there to put it on the front page of people were not logging in or tuning in to see it, so @ u@ @ @ @ this is where we have come right now. >> there are two a separate issues. they have to be separated. one is the way that that technology has enabled for resources and our nation than we have ever had before. consumers have more choices than they have ever had. if they want to watch a 30- minute video or in an hour-long video, and they don't have to be sitting there at 7:00 at night, it is easier to do that than

ever before. . >> every bit of it online. >> i like to think we do fairly sophisticated stuff. we now have 20 million visitors. that is three times what we haven't three years ago -- what we had three years ago. greed information is out there. there are more sources of it, -- great information is out there. there are more sources of it. at the end of today, you have to believe consumer choice is a good thing, even if you do not particularly liked the way some consumers are exercising their choices. >> there would seem to be a couple things we are worrying couple things we are worrying about. isn't there sometimes a mistake made that people have a tendency to look at media as separate entities, newspapers or television or your ipod or on- line one really there is a seamless -- it is all one, but i do not think everything else understands that.

>> our businesses to try to get and keep your attention. that is what we get rewarded for. some of us are buffered with a lower salary and stuff like that. it is fair. if you are going to get an audience, and you're going to use television and income -- an increasingly popular medium because fewer people read -- >> they read the internet. >> that is fair. they do not read books as much. they read shorter thanes. -- shorter things. if you are going to tv, and tv is what you're dealing with, had

you get somebody's attention when you are trying to keep them watching when you have hundreds of different options and they can go get a beer? people have learned the techniques of work on the brain, and one of them is when something moves in the frame, we are program from the evolution to think maybe it as a creditor. i hate to be overly simplistic, but there's plenty of hypothesizing that is what is going on. that is why we think this stuff keeps moving. it is all happening, and there are other techniques. when you talk about making ice cream into broccoli, yes kerrigan anybody working in the news hour should constantly be thinking about how do you keep

it interesting. now that as with any communicator does. in some form, they always have. >> it is the same thing as selling a new product common and and what happened was for the longest time there was no real competition for that product. five we were like auto companies. there is a tremendous benefit to keeping people's attention, and you can keep their attention with techniques that have nothing to do with teaching them about the world. that is a classic, age-old struggle, but it is one that might be increased by the nature of our ability to manipulate mines for regan >> i did not think anyone would take -- to manipulate mines. >> i did not think anyone would take you seriously. >> i have a question. in the old days there were guys to produce information and

consumers and the gatekeepers. i am exaggerating a bit, but what is happening now, for example, for you -- you have competition, not just with lots of people producing it, but you also have things in your sphere. what does that do to you if for example, simon johnson were to start hosting a show? what would you do? what does the do to you? do you feel threatened? is it good for you or bad for you? how do you respond? >> you are absolutely right. for years and years i have written about the glories of markets and the benefits of competition, but i always

assumed i would be exempted from the benefits of market, and all of a sudden, they have come flooding through, and i have to say, i do not like it. i wish all the economists would unplug their computers, but unfortunately, this is not going to happen, and there are two defects, i think. -- two effects, i say. one is that rewards to journalists are going to go down, because there are a lot of people reaching the stars and people who can say, i draw this kind of audience will be well rewarded, perhaps better than they used to be, but the run-of- the-mill people are basically competing with lots of folks who are offering their opinions,

either for free or at a reduced rate, and a reduced rate meaning somebody else is going to be paying their mortgages send food bills or whatever, and the economic award they are getting -- most is psychological. that is one of fact. the second effect is -- and i agree with alan. it is unfortunate in some ways for people like me, but with all the competition, i would say it improves probably the average product and put pressure on people like me to make our stuff relative region relevant -- hours of relevance so we can survive in this competitive marketplace, but it is also going to produce an awful lot more diversity, and that is to say you are going to have a lot more in junk, and you have more

high quality stuff, and in general, it is a good result, but i would prefer to go back to the bad old days. >> this gets to your second point, which we have not talked about, which is what this is doing to the economic market. it had to do with what technology is doing to the economic model. as a consumer, being able to read paul krugman or simon johnson or having those voices of people who want to analyze things or study what they are thinking or willing to do it free on the side to keep auriana huffington happy is a good thing, but a lot of us really think it is important for society that there be people out there who are paid to find out the facts, who are not doing this on the side, who are not being paid to do something else than to do this to build their

names, but are paid to go out and do the hard reporting it takes to find out what is really going on, and that is going to be the challenge for the next 10 years, coming up with business models that enable organizations to support a large group of reporters. >> isn't part of the problem that most people do not understand or certainly do not celebrate journalism. now they are one. just about everyone decides he can become a journalist, and journalism itself is dying. i mean the person -- your mother says she loves you. check it out. that seems to be dying. >> there are lots of good journalists out there eager to work if somebody can. >> as opposed to somebody who

presents himself as a journalist who is really an advocate. >> that is the question about simon johnson. how many people know who simon johnson is? simon johnson is the former chief economist for the imf. in all the years i have interviewed economists, and that is 32 now -- these things are quickest, with most insightful i have ever interviewed, so to answer the question, how would i feel about simon having his own show -- i would be jealous. i would figure i would be on the show, so i would not worry that much, but what you were saying, i would be concerned that simon, who has a point of view, a point i often agree with, but if simon

has a show, financial daytime tv, let's say, which is the kind he can absolutely do, it would take viewers away from me if he was doing some of his explanations, and i am forced to work in an organization where it is real on the one hand -- on the other hand, check out your mother's claims. i would feel the world might well be a better place for having simon in it as well, to the extent i thought even-handed journalism -- viewers were being taken away from that to him. i might have misgivings. >> the news has become, the thais, and what you're buying

