know that i was the source. and i was very worried about that, but i trusted him spirit sunday night at 8 p.m. on c-span's q&a. >> next, a look at the future of political parties in the u.s. with political science professor david brady and political analyst melissa caen did they discuss the impact of the 2016 presidential election and how current issues are shaping public opinion. from the commonwealth club of california this is just over one hour. >> i want to comment before i introduce tonight speakers, i want to also announce that tonight is the first time that marin conversations being taped by c-span. so you may have noticed some cameras, and they promised me that i would look at least 10

years younger. [laughter] which is one of the reasons i agreed to let them. anyway, and they tell me that that will be uploaded to the website in about two weeks, three weeks most, and you can just search under the archives for this day for one of the names of our speakers or mill valley and you will find it. so if after this program you feel so inspired, please watch it again and also tell your friends and family all about it. let me introduce two nights speakers. david brady i have known for a number of years, partially because my husband attended stanford business school where he is a professor, and i don't know that dave remembers what actually interviewed him a number of times during my own dissertation research. you remember? all right.

well, i must have done okay because he is talking to me. okay. dave brady is not only a very well respected professor at stanford, he sits on the faculties of the business school and the political science department, runs public policy and is at the hoover institution. so he's very highly regarded. obviously connected to the stanford community, but also appreciated it nationally for his insightful commentary about political processes. we are really delighted that is with us tonight, and you go i'm sure all and this evening agreeing with me that he is one of the most insightful political commentators that we have with us today. melissa caen is the political journalist in san francisco. she has a very wide following.

she does a lot of work with the commonwealth club and the editor of the commonwealth club magazine said there's no one who is better at doing a job of both moderating, asking questions and providing political commentary as melissa. so she comes with really pretty terrific bona fides. and i think that this conversation should be wonderful. i don't know if it will all make us feel safer, more secure. [laughter] happier, but it will certainly inform us of what's happening. and, of course, please save your questions until afterwards and will have time for them. thank you so much. [applause] >> there we go. okay.

so the name of the nights program is the future of american political parties, and with a packed house tonight and the can imagine it's because you all think things are going really well. i think there's a lot of uncertainty out there, a lot of you out there. i think my first question of course is how bad is it? how bad can it get? at what point do we start of hoarding canned goods? [laughter] >> is this on? know. spirit there you go. >> is on? well, i want to start by quoting t.s. eliot who said that the only form of knowledge that we can aspire to is humility, and humility is endless. one of the predictions i start with. what kind of trouble? we have not had a president like this or we have not had 10 or

however many, 11, 12, however many days it is, we've not had a president that has behaved like this. so the question is from someone who is charged of analytic and step back and say what's going to happen, so in the early days there are certain things a president can do, the refugee cards, et cetera, he can orders out, not that they've been put up or efficiently but he can put orders out. but in the end on the big issues, taxes, affordable care act, military policy, those sorts of things, the user has to go through congress party basically has to go through congress. the question people often ask is is congress an independent branch of government? the founders, they put the constitution together, they, tried to put this in an objective way. the founders knew that you might have political operatives that

probably were not grant. [laughter] -- grand. spirit that was pretty good, right? so they built a system that it checks and balances and that's what the checks and balances are for. i think so the question is, but i don't think it's the congress that will stop them. the democrats are obviously not going to decide. it's going to be the republicans in congress. so i'm going to give you the most likely scenario, or in my view, are other sinners that could happen? should. the one most likely, the republicans in the house have been sitting on an agenda for six years, in their view frustrated by president obama, et cetera. so we want to pass that agenda. they did not think that the republicans would hold the senate and they didn't, certainly did not think donald trump would be elected president. they look at this. i think what they're doing is sitting there and sing okay, we

want to pass the tax cut. past we can pass that we can agree on, and they are not in complete agreement on the affordable care act. they understand that they own it now. they could screw it up and make the obama rollout look like silk so they understand that. so they are going, my view is there going to wait, wait and get as much as a cam through. and at some point in less the president changes his behavior they are going to say, that's enough, you can't go anymore. two republicans are already going to vote against his nominee for secretary of education. it was announced tonight. so they are starting. so it's up there. you can hear occasionally from them. what you've got to watch for is i think you to watch for how congressional republicans -- i don't expect them in the first 10 days or 20 days, if you're thinking that going to impeach them quickly, not going to happen. but they're going to start to

