like four years ago -- in '12 you had 10 republicans on stage. three of them were running for president. eight of them were selling books. the three of them that were running was governor romney from massachusetts, governor palenti from minnesota and -- they were serious candidates. when he didn't catch fire in iowa, pawlenty dropped out. the other eight didn't drop out because they were selling books. this time around, look who is around the table. chris christie for sure. significant reforms in that state, $130 billion in reduced unfunded liabilities state pension system, ended the

millionaires tax, no tax increase, period -- >> so he fits the governor norquist filter. he gets through? >> yeah. i think somebody you're looking at is somebody who can finance a campaign all the way through, look you in the eye and say confidence, seriousness -- >> rand paul? >> let me do the governors first and then we'll do the three senators, because i think the advantage is with governors. they can raise money more easily. the senator says, look what i did, but yeah, 50 other people voted the same way. >> christie is serious? >> christie, certainly. governor scott walker of wisconsin who has changed it from a blue state to a red state, changing labor laws and all sorts of things. >> who are you more for, walker or christie? >> as long as they're all running, i'm cheerfully

agnostic. and governor bush of florida, a successful governor. he didn't have as republican a state as governor scott does now there in the legislature, but he governed well. and governor perry will run again. he didn't -- he had to falter this last time, but he's actually quite articulate, quite bright and will have been governor for 14 years. >> so do you think he'll get through the governor norquist filter? >> i think so. five children have school or scholarships. they passed an ethics law in louisiana that actually has teeth in it. the legislature will never forgive him for tying them into that. and there is some that could

surprise. pence and indiana governed well. smaller states haven't been governor as long but it would pass the lap test and could run sustained. the three senators you mentioned run with the disadvantage of being senators. you can give a speech as a senator, but it's a little hard to say, and i fixed the state pension system or, i didn't raise taxes. well, neither did anyone else. so it's just tougher to do, but certainly rand paul represents the small, libertarian wing of the republican party and feels that he has presented himself well and certainly rubio in florida, hispanic and a number of other -- speaks well and governs well, and ted cruz needs to be famous for something other than the belly flop of defund or nothing, because it didn't work, okay? but that said, he's come back and all the republicans and the

senate are on board for a more measured approach of our good with the president on how to fix obama care. >> we have carl rove coming in on the reform, and i think i told you that he reall lam lambasted the republican party on where they were going with things like immigration. they even said we're getting ourselves into a smaller and smaller corner and getting boxed in. i had the privilege of inviting you over to the atlantic recently, and you sat in the same room on chairs with rahm emanuel talking about two very different parties. i'm interested in the out reach that people like you in the classic gop are doing on things like immigration. and we ju've just got a couple minutes, but i'm interested in

how you basically preserve the important and good parts of the gop and not get washed down into the gutter with some of the stuff we've been seeing lately. >> sure. look, the winning message for the modern republican party is we're not going to raise your taxes, we're going to reform government so it works. we're going to keep canadians on their side of the border but we're not going to micromanage companies we can't pronounce. that's reagan republicanism, and the good news is that the modern republican party, house and senate governors, is a reagan republican party now, which wasn't true ten years ago, 20 years ago. it certainly wasn't true when reagan showed up. that said, the republican party needs to do what chris christie did, which is reach out and get 61% of the hispanic vote. perry got -- >> you don't have an immigration

bill. >> governors can do it easier than congress mmen and senators but governors need to reach out to the immigration communities in their states, in their cities, in their congressional districts. i believe we will see an immigration bill. i think the danger comes from whether obama really wants a bill. and the reason to wonder about that is he was president for all of 2009 and all of 2010 with congressional people in the senate. he didn't talk about a bill, woke up, went to bed. >> but. >> i'm talking about the -- the bill passed to the senate, not particularly my cup of tea, but it got a conversation going. what you do have is serious

border security. not 47,000 troops on the border but border security. and you want to have something there for high tech, for the farming industry, and you want to do something for the people who are here so they don't have to live in the shadows and regularize their ability to be here and continue to work. >> where is grover norquist on defense spending? i know you support the sequester, but wungds. people are more enthusiastic about the iraq war, the afghanistan war. is there a divide between governor norquist and the national security side of the republican party? we have 18 seconds. >> the answer is no. i was in favor of the wars, i was not in favor of the occupations that took place ten years after the wars were won. and the question is, the one was necessary, the second was unwise and counterproductive and put us in a worse position than before. we need to look at defense spending the way we look at any other spending and say, hey, let's not waste any more money