-- not modified, and what you're buying into is an individual brand more and more these years, so that is what my impression is of the network's decision to bring in a name like two of them that have been bandied around here is because people have an idea of what they are going to get when they tune in, and i think there's a premium put on quality of that information being delivered, but that is different. people do want to hear opinions, a few points, and what's not, but the journalism we're talking about being in danger does require a tremendous amount of investment, and that is what is in danger. i do not mean to say there is not true value o, because they'e

giving you an interesting viewpoint, and those are the same people a journalist can call and say, what do you think about this? >> now they get their own shows, and it is cheaper in the long run than investing in reporters. >> i want to follow up on some of the report -- some of the points being made about the language having to do with fact. we have talked about consuming ice cream rather than broccoli. my question has to do with the difference between fact and opinion. one of the things we know when we go to the grocery store is witkin with a label and see how much protein and calories -- we can look at the label and see how much protein and calories are in it. no longer is there is clear a separation between fact and opinion -- i can look at how the stocks did or how a team did, and that is not very arbitrary, but if i picked up "the new york times" or "the wall street journal," i know there is a

selection because there's too much to cover, but at what point in time is the responsibility on the part of media to explicitly acknowledge or try to keep editorials on the editorial page of separate editorializing from the reporting of the news? i wonder whether you think these things have been increasingly merged or have increasingly come together as a result of competition for viewers and advertising. >> isn't part of the problem that reporters should not be a, size. -- there is also context, which is part of our job. it is the selection of what goes into that that is going to offend somebody who would like to see a different conclusion. to see a different conclusion. >> -- of the thing that you were talking about is a curious byproduct of 20th-century

america. i happen to believe in that. i happen to believe it was a good buy products. -- byproduct. things now do seem to be heading in the other direction. i just came back from two days in london. i think it is a good separation. i think it is something that should be maintained. there is the problem that marquardt talked about, which is that technology does make facts easily duplicable. yes, someone has to spend the shoe leather to go out and find the facts, once they do, it is easy for everybody else to get onto it. , being carl krugman, tends to be an important way you

get your readers to identify, because they can get the basic facts from 1000 different places. >> you get more of a reaction. if you looked comments on blogs, not necessarily the blogs themselves, but the comments, a tremendous amount at this point -- it is a tremendous amount of decoration, posturing, and i know it from my own question and answer sites. i get few comments -- i am just trying to enter other people's questions. i have people helping me do it. i get linked in by a woman named nagin who goes under the student name jane, so a libertarian lager, -- blogger.

some of them are intelligent. it was a different purpose than what i was trying to do on this website, and i think it just shows that of course it is easier to cop an attitude and get response to that attitude, and that tends to be self- fulfilling to the extent that you go to consumers highways. -- consumer's choice. >> i now work for rupert murdoch, and a lot of people think rupert murdoch is the guy -- he created fox news, and it had a media logical attack on cnn, and there was a great deal of fear at the time he took

over "the wall street journal" that he might use it to compete with "the new york times" the same way he used fox to compete with cnn. you could not do anything to drag the editorial page further to the right than it already is. a lot of us were worried about that, and it has not happened. why hasn't it happened? it has not happened because rupert is a smart business person, and our audience appreciates the fact that in the news pages -- sure, we provide analysis and try to put things in perspective, but we know -- they know we'll police attempt -- it is not that we do not have biases and that they did not creep into the reporting, but they know we are trying to go out and find out what really happened and tell them what happened, and our audience appreciates that, in part because they are in business, and when you're putting money

down on the line, you cannot afford a vice when you want good information. what does that tell you? that tells me at the end of today the kind of journalism you are talking about will survive if people wanted to survive. if there is an audience for that kind of journalism, that will survive. >> that is the big if. will people wanted to survive if they can get their newset ainment if it seems to contribute to a national hysteria that makes honest consideration of issues more difficult. >> look to you are talking about. when you talk about the pbs news hour -- bloomberg is certainly. i go to bloomberg regularly for my news. that is the first place. >all i am saying is this is

appealing to -- we should just the knowledge it is appealing to very narrow stratum of the american public, and when you keep talking about is the general level of discourse as opposed to the discourse taking place here tonight, for example. but the general level of discourse is what matters here. every individual has a vote, and most individuals do not pay the kind of attention they should. >> my theory is in terms of what we're talking about with frustration and mixture of opinion, we are always getting some sort of opinion. how many times have you heard walter cronkite cited for saying how wonderful it is to take a stand. you are always giving something. you always know where to stand and what to get your information. now it is hard to decide who is credible and who is not.

people are responding to personal brands if not network once, because they want to know what they are going to get. maybe it is picking their same opinion and someone who thinks like them, or maybe it is, but i think it is going to lead to a multimedia model where it is may be scratching the surface to complement where you get more of the information flowing through more or more. i think there is going to have to be that kind of consolidation if there is going to be a media -- a viable media model, because we're all fighting for a slice of the media prior -- media pie. >> it has been very interesting to listen to the panel discussed increase in media outlets over time.

