i just haven't heard it. we try to find a solution to abraham lincoln. there's a key. because we're a nation that, you know, since world war ii we have become obsessed with therapy and medical explanations. there are all kinds of medical explanations and, you know, in terms of colic in which today means he was depressive. >> a question about the technology of the day. how long would the subject have

to remain still? >> it's coming down, i mean, the cliche is you had to have your neck -- they didn't use a portrait studio. he would ask people to be still. they're coming down to 5 to 7 seconds. it's becoming faster. and i have -- again, because i enjoy the show i put on because of the photographs is beginning to make the camera. as it was has to manipulate is rather cumbersome. you couldn't handle the camera.

it had to be in a tripod. >> my question would be gardner's battle field photos, were they staged? >> interesting question. >> the main drive -- gardner went out and got -- he along with everybody else was terrified by the carnage. it was a relatively small battle field. he moves his camera one or two spots. the shots find themselves. what you anticipate is what he did at gettysburg which is a

light -- and this is an entirely different lecture. i'll make it quick. he manipulates a. the titles of his shots where he associates them erroneously and fraudulently with major figures who died on the spot where, in fact, if you will, the ordinary casualties of the ordinary soldier and associates them with generals like john reynolds. then the sharp shooters were notorious for the sharp shooter series. he and his assistants pulled men out and moved them about 70 yards and manipulate the rifle and the aspect of the courts and create this visual tableau of the fate of this unfortunate soul. it's complete fraud. it wasn't discovered for some years after wards. late in the 1960s s forensic

photographer found by examining hundreds of gettysburg soldiers in a soldier that appears in the line of dead being ready to be buried. gardner that's interesting at the very moment in which photography is claiming absolute truth. lincoln is using it to deal with the emotional state and physiological state he was in, garner starts to create the uncertainty about the accuracy that we live with today. the ongoing debate. is it real, photo bomb shopped, staged. there was a famous photograph from the spanish civil war a moment of the death where it's laid out. it takes him. it's always -- it's not just the luckiest, pardon the expression, shod in the world or was it

staged? and gardner at the very moment -- so that's a great question. >> thank you. to what extent -- >> you can watch the rest of the american history tv program any time on our website. c-span.org. going live to cleveland this morning for a discussion of campaign 2016 focussing on polling demographics and issues. live coverage here on c-span. >> they are the american petroleum institute's vote for energy project, maker's mark, and on to the substance of the day. we're calling this morning's session the road to the white house. tonight donald trump accepts the republican nomination, and it's on to the general election. today we're going talk about what the campaign will look like for here -- from here about the

search for party unity, which as we know, took a hit last night on the floor. we'll dive into what it means for trump's earth to rally the base and attract enough independent democrats to put him over the top. if you want to join the conversation on twitter, use the #atlanticrnc. and c-span is here capturing the briefing. let's get rolling and introduce our guests. we have john graybender a former aid on santorum's two presidential campaigns. he has a second mission here in cleveland, which goes beyond politics. he hopes to get the band "yes" into the rock and roll hall of fame. good luck. sara fagan is now a partner with the public affairs firm ddc. mike duehaim was director of the national committee and held senior positions with george w.

bush, lead strategies for chris christie's two gubernatorial campaigns and partner at mercury public affairs firm. mike murphy the most recently ran the super pac for jeb bush's presidential campaign. he's advised mitt romney, john mccain, and many others. we're going to be joined in progress by the former national spokesperson for the ted cruz campaign. he's a current msnbc analyst rick tyler. he'll come in in the middle. here to lead the conversation is ron brownstein, and major garrett. take it away. >> good morning, everybody. margaret, i mentioned that the official title is "road to the white house" but i call the event, which is my favorite, the campaign manager's summit. we have some of the sharpest thinkers and strategists in the republican party, all though i would slightly amend john

graybender. that the "yes" album cover deserves it -- >> no, it's not marginal of the band. >> all right. >> absolutely. we're in the mist of an extraordinary convention. last night, sara, we saw something from ted cruz that we probably haven't seen since nelson rockefeller in 1964 come on to the convention floor and very conspicuously anded ed not endorse the nominee. what are the implications for donald trump and ted cruz? >> the most significant moment of the convention so far and not mishandled. not just by the trump campaign but also by ted cruz's handlers. because the implications for trump, of course, that the party remains ununified. the one person perhaps most able

to unify the party, the person becoming closest to being the nominee, besides donald trump, not only didn't endorse but said it's okay not to vote for him. that's a pretty bold move. it says to many conservatives, particularly christian conservatives, it's okay for you to sit out and vote up-and-down the ticket and leave the space blank. whether he meant it or not, i think he probably did, that was the implications and that's how it was took. but in the presidential campaign, at this stage of a contest, there is no reason, in my view, they shouldn't have known exactly what ted cruz was going to say. and if cruz was going to say anything close to what he did say, he should have been speaking on monday night, not on wednesday night. he overshadowed mike pence's speech because of this. he probably hurt himself, ted cruz, probably hurt himself at least in the short term and depending on the outcome of the