and let's not spend money on anything else we don't need. >> with that i want the audience to know that the price of showing up today was playing in the celebrity comedy contest next year. he has people on there he knows he can clobber. ladies and gentlemen, please give a round of applause to grover norquist. thanks for joining us. >> thank you. and now more from this washington ideas forum with journalist charlie cook and chuck todd. they looked ahead to the 2016 presidential election and what's ahead in congress before then, including possible passage of immigration legislation. this is 35 minutes. charlie, when i first met you 30 years ago, we were then talking about a republican lock on the presidency. we knew it was a center right

country, we knew that social issues worked for the republicans, and we wondered when a democratic candidate could ever carry california again. we then went through a period exemplified by bush-gore when we had an even 50-50 split. it seemed to me that when it shifted a little and democrats were on the high side driven by demography. are we headed toward a democratic lock on the white house? what do you see in terms of the balance going forward? >> that's a great question, john. i remember back that time when democrats won the presidency five out of six times and the phrase we heard a lot was electoral lock on the republican college. i remember being at a backyard cookout, and somebody -- i wish i could remember who the heck said this -- was asked the

rhetorical question, which do you think will happen first? democrats would elect a president or democrats would elect a speaker? this was in about 1991. and someone said when one happens, the other one will probably follow. hey, gbuddy. so i think if republicans don't fix their problems with minority voters, young voters, moderate voters and young women moderate minority, yes. i mean, if the republican party were a business, you would say they have an unsustainable business model unless they change this. and so you tell me whether they're going to address these challenges. >> chuck, we started out, i was asking charlie about how when we started talking about washington together, they got to the white house, and now we're even.

and now you wonder how with the change of social issues whether the democrats are facing a lock. he said he's not sure, could be. what do you think? >> when you start with 200 electoral votes over five straight elections, that's a pretty good baseline to start with, which is what democrats start with. that's their biggest problem. to me what was interesting about virginia governor is it essentially played out like a federal election. when you realize that terry mcauliffe were essentially sway bid swing voters. they weren't really crazy about any of them. there actually is a republican precinct in arlington county, and, you know, all of my neighbors at the big halloween party and the gathering, they were all doing the i don't know what to do, i'm not voting. that was the attitude and these were all people basically that republican that you hear about who says, you know, i don't know

how i feel these days about the social issues, this party, i'm not crazy about the tea party, this is the businessman republican, businesswoman republican. so that to me -- i don't see how they fix that by 2016, and you start looking at these states, and virginia and colorado and florida, let's just take those. if you want to say those are thre the three closest of the swing states, they're all demographically moving away from the republican party. there is this great book i was reading right before i went to college. it was called "the primitive american minority party." and it was about how democrats would be the primitive american party. they basically lost only one election since that book was written in 2004. this demographic issue, you

can't overlook it. >> well, charlie, let me ask you about the demographics, because the message of peter's book was that democrats had been so enthralled to the interests of margealized groups, including racial minorities, that they were not able to appeal to mainstream wide voters. what we've seen since then is that the proportion of white voters has gone down. what are the implications of politics going forward of the fact that the republican nominee get 6% of the white vote, the democratic nominee got 8% of the non-white vote. are we headed toward a kind of racial polarization in voting that is going to create other problems and become self-fulfilling? >> well, i've yet to write a book, but my takeaway from peter's book is never make that definitive a statement that will plague you for the rest of your

career. anyway. you can slice it or dice it demographically or you can slice it another way. for example, if you told me two years ago that mitt romney was going to win the independent vote by 5 percentage points, i would have guessed he won the election. if you had told me ken cuccinelli had won the independent vote by 5%, i would have thought he won the election. just winning the independent vote isn't enough for republicans. now, that's partly a function of demographics, but part of it is the gap between -- for example, republicans can win. romney won the independent vote but he lost the self-prescribed moderate vote by 15 points. so there is a difference between independent and moderate. you can look at it demographically, but you can look at it as self-identification of idealogy as well. republicans take some solace in