the expansion of financial reporting, depending on your medium, the number of reporters themselves who are engaged in analyzing and reporting on financial issues. my question -- but you have also mentioned the amount of coverage given to a television financial story may be no more than one minute and 15 or 20 seconds. my question is this. what is your perception, given this expansion of media outlets, the increase in reporting -- what is your perception of public comprehension of the financial system in the country? did they simply read your headlines, watch your lead story, and then turn somewhere else? is that the basis of your understanding, or is it your perception that they do not understand because it has not been explained to the media to

which they turn for news to distinguish between debt and deficit or how budgets are adopted at the federal level. i would be interested in your perception of however you would put the news, how you think the public except sit and comprehend it. >> my view is -- i do not mean this as disrespectful. most civil do not know much about anything, and there is a good reason for that. it is because there is too much to know, and i am always surprised but should not be any more, when i got and talk to people who are very bright, who are very engaged, and who are very interested and knowing what's significant is going on, how little they know about the subjects i would talk about every day, and i think the reason for that is that unless you are personally engaged in many of these issues or

subjects, it is almost impossible to know what you might want to know, and the kind of people i am talking about our doctors, lawyers, government officials, and faith -- in state and local governments. people have their lives to leave. they cannot pretend they are in graduate school and every day they are going to spend three or four hours going through the stuff they ought to go through so they can remain informed about the major issues of our time, so i do not blame people. i agree with i think everyone here that there is more information available, and easily accessible than ever before, that people who want this information can, but it is very difficult to assemble -- assemble the stuff, and i will give you an example now with this health care bill. my brother, who is not a

journalist and who does not live in washington, is much more perceptive of these things than i am. he said, it is your impression no one understands what is in this bill, and i said, that is basically the truth. i am learning new things about what is in these bills every day, and i am certain even the people who are dealing with it seven days a week, 24 hours a day, do not know everything that is in these bills, and this is just the kind of microcosm of the difficulty of staying up with stings. it is we do with things. it is not what i cover, but i am reading most of what i can find about afghanistan, and i am completely confused about what we should do in afghanistan. i think the case on both sides is compelling, and i am sure also that there really do not have the foggiest notion of what is going on in afghanistan.

there's a limit for what people can know, and i see -- i think we have only 365 days in the year, and the internet has not changed that. >> the world has become much more complex. it is a much more complicated place. we are talking about the financial crisis, so at this conference we did, alistair darling said during the interview that after lehman brothers and the crisis in september, he was talking to a very senior, well-respected london banker, and he said, have things changed at your institution? oh, yes, things have changed a lot. one thing we have made a firm policy that we are not going to buy any security we do not understand. wait a minute. what did you do before? these are very complicated. it is a much more complicated

world, and even people that are in the middle of it do not understand. >> i have a really tough question about journalism. what is the use? you talk about the futility of journalism, but we cannot really explain what is going on. is that what you're saying? >> in my side of the business back in the late 1960's, i have a model in my mind that if we bring the right facts to bear that the system is ultimately rational. it may not be rational day-to- day and week to week, but if you bring the right facts to a situation, a policy will go in the right direction. if you persuade people this is an educational process, i did not believe this anymore. what i believe is when people have made up their minds about something, it is almost

impossible to change their minds. it is not that their minds cannot be changed, but they cannot be changed by facts and evidence. they have to be changed by experience. before world war ii americans were avid isolationists, so we fought the second world war, and in half a century, people thought what we had done between the wars was not a good idea. that was not because franklin roosevelt convince them isolationism was bad. it was because they could see the policy was an abject failure. i think people who have not made up their minds about something, the debate can change, so what is the virtue of a free press. the virtue is that democracy is a very messy system, and the free press is a part of that system, and the system would be worse off if we did not contribute to it, but it is very

difficult to say that we have made things better in a very specific way, and to the question about bias earlier, the problem with bias in my view is not that there is more of it, because there obviously is in the blogs and whatever, but most of that is harmless in the following sense. people know this is bias. nobody pretends that they are moderates, so most of the biases of front. it is like going to the grocery store and buying something with sugar or not. you can read it. there -- when people read it, it is the unconscious bias in what

we decide. it is those unconscious biases that would pass on to our viewers. those are the most dangerous. my view of the danger of the beliefs is that the splintering process is steadily driving -- supplely -- solely --subtlely driving this. common-sense suggests that when your audience becomes of a particular political type, you start a new news for that audience. -- a news -- a mean -- aiming

news toward that audience. i think that the journal has resisted that very well. i am not sure that some of the other great organizations have resisted it as well. i think that as the main reason. -- reading of our political and some things, but before being political, they're engaged in business every day, and they want information they can trust. >> if he quits, sarah palancin s a whole editorial page. if we quit, we leave the field to lou dobbs and jim cramer, so it would seem in the sense of posture you would want to surround and not ask questions like that, -- want us around and

not ask questions like that. and i think of the point as being a point of trying to educate and not just educate people who happen to watch the show. i never thought i would be talking to more people than would be talking to me, so it seems like an incredible privilege to have the small an audience, but beyond that, i think seriously my main issue is to get the pieces and excerpts from the pieces we do into the hands of high school teachers who have to teach all of americans and who have been facing a tremendous problem, which is economic, a topic most people shrink from because of

the numbers. i know it is happening. >> the scary thing about your audience and my audience -- 1.2 million is a good audience. i was doing washington week in review when they canceled the sponsorship because they said this audience was too old. when you're too old for then arp you know you have a problem. >> i do know what is happening. we do not have an account, but i've spoken to groups, and teachers are desperate because students are not reading the books anymore or not as much, so there is lots of video in the classroom, and if you have video, a little bit of broccoli, a little bit of ice cream, a little bit of stuff moving on the screen and try to explain it, i think that is the point. >> when somebody was making the point this was too big to

comprehend, it is our job to try to take out the points that are most important and make them comprehensible, something people can understand. >> i should add, i think there is a good chance to pursue the truth. that by itself is an important value, and i am sure i am not getting at it, but i am working for it, and that is what i try to do, and make it accessible to people in a format which is digestible. what i was trying to suggest is that by itself is not necessarily going to lead into the garden of eden. >> that is the important point, the people do not always make rational use of this information. i was talking about the credit defaults swaps and stuff like that, but even the people buying it did not understand, but there