election potentially fatally. you know, think about it. if donald trump end up losing this election by a few points, ted cruz is going to bear the brunt of that blame because of what happened last night. >> mike murphy. >> i fundamentally agree with that. think of it from the cruz point of view, though, to make the argument. i think they're thinking we're going to run in four years. two, there are two possible donald trump outcomes. trump wins and he governs either as a train wreck or a moderate. neither of which we cruz people want to be linked to. we could wind up primary in four years. second, he loses in a big pile of rubble. we don't want any connection to that. so i get the reasons for the cruz people, as the purity candidate. that's his brand. not to endorse trump. but actually going up there on wednesday night. how it got cleared, i'm with sara. there are procedures in a convention so it can't happen. and the trump campaign says

early this morning they knew about it. they were being magnanimous. whatever. it breaks the rules of trying to control anything at your convention, which conventions are about control. they go up there before pence on the second biggest night, unscrew your head, take out a lightbulb, and throw it between trump's eyes. it's unbelievable. it achetakes the strategy of be away from trump, and it creates a new debate of bad manners of selfishness, of show boating which even some pro cruz people are clearly repelled by. so i think he blew himself up. the only question if there's a complete trump disaster in november, will then in hindsight in the all new politics a year from now will the purity thing be able to -- >> a follow up. from the other side, though. what does it mean for trump? >> well, it's interesting. i was on the "today" show with manafort this morning and he was saying we knew but mr. trump

lets anybody speak. but it was unfortunate and kind of selfish. it was the only time i've seen the trump campaign work a sub text of being a victim. because trump is so superman, bullet proof, never apologizes. so that was a bit of a switch up. i think there is a voter problem here. trump need to get to 95 or 96% of the republicans, let alone everybody elsewhere he has trouble, to be competitive. now he's in a bit of what i'll call a dog whistle squeeze play. on one side you have the regular republicans. the jeb bushes, george w. bushs, and the romneys. in a more polite way have taken a pass on trump. now you have the christian conservatives who have the most ideological concern about trump. because trump doesn't have a ideological history of any credibility in their party. getting a dog whistle is okay not to be for trump. how he gets the republican number to 95 let alone the other

numbers, i think it got harder. short term, you know, maybe there is a sympathy bounce. >> mike and jon, you've been in situations not like this, but you've had to negotiate something and build something good out of something that could be bad. i want to ask both of you. if you were in the middle of that, do you think there was a way to negotiate this to a better place? and strategically, how would you try to approach it? >> i wouldn't have let ted cruz speak. especially even on monday night, maybe monday afternoon. maybe not. i think not at all. if you're not going to endorse the nominee, this is the nominee's convention. that's how it works. you don't let him speak. there's a couple of articles you didn't let ted cruz speak. who cares. we're talking about ted cruz and not mike pence that's a huge thing. i think the way to negotiate is not negotiate it. if you're not going to endorse, you're not going to speak. that's it. >> my big problem is it's

symptomatic it's not under control. even if they negotiated cruz was going to come out with a full endorsement. i wouldn't have done it before your vice president pick who is an important speech for you that night. you know, on a regular world i would say, look, they should initiate the random drug testing because it happened. it's an absurdity that they allowed this to happen. my belief is in cruz world, they've calculated they believe donald trump is probably not going to win. they believe it's possible he's going to implode. i think they look at had this as the democrats did this going into iraq vote. eventually we're going to get to a point where it's did you support donald trump and hold your nose as a conservative, or did you stand up for your principles? i think cruz is trying to look down the road and say i never did. >> i don't think it's going to work. i think donald trump -- you could be a disaster. trump could lose by 50 and the trump voters will blame ted cruz. it may have nothing to do with

ted cruz's speech and they'll blame him forever. and ted cruz spent six months building donald trump up. i don't think -- i agree they -- >> that's what i think. >> i don't think. >> they have the tone of betrayal now which is unnecessary. it was a huge bet they made for kind of limited upside and huge potential downside. >> you know cruz, as his style, took it the most furthest to the mo confrontational. if you look at marco rubio's speech, none said zero praising the character, fitness. john kasich isn't here. jeb bush isn't here. even scott walker was done with donald trump at the 53 mark of his speech last night. what is the impact of all of this? we're not hearing things we usually hear from party leaders. chris christie was strong.