object. the only other thing i can say about some of the appointments is, on defense, i know jim mattis. his office was three doors down from mine, very solid, very clear thinker. doesn't want the job to bobby told the president he shouldn't torture. agreed that he wouldn't have signed the iran deal but he would keep to it. i think the treasury most appointments i think they are reasonable people and i think, i won't go there. i'm done. >> say what ever you are not saying. you have people like jim mattis and other people in his cabinet that are well-regarded. he goes behind the back and issues an executive order on the refugee van. stay, but if you want to call it. how long do the honorable people in his cabinet stay on if he continues to do these things? i don't have an edge to do i'm

sure, i'm sure some of them are thinking, what did i sign up for? so normally what i think of when on foreign policy of which i'm no expert but but i think what happens is that you have to have a strategy. and then there's tactics. what bothers me about this president is there's tactics, i think, but i don't know what the strategy is. so there's symbolism and there is reality. think of it like this, there is campaigning at there's governing. trump turned out to be a much better campaigner than we thought but now he has to govern and that's a different thing. foreign policy it's symbolic. he said he would build a wall so that he is telling his supporters i've got to build the wall. what's the purpose of building the wall? does he really believe he can cut a better deal with the mexicans on trade? already businesses, lots of

businesses are already objecting and there in washington talking to congressmen and women and saying don't do this. the same thing in regard to banning the muslim refugees. he just puts the united states more at risk, in my view, and iran, they are iraqis who with us. it come as far as i can tell it is symbolic. it has, there's no strategy behind it. it may be there but but i havet seen it and don't think many people do. i think those people, so tillerson, you may not like the fact he was at exxon or something like that but he is a very accomplished man. he sees the way the world is and i'm sure he would not have been advising to do those things. we have to wait and see what they do and i don't know what the right time for it is. they it now. they've only been in office like, tillerson, one day, can't quit now. [laughter] i think it will take amount of time. we will see. i think there's always the

belief that the president will, the president will stop tweeting and, and -- >> does anyone believe that? [laughter] >> there's hope. [laughter] spin i think hope is -- >> charity. [laughter] spinning you said right now we need to be focusing on republicans in congress. if you are democrats, it seems they are a little on their heels. not all in the sense they didn't think he would win by since november 9 or so they have known there's a court nominee coming is going to be someone their constituents are not going to like and yet they still seem to be trying to figure out how to navigate this situation. >> i think that's a reasonable thing for them to do. ..

it's the same. so if you're a democrat, tijuana -- do you want to make the republicans pull out nuclear clause and say okay, we'll go with the majority instead of filibuster, a or do you think hold your fire on this because the nominee does not agree with

his own opinions, that is really smart. i think they are probably right to be thinking about when you throw the balance. >> well, there's pressure for them to filibuster kind of everything and spend the entire next several years filibustering on everything that comes in front of them. >> i think that just plays into trump's hands and makes his supporters feel that he is right. the systems broken and they won't even agree to my nominees. and that democrats, remember, pastoral but that it only has to be 51 and you couldn't filibuster cabinet appointments. people said they'll come back and it has good stood then they decided not to attend senate the meetings because you have to have a quorum plus 100% oppose, so that is why they sat out. so then you couldn't actually

called the meeting. what you think that looks like to a tribe supporter whenever the democrats are in the room. it seems to me that please the two dare hand and allows them to justify his behavior and continue to act symbolically and substantively. >> what do you think it would take to separate trump supporters from trump? some of them at least. there seems to be this court 30, 35% or so who know matter what you change your view of the world to fit that. what would it take in your estimation? >> so, we ran -- my friend professor started the economist poll certainly win over the course of the campaign every

contact survey where he interviewed the same 5000 americans every month or at least once a month so we can actually trace where and when. so in may, we were sitting around all of these smart guys, looking at the candidates, about 20 of them in trump's name came up and everybody says don't put him in. it's not a serious candidate. just for show biz. that turned out to be a good thing for analysis because he was the manner list of people. turns out from other work we've done in europe that we know people who thought their family's income was down for their family financial situation was not as good as it once a year or two ago, those people across europe were much more anti-immigration. so we had on the first go,

people -- the first choice of those people with no choice. they didn't have a preference. number two with scott walker 12%. trump comes on just the anti-immigration speech, which you have to listen to it, he's out. can't say that in american politics. suddenly he's at 22%. 40% republicans that that's what happened to their financial institution. they perceived it that way. the result is he speaking their leverage. we had another question, 58% of republicans thought emigration was a very important issue. suddenly had 41% of them. in the 19 person field, he's got 23%. that puts him twice as high as anybody else. then the republicans frontloaded the primaries to switch to a more winner take all format, all giving trump an advantage because he's the early leader.