was a lot going over the last three years that was easy to understand and i think a lot of people did understand. how many people did not scratched their head a little bit when they heard mortgage companies were making loans -- 100% loans, no money down, and you do not have to prove you have a job or an income, and we will qualify you based on the first year's payment, even though in two years the payment is going to double. everyone knew that was going on, and they chose not to react to it, not because they did not know it, but because it was in their interests. when you have moments of national mania like the one we went through for a couple of years, and we did it again during the internet -- a think it is too simplistic to say it is because people do not know what is going on. i think people knew what was going on in many cases and found

it in their interest to keep it going. >> i think financial journalism has shown its relevance in the last year-and-a-half, because all of a sudden there's a tremendous hunger for it. i think there are questions to be raised for how the coverage was, the quality of it, was the work done -- there is a fair amount of criticism that has already been leveled, but that is why -- i struggled with this question myself. did financial journalism, did everyone really do their job? then you go back and read the journal and elsewhere, and you find a fair amount of people who did great pieces that did not draw in any kind of attention at the time, because people do not want to hear a negative story. they just want to hear, there

is an amazing merger in china. although growth is great, but people do not want to hear warnings. >> we were hearing this question, is a doll becoming opinion? people who criticize this -- is it all becoming opinion? people who criticize the stories did not say, this is an outrage. that is not our job. it is your job to figure out if it is susceptible. >> i did a story in 2006 were two people are talking about whether there is going to be housing crisis or not. the guy has now become famous as the great doomsayer. i was denounced in one place for having tried to cause housing prices. it was clear that the presenter favor the opposition of

-- that is the final form of the bill as it came through. right now, we have the financial service regulation bill that is going through. have you read the bill, yet? >> i take that step. >> if he hasn't read it, who in the hell of america has read it? >> i think that the answers are going to have a group of people out there who really want impartial, good reported, a fact check information and to get it, they may have to pay for it and supported in some way -- support it in someone. you have groups that are trying to do it in a nonprofit way. i think that is the big question that is going to be solved.

a -- how do we find people who care enough about it to pay for it and then how do we have a hybrid model that allows some of the benefits of that to also spread out to a broader public. that is what we are bristling with right now.

>> tomorrow, on "washington journal," latest terrorist attempt on a northwest airlines flight with jenna mcneill. also, dr. anthony found she -- anthony fauci gives us an update on the h1n1 flu virus. following that, and ronald neumann and william island, at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c- span. >> tomorrow, american univ. it holds their campaign management institute. you will hear democratic strategist discuss how to target voters.

that is 10:15 a.m. eastern on c- span2. c-span thursday, a look back at world leaders including the dalai lama, ted kennedy, ronald reagan, walter cronkite, colin powell and robert byrd. then i looked at what is ahead. vladimir putin discusses his future on a call-in program. the creator of the subway and the co-founder of "guitar hero" on innovation and entrepreneurship. >> now, a senate hearing. they testified about the panel's findings. according to the panel, nasa will need an additional $3 billion a year to achieve its human spaceflight goals. this is almost two hours a.

>> good afternoon. this is an exceptionally important topic. i think that buzzer may tell us that a vote is starting. no, it is not. it is a quorum call. hollywood. we really want to peel back the onion and get into a lot of the specifics of the extraordinary work that you have done.

thank you for this unpaid service, this enormous public service that you have rendered. we are looking to hearing from you. i want to thank the ranking member of the full committee, senator hutchison, for coming. i want to turn to her for her opening comments. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> you have come through for our country one more time. of the rising above the gathering storm report has been the bible for those of us that want to promote science education, mass, engineers to graduate from colleges. we thank you for that. now, you have done a great study about the future of nasa and space exploration. i just want to commend you. it was centered to nelson and

myself who have the space station designated as a national laboratory and we did that because we saw so many funding shortages and we knew that if we had designated in that way, others could do research. universities, federal agencies, corporations, and, in fact, that is beginning to happen. we are just on the cusp of realizing the capabilities of these abilities of the united states space station. now we are talking about shutting down the shuttles and not being able to fully equipped the space station. i commend you for the report and we must utilize this in order to

have the investment pay off that we have made in this space station. we also pointed out that without that increase, that we are facing some great shortages, not only in being able to use the space station correctly and allowing it to reach its full potential, but also the gap in our ability to put humans in space for the space station, but for our national security. it will definitely happen unless we are able to put the money in. i can speak for myself when i say that i am hoping that we will be able to extend the shuttle to narrow that gap.

i think you for the great effort that you have put in. i thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing and also for your complete commitment to nassau and space exploration. without your commitment and the vigor that you have shown, congress would have lagged behind in making sure that we are doing what we need to do to stay in the forefront. i think you for calling the hearing. i thank you mr. augustine for leading the panel. >> as you give us this report, i think it is going to become increasingly apparent that the moment of truth for the future

of nasa's human spaceflight is here. as you and others will point out, there is only one person that can lead the spacelab program and that is the president. the work that your panel has done is in preparation of the president making a decision. k would like to leave it. i would like to leave the space program, but a senator cannot do it. charlie cannot leave it. the human space flight -- spaceflight program can only be led by the elected leader of this country because he sets the priorities. so, as a result of what you have said, if he is going to be wanting to increase and

continue human adventure into the cosmos, he is going to have to pony up in his office of the management and budget. it has been stated over and over in the last decade that nasa was not getting enough money to get everything it was asked to do. that is apparent now that we're about to complete the space station and we do not have the next rocket ready. it is only so if we're going to have a program, is one to have to be the president. he is going to have to put the juice to the program. the second plane is that the president is going to have to articulate to the country the

vision of why it is important for us to go beyond low earth orbit. a subject to your panel has broached but only the president can articulate. a majority of americans do not even remember when we landed on the moon and what an extraordinary accomplishment that was. . .