jeff sessions, newt gingrich, what impact does it have? >> i don't think it will have much impact on donald trump and his chances in november. he's running uphill now even on his best day. given the past gaffes and things he's said. i think the fact that the republican party apparatus doesn't embrace him has no bearing on the excitement around his candidacy and probably has some bearing on people showing up and knocking on doors and making phone calls. he's not investing anyway. he's clearly not building that infrastructure for his campaign. so i don't think, i mean, i was thinking about this earlier as we were, you know, we've spent a week talking about gaffe after gaffe after gaffe. this has been an embarrassing convention. there's been a lot of problems with it. i'm not sure at the end of the day when we leave this

convention it's going to have any impact on donald trump's numbers. if it does, it'll be temporary at best. >> it will have an impact on cruz's numbers. i don't think it comes across looking principled. it would have been do what rubio and everybody else or don't come. he used the audience to his benefit. >> john kasich actually handled it the right way. >> i agree. >> and, you know, he didn't endorse him. he's not coming to the convention to draw contrast to him. the trump campaign egged that on. >> let me come at it at a different angle. mike murphy, donald trump one of his biggest problems, if not the biggest, the consistent roughly 60% of the polls he's not qualified to be president. abc asked it four times. the total variation between 58 and 60% saying no. you don't have this week and you don't have going forward these validating forces in the party

saying yes, he is qualified. is there a cost in simply, you know, the contrast between the way his family and friends have talked about him and the way the elected leaders have talked about him has been a cavernous in this week. is there any implication for that? >> yeah. i agree with sara that the idea of the establishment has not embraced him underwrites his normal appeal. it i'm the guy that is going to blow up the establishment, but all the political calculations being made by all these seasoned politicians have been around a lot of elections, this guy is a loser and this guy is anthrax. that's a poll with consumers. politicians act in their own interest. you can see how they're reacting to trump. i believe the narrative of not ready for prime time is killing donald trump. what might be the biggest story isn't ted cruz making the show boat move and employbut trump s taking the nato alliance as an

suggestion. that could become an enormous issue. if they don't have a speech writer other than the team of xerox -- working on some strong nato language for the speech, even if he has to read it, they're going to be in quick sand on that. that is enormous. that is bigger than jerry ford in poland. it is huge. they've got put it back in the bottle. i think the narrative that donald trump is playing with this whole thing rather than serious about it, and the lack of any policy depth in the campaign, i think it's ultimately going to wipe him out. >> i think it's a missed opportunity. you have a week of infomercials you could have. it's a missed opportunity to make his numbers better. his numbers, his favorable numbers are so bad, and granted, hers are awful, too. it's a race because both numbers are awful. it was an opportunity for his numbers to go up a little bit. i think it's been missed. he can wipe it out if he kills it tonight. people have to realize tonight is what matters more than anything else. the first three nights are missed opportunity. but that could change it. >> tonight, the speech, if

you're a part of the team, what do you say to the candidate, the principles most important? please read -- >> read the speech. >> look, i think there's a lot of people out there that want to vote for donald trump but they're scared to and they want reassurance. i think if he comes and thinks that this is about prosecuting hillary clinton tonight. that's the wrong thing to do. i think christie did a good job. rudy ghoiuliani did a good job. they heard the rhetoric from trump about the new america. people want to know what is that vision about? what is it going to look like and how we're going to get there and get a comfort level that i like this guy, i respected this guy, and i can literally see him as president. he's talking to a lot of moderate republican women. he's talking to a lot of conservatives still. and he's talking to, you know, blue collar, middle income families who feel like they've been left on the economic down field by both parties, and they

want some hope there is going to be an american dream. it's inspirational i think it's better. >> when is trump ever gotten in front of an adoring throng and not talked to the hall not to outside? does anybody think he's going stay on the prompter for the whole speech the whole way? he should. i'll bet money he won't. >> i don't know if there will be a prompter. >> that's another debate. right. >> mike, to your point, if you were -- this is a difficult question -- >> i'm anti-trump. >> i know. what needs to be the take away as he's walking off stage tonight? the trump campaign said that's the thing we have to achieve and we nearly got there. >> in all literature, and politics is another form of story telling, there's a classic art, which as we meet the hero, the hero faces adversary, the hero overcomes it by changing it and growing. this is the first change and grow moment for donald trump.

i think he's incapable. i think he's the atomic clock of one thing. consent it to it. this is a speech he should stay on prompter, should be elegantly written, and doesn't need to be a grievance list. it needs to be what you get from trump and how trump has a vision to do the job not he's mad about mexican rapists and hillary clinton. he can solve the hillary clinton problems for free. they're built in. the question is, what is the trump? most of all, what can he say to dramatically change the point of view minorities to an even more extent college-educated white women them of him. >> i think, also, one thing that, like, mike said he may be incapable of this, but there are a lot of people looking for a reason to vote for him. they do not like her. more importantly, they don't trust her. i think a little humility, a little -- i haven't always lived my life like i was running for president, and i recognize that

makes people uncomfortable. as your leader, you know, i'm going to be an ethical moral person. i wouldn't put it in those terms, exactly. but he should acknowledge that, you know, there are a lot of people who are uncomfortable with him. there's increasing evidence that he's under performing in very red states. and that's not over policy. that's over character and over a lot of christian conservatives, mormons in utah, and other mountain west states who say i can't get over the braggadocios, i can't get over the multiple moral failures in his past life. i can't get past that. he's also to give people a reason to say, okay, he recognizes that that is a problem for him and he's turning the corner and focussed on a they is going to honor and respect the oval office. >> what does trump have to achieve tonight?