the others are fighting over who will be the establishment candidate. rubio, bush, christie. and the other price are fighting over who's going to be tea party candidates. the arena, so on and so forth. we will never know if the republican establishment had been able to get a candidate and put it in the eternal. we were never going to know. those are special circumstances in which he was able to capture the nomination. so those are the voters that supported him all the way. highschooler last come anyway you cut it, they were the people most important. the question is how we are trying to find this out now, can he continue to hold them with, you know, stuff that isn't real or a results oriented? that is can it be symbolism or

do you have to be action oriented? i happen to believe they are results oriented. that they are going to be people who want jobs. they want these things to happen and if they don't happen often in our latest poll we asked the question of trump supporters who were democrats in trump supporters who are independents because they are the ones that taped it to them and ask them the next election, which you consider voting democrat? 70% said yes. i don't and they are tied to the republican party. they are tied to tampa bay. i think we'll find over time they are results oriented. the democratic party will have to do what it's going to do, but they'll have to re-thing how they think about and talked to those people because voting day

for obama and then switch. my hometown, obama in 2008 and 2016 in illinois. it's not really, but it was okay. so the question is i think he will be results-oriented. that's a great question. i can't tell you an answer. >> in the course and head on something i want to explore more. as part of what the democrats problem was people saying i perceive that i'm worse off than it seemed like some level the democrats if there was no, statistically speaking their income has gone up 4.3%. your cbp is an analytical or statistical answer to a country than sort of cry. >> yeah, i think those statistics don't appeal -- if you're in illinois and your children don't have jobs, and

illinois, the white males over the last 20 years r. 3.8. did three playmakers like the before. there are drug epidemics all over there. and like you said earlier, they haven't spoken to them. it's been pretty much that they are there. i don't take identity politics. they don't care much about identity politics in green bay. i think they don't care where you go to the bathroom. i think what they care about is the democrat for the republicans -- does anybody actually care about them in the jobs they've lost and what their situation is? is it possible to put that together with regular democratic stuff? sure, but they've got a think about it exactly as you say. they haven't talked to them.

>> you've written and spoken about globalization as a big part of why things are happening here and in other parts of the world. i forgot who exactly said it, but i was watching probably c-span. someone was saying, you know, people are losing jobs and the democrats answer is here, we will retrain you. the cesareans are to the massive loss of these potentially good paying jobs. why should the answer have been in your estimation? i'd like to talk more about globalization in the election here and elsewhere. >> you don't ask in a very easy questions. could you talk about the electoral college? [laughter] >> here's the reason i don't take it easy. what globalization does -- so

you looked at the first. but there's big globalization, 1850 and 1900 or so. in 1858, the two major job categories for people who either worked on a farm or serving tongs. then there's this huge transformation and people were better off economically for that, but they move but they move to the cities in a factory jobs. and that creates a lot of problems. immigration was an issue. it was called the gilded age. there was wealth inequality and you can expect that every time there's globalization. that's not going to go away. there's going to be inequality. so that switch, all these people in factories and put a stop to firearms. what happened was by 1950, those people had good jobs. my father was able to support a family of six children. we didn't -- we had a home.

we had a house and so on. the politics at the time, there were labor parties and anti-labor parties. democrats and republican, could be a two-party vote, but there were parties to the left prolabor and party to the right that were not. over time the happiness beginning and then it can 70s, people start to automate those jobs. so 50% of the workforce in 1950, by the way it's nice to say to an audience that is so good in the 1940s that harry truman could get reelected in 1948 by campaigning on 14 b. says. you try that with stanford students. [laughter] they don't know who bill clinton was. [laughter] it's true, they don't. they were like two. they weren't even born yet. so at any rate, the jobs lost in

some of them move to china, et cetera. it is really odd omission that caused that. across the road as you mentioned, the nationality france, people's party of denmark have any part in germany, all over europe you are getting this anti-immigration this question commends rice what happened to these people and industrial jobs. as those gods country and jobs go, local parties are stuck because they don't have 40% labor. so then you try, so the party has to do stuff like trying for blue-collar blue-collar workers with stanford professors. professors are 90% democrat. but that works okay. but if you go to a bar and put blue-collar workers there, it doesn't work out too well. they don't have chardonnay.