cccccccccccccccc cccccccccccccccw cccccccccccccccc q ñññññññññ ññññññññññññññññ

. primary campaign and we'll talk

the importance of polling. live coverage on c-span2. >> it's been in place for three years. part of that for seven years i did direct mail with bates neiman and 11 years in the

direct mail business and part of that i used to run around the country doing races. i am originally from houston, texas. glad to see you all here. this is the biggest group i've ever been involved in since my involvement with cmi so this is going to be a fun one. >> okay. this is the 27th year that cmi has been offered. it's a bipartisan training program. it was started by a graduate of a.u., bill sweeney, and they said it may be interesting to do this and they came to jim who's the director for senate and congressional presidential studies here at a.u. and jim said that sounds like a great idea and we've been going ever since. a number of the people who have been through this program are now principals in their own firm, one of neil's partners, glenn bolger was in one of the

first cmi cases and they are in the republican strategies which is the leading republican research firms. why don't we have you all go around and introduce yourselves, tell us your name, where you're from and why you're taking the class and any campaign experienced that you've had and whether you're an d and r or i or whatever else. [inaudible] >> i'm from delaware. i have a strong interest in campaigns and i heard nothing but excellent things at cmi. i worked in the few campaigns in 2006, and i helped out in 2008 for mccain. >> brooks keefre a senior here in ohio and i have no campaign experience and i'm hopefully to change that and get a paid job when may rolls around and i'm here representing the rs as well. >> okay. >> i'm dave. i live in a lot of places but i lived in tennessee for 10 years.

i guess i canvassed for the obama campaign once so there's my campaign experience. i'm a d when it's convenient and i heard it was a great class so i decided to take it. >> oak. okay. great. >> i'm aaron and i'm from new jersey. i'm taking cmi because i've heard it's a great experience and also looking forward to taking four classes in the spring as opposed to five. and i'm a democrat and have interned for rush holt and bob menendez in new jersey. >> okay. >> i'm michelle lockwood and i'm from new york. i'm a first -- now second-term graduate student. and i've been on a number of campaigns in the past. a bunch of local races in new york and i figured this would be helpful to, you know, boost my strategies. i'm glad to be here.

>> and you're a d or an r? >> oh, d. >> that's not always obvious. >> and neil newhouse. i'm your first speaker for today. >> in an half hour. >> i'm joe and i'm a senior from new york. i'm a democrat. no campaign experience. and i guess -- again, i've heard nothing but good things about cmi. >> i'm tim murphy and i'm from massachusetts. i'm a senior at a.u. i have very little campaign experience, mostly volunteering for small local stuff. i heard the class was great and i'm a d. >> whereabouts in massachusetts? >> south shore marshfield. >> i went to wheaton undergraduate. >> i'm marsha hannah and i'm a democrat from buffalo, new york. i interned at a opposition research firm and they suggested i get some campaign experience. >> okay. >> i'm mike mccarthy from new jersey.

a democrat. i worked on senate warner's campaign in virginia. and i also took elections in voting behavior and i enjoyed it. >> which is a great class. [laughter] >> i'm jackie.@@@@@ @ @ @ rm i'm in this class because i heard great things about it. >> i'm from austria. i'm a grad student over at s.o.c. focusing on political publications. that's why i'm here. i'm a d. numbings american terms. >> i'm a gratton student in the public policy program and the last campaign i worked on was romney for president and taking this class, because i hope to make a career out of it. >> my name is michael weis. i'm a senior here at a.u.

i'm a democratic. ay ei precinct captain in iowa city, but i'm from florida. so i've been all over the country campaigning, i guess. and i'm taking out this class to complete my a.u. political education. >> i'm joe and i'm from a small town in upstate new york. i'm a democrat. i have interned with a small consulting firm who raised money for jamie webb and senator chuck schumer and i'm taking this because it's good experience and a great class. >> my name is jonathan baker and wooirnl from right outside boston, massachusetts. >> where at? >> needham. i'm a junior here at american and i don't have any campaign experience which is partially why i'm taking this class because i want to sort of dive into it. and i also like everyone else heard great things. >> i'm from massachusetts. i grew up in winchester. my mother still lives there. >> my name is brad. i'm a junior at a.u.

right now i'm working at a consulting firm called catalyst but in terms of on-hands political experience i've done a bunch of field work for america in obama and right now i'm working for a campaign in kansas. >> bob from catalyst will be in here tomorrow. >> i'm ben and i'm from sharon, massachusetts. i'm a democrat. i guess i volunteered for the obama campaign through the afl-cio. and i've had a congressional internship and i'm taking this class because i enjoyed taking your last class in campaigns and elections and i'm hoping to get some practical experience when i graduate. >> i'm jordan and i'm from southern california. i'm a democrat. and i'm taking this class 'cause i heard it was a great experience. >> okay. >> my name is carolyn jefferson.

i'm a second year master's student. i'm from martinsburg, west virginia. i have some volunteer experience, state and local elections. i'm a d. and i'm taking this class because i've heard good things about you. and i need the credits to graduate. [laughter] >> honesty at last. >> i'm maggie. i'm a second year master's student. i'm from andover, virginia. i'm also a d. and i've taken the other two institutes so i'm just rounding out the third. >> great. >> my name is gerald from long island, new york. a democrat. i interned in then-senator clinton's office last year then did some field work for the obama campaign. and heard nothing but good things. >> my name is gretchen foul. i'm a first year applied politics master's student. i'm from st. paul, minnesota. i've worked a few campaigns in minnesota and then i helped with

a campaign to replace rahm emanuel in the fifth district and i'm here because i hope to be managing campaigns at some point. >> i'm from loudon county, virginia. i'm a first year grad student and i worked for mcdonald for governor and huckabee and john mccain for president last year and i'm a republican. >> i'm stephanie slade. i am also a first year grad student from tampa, florida. no campaign experience. i would consider myself an open-minded r. i'm here out of interest in political communications. >> my name is amy. i'm a first year master student. no campaign experience. i consider myself a leaning democrat. and i took cmi just because of its reputation. >> my name is dan. i'm from san francisco. i'm a first-year master student. i'm a democrat.

