasons why their clothes in this election. most of the major polls stop pulling saturday sunday of the election.

that is late and now people think saturday sunday the election was tuesday public opinion can move very quickly i don't think it is the only reason why but the second letter came out friday afternoon and then saturday sunday monday tuesday i do think that had some impact. . . >> what about trump strength might account for the outcome. and if i can have a amendment here the second call me letter

was insulted tory. so explain how you see that working against her over the last four days of the election. >> i think that they're going to be lots of theories about what happened and some of them may even be true. even in we did the nbc wall street journal news poll, we had mrs. clinton ahead by four points. if i'm recalling correctly. we got out of the field saturday and this was sunday morning. it looked like she was the internals, the subgroups come again it was a national poll, not a poll of all 50 states. it look like she did not have it

locked up. but it look like she was headed to win. even in that poll she had dropped. from a previous poll. the other thing a polls is not just what are the results now, but what were the results previously. the tran-04 her was the race was narrowing. but at that point it was more, not that trump was gaining, but that some of her vote was going to johnson and steiner undecided. the second call me letter -- i think in campaigns especially if you are a candidate with strong headwinds, 70% in the wrong direction, the majority wanting a president who would make major

changes, two thirds or so same the political system was biased against people like them, a conditions that would favor an insurgent candidate. she wasn't an incumbent is per se and trump not just because he was the outer party you see those things making life difficult for the clinton campaign. i would would argue and again this is something all of us will be thinking about and analyzing in the weeks to come, i think the second coming letter put the whole issue back on the public consciousness. if you think about it it's kinda like a courtroom to the last argument both heard from both sides was from e-mail and for

trump and again this is something where people should check the record, i think one of the things i noticed was how somebody had seemed to take away his twitter account the last couple of days of the election, i don't think he commented personally on the second call me letter and that instead the narrative for the trump campaign was that he is in a go to michigan, into wisconsin and pennsylvania and i would was his closing argument. look i think that's one theory about what happened. i think there's a couple of other theories they can be equally true. when you have an election like this that was a surprise, it's really not one thing you point to is a combination of things. i know that's not a six-inch 140 character answer but i think

that's the reality of what happened. >> thank you. the next question about kentucky , how would you estimate the potential role of sexism the first presidential nominee who is a woman, how did that figure into this enormous reversal? >> i believe that at some level it had to be a factor, but but i don't think it was the number one issue i think there were a lot of strengths and weaknesses that hillary clinton brought to the campaign. if her gender had been reversed

would what what happened in l.a. county kentucky, again, i really think that the result would've been the same. so you change a gender, but you change the party? do you change her experience and resume? again the things that you could see in all of the polls even though they had her ahead the head when she was dealing with this satisfaction with government, the the unhappiness with the status quo, voters wanting change, i think gender may have been an issue. but there are other factors that i think were equally if not more important. >> thank you. the median income of child voters in the exit polls of 23 primaries is 71000

dollars. rule, not college at non-educated white voters only made up 17% of the electorate, how does that square with why trump one? >> i think those are broad numbers nationally. in some of these battleground states there were higher proportions of those groups plus i think the numbers may have changed a little bit since i paid attention to this. but in the state of wisconsin which mrs. clinton lost by 11000 votes, they were roughly 30,000 fewer votes in the city of milwaukee in 2016 than there was in 2012. so, i think the proportion in wisconsin of that last group if there's a 17% nationally, i think it was maybe 20 or 21% in wisconsin.

you take that and you take lower turnout in a strong democratic area like milwaukee and all of those small things add up to an 11000 boat defeat. again, remember, remember when you have a situation like this in which 104,000 votes out of 12 or 14 million cast in pennsylvania, michigan, and wisconsin i don't think it's just one thing you can point to, it's not like i'm 100% of wisconsinites were rural, non-college-educated white voters. but if they but if they were one out of five lower turnout in urban areas, that adds up again to a narrow narrow defeat. >> thank you. i have two questions not entirely unrelated so i will put

them together since we don't want to hold you longer than what we're planning. do you think that general publishing to to urban areas will in the future make it less likely for this kind of result to occur. related to to that is, what about the apparent absence from the predicted or hopeful levels of participation among young people? >> one of the disappointments on the democratic side of things was how we were hoping and expecting more robust turnout. for for example with the millennial's. it just did not happen. and i guess the thing is that we know they are out there. we know that and we know that when they vote they vote democratic.