>> well, i don't disagree with the premise. i think he needs to project himself in a contrasting way with her. i think he can talk about policy in a way he hasn't to this point. i agree, there are certain elements he has. i don't think he needs to talk about building a wall and everybody screaming who needs to pay for it. i think he needs to project an image of strength on places like foreign policy and show chomps on that that he hasn't to this point. and to be likable. i think we found it out in the primary, he's the most charismatic candidate out of the 17. there was a reason wwe hired him to be part of the show. he walks in the room and dominates the room. he's very charismatic and likable and gregarious. if that can come across in a way that plays through the tv screen that will help. right now the fundamental thing about winning election, somebody is to be likable and more likable than the other person. we haven't had the lessers of the two likable people win since richard nixon. >> let me follow up with that on

ta taking on something each mike alluded to. what is the most meaningful measure of success for fthe wee. if the horse race tightens or the perceptions of trump change on favorability, on qualified to be president. 51% of college whites in the abc washington post poll believe he's biesd against women and minorities. is it more important for him to narrows the race by driving up hillary clinton's negatives or is it going to be a lost opportunity if he can't change the perceptions about him? >> i think perceptions about him. i think the horse race numbers will change a little bit after the week and change again after the democratic national convention and settle in as we get closer to labor day. if his numbers are in the 30s, he's not going to win. right. you can't run -- he has to win florida, north carolina, virginia, ohio and looking at a combination of other difficult

states. i don't think it happens regardless of how bad her numbers are. they're better than his. i think those underlying numbers have to change a bit. >> yeah, horse race numbers are misleading and premature. you only get a couple of big paint brush in a campaign to define who you have. he has to move his numbers. the voters that control the election, the 6 to 7% -- trump, for most of them, is not on their menu now to consider. they're mad at hillary. they go between undecided and hillary. they don't go to trump. trump has to do something about his numbers. ballot comes late when you need it. the numbers of what they perceive about you, they listen to you when you pitch later are everything. that's what he could do at this speech, if he wasn't trump. i keep joking that it's like being charlie manson's fox trot instructor. you think, hey, look at that. he can learn the fox trot and the next thing you know he's y trying to put a pen in your eye

because he's charlie manson. can trump do anything different in the most important speech he's given in his life. >> sara, i want to ask you about how politicians and strategists deal with something they're not expecting. i want to ask you what you think would be going on in hillary clinton's campaign watching this convention, and do you think there will be any rearranging or adapting their convention to play off anything they saw or didn't see this week? >> well, she has the same challenge that donald trump has. she has to improve her favorability numbers. i don't they will adapt. i think, you know, she has to put definition around who he is as a person. remember, her numbers became -- were quite high when she was a senator. during most of her tenure as secretary of state. when she's a candidate they fall to the bottom. people remember the clinton scandals, the difficulty around

all clinton politics. so she's been high before nationally. so it implies to me she can get some of this back move beyond the e-mail scandal. i think you're going to see them really tell the story of hillary clinton humble beginnings, you know, she's a fighter, she's stuck in a very difficult situation personally, and triumphed -- >> but nothing in particular to take advantage of? >> i don't think they need to. i think trump is handing her her biggest political gift of her life this week. she should not win the election with her numbers. if any one of the individuals on the stage,less perhaps, ben carson, we would be having a different conversation about the race. any one of them. >> mike? >> i think hillary -- there's one nugget that is interesting. the evangelical world is

changing and there's a growth and less politically evangelicals. there's dog whistles they can blow. there are character concerns about trump. i think can help them. >> it will be interesting next week. she'll have bill clinton and barack obama speak for her. they'll be phenomenal. they'll be fantastic. they'll tell her story better than she'll be able to tell it herself. they'll be well received and good speeches. maybe better than anything we've seen here. headline speeches. and she'll go thursday night and they'll be like eh. >> contrast between barack obama and bill clinton doing that, on the one hand, and him needing donald trump jr. to do it here. other than chris christie there hasn't been -- >> it's president bush xliii. >> he was not here. >> to mike's point, we could see her spend a little more time on

her opponent than a typical nominee would spend on the acceptance speech. if he doesn't properly kick the nato issue down, not to mention other foreign policy gaffes he's made, you could see her spend a disproportional time on donald trump and his fitness for office. i think the speech she gave in california that defined him was the most effective speech she gave in the cycle. she started to bounce up again after the speech. so, you know, maybe to put a finer point on your question, garrett, she will spend more time on donald trump than perhaps she would. >> their whole convention will be about making sure donald trump fails the cocktail party test. that is where college-educated, moderate, oftentimes republican women cannot go out with their friends and say, yes, i'm voting for donald trump. if you look they can win the counties of california, they can

win in northern virginia. that's thal have to do in some of the polices is to motivate some women that would have voted for romney to now vote for clinton and probably the ball game is over. >> yeah. hillary at her convention will make sure it doesn't happen. >> she's got to make sure she's fine but she's going to make it that donald trump is toxic among that audience. >> yeah. in fact, if you talk to priorities, usa and the segue to the second half our conversation, and thank you, if you talk to priorities usa they will acknowledge their principle goal at this point is exactly that. to have trump fail the cocktail party test with college-educated whites. they will say that by far the most effective ad has been the campaign has been the grace ad of the young parent, the parents of the young woman, the daughter with spine bifida and saying how shocked they were about trump mocking the disabled. when you look at the overall structure of the electorate, mike, what are the biggest hurdles trump has to get over?