and, yeah, i'm here for cmi's reputation. it seemed like fun. >> okay. >> my name is adam levy. i'm a senior at american university. as far as -- i originally hail from princeton, new jersey but i live in virginia and i took every clasp a.u. takes on campaignses and elections and the most recent one was rob engel's voting class in which he instructed me to take this class if i wanted to live. and i consider myself a very he closed-minded independent. and when i -- i currently work for an organization called upt strategies based out of new jersey that have campaign managers for hire which i do speechwriters. >> rob engel was the first instructors of cmi and he knows this class very well. [laughter] >> i'm colin. i'm from massachusetts.

i'm a republican. not a lot of campaign experience. i took elections and voting behavior with you and i took a lot of one-credits and i'm really interested in this one. >> i'm alyssa. i'm from des moines, iowa. i'm a first year graduate students in applied politics and i'm taking this course for its reputation and it was very interesting to me. and i interned on the kerry for president campaign in iowa as assistant to the volunteer coordinator. >> i'm an r. i am from florida. and this sounds very he fun. >> my name's chase meyer. i'm from temple, texas, a democrat. i've worked on a congressional election in my home state and also volunteered on the obama campaign and i'm taking this class because i've heard great things about it. [inaudible] >> i'm a first year master student.

[inaudible] >> mary beth harold in texas, 31. >> my name is allison. i'm from portland, oregon. i don't have any campaign experience but i'm hoping this class will help me change that and i am a democrat. >> i'm katlin miller. i'm from indianapolis, indiana. i'm a senior at a.u. in the political science department. and i'm taking this class -- i've been wanting to take it since i'm a freshman and i'm taking it for its reputation. i worked on the obama campaign through the primary and the general election and i'm hoping to get more experience. >> i'm dawn dawn. -- dawn. i'm originally from cincinnati ohio. i volunteered for obama's presidential campaign and i've also earned at both the democratic national committee and the ohio democratic party. and i'm just taking this class because i'm very interested in possibly working on campaigns after graduation. >> my name is cody singleton.

i'm a senior here at a.u. i'm a democrat from richmond, virginia. as far as campaign experience, i volunteered a handful of times for the ill fated judy fater campaign and also volunteered extensively for the even more ill-fated cree deeds campaign in this election cycle. >> okay. did we get everybody? great, welcome. we're going to spend a very interesting two weeks together. i think you'll learn a lot during the course of the next two weeks. the course is set up -- we will work in groups. you will write campaign plans for real candidates who are running in 2010. for this session we're going to do senate races in missouri, pennsylvania and illinois. bob carpenter will be here to talk about senate races and then this afternoon at the end of the day we'll let you put yourselves in groups and pick the candidates that you want to work for. this course is taught over two

weeks to try and simulate a campaign. those of you who worked on campaigns know it's not something you do twice a week for an hour and 15 minutes. so this will be pretty much all day every day for the next two weeks. but at the end of that, i will predict that you will know more about these races than the actual candidates who are running in the races in the fall. as i said at the beginning, it's a bipartisan class. we will have equal numbers of democrats and republicans speaking. it may not seem that way from day-to-day. i mean, today there are more rs than ds speaking but it will balance out so get used to it. the speakers are both good at what they do and good at teaching what they do. so that's important. some of what you'll be taught you will need to write in your campaign plans. other things like talking voter files, for example, that we will talk about tomorrow you are not going to have to do a voter file for your campaign plan. so it's information you need to know so when you go and work on a real campaign you can understand what should be done.

okay. everyone has a copy of the syllabus. all of our contact information is on there. it's important if you have questions to get in touch with us. for example, if something comes up saturday night, we're not going to have class on sunday, don't wait until monday morning if you have a question. email us, you know, and we'll get back to you pretty quickly. carol and i are more morning people, liz is more of an evening person but we pretty much have it covered 24/7 except for 2:00 and 6:00. but time as on a campaign time is your enemy so you want to take advantage of things. we'll start -- the course will progress pretty much the way a campaign would progress. neil is going to talk firsthand about the political environment going into 2010. bob will be in to talk about senate races. david winston will be in this afternoon to talk about strategy and message. and then we'll round out the day by talking about survey research.

and then tomorrow we'll continue talking about research and how to use issues to frame a message. then tomorrow afternoon we'll talk about targeting and voter files and those are really the things -- the building blocks of any campaign. you know, what is the political environment, how do you develop a strategy, who are you going to talk to? then we'll get into more of the tactics. we'll talk about budgeting on wednesday. management and organization. we'll spend a good part of really wednesday talking about money. and into thursday, you're going to get out of here around noon on new year's eve, which is pretty early actually. [inaudible] >> i know it was nice of us. [laughter] >> there will be no class on new year's day. that won't be say you won't be thinking about what you're doing on new year's day and then on saturday we'll do pretty much media for a good part of saturday. you'll have sunday off. monday we'll talk about managing the candidate and ann will be in

to talk about that and she's a graduate of cmi and she's gone on to do amazing things in a very short period of time. absentee and early voting on monday. we'll get into volunteers and fields as we get into next week. a little bit more on fundraising and then we'll wrap up on thursday. a former congresswoman from maryland just over the border here will be in to talk about what it's like to be a candidate. so that's sort of how the course will proceed. there may be changes in the syllabus as we go along. if there are changes, we'll let you know as soon as we know it. and if there are changes at the end of the course, you'll get an updated syllabus so you'll have an accurate reflection of who spoke. let me talk about some of the expectations. be prompt to class. the speakers are here. neil is here ready to speak. so be prompt. if c-span is here and you're late, they will watch you come