so that's the problem that no one thought that problem. so what i worry about is not jobs. i don't worry about jobs to match because as the farmers, people go back and read history and see the mccormick reaper, what will happen. none of these people have jobs. so they all got jobs. what i worry about his wages. it's not clear to me that the wages these jobs generate will be enough to sustain the political system. is that coming from berkeley? no, just kidding. >> have heard that comment about stanford. but that's a great point. when you talk about things that can playback, that's another issue democrats that unemployment is low. but the wages for a lot of these jobs are incredibly low. leftists in that the

unemployment rate is accurate, being employed at $7.50 an hour isn't the same thing. >> that is correct. i think you have to have economic growth. if you don't have economic growth, the market gets stripped so you can hire people. i don't even know if growth of one would cover it. without growth i know you can't do it. and then you have to say well what are the policies? i don't think telling the ford motor company you can't do that, you make it a couple of them to say that. but i don't think 400,000 workers in china when those to the u.s. you have to try and look at the trump economic policies as you express and are these policies likely to generate growth. the tax cut, corporate tax cut

may generate growth. but they have to get that through the congress. trump can't do that on its own. that's the political problem. will they be able to solve the problem and the economic policy works, that comes together and you've got to get that through congress. >> you think it will? >> well, i think congress would like to shape when he tries to get through. take the export 20% tax imports coming to the united states tax 20%. well, your husband pointed out, some of those things go back in for two or three times. well, that just means the american taxpayers, we are paid for that. mexicans are paid for it. although they will in terms of jobs and stuff like that. so i don't think that's a real

solution to the problem. so will the congress get a tax cut? i think they will get a tax cut. i wouldn't look forward to getting a lot back yourselves. as i understand it, suppose you made a million dollars. don't you know? >> may be. total possibility. but 43% to the above attacks on medicare and then you pay state taxes. they will cut the rate or the proposal i've seen is they will cut the taxes from 43 to 33. but they will not conduct state and local taxes, which pretty much makes a push. the real emphasis is on corporate tax cuts in the hope

it will bring some of that money they have in places back home in the second part would be reduced to capital gains tax to propose between 15 and 20. those will be the main deductions. >> does it generate jobs? >> the capital gains and the money apple and other companies have come against that could generate jobs. probably will. how many, i don't know. get an economist to do this. >> so, we are talking about political parties here. we know that california, the growing political party is decline to state. that seems to be actually a national trend, about a third of people don't wish to belong to either party. what does that say about our party system? do we need additional ones? people are consistently,

especially younger people, declining to join. >> so, glad you asked that. i had it up on this. yeah, about time. about time she asked me something i actually know. [laughter] so on that, we collected all the gallup poll data back in 1937 on party identification. so the democrats had this, but in the mid-80s with reagan, there is a big rise in the number of independent, a decline in the number of democrats. so 30, 35, democrats generally have a three to five-point lead and more people say they are independent. so i think that is significant because they think what happened with the political parties was again it's nice to be a little tough to people. you remember the days when there were liberal republican senators

like senator from massachusetts, clark. rockefeller, scranton. and there were conservative democrats. but the party started. and now there is some moderates and democratic party and their moderates in the republican party. the bottom line is the parties are more like european political parties and democrats on the left, republicans are on the right. i think by and large the average american is not as liberal on economics as the democrat and they are nowhere as near conservative on social issues as republicans and i think that accounts for half of the race and independence. so i think that is a good sign. that may be because i consider myself one. >> well, why don't you start a party for those folks? if there's enough people in the middle who are socially

economically conservative, why haven't we seen something coalesce for them or take over one of the other parties? >> the trouble is there's not that many of us feared about 15%. and then there's some on the periphery. the hard-core like that is about 15%. i think the answer to why they don't take over our party is because, it's a lot of work. you have to go out and recruit candidates and 435 districts in search of him like that that tired. what you get a third party candidates jumping in and ross perot and others. the real reason is because it's easier to take over a political party. the united states is the only democracy in the world where we have democracy within the party and democracy between parties. we are the only one that people run again to each other in that

way and each of the congressional districts. democrat against democrat, republican against republican. the result, look at donald trump. donald trump is not a republican. he's not free trade. he's not anything the republican party was born. u.s.a. than pro-choice until two months ago for two years ago or whenever. he took over the republican party. he won. he took it over. and again, so what happened in a series of globalization, there's a lot of flip-flopping. the 1870s in the u.s. in true now come you think for a minute and 2004 i remember reading this piece by karl rove saying after the victory is great, we created kind of the mckinley era. they have now won three state elections, control the house-senate. president bush singing i've