knowing there are 10% more conservatives than liberals but forget there's 40% more moder e moderat moderates. >> democrats did just win virginia, but if you look at geography, romney wins by 9 points in the confederacy. obama wins by 10 points every where else. so if you're a republican, how do you figure out how to break out of that trap which, at one point, swung the electric to the republicans but now it's become too confining. >> they did fall into this trap and virginia and florida have peeled away. they don't vote like the rest of the south. they're pure swing states. and watch out, georgia and north carolina are next, right? and both of them is why it's demographics. it's not black and white, it's hispanic. look, georgia is going to be fascinating to watch this coming year with a senate race and a

governor race that i think will be slightly competitive. partially, though, it goes because the republican parties are weak. there is one potentially strong republican party in jack kingston, and that's it. everybody else will easily become caricatures in the way the democrats have done a good job of it these days. if i were in the republican party, i wouldn't be worried about virginia or florida or any of these, i would just be living in the state of colorado. you think about the problems for the republican party with the suburbs and with hispanics, colorado, you know, one of the things with colorado is you can't explain it away. it used to be republicans were explaining away all their problems with, wow, barack obama just increases the black vote, they all turn out and that's really what's going on. it's not colorado. there is not a large hispanic population in colorado. they've lost multiple senate

races, a government. they consult the public. they clearly have the suburban problem these days. and i think when you look at the white folk and upper income life, other people. if you figure out the colorado issue, everything else will fall into place. >> just one short point. there's also transplants. virginia, ton of people, non-native southerners bringing non-native attitudes into voting behavior. to a lesser extent. >> don't forget the welcome center in virginia. the big onassis.

arlington county and fairfax county, no, thank you. >> virginia has a ton of transplants, north carolina a good bit. remember the line about the suburb of raleigh carey which stands for relocated area for yank yank yank yankees. >>. >> charlie, let me ask you as pob who knows a lot of. it's a structural problem if you're trying to figure out from their point of view, how to gop and the presidential gop.

you have a lot of people who are committed to the constituency and really couldn't care less about the broader constituency. >> i spoke in august at the public retreat, and sort of the conclusion of the presentation -- >> are you the one who advised them on the shutdown? >> no. they had me and they had the ceo of domino's pizza explaining what they did when they found out the consumers thought their pizza sucked and how they had to reformulate it. but i walked through the exit poll data, the election results, and then sort of the conclusion at the end was if republicans are satisfied with the house majority, you don't need to change at all, not a bit. but if you want to win a majority in the senate, you're going to have to change a lot. if you want to be competitive in presidential elections, you've got to change a whole lot. so these members are in these sort of idealogical partisan

cu cul-de-sacs, these protected districts, and they don't look a whole lot like the jurisdictions when you run statewide in most of these places or the presidential election, so they've got to decide what they want to do. >> chuck, you and i have been on some conference calls recently with our pollsters, talking about this incredible disinfection of the american people who believed that washington isn't working. which points to a problem for democrats. they're the party for government, and right now we've got this mess in health care, and i'm wondering how big a political threat -- once we get beyond the governance issue and the implementation of the site and the health care law, how big a threat is it to democrats to be super intending this process that looked to the american people like another government botch? >> and if they can't get this right, how can we assume they'll get immigration right? when you look at this thing in the public, they're angry the

republicans don't want to govern and the democrats don't know how to govern. that's the fundamental flaws of both parties. i want to get to this larger issue here which is we are in uncharted party in 2014. fl three weeks ago we said the shutdown was -- i think we'll see what we saw in virginia. or really we've experienced this in 1992. you had a public very angry at a bunch of people bouncing checks basically angry at the democrats on capitol hill and angry at an out of touch republican party running the white house. and so what did that lead to. a third party. incumbents were losing primaries in odd places. it didn't change the massive balance of power, but it felt like a big change and we went through -- i think we're still sort of sorting ourselves based on what happened in that '92

election. so i think that this is why health care has to be fixed. it has to be implemented well because this could set back the democratic party a decade. >> sounds like maybe you're feeling mike bloomberg a little in 2016. >> i'm shocked we're not seeing more i said candidates. i know part of the problem is there is no pool of we don't trust business anymore. mike bloomberg isn't the right guy to new york, to wall street, too corporate.o wall street, too corporate.o new yor street, too corporate. >> do you agree? >> i don't think an i said candidate can possibly win a three-way race. let's say you're mike bloomberg. let's say you're a perfect person in every respect. richest person, smartest person. what happens?