in. because that's what they like to do. so you know your parents who are watching will say, oh, colin is not there. where is he? oh, here he comes. class attendance is mandatory unless there's some reason you need to be excused. if you do need to be excused, speak to us and make sure chris knows. chris is the keeper of the class attendance. everything is off the record except obviously when c-span is here. one of the reasons that our speakerhrs are willing to come back because they know what they say will stay in the room and it won't be shared with friends or people on the hill or anything else. if you decide to get in touch with the campaign you're working on, honest with them. don't be sneaky and, you know, try to talk to the other campaign. if you need information about the institute, speak to chris. we can, you know, email them information about it if they want to know what's going on. take notes on everything. just not on your part of the

plan. there is a tendency particularly in the second week to get tunnel vision and to think, well, i'm working on the paid media section so i don't have take notes on the field. well, that's not really you want to approach this because there's good chance that when you graduate, you may not be doing paid media right away. if any of you read anything about the 2008 election, most of the people that were higher up on the obama campaign started out doing field. and many of them starting out doing field in iowa which is why they did so well in iowa 'cause they knew the state. so take notes on everything. laptops need to be closed during presentations. all other electronic devices i just got off a plane last night so i'm used to this language. need to be turned off. no tweeting, no email, no blackberries, nothing. and if you're doing it, we'll know. and when our friends from c-span are here, they will know. so if you twoonlt look at past

campaign plans, you can check them out in the next couple of days. see chris, they are in the office. ok. some of the sayingings. excuse me. the answer to almost every question is going to be it defts. just get used to it. and if we teach you well, on presentation day, a week from sunday, that will be your answer back to us sometimes. second thing you needñ@uo understand is you are not normal. most college students are not spending two weeks starting three days after christmas in a classroom talking about campaigns. ok? and that's important because when you go out in the real world, you need to understand that most people are not thinking about who's going to run in 2012 for president on the republican side. we're all obsessed with that. huckabee, palin, but, you know, you're different and that's good

for all of us but you have to understand that in dealing with it. third thing, excuse me, if it's not in writing, it doesn't exist. so you need to write stuff down. and there have been too many examples of campaigns, even at the presidential level when something happens to a key operative and he or she had a big part of the campaign plan in his or her head and people are trying to figure out exactly what was going on. so it's important as you -- excuse me -- as you start getting information for your campaign plan, put it in writing. figure out how you're going to, you know, make that information available to your group. so if you're doing the budget, that's not a secret from the rest of the campaign. everybody needs to know. some is not a number. soon is not a time. how many people are we going to have a lot of people canvassing on sunday. a lot. no, that's not a number.

so keep that in mind. sorry. and finally, we need to know how many days there are to election day because the three resources on a campaign are people, time and money. which is the one you can't get more of. time. right. if you don't have enough money, maybe you can get more people. if you don't have enough people, maybe you can hire more but time is not what you can get more of so you need to understand how many days to the election day and work backwards. okay. any questions at the moment that you have of us? for us? okay, chris, why don't you come up here. >> good morning. i'm chris. i'm the assistant director here at cmi. you know, just like candy said, you're more than welcomed?& to contact me with any questions you have. email or call my cell phone. i just found out this morning that my desk phone isn't working.

and i'm not there anyway. [laughter] >> i guess in fairness i should let you know he i am a democrat. most of my volunteer stuff is online contributing to blogs and stuff like that. i'm originally from pennsylvania and i spent a lot of years in the newspaper business before coming back to grad school. so i know pennsylvania very well. whoever is doing the pennsylvania races you might want to become good friends with me. you're doing your campaign plans we'll go over this a lot more, i guess, later. one of the things you will have to do, though, is have it printed up. and i made some arrangements that will cut your printing costs at least in half from what i had to experience. this is my third time going through here so i've done this before. you're welcomed to give me a call with any questions you might have. the only other thing i have is i will be passing out cards. i need you to put your name, address, and -- yeah, cell phone number.

and the reason i need this -- i won't be sharing with anybody. but when you get done with this, you get a nice certificate. i just need to know where to send it. so i'll be passing these out and i guess we can -- >> as we're working through the campaign plans, as you're writing them, feel free to share them with us, drafts. this is not a turn it in the end and hope you get it right kind of thing. it's a much more an indirect class. am i putting in enough, not enough. you can email it to us or show it to us, you know, in between breaks in between the class or anything like that. liz, any other things you think i should mention? okay. questions? all right. there will be them. all right. our first speaker at the campaign management institute at american university is neil newhouse. neil is the cofounder of public opinion strategies, which is one

of the premier republican survey research firms in the country. neil worked on the mccain campaign; correct? [inaudible] >> right, yeah. but they worked not only at the presidential level but senate, congressional, gubernatorial -- i mean, at every level. as i said it's one of the really outstanding survey research firms. we're very thrilled that neil is willing to come in first thing and speak to us. and so i'm going to turn it over to neil new house. -- newhouse. so thank you. >> you can hold your applause till later. >> one other thing, if you have questions, wait for the boom before you ask them so that people can hear them. >> and, chris, i've got a remote for this thing. okay. cool. let me give you a little bit of

background about where i came from and kind of like -- 'cause it's very similar to you you guys. i heard a couple of people taking voter behavior courses in college. that's what got me started. i went to duke university and graduated a long, long, long time ago. and what really got me -- i mean, i'm from kansas. i never was interested in politics until i went to college and i took a couple of courses. first a sociology course then a voting behavior course in 1972. and that really whetted my appetite and in 1972 in the fall we had two pollsters come down to duke to speak about what they do for a living. and it was pat and peter hart. i know. and i was just like -- this was fascinating. it was really cool stuff 'cause i'm an old -- i'm a frustrated high school athlete. i loved the competition. the reason why i was kind of drawn to this is because of the competitive nature of politics. and so i kept taking courses.