>> let me quickly address the convention question. i think the clinton people thought it through but they're looking after this nato thing, you're going to see a lot more national security than you normally do in a democratic convention. there's going to be a retired military flag officers. >> think you'll see skro kroft? >> in the campaign there's an opening on the other side you pore through it. you can see the choir -- >> yeah. i think we'll see more on the white wine attack. that will be a key part. the general election is simple. 30% of the vote will be votes that we republicans don't compete well with. african-americans, latinos, and mixed race. the young voters even larger in that percentage. trump's theory i'm going max out the 70% caucasian vote up to the moon. but bernie sanders and others

are not voting for trump. particularly college educated whooim white women, trump, by his natural style, repeatedly offends. that's why i think you need to see the character of trump grow in this speech or he's going to get boxed in. >> jon, you wrote yesterday "trump's best path to victory." you didn't predict victory but this is the way he he'd have to get it. >> first of all, we have to do a paradigm switch. this is donald trump. we have the fillers. we've been trained to think this is how you win it. you build off what romney started and add places like colorado and virginia or other places where it was close and this stuff. i don't think trump can do well in some of those states. so the margin of error is so small for trump, first of all, you have to win pretty much every state romney won. you almost have to start there or you're already in trouble. that's why we see the democrats

play in places like north carolina now. what trump is picking up is the sons and daughters of reagan democrats who are people who are yes, angry, feel mad at both parties, and like the fact that trump makes mistakes. it means he's authentic and going to change things. he has to give a comfort level to the romney voters. that's where the real challenge of their campaign comes in. >> you have a lot of -- new jersey had a lot of white college educated suburban voters. is donald trump at risk of losing one of them for every son and daughter of a reagan democrat he wins? yes. i mean, i think certainly the message he's put out thus far has made people uncomfortable. it's a great way to describe it. it's a discomfort with him in terms of his rhetoric and messaging. there's a chance to pivot from that. i think some are lost forgood. i don't know forever. you look at the counties around philadelphia. if you lose the four counties

and philadelphia by 400,000 votes. it's over. it doesn't matter what you do in the rest of the state. it doesn't matter. he needs to come back there. i'm not sure how. he had the opportunity to be potentially the most centrist candidate we've had. a moderate republican from new york who said planned parenthood does some good things. he's chosen not to do it. >> i think for him now -- i think the key for donald trump or what i would be looking at if i was on the inside of the trump operation is given where his numbers are, given where mrs. clinton's numbers are, given that neither are likely to change doctramatically in the n month, i might be trying to get gary johnson on the debate stage. i don't believe that donald trump can get to 50% of the vote in the country. he can get to 42 or 43% of the vote, and if there is a movement toward a third party candidate,

albeit a former republican governor, one takes liberal positions on issues, that may be the best path for them to be successful. >> you think trump takes more time away from him on stage? >> it's a great question. if you're twrrying to win, you have to think outside the box. >> bill clinton will tell you 43% works. >> that's right. >> let me talk to you about something i witnessed on the floor. i was in the ohio delegation and the pennsylvania delegation was right in front. these are two swing strait s s these are two swing straittates. we have an intimate story playing out about ohio. the pennsylvania delegations were going up-and-down like piston rods. applauding. applauding. everyone in the ohio delegation looked like their seats were equipped with seat belts. dead flat when pence talked about his mom they applauded. his marine son, they applauded. other than they were not there. i watched the dynamic between kasich and trump effect what

we're talking about in a swing state in the general election? >> i think it matters. it matters 0. on that front i would say all the pennsylvania delegates are trump people. i talked to pennsylvania people who have come to every convention for the last half dozen conventions. they don't know any of the delegates. kasich won ohio. the kasich people and they're playing it out. in a state like ohio where you're going to be -- it's going to be close -- >> aand the appeals will be the same. >> certainly having a back and forth in a negative way with a poplar incumbent governor of a state you need. the kasich team was not entirely help to feel romney. it didn't bubble over like this but they were not in sync with the romney organization. to have it bubble over is a mistake. just like everything we talked about. the fact we're talking about it problematic. not being the sore winner is an important things. in politics it's your job to unite the party. it wouldn't matter in another state. in ohio if you're going win it's