earned some and i will spend it. they're a spirit privatization of social security. 2006 they all got beat, 2008 obama and then there was carville spoke, why the democrats will control america for the next generation. apparently generations are shorter than they used to be. the second thing was president obama overreaches. 2010 republicans. all that flip-flopping as a result of this sort of economic undercutting any don't have a solution. under those times again the democrats populace were rising as a political party. democrats looked up and said we'll take their platform. we will take him and said they captured the democratic party. too easy to do it. >> is that greasy democrats do it? right now there is an internal debate. do you follow bernie sanders or do we try to stay on this other path of the establishment

democrats? >> this is strange, but i actually think the democrats have an easier time of it than republicans. not in the short run because the question is they lost an election. but why did they lose? well, they lost because the distribution of both. they actually won the election by about 3 million votes. some of you need to move to green bay and so on. so they lost by 77 of them does. 77 dozen thousand pennsylvania, then, michigan and then the headlines would be america rejects racism and misogyny, it better come at better. the population didn't change at all. the populations were the same. you get these different headlines. the democrats lost an election. and the problem is we lost the election with 77,000 votes.

so then there is going to be exactly as you express between the left with sanders, bernie sanders and the governor of montana and other people in the democratic party saying we've got to be more centrist. that's kind of a normal site after an election. so that's not particularly easy. but think of what happens when donald trump's gone for republicans. what are they as a party? they are now sitting there, awful bunch of people in lower taxes, blah, blah, blah. and they think donald trump. they are waiting because they want to pass the agenda. but he's not a republican in the ordinary sense. as he redefined the american party or just a traditional parts of the republican party come forward? that's a much tougher question than the question of democrats trying to figure out how to win next time.

>> one last question before we turn it over to audience questions. we are coming with a microphone stand. do the democrats need to rethink their views on immigration? that seems to be the thing that held a knife so many people in certain places that voted for obama and now they switch. should they at least have a conversation? >> well, as a principle now, but in reality probably yes. the data on that has shown for a long time democrats were closer than independence. i think of it as democrats, republicans and independents. there were factions of the democrats were in general on the side of lower immigration. republicans some of them, president w. bush put together a decent plan. people wish they'd taken that

now i think. so it's a question about independents and i think it's the least talk about immigration i think that not talking about it, they either didn't talk about it or disparage trump. it didn't work. i think they have to think about it and probably talk about it in a different way. but i don't see -- i think they can have a position close to where their position is now and they can still win the next election. that is going to be easier than republicans thinking about what the republican party needs now. that wasn't much of an answer by the way. >> i think democrats would love to hear about how they have an easier go. let me just jump in with audience questions at this point. let me take prerogative and ask

the first question, which is a few years ago a book came out called why they should fail that i thought was particularly pricey hand. they argue that not a government institutions in country no longer work, the country no longer works. our institution i.e. congress, the media, parties are broken. so i wonder if you think that our institutions are going to save us or fail us. >> you are talking about robinson's boat? >> yes. >> she got a phd. >> but i can't pronounce his name so i didn't say it. >> that is not -- that is not a book that was a big seller. so, if you try to look at -- if

you're looking for markets and why the economies to work better, their argument is well, institutions make a difference and institutions are in a particular way and sun have an advantage in some don't. if you don't get the institutions that come you don't get the economy right. so are american institution is broken. no, i don't think they are broken. i think they are a situation where the institutions across europe, everywhere. this time capitalism and the transformation of the economy is much harder than it was before. first of all, before it was europe and the u.s. essentially. 80% of the world and you have the problem of if anything you do sustainable? since china has 78% growth, i don't know how many of you have been in beijing when it wasn't windy, but it's not great.

the question is can we do this in a sustainable fashion? i think our institution may be damaged. but if you actually look -- so that it's a big crisis, 2007, to decimate, 2009. that was some horrendous fashion. if you look at how we have done relative to europe on trade japan, the united states is in pretty good shape. not great, but i'm just saying relative to everybody else with the possible exception of germany, we've created more jobs. incomes are up some. so i think we've done better. i think our institutions are probing. i don't think we should turn to a parliamentary government or anything. but they are damaged. >> my question is about the electoral college.