and then went to uva for grad school and then kind of migrated to washington. i had never been to d.c. before in my life. before i came here to work. well, came here trying to find work. ended up as an intern in survey research at the republican national committee. while i was working the phones at the rnc, i worked the phones 40 hours a week. and then worked 20 hours -- no, the internship 40 hours a week and worked the phones 20 hours a week. raising money for the republican national committee in 1974 or so, which was immediately after watergate. it was a little tough. and then my internship and my intern coordinator was a guy named karl rove. so it was an interesting experience. i then decided you know what? i wanted to go work on a congressional campaign. and i finished my grad school

stuff and then went through a seven-day, 18 hour a day campaign manage program. they teach you everything you need to know about running a campaign and the anything i'd done at duke was i handed out buttons for george mcgovern. i was a college kid in the '70s. everybody was a democrat. the only thing i'd ever done. i went through campaign management college and lo and behold i was wandering through the nrcc one day, the republican congressional campaign committee and talking to a guy who saido= heard you did really well and i have a candidate in new jersey who needs to campaign manager. i said great. i'd been to new jersey before. driven through it on the way to new york city. and so -- and i went up and interviewed for the job.wl÷ one of the guys in my campaign management class was doing a neighboring campaign. and, of course,, you know, he called -- he had his candidate call up my candidate and give me

a glowing recommendation and then my candidate called my buddy and said well, how much money do you make? and my buddy lied and increased it 100 bucks a week so i got $350 a week instead of $250 a week. so i was -- this was -- this was great. i was in this campaign. it was june of 1976. and we had our entire budget for the campaign was $100,000. but we had some things going for us and things, you know, cutting against us. my candidate didn't live in the district. no big deal. he didn't work in the district. those are minor details, guys, minor details. and his opponent, the six-term democrat opponent -- remember the house ways and means committee had been my candidate's seventh grade english teacher. now, okay, it's easier for you to think about to seventh grade he and think about your seventh grade english teacher.>n for me it was mrs. walker.

the last person i would ever want to debate was mrs. walker. well, indeed that was the last person my candidate ever wanted to debate. we had -- he refused to debate the incumbent. the incumbent was willing. my candidate refused to debate him. i debate him. i'm 23 years old. i was taller. i had more hair. i debated the incumbent congressman three times. the first time was like before a joint conference and i thought ultimately pretty good. i went in my regular spiel and i did pretty well. the next time was before bergenfield junior high schools. it's one of the junior high schools that had a lower balcony and a higher balcony. and my opponent is sitting back there and there's a woman college -- a photographer over here and the next day in the newspaper i'm standing here and

the congressman looking at me like he could just killed me because i had gone in my regular spiel it's time we had a congressman to be proud of. he missed 169 straight votes in the house and i went on and on. the crowd went back and forth and, you know, i'm thinking this is great stuff. i should run for office some day. i mean, this is really -- forget the candidate. it's about me. so the final debate was new jersey and i'm jewish, i figure this is going to be a snap for me. i go into my usual thing and some woman in that crowd raised her hand and said well, aren't you, in effect, you're a surrogate for your candidate and what makes him different that missed 160 straight vote et cetera, et cetera. my debating career went down in a hurry. the congressman who just hated me put his arm around me and said, told me that's all right, son. so that was -- that was my debating career. i figured after that no more.

election day came and we had -- we got everybody together in the headquarters and went to mcdonalds for dinner. seriously. i sent everybody -- and everybody was six people -- to the key precincts. dumont, and bergenfield and just to get the info back in. so when the polls closed on election day in englewood, new jersey, in 1976, i was alone in the campaign headquarters with a woman college radio reporter because her mother -- with -- who was there with her mother because her mother wouldn't let her come along, just the three of us at campaign headquarters. the numbers started coming in and you know what, it looked pretty good. i'd done all the targeting stuff. i knew where we had to be and, you know, this is jimmy carter is winning the presidency but you know what? it was going pretty well so i called my mom back in kansas city who has no clue what the heck i do for a living and said, hey, mom, i think we're doing pretty good. and then comes back even more.

i was like oh, my god, it's really getting good, you know, so i call my mom again and then they declared us the winner with 54% of the vote. i mean, it was a stunning -- the newspaper described our headquarters as in stunned disbelief that we'd won the race, which is absolutely true. so here i am -- i mean, i've got my green dodge colt, my kansas -- kansas license tags, i'm from kansas, my bumper sticker and, man, within two days i'm coming back down to d.c. to celebrate with all my friends. we go in the capitol hill club. there are only 20 republican freshmen that year. only a handful beat democrats. my buddy who helped me get the job, nbc news had declared his campaign the winner and then they retracted and he lost. he's sleeping on my coach hoping for a job in our office. so we go to the most logical place you'd go to as you win the

election which is the capitol hill club and my head is so big. and everybody is congratulating me. and i was explaining the campaign and how we beat these -- the fair campaign practices, you know, hit that was against us. we put the tabloid out. i debated. i mean, it was just -- it was great stuff and then some guy -- one of my buddies said, neil, don't you think, just for a second here, don't you think the fact that the incumbent had been indicted had something to do with your victory? it's just the ignorance of these people. [laughter] >> in new jersey, some of you are from new jersey. new jersey indictments work for you not against you, right? [laughter] >> truthfully the incumbent had been indicted on ten counts of bribery, perjury and obstruction of justice. it wasn't political. it was only 10 days before the democratic primary. it turned out to be very close. and then they had -- they had -- they did a recount in the democratic primary they