by one point. >> if he doesn't win ohio he's done. >> i agree but i think that narrative has more to do with the cocktail party, you know, he's being bad to kasich. a little dirty secret of the business is our entire republican primary election system is designed to make sure the delegates are not a very good microcausam of the voters in those states of the general election. so, you know, there's a little bit of a card trick with that. but the narrative media picks up the ohio delegates are offended does have resonance in kind of the cocktail party factor. >> let's talk about the path. we talked about the electoral college. we try to put in a little mur structure terms. we have two groups of swing states, essentially. a rust belt swing states, ohio, iowa, michigan, pennsylvania, wisconsin, new hampshire. they're predominantly white and heavily blue collar. we have the sun belt for the swing states which yused to be

more republican but become purple. virginia, north carolina, florida, and the southeast and colorado and the nevada in the southwest. today trump is polling better, not surprisingly, in that rust belt set of swing states. when nbc did the swing states they had almost the same results. how would you assess his standings in each of those? can he win the white house by running through the rust belt if he can't compete in the more diverse, younger, more college white sun belt? >> i don't believe he can. we haven't won -- many of the states you mentioned, we haven't won since 1988. i don't believe we have a candidate who is right now in the 30s and favorable ratings. as much as he does have an ability and there are issues around trade from the policy point of view, clearly some democrats are uncomfortable, as bernie sanders success in michigan showed.

i don't believe we can lose states like florida and north carolina and somehow turn around states we haven't won since the '80s. it's been a long time. we've come close. president bush xliii lost pennsylvania by two points. we have come close but we haven't won. i don't think we're going to shift them all at one time. >> short of a third party candidacy. the thing -- the way your scenario plays out is you look at the millennial's and they're now larger than the baby boomers, and they are predominantly in those cities and on the coasts and not in the rust belt so, you know, there's most distrustful institutions. the least partisan, they don't like either party, and they're more likely to go support a third party candidate. so that would be the only way, in any view, that could play it. >> the biggest potential national thing, i think, that could happen is a change in the

turn out model. we've had successive record turn outs since september 11th. first september 11th president bush was going on the air and president obama inspired people to vote. the numbers in both candidates, especially her numbers, could keep some democrat numbers down in a way that don't get picked up in the polling. for the first time this millennium, we're going to see turn out go down from one presidential election to the next. that could have a way of changing things across the board. >> there's a myth about mid western swing states. wisconsin has been a republican dream for a long time. occasionally we get lucky with a governor or senator. in presidential elections it's been tough. in the home state of michigan it's a long time. part of the myth there's a big blue collar, white, archie bunker that trump is going to resonate with. you look at the auto industry now, it's smaller, and the manufacturing is more high-tech. so the kind of michigan stereo type of those reagan democrats

those numbers have slunk. even if you super perform there are more pharmaceutical research scientists in an arbor than machinists working for the tank plant, which actually closed. >> yeah. >> i think we got to keep something in mind. donald trump won the nomination. he kicked everybody's butts. these were very qualified, well-funded people. to me that signals there's something going on out there. if he can turn it, actually, into a movement. he didn't win by hypnosis. people turned out and voted. as mike said he won all 67 counties in pennsylvania. so if he can catch some fire here where there's enough people who are frustrated, angered, we could see a turn out that is just completely different than we've seen before. there could be a closet vote for

trump that is the going to show up on polls. the only way he's going to win is have a map that looks different. i personally believe without winning ohio, for sure, probably pennsylvania, and then probably florida. i think winning all of those western states is too big of a lift. and, frankly, if he is struggling with the red states like arizona and others, he's done anyhow, that means he's going to be struggling with the same type of voters in ohio and pennsylvania. >> i don't -- the problem with the primary now, i agree, he broke the mold with under 50% of the vote but in a multiwin election is every year the republican primary electorate becomes more different than the general election electorate. it's 28 million cranky old white guys like mike murphy. not 128 people like millennial's. so trump has to grow a little beyond his super power from the primary. >> presidential elections occurred an atmosphere, a collective mind set, sometimes. and outside events can shape

what that collective mind set is and create a surprising result. is there anything, lets say, on the issue of terrorism or security -- a great number of attacks or frequency. it's been a horrible month of june. is there anything you think could affect the collective mind set of the country that is an external event e that could change the evaluations of the limitations that trump faces in this election? >> i'll take a quick crack. i was at a dinner i showed up late and i was next to this distinguished elder gentleman with a strange foreign accent saying what is a paris-style attack eight days before the election in atlanta and chicago, illinois kills 100 americans. couldn't that be the big -- maybe. you never know. you know, you can't predict that thing. maybe they want steady. maybe they want, you know, beat the hell out of them. that's trump. but, you know, i think that's kind of a premature -- when i got done laughing. the guy was the head of the -- i'm not going to chicago or atlanta. you don't know.