do you see the electoral college going away? and what possible alternative scenario do you see? which of the scenarios do you see being the best length and which d.c. has the most probable? >> i never think of the best wine because -- i don't know. i don't think it's possible. if the electoral college going away? no. in the 50s there were several bipartisan attempts to reform and they were bought for their democrat and republican. and basically they had congressional districts like nebraska and maine. but it can't be in the congress because the big states didn't like it and the little states in my kit. big state didn't like it because they like the fact they paid

more attention if you were in california by one vote. otherwise wyoming. like nothing. this way they can pray. but now there is some chance for change because they pay california, new york and illinois. hillary clinton, democrats don't come here, but at a silicon valley and hollywood for money. they don't campaign here. you may notice they didn't have much trouble winning the state. so they don't campaign here. that means that california no longer get their dues that it used to in the candidates come in. so there is more of a chance for a movement, but i think it has to come from the state and the problem is they think about, the best way to do is break it down by conditional district. democrats are not going to play

the example. in 2012, president obama won by 5 million votes. and romney carried 226 congressional districts. so if we had gone to bat, romney would've been in the day. i do believe safe if they come along will start to do things like maine and nebraska and there will be some changes, but that's going to take a while. >> you now, you talked about -- at the beginning of this type you talked about what they respond -- with the electorate respond to results, for instance, in the next election. i think we just watched the situation but that didn't help him. but people have more health care. the economy without it the list

was long. fox news told them that wasn't the case. everybody said obama had a good message but didn't get it across. the people to whom he needed to get across were listening to fox news. they were never going to hear it there. it doesn't seem to me that any of that is going to change. it's not going to matter whether trump provides old for these people and that they have that are paying jobs. they are going to be told that everything is fine continue listening to fox to and they're not linked to note that it is not. or that's how it feels to me. it is happening already in the first 10 days. >> so, the big difference is each president is responsible now. that's one. two, that area as it turns out the mrs. clinton didn't do as well but not that area is, so we

oversampled the six midwestern states. it turns out that that area is where the population went down and jobs went down, those are the areas -- population and jobs are to your trump is that 2.9% over obama in areas where there was growth if the question was, the areas that voted against 10 for areas where the jobs were. i guess the third point i would make, i don't think those people -- the fox news coming out. you know the max, bill bradley? 3.2 million. that's it. they are ahead of everybody else, but okay, 3 million. do you know how many people watch "dancing with the stars"?

24 million. so i do think there is a problem with those news sources because now people can just listen to what they want. there's no -- i can do it again, there is no walter cronkite to interpret at best. i do think there's a little bit of a problem. we are looking at that now. the biggest problem and i'm going to ask all of the comment. the biggest problem is facebook is where most people under 40 get their news. >> in youtube actually. i had then and i volunteered at a middle-school and we were teaching a journalism class. we say okay, today we are going to research and now wanted to write about video games. of course. they say okay, they would type in video games. or we are going to research well so that they would go to youtube and type in wales. you know, fox news is positively

cnn compared to some of that nutty stuff. there's a whole flat earth movement out there. you tried to google it. or youtube it. it is kind of interesting. so yeah, there was a lot of sidling in this election. to your point, in reality, there were losing jobs and losing population in life expectancy was going down. that wasn't just something fake that fox is telling us. i want to point out that rick perry of islam both. >> what are the prospects for healthy two-party democracy in an era of really powerful [inaudible] >> said gerrymandering, i think

gerrymandering is overestimated and here is why. so if you actually look at it, there are between 65 and 75 seats that are majority minority districts. so that means there are 40 some african-american congressmen, some latino congressmen and congresswomen. and they are from this districts that are set so they will have the majority will have minority representatives. so once you sort of said, republicans say you have another way. just as smart democrats in that district. so if you look at the distribution of democrats and republicans both in house he, the democrats have a bad end of tail, so that is 50%.

democrats have a lot of districts where the winner gets 75, 80% of the vote in the republican tail looks nowhere near that sat on the end. so the question is if you want to drive a districts differently, you could get that, but part of the gerrymandering is these districts. once they are there, are best estimate of this other districts that are left, republicans got about a 53, 54% tendency to windows. now you can get like 2006 in 2008 flip. the way things are set up now, democrats will have a hard time taking the house and it will take something like the disaffection with bush in 2006 for democrats to get the house again. unless they change were those districts are drawn.

>> i am somewhat heartened by general mattis and rex tiller said per spec and worldview. but what do you make of the fact that general mattis or secretary mattis was standing right behind president trump when he announced the immigration or burn friday. does that give you any pause? >> what could he do? okay, then what happens? but the thing is, if you are jim mattis, you may disagree with that. but there are many things that mrs. clinton when she was secretary of state and obama didn't agree on. i think you should be thinking something like this. the immigration issue relative to what damage he could do is pretty miniscule.

so you're thinking what could he do. i mean, it seems to me you let us stay there and say i don't agree with this, but that's all i've got to do to achieve this bigger handout they are. she didn't call me. he can ask me anything. but that would be my view. you take those jobs in washington. he signed on and you're in. unless you're willing to resign. >> i take the point that has not been confirmed, but he's the secretary of defense. this is an immigration issue. it seems -- i don't know. >> i assure you he's the guy that said i would not send the iran deal. i don't torture anybody. i mean, so wrinkly there's

principle in this getting stuff done. that is a trade-off. it is true of the washington job, you take that job and you argue inside for this is what i think we should do. when you lose, you go along with the president. and if you don't do that, which has happened a few times, you are not back in the game over again. >> at the scene like our democratic party, i'm an independent, too. anyway, we have a tendency to put our heads in the sand when it comes to jobs. we seem to think that everybody is better off when they really are not. they be employment is up, but the people who work in the factory are now working at wal-mart and are not so happy.

i've been in manufacturing running a company for 20 years. we didn't really lose their jobs because of automation. the vast jobs because of tax reasons zero income tax in malaysia. zero income tax in ireland. so how do we combat that? in the political party system. >> well, first of all, globalization is really hard to combat. first of all, it's global. donald trump into what he wants, but the chinese can do what they want and the europeans will do what they want. the second thing is inequality is just going to increase. very simple. robert downing is a guy -- iron guy for iron had.

okay. so robert downey -- >> robert downey junior, iron man. i will translate. >> appreciate it. i got for that. on the last movie he made $80 million. how did he make that? 320 million people around the world, he got a court appearance thursday with are the best carpet her of the best on the. how much can you make? so they're just inherit differences. the question is how do you redistribute it? can it be done in that way? it's a very tough issue. i don't think anybody -- and by the way, inequality is what is called this marriage so serialization is on. in the old days, my daughter, well educated, choose an investment acre so she's making

pretty good money. let's say 300,000. her husband is a lawyer and make it very. in the old days that would've been once out of his stomach tube or 2000. now there may be $600,000. so that also increases. what are we going to do? are you going to say to people, don't do that. give up your job, honey. you say that to my daughter. i'm not. the final thing is you can help inequality if you say no more google. no more facebook. that'll bring about equality california. >> people with pitchforks. or at least they are going to and liked it. democrats to talk about jobs. it was like a 28-point plan for job creation that no one really do. you have to go to the right tab under the right menu to find the thing.

simplistic as the message was, you knew what he was going to do. you knew where he stood. hillary clinton made it clear she cared, but the practical said she was interested in taking purchased more than the attention span of a lot of people. [inaudible conversations] >> on the subject of immigration and institutions, i'm an immigration lawyer and i can say that the two executive orders that were issued last week, dave reid like playing the unconstitutional, but the violation separation of power and individual rights, major overhaul for immigration. but they called the refugee ban is a lot more. we have a large amount in palacio and it's also affected a

host of other visas. i can tell you from my own past as the dream of about 25,000 e-mails from clients every hour that it is totally upended immigration law and there have been four federal court orders issued in the last 12 days and all the reports from my colleagues think that the executive branch is in violation of executive orders. from my standpoint, the total meltdown of rule of law. >> y set of meltdown of the role the president put together not very well trapped it. it's going to go through the courts in my view has been happy to have the courts in order. so that's what the constitution is about. it is a chat. >> i agree with that. but he's in violation of court orders. to me this is troubling.

the department of state issued -- the judges of coors can order the trump administration to appear. there are plenty of mechanisms. any party who refuses to appear horrified at court worker is subject to a series of other court actions leading to penalty. presumably the administration would be subject to the same site. >> i'm pretty sure the republican caucus is not happy with that order, not happy with what happened. inside they are saying this is crazy. i get off, calm it down. >> from the perspective of looking at the future of the parties, what is your take on the growth of republican control of statehouses?

>> good question. it's grown. but you knew that. well, so what happened was president obama who is such a great campaigner back in 2008 in 2012. the 2010 election decimated the republican party. they lost all of those house seats. they lost 675 legislative seat and in 2014, they lost another 400 legislative seats. so with that kind of definition and states tend to choose governors. that kind of flick. democratic presidents by republican. so i think democrats should not be unhappy. 2018. so i think the democrats in 2018 will pick up five to seven

governorships. and those are governors about the potential candidates for the presidency in 2020. going to reestablish some of that. the next thing -- that is one thing that will happen that's good. the other thing good for the democratic party as the clinton, however good they been, they are gone. they fan since 88 with this movement. that is a long time. they are out now could the democratic party is going to pick up some governorships. they will pick up and rebuild that way and we will see what happens. the main thing was the decimation of the 2010 election followed by 24 team. >> even party operatives will tell you they did not do a good job of building their bench. it was dark as in the white house we don't need to worry.

so they're less to some degree neglected the party to build these grassroots organizations that need to be there to create the bench. i think that one of the lessons of this election, one of the biggest of the list of things they need to do going forward is to focus better on mac and use the republican playbook for their own purposes. >> quick question. as far as dealing with the current administration, all the papers that have come out like indivisible and so forth, in your view, what is the best strategy for trying to preserve some of the values in the obama administration? >> moved to green bay. [laughter] >> that i handed back to you.

>> the wise man once said. it is hard because we are in the bay area and our congresspeople can go out and work for a more liberal member of congress or a member of the senate. there is some limitation to what we can do. the best thing you can do is donate to organizations make you feel are under threat but in parenthood, aclu, it better that reflect values. in the bay area there's not a lot of doorknocking. they are going to saw a soft and sadness in to the ocean. marching of course seems that trump does respond and is interested in numbers, so if there are big events happening, i think it really hurt his feelings frankly to see the massive turnout at the women's march and merchants elsewhere.

if that's what you want to do, get on out there. i think it does matter the size and the numbers of people who show up. those of you that two things. >> i agree with all that. i would say watch the republican party. watch what they start to do. and if there are people doing the thing you want, write them, encourage them. find the issues you agree with them and they should do something about that because those people, they are under some pressure. one last thing. all of this about trump's way of the republican party. you know, let's be realistic. he's starting with the lowest, ever since we did the gallup poll scummy starts with the lowest approval rating. the lowest.

but he was up 5-41. over the weekend, when all this went on, she felt a 38% approval. 51% disapproval and among republicans who voted for him and democrats who voted for him and i think we kept independent outcome of the 40% that he handled it very badly, i did too rashly. so it seems to me that is what you've got to look for in trying to encourage that. it got to contribute to the cause is that you believe ed. and remember, at 10 and all you say politics are hard. it takes time to do it. at the great thing is we have elections every two years. and the filibuster. >> at least for now.

>> this is a two-part question. if hillary is modest and rebuilding america, but that have the hands of democrats. the democrats got behind true infrastructure development, would that compensate in part the loss of jobs in coal mining, energy industries, globalization and modernization, where you're more efficient with fewer people. is that a café for the democrats? >> so stronger together in retrospect may not appeal to everyone. everyone to be together. sometimes they just want to buy a house. so yeah, should the democrats focus more on infrastructure? now been trained not democrats are in an equal position.

i interviewed nancy pelosi about this the other day. we want to get behind an infrastructure built because there's this great new idea i will go up there and create all these authorities and put people to work and do kind of the fdr recipe for bringing america back. she said that, the republican want to build toll roads and put municipalities and the federal government further in debt and benefit large financial institutions in finance these things. and the democrats are in a position of saying no to an infrastructure project or infrastructure built for a lot of working people. they said no, we want the jobs. now come the municipal bond and the interest rate is too high. that's a difficult place to be. even if they are for an infrastructure bill, not just anyone will do and that could actually get them back into a corner. republicans are really pushing for someone, more of a public or the partnership than the

democrats are willing to go for. >> i think that is right. >> i would like to ask each of you if you want to make a closing comment by side at the end of this? >> i don't particularly. >> i think the people in this room could use some good news. a hopeful, sunny, you're the professor. i'm just mainstream media over here. i think they could use some avenues. have we gone through worse than history? >> we have presidents to catch enemies, i mean, this country has been through quite a few things. so i am relatively -- why do i have to do this?

i am relatively optimistic about how our institutions will handle this situation. so i think the probability is quite high that there's going to be a break in the republican party. they will thought they could deal of what might have happened. that's it. my job is to be an analyst. i'm not a preacher. go in peace, children. >> well, i'm back now, thank you so much. [applause] [inaudible conversations]