you run a three-way race. presumably you get a plurality of the popular vote, election would get thrown to the house where each state gets one vote and republicans have 30 odd delegation. it's a virtual impossibility for an independent for whip the presidency. i wish americans would say instead of trying to get candidates to run for a job that is impossible for them to win, encourage independent candidates to run as independents for the house and the senate. there is nothing wrong with the senate that three or four legitimately independent senators wouldn't fix. that could go a long way. but there is a structural barrier on the presidential side. >> that was sort of -- to finish

my thought, that's what i'm shocked at. where are the 2014 independent candidates. i look at my home state of florida and basically you have a very uunpopular governor versusa party switcher. it looks like the virginia governor's race on steroids. it's one of those where you'll have swing voters literally not sure. a third party candidate would blow that thing wide up. or frankly charlie crist i think blew it. it's easier for him to do it through the party. he might have been a very viable i said candidate. he may some day regret that he didn't do it as an independent. by switching parties, it automatically creates political skepticism. i know both parties are struggling. nobody wants to run in a preliminary primary anymore.

we know what a mess it is. peculiarly on the republican side. and the quality of recruits has been immediamediocre at best. i'm with charlie. recruit independent candidates. >> if you're an accomplished person, successful in life in whatever way running as an independent candidate is like jumping out of a plane and not being really sure that the parachute works. there is no support mechanism. it would take an enormous leap of faith and a personal checkbook that could pick up the tab for the race. but we have plenty of people that could do that. i'd life to see that happen. >> that's what we know. self identification with the two parties, that's what you were talking about the poll call.

pollsters have noted raw self identification with the collective two parties is below 50% three polls in a row for us. that is people saying i don't want to be considered a member of either party. doesn't mean ideologically they're not liberal or conservative, but they're not comfortable with identifying with either party right now because they're kind of embarrassed. the public is screaming for this. they're begging for independent new people to run and they being the two parties are not the place to be. >> we have two competing narratives on the one hand will republicans fix their problems with their brand and with the young minority women moderates. but on the other happened, aren't we just seeing a classic case of second term fatigue and

all the problems that typically happen in second terms including chickens coming home to roost which is where i put the affordable care act. >> chuck, let me ask you about one of the obvious ways for republicans to deal with their problems. that is the immigration issue. we know on the one hand they have a huge strategic need to repair their issues with hispanics. on the other hand, we know house republicans don't want to go there. where does that issue go? >> i think there is -- to me this is where you look at where the three house leaders are from. boehner, swing state ohio. cantor, swing state virginia. mcquartcarthy, blue state calif. i think they are buying time. everybody i've talked to, i'm an optimist, i think sometime in the spring after filing deadlines have passed, immigration is not the hot button issue. more focus on health care is the way the republicans might be

able to -- >> you you thiu think it happen congress? >> this congress. the leadership of the republican party knows they have to do this. they just have to find the timing to just do it without totally exploding their base. >> i won't call you naive or an optimist. i'll just say you're crazy. >> i'm saying they know they have to. that's why they don't say it's dead. >> what would have to happen, they have to find very credible conservatives to go office by office and just walking the people through the numbers of why the current course for the republican party cannot work. but the key is -- >> won't they say how did that work out for marco rubio? >> i think they have to little

league walk them through and get each of them comfortable with it. maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. but most republican members are a lot more afraid of a primary than they are a general election. anything that can be described as amnesty will get jammed. i've never seen a situation where a party had a problem that there wasn't the potential for the same problem on the other side. if the budget fight ever got over to entitlements and we started changing about change cpi or anything like that, you would see the same fizssures. >> which is why i don't understand why the republicans

haven't just introduced parts of his budget because they could end up splitting the democratic party in a very hostile way. >> maybe a lot of those older white social security and medicare resip cecipients would happy if they did that. >> a lot of us still view -- there are too many people in washington still think older voters are fdr voters. this is a base republican vote now. seniors are a base republican vote. our way too early poll of christie and hillary -- a reminder, one of the only through groups that christie licked hillary on was among seniors. this is a rock ribbed republican group how. and so i think you're right, i think republicans are afraid of turning him off. >> i want to go back to 2016 in our wa