>> i think, you know, if you think about presidential campaigns here to now they've been decided on attributes. typically ultimately a person voters seem to care the most about them and people like them. but strong leader over the course of presidential campaign history has also been a very strong -- it's one that donald trump is winning now. you take that and you couple it with some interesting ways pollsters are now asking questions, which is, you know, in terms of these attributes, do you find in issues do you find this person, you know, acceptable, you know, is donald trump acceptable? is hillary clinton acceptable? is neither acceptable? there's a large group of voters pushing 30% in most cases that say neither one of these candidates, you know, is qualified to serve as the president, is trust worthy on these issues.

pick it. there's a huge block of them. a lot of them aren't going to show up. but some of them are. they don't like either and think neither are qualified but they're going to vote for somebody. the ones that show up, and in your scenario, i think they run to the strong leader. >> and, jon, to refine the question. you brought the cocktail party litmus test up. the security and concern crack through? >> i think it does. i think it probably favors trump in this way. i think that a lot of voters he's talking to feels like america is getting sand kicked in their face for the last eight years. i think they're tired of it. i think they think we've lost respect. i want to go back to something mike murphy said. if there was one peter of advice or criticism i have with the trump campaign, i'm not sure they figured that out yet. >> yeah, it feels like the primary is still going on in the convention now. >> yeah.

>> with all the messaging. >> it's worth noting in the primary trump won almost half of noncollege republicans. even in the p lths bring in the audience for questions. major and i will take it back for final thoughts. if you have a question, raise your hand. one in the back over here, if we can get to them. there we go. identify yourself, please. >> daniel freeman from the uk. i'm from the uk. obviously, the brexit vote threw the establishment quite dramatically. is it a real protest that is happening in america that people are really looking at the establishment and saying they don't want the same old same old? >> i think we're going to find that out. certainly, the republican primary voters are spoken. nothing that donald trump said that was offensive or outside

the norm sub planted the major fact he was the only one that wasn't a politician. they wanted to throw him out. you know, interesting about brexit, i spoke to pollsters that worked on the race there who had said, you know, one of the things they found were people who hadn't voted in decades voted. so the vote wasn't part of the polling, but they looked at. that's part of what was missed the influx of new voters. i don't know we're going to see that this time. it's one thing that is out there as a factor. >> i have one point. one key difference is the electorate in britain was 90% white. if you look at the share of white voters in britain, that voted to leave, according to the lord ashcroft's polling. it was 53%. 53% responded to the message. if donald trump wins 53% of whites in the u.s. he'll lose by a landslide. if you look at the maps of who voted to remain from london going down, i guess, to the south. kind of a white collar -- that

is exactly -- that's northern virginia, the suburbs of denver, the suburbs of philadelphia. that's the challenge. i think it's the same challenge. probably the same coalitions, just they exist in different proportions in the u.s. than in the uk, which is, you know, a much more -- >> yeah. we're more structurally locked in vote. there's the same hunger to punish the establishment. it's what we call a wrong track election. people want new. that's why you hear the trump campaign finely and inappropriately talk about change. it's not as clean. we don't have to deal with the french on a daily basis. >> there you go. [ inaudible question ] >> we've heard it from a few strategists talking about the videos played. some folks said there hasn't been the traditional bio videos that get the crowd pumped up and folks at home get to see. we saw a few of those last night. i was wondering for you can

weigh in. it's supposed to be ma made-for-television convention. are you surprised there hasn't been better videos seen at the convention? >> i don't think the infrastructure exists don't thi infrastructure exists in this operation to think about those -- that takes a long time to put something like that together. and it requires usually a team of very talented people. they're -- they're still -- they're catching their breath every single day. they're still sprinting from the primary. i think that was not intentional, it's just they never got around to it, i suspect. you'll see a lot of that at the democratic convention. they're going to have the most beautiful produced ten-minute in infomercial on hillary clinton's life. >> in a national, a general election campaign, it is an e

mo -- enormous business. your job is just run that phone bank. don't worry about anything else. right now, they're spread too thin. >> i'd even say this. i've done a lot of those videos and i thought sometimes they were brilliant and they meant nothing. there's only a few events -- >> that's a pretty big statement from an ad guy. >> i think your videos are great. >> nobody's talking about those the next morning and that's what this all comes down to. >> let me echo that as another ad guy, i agree. there was an opportunity to do more digital streaming. i would have had a gopro came backstage. >> what could go wrong? >> there could have been more --

we're in a culturture now of unfiltered reality media. i think they could have fed that more. my guess is the dems will and be good at it. >> david paul, huffington post. i was curious watching the trump boy's speeches. the second one was the speech that actually reflected what his father said. if given by his father as his acceptance speech i think would take him a long way towards changing the shift of people who might consider voting for him. there's an odd aspect reflected in the notion that if there's a terrorist attack, people flock to strength. he has said so many things from paying down the national debt in eight years to rebuilding the space program, to everything else that's come along the way, the best schools, the best infrastructure and all of this, yet there is never a question of how is this more than just

words. because bernie sanders proposes a $57 billion entitlement and everybody wants to know how he's going to pay for it. the total cost of what trump has proposed is probably in the range of $40 trillion. >> are at least kind of questions he might face in the debate? >> i think so. people flock to strength, but they also run from fear as barry goldwater would tell you. the clinton campaign will spend lot of time turning trump's strength into risk. whether they succeed or not will be a huge driver. >> those questions are out there, they're real. voters -- sometimes we don't give voters enough credit. voters are pretty smart and pay attention to this. there's just so many other questions. one thing about trump, he throws a lot of chum in the water. reporters probably writing his

speechers, then it changes foyer or five times throughout. i think there's so much out there and i think that's intentional by them as well. >> let's do one more and take it back for final question each. >> my name's colin. i'm a student at the university of akron. i want to hit the fast forward button real quick and move to 2020. >> ted cruz. >> why not? >> say hillary wins with 95% of the african-american vote and over 75% of the hispanic vote, what does the gop do to kind of recognize these trends and adapt their platform and their kind of game plan moving forward? what can they do? >> in my opinion, it's up to our elected leaders. you can't fix these during campaigns. you fix this when governors and senators and mayors go into african-american communities, go into hispanic communities and

see if they can get 15% of the vote next time. people don't vote for the party, they vote for individuals. until we have individuals that try to win in those areas, we will lose nationally. and the primary system, by the way, as mike said before, caters to a different group. we have to have people who can come through the primary system and have done it. but it has to be individuals. >> our incentives in the party are to do the exact wrong thing in demography. because it's very hard to get a party to act in a long-term right interest when the short-term incentives are to do the opposite. i'm for super delegates. i want less primaries, more smart people picking the damn nominees so we win. and then for super delegates, i think we could very well had the ultimate political science experiment this year. bernie sanders versus donald

trump. and second, i fear that when it came down to just cruz, and i'm not a cruz fan. i was for cruz. i wanted to have the cruz science experiment as nominee rather than trump. now what we could very well have is we can argue the trump case, if we lose, we might wind up, though -- i'm less certain of this -- arguing the cruz argument again. >> in closed primaries in 2020. >> parties tend to close in which is exactly the opposite. you want to know about a party, look at the organic media that the primary voters gravitate to. with the democrats it's inner web. with us, it's am radio which isn't going to be around in five years. we've got to break that cycle. >> that sets up the final question i wanted to ask which is, you know, you talked about the possibility that trump -- he could get a surge of new voters.

he could max out on white voters. given the underlying demography in the party, is his path a long term one and is it a greater risk if he loses or if he wins and tries to implement the agenda that he ran on. what would you worry about more for the long term and the future of the party? >> it's a great question. i think it's one many republicans are struggling with. on the one hand, he is our nominee and we don't want hillary clinton. if you believe it's a binary choice, that means you need to support donald trump. on the other hand, as you point out, what's worse? do you go in for the minor medical procedure right now and suffer a week of discomfort or do you let the cancer grow for 25 years. i think that is the choice most republicans face. unless he dramatically changes the trajectory of his commentary

and the way he's run his campaign. >> my bigger fear is the brand of the republican party is that we follow the same model we used to. we assume 18 to 21-year-olds pretty much aren't going to show up and vote. all that is changed because of the way news is distributed. by the time they're 16, they're actually relatively political li lisavy. by the time they're 18, their brand is set of who we are, who we aren't. if we're going to grow as a party, we better start thinking about how we're going to talk to younger voters. >> we take terrible lessons from off year elections. look at wisconsin, we got a senator, a governor, both houses of legislature, and then that's not going to happen in the general election in a presidential year. we take bad lessons from those and pat ourselves on the back too much for those. we have to change as a party

long-term. >> the rnc chairman has said this party is well organized to win off year elections, poorly organized to win elections. it's up to republican leaders to deal with the smoldering ruins, how many will be left. >> i think we're -- i think there's a really good chance of losing the senate no matter who the nominee was. we won this senate in 2010 essentially. those are difficult at best no matter who the republican nominee is at presidential year. we'll have a lot of governors left. it will be okay. we have to look forward to the next generation. >> i'm for trump -- i think trump's going to lose and i'm okay with that. smoldering ruins, then we build a new competitive republican modern party that we've needed for a decade. >> how many are left to do that? >> the best thing and the worst thing that happened to the toyota motor factories was world

war ii. that may be where we are. to your down ballot question, i agree. one thing that's kind of interesting. we got vulnerable guys in democratic seats in the presidential year. that is as bad as it can get. but trump is such an outlier. they've got a little more moving room. i'm involved in an ie in illinois where mark kirk's got a very tough race. he's doing okay right now. >> portman here in ohio. >> they're all tough races. if you look at history, they're supposed to lose, but they're showing a little more life. the fact that they're allowed to be distant from trump -- >> i said reasons take bad lessons from off year elections. democrats take bad lessons f