but one of the challenges of 2016 as 16 as they just and not vote in the numbers that we had hoped for. is it a message issue for the democrats? was? was a candidate issue for the democrats? was it organizational or logistic? i don't know. and again we talk about a lot of the analysis on national terms because that's where most of the data is available. but but i think in california which again if you look at the california results you would not know that donald trump had been elected president of the united states. the latino and and young people turnout was fairly high. so i think as evident by the press both parties, but in particular the democratic party's going through a time of

self interest active in analysis, you'd think one of the things is that we know we have the votes to win elections, especially national elections. what was the miscue in 2016 that we can avoid in 2018 and especially 2020. >> thank you. question. the exit poll suggests 30 you. question. the exit poll suggests 30% of latinos voted for trump. to have confidence that number is within the ballpark. it seems higher relative to predictions of that particular segment of the electorate. >> i think we are not quite sure yet if the 30% number of latinos is quite right.

i thought i think that they are the growing demographics of american politics. 30% would seem to be high number to me. especially given the things he said during the campaign. i do know for example i was fortunate enough to work on catherine cortez campaign in nevada and i'm pretty sure since senator cortez won the senate race in nevada and hillary clinton won nevada that at least in nevada, he did not get 30% of latinos. he did not do that will in california, maybe, maybe florida is a different issue, maybe texas is a different issue. but 30% would seem high to me, but but we have to look at the state-by-state. >> and then just combining two more thank you for hanging in there with us. the question is about whether of the issue that people have had

with pulling nationally whether what we have is a problem with the numbers i think you've answered this question before. with the numbers are the weight the numbers are red. i suppose your answer to that is interpretation has a lot to do with it. >> look, i think again that last ten national polls had a clinton advantage a plus 3.4%. as of a couple of days she was ahead in the national popular vote by about 1.8 or 1.9%. that's not that far off but there was a sense i think from the polls and the analyst that it was an election that mrs. clinton was very likely to win. if you are a normal human being, and he seen nine out of ten polls saying that she is ahead, you're going to draw and obvious

conclusion that she's probably gonna win the election. i also think the other sort of intangible and i hate to keep going back to this, but like a good pollster a good candidate stays on message. one of the things that if you hooked all of us up to a lie detector we would have said yes, we believe she is going to win but, is going to be difficult and there are things that you can see where donald trump could win. the headwind that she was facing. but i think the biggest sticking point to going over to the other side which ultimately is where we are now that he could win is how unpopular he was, i think one of the things i think one of

the things we underestimated as analyst and maybe i should say we may not we not to condemn everybody else, we also also said in our analysis but obviously it's not as provocative as saying he was the most unpopular person to run for president, mrs. clinton was the second most popular person to run for president. i think at the end of the day the analysts probably, obviously should have given that more weight. that if really this is sort of a flip of a coin for voters were there other things in the polling that should have been looked at. so beyond 3.4% ahead, two points ahead, all of those things the right direction, wrong track. the fact that wrong track. the fact that a lot of americans still believe that they had not recovered from the recession. again, the strong majority who said the economic and political systems of this country were

biased against them. i think maybe if we had paid more attention to those signs that were plainly in view but we were distracted by donald trump's not only the most unusual person to run for president but the most unpopular, we could've we could've given a clear view of what ultimately happened. >> the mrs. last one which is a follow-up combining two so in responding to the experience whether it's turnout or trying to decide for example how to compensate for the number of voters who are harder to reach now, the shift in land lines and cell phones, to think it's not necessarily a result of the selection but more generally there'll be a move in the polling industry to adjust to those issues? >> first volley know this last question i feel like i need a couch. to lie down on. but look at the short answer is

yes. honestly, the polling industry goes through this, as you recall in 2012 it's more that the republicans pollsters had got the races wrong if one side of the other gets it wrong we don't like it if anyone gets it wrong because our job is to get it right. and we did do a self reflection in the industry after that. it wasn't just republican thing. it was a polling industry. you know some people may not believe this, but every pollster out there whether democrat or republican we want to try to get this right. one of the challenges for