really critical in this election and i think both campaigns realize that. >> can i just ask sarah and chris, do you this will be a close election? barring the unforeseeable, war with iran or complete stock market crash, do you think this will be a close election in 2 -- >> yeah. i think this is a 50/50 country. i think the president is in a good position. amazingly strong. an amazing record to run on. a lot of successes but i think you have to approach every election like it is going to be a very close. that's the way we approach 2006, 2008. so i think you always approach it that way. this is a country that's very closely tied. so i think that yeah, barring something massive, it is going to be a relative -- i think we have to expect it'll be a relatively close rate. but the president is in a very good position. >> i think the presidential campaigns are different congressional races and senate races. they are very different animals. >> on the essence of differences- >> i will finish this. which i think these guys are

absolutely right. this is going to be an exception exceptionally close race. sarah's point is worth belaboring. there are two types of elections. where the income bunt is in such a position where you can win the refrigerator and the refrigerator wins. then in 1996 the incumbent is strong, bill clinton could have run against gandhi and mother teresa and he still wines. then an election like there where because of the larger ma'am row forces primarily the economy, you are very much of a gray area and it is a 50/50 country or really you know, 47/47 country with 6% of the electorate up for grabs and five or six state. that's what election will come down to. >> my view is that, you know, gdp stays between 2 and 3% and you can ton have at least the

job growth is it stays where it is or generally static. didn't go backward then under that formula the president wins because the president i think has a decisive advantage on ought trust issue. if you have gdp that is below 2% and know hope for everyone it does not, then i think it becomes a very more challenging -- >> yeah and i think any time you get to that close after level right where you are slicing the political bologna then every tactic, and people can be the gore campaign or 5,000 decisions you could look back in retro spekt. it was that close and if you had this or that, it keeps you up at night. if the election becomes that close it will have that type of an impact. i still think sta the essence of sayre yeah point is right. . >> we have a whole bunch of questions from the audience. let me just sort of just read them and see. will web 2.0 lead to national voting or initiatives on the internet. which i guess another way of

asking that is do you think we are heading towards digital democracy. >> this is my favorite. i love this question bp. >> in this state, you know, that transform heed the tool, right? i typically do them more in the progressive side. i am doing the campaign right now to raise tobacco tax a dollar. tobacco will spend between 40 and $06 million against us. we have our sling shot campaign every morning. >> god's work. >> god's work. justice and democracy. it was initially put if place by johnson to be a bull work or hedge against major powerful interest that used to control the state house. it has over the years, become a tool in fact for powerful special interested to use in any one of ways. and at times progressive groups

can possible enough money on the balance o 09. imagine if you could do it over twitter facebook and did not cost the 2.5 million which is the price tag to qualify initiative. at least in this state and other state and the states that have initiatives would give through the initiative process back to the way he it was originally designed and i think this is going to be a battle that will continue to become you know, a bigger and bigger conflict is which is the ability to vote and did other types of directive democracy on-line. and i think all of those things are -- that's why i said earlier. there are tools in place. i'm not sure she are used for n a transformative way. they would be enormously transformative. sorry i'm talking so long. but earlier was the twitter debite.

i had romney and others and twitter gave a green and blue whether they thought the broader public was responding whether they thought can dates were honest or not honest. romney had a difficult debate where he was in the red for the almost entire debate which set him up for challenging weeks. which set up his negatory line. imagine if you are in a world where candidates can get constant dial test. and can you tell you how the crowd is responding or public is responding. i'm not -- i don't think you are that far from seeing some of that technology used in that type of way. to me, you know, can you say that can manifest itself in a good way which is people have to be authentic and trust worthy and people can understand how they want it use that to their advantage. i think the tools be out there. i will be interested to see how

they manifest themselves. >> you he can sooe a world where a politician is giving a speech and he says yes or she says yes and the screen turns graen and the politician says by yes i mean no and the screen turns red -- >> can you go further, right? people talk about ieng u lairity. >> yes, yeah. >> imagine if you having? sma nano how implant are somewhere, right and you're automatic able to have kmupcation and process that in real type p.m. again, sounds far fetched like science firk stuff but people are actively talking about it. where there is singularity and this stuff is integrated into your bee. >> so technology can help me understand and relate it people? >> as long as you brings the jobs bill clinton did people will be very happy. >> good ahead, please. >> we are getting into the slippery slope.

>> i think we slid down it. >> i think there is a practical application that we should probably talk about to do the topic justice which is something that chris talked about before in our previous conversations. which is moving toward a place where you can make more informed decisions because people can target you personally in a targeted way. so it may be that the most important issue to you is fisheries. i bet you you do not hear anything about fisheries in the presidential election in 2012. there may come a time soon because of the targeting nature of political campaigning in advertising they will be able to care about people in fisheries about what their position is on restoring wildlife and ensuring that cattle aren't destroying upstream fisheryes. so you know in many ways i think that there will be technological evolutions to wait we are

communicated with via campaigns that will really help us make better informed decisions as opposed to necessarily giving rapid response feedback to the candidate which then they con joel to conform to. >> there is a question dealing directly with this. let me just reading it. have you seen any examples of using new technologies to do a better job of engaging the public in a policy debate that goes beyond simplistic slogans and talking point? [ laughter ] >> great question for tucker. >> what you were saying, i thought, was that, you know, through using new technology, you can get deeper into what people do believe about what

matters a lot to you. that's what's being asked here. what do you think? >> maybe one of you guys can talk about the soapbox example. >> you want to talk about it? nz r. >> go ahead. >> please, good ahead. >> >> i was going to say something different which is i can see and this sort of goes along with what tucker was saying i can see a time where campaigns or incumbents who are in office, serving in the congress are so -- are able to be so targeted and so focused on what individual voters want to know and are most interested in that you could end up getting policy papers and speeches and constituent letters and sort of everything targeted to you on a very issue specific basis, which i think is probably the targeting would be the best use of the technology that i could think of to answer that. >> i'll give a couple of examples. there's the challenge in a representative democracy how all of that plays itself out.

but we did a campaign a couple of years ago where we actually did a challenge, you know, online for folks to come with the best tv spot and we just sort of put it out there and we offered to run the winner which was going to be based on crowd sourcing vote on the jon stewart program. shockingly, maybe not that shockingly the ad was better than any ad that the campaign was producing. it was a good spot. we ran it more than just on the stewart program. but we really engaged a very bright audience. going through the process i had to call and buy our site from us because they looked at the analytics. tucker, i'm sorry to bring this up, during the meg campaign i ran i.e. and this was the exact opposite example from the

person's question but there's some relevancy. we created something called megpedia which was opposition resource. we had folks that worked at e-bay and other places who poured stuff over the transit, a number of items which reporters later took, some investigative reporting and tested out and proved that. so that was an interest way to use crowd sourcing. that may not be the most constructive way to use it but it was an interesting tool to apply and do i think you'll probably see some elected officials begin to use those types of crowd sourcing tools as they develop policy. i mean the president, i think, has done it to some extent with some electronic town halls that he's done and the conversations that he has had. there actually was some kind of an effort at the white house to involve the public. but i think, you know, you will see someone who runs for office who decides basically to have an

open source campaign, he'll ask his followers to create the ads. he'll ask his followers to collectively come up with something based on his beliefs. that person gets into office and that's how they approach the governor. you'll see that. some kind of an open source campaign. >> i have another one for you. will what you're discussing and what's being discussed up here right now make campaigning bidirectional where candidates can respond to voters as much as they push messages to voters. >> you know, i was mentioning this before because it's timely recently. there was some debate about access to the internet and this was a huge news story as i'm sure you all seen in the last month or so. and i think that was an example where these, i guess it's

probably data to call them net roots but, you know, that was at least what they were originally called came out of the wood work and people were communicating to congress in really energetic and active ways to each of the individual members of congress and it was an overwhelming success for the technology community and i think that it goes back to an earlier point that sarah made which was like, we can talk about campaigns and the elections and that's great because there's so much information that's being pushed out to so many different people but probably the most exciting things that are happening are what people are actually governing doing with technology and getting feedback on specific policy debates that are going on so they can get a better idea in real-time about what positions they should take into account. i don't think i'm forsaking any confidence that there were some individuals that came and visited us that worked actively with the doing explain they actually had been able to determine that the traditional

writing your congressman a letter and your congressman writing you a letter back has decreased dramatically as a result of facebook's product. because members of congress are on facebook and actively every day talking about the business that they are taking up in business and getting feedback from constituents in large amounts. they are able to communicate in a much fast and timely man sorry that they are not getting a letter about a bill that they voted on three weeks ago and then sending a letter back and by the time that, you know, somebody else gets it to consider, you know, it's in with the christmas cards and totally ignored. we're getting to a place where people can understand their government better and that's probably the back and forth conversation that people are benefiting from most. >> what do you think? do you think that this is going to -- is this movement or set of technologies that are now available and seems like they are springing up all over the country at a rate that those of

us who are not in the business are unaware of. is this going to make government at the end of the day more responsive because people are going to find out more quickly about what they really care about? >> i think it will. i think to the extent that a voter or a constituent even a citizen is interested in what's going on in washington, in the congress, with someone who is running for office, to the extent they are engaged and paying attention and don't involved they will receive a dialogue back. so, almost everyone has a voice with the person who is running or with the incumbent and they get a dialogue back from that person. one of the great things about facebook and twitter is that members of congress become real people. right? they engage with constituents on both platforms. they don't typically only talk about the vote i just took on health care, they also say looking forward to being in menlo park this weekend for my family barbecue. or looking forward to taking my

daughter to college next week. they become real people and they can interact with people, interact with voters on a more normal basis and in dialogue. i think it will be more responsive and also more human. >> is that dangerous? because when you become a real person then you path lot of things in play that, you know, none of his have perfect pasts that, you know, maybe would best be sort of left out of the public sphere? >> as long as you take the anthony weiner pledge. use common sense. people will start to learn those protocols. there's been a number of folks who have run for office and suddenly there's a post on facebook they shouldn't have posted there. you're seeing in the higher process, i see with it my kids they are being taught and learning there's a whole cultural process.

i want to come back, because i do think there's a tension right now between how social media and technology is impacting democracy and structural issues in democracy. there's so many structural issues right now that are effectively designed to push people not find compromise and not to get to the center from both sides and forcing people to go the opposite end of the field and i think -- i don't know what the answer will be in terms of whether social media and technology can help alleviate or address that, aspiration ally. i certainly hope that's the situation for the benefit of small d democracy. but i think that will play itself out in a really interesting way because i think if you look at citizens united has created structural issues, you saw the speech last night from the senate candidate who beat dick luger in indiana who basically effectively said i have absolutely no interest in reaching the middle ground or compromise, this is a war and there's only one winner. >> did you see luger's letter?

>> i did. this is what's taking place in d.c. and all over the country so can social media and technology because the vast majority of the public is a lot closer in some form or fashion than our political process reflects and can social media be used as a tool and a vehicle to help actually cultivate that and provide an incentive to get people back to reaching compromise, to understand there's an the election, the election end and we have to deal with big issues. >> do you both feel that? do you feel that the public as a whole is actually less extreme than the representatives that are getting elected? >> absolutely. and i think that, you know, what chris mentioned is exactly right. you look and you watch cable television and you see two people that i can't determine what their relevance are to the political process yelling back

and forth trying to be more bombastic in characterizing the other's views. and emails i'm getting from friends or news on my news feed facebook and i see people i don't agree with on a political issue or maybe i didn't know that they had that view on a political issue, it puts a human touch and i know that guy is a good guy. i know her. she's a friend of mine. she's a co-worker. the reason they are weighing in on that issue so strongly they have strong views on it and it makes me think about that issue a little differently. opens up my ears to consider things i hadn't before. that dialogue is lost in a lot of what we're seeing right now and i think as online communications and social media grows i think it's a positive force. >> so that's not a back to the future it seems to me observation because when people gathered around post offices which is where they gathered around the 1840s and 1850s waiting for the mail or newspaper they talked and they

came to with the single exception of 1860 we had transit was power every four years or eight depending if someone was a two term president without violence. there's very few countries that can say that. with all the faults that our system has, it's worked that well. i think the question is, you know, you know, is this going to make it better? is it going to make things more of the same? i mean luger's letter which i only just saw before coming over here was quite interesting. this is the senator, five term senator from indiana, which is sort of a land of steady habits as far as i'm concerned and the idea that he would lose a primary, four or five years ago this would have been would have been unthinkable and yet it happened and it happened because

he lost to it an uncompromising opponent, an uncompromising people are easy to admire because they don't compromise, but when you get to washington if you don't compromise you have stasis. we have proof of that. so we're sort of in a catch 22 and what in heaven's name will get us out of that and what role does technology have in getting us out of that. i don't know. >> i think tucker's comments were right on. aspiration ally i hope it serves as a way to actually elevate the course of conversation, helping people find common ground. i don't know how it will play out. that's one of the interesting dynamics. i do think as you touched on you have communities where people know each other and are having conversations with each other.

on the other hand you read an article that's provocative and you go online, and these sort of these comments and it's fascinating, reflective of democracy. but the language tends to be pretty tough and pretty strident. i hope it does. >> i think you have to pay attention to what's in people's ears and eyes all day long. if you spend a large amount of time on facebook and in conversation with your family and friends and co-workers you're hearing generally back and forth and you're having a civil conversation, right. you turn on cable news and they are putting a spotlight on the most obnoxious, rudest, the person who can scream the loudest and then they put a spotlight on the next screen over which is the person who can scream the loudest on the other side. and when that is -- when that is sort of the 24/7 thing that's happening on cable i think it brings out emotions in everyone else and makes people think that politics is like that and i

think politics follows and is like that. >> imitates art to some degree, in other words. >> yeah. when you have a media that's re wards poor behavior and screaming and partisanship and decides to put a live television camera on things, on erents that they know will outrage people and bring about fights, like minister of, you know, a church population of nine people in arkansas or whatever who was going to burn the koran. you just said you would put live cameras on something like that that would drive a wedge, that's what we end up. put a spotlight on that, versus the fact that people are having a very civil conversation in most parts of the country. >> i think what i come back to, at the end of the day, has generally gotten stuff right. i think sometimes we go through periods where we are feeling our way through. it is great confidence that,

historically, sometimes we may make a mistake or two but generally this country good about getting it right and my sense through the periods where we are feeling our way through this process but ult motley, i think it is established for the protocol and cultural understands. and in the future people won't cover those events or discount them and not respond in the way. i think as people become more atuned to now it works and hopefully, as you get more and more people, as you get the broad segments of the pop lake re population with their daily lives and that will serve for that leveling process, and actually work as a way it bring people together i think we have gotten it over the long haul. we are running out ever time. let me ask the three of you an impossible question to wined things up with. let's say, that -- let's say for a moment i'm mitt romney. and i call you up, tucker, and i say, i need some advice.

i want it win this election. what would you tell me 20 do to win? >> that's interesting. >> yes, tucker, what some. >> i would tell governor romney that he should check my track record and call someone else. i think that some of the things we talked about are things that the romney campaign won't internalize and that they hopefully will avoid the temptation to drive people apart and wedge different constituencies and address the problem that we're talking about, which is, how toxic the environment has become. in politics. and say what you will about gfr for romney. he is an outsider of washington and i believe he is effective in a very blue state and he is a

person that understands compromise. i know that's unpopular it say but i hope when all of the cameras are on him, that he will go back it considering that agreeing on certain things and agree to disagree on other things but wage a course forward that delivers real results is something that electorate is looking for right now and that sells just as well in ohio and florida and virginia and north carolina as it did in massachusetts. and i'm confident he will and i think romney has a very good chance of becoming president of the united states. >> sarah you just heard about tucker saying that romney has a good chance of becoming president. and i assume you mean in 2012, not 2016. and president watches c-span. >> we're live. >> so if i were running this

campaign and i wanted to be re-elected, what would you tell me to do. >> i would say that way you acted today is a reflection of the type of president that people love. [ applause ] . and that i think one of the things that president is -- that people love about the president is how authentic he is. and he showed that today. and i think that people appreciata and voters appreciate that. and i think that, you know, one of the reasons i have so much confidence in him is because of his record which i think he will run on. but i think he is an excellent campaigner and no one is better on a one on one fight than he is. he approaches campaigns that campaigns are important in their decisions and their decisions about the few tour and you don't -- you don't go down in a campaign for not saying what you think or not saying what you feel or not saying what you think is the right way forward with the country. and so i think he will go in, guns blazing and i think he will be the campaigner that we have

seen for years and i think he will be the authentic president that we have seen for the last four years and i think that he will be quite successful and do just fine. >> what do you make of the two comments you just heard? >> i would say there is a democrat tugger is very self evasive. he is one of the best in the business and i know we, on my side, were all very excited when he move need the private sector. over the campaign -- >> so was he. >> and hope he stays in the private sector. as someone who wants to see the president get re-elected, i hope sarah can take a little bit after vacation from the private sector and maybe move back over to the campaign for the remainder. i thought both comments were right on. i think the commonality that you heard in both was exactly right. campaigns, particularly in this day and age that we live in, come down to trust. who is the authentic candidate, who do you trust, who do you trust to make decisions about you and your family. and i think it'll be a competitive election. i think the candidate that does the best job of that is in as

strong as a possible position. and sarah you hit it out of the park. and anyone who is on my side of the aisle, who fundamentally believes the country will be a lot better place for the next four years if barack obama is re-elected has got to be absolutely thrilled for the historic steps that took today. what it means for our country and there what it means for his reelection. >> i have absolutely confidence in john haller and i would like to ask him to come up. i would like to personally thank the three of you. i know you are busy and lead complicated lives. but let me turn the floor over no john. >> please keep your seat for now richard. please join me in thanking the pan people panel. >> i think you know one of my favorite quotes about the museum was given to me by a member a couple of years ago who said this is the switzerland of silicon valley. so i hope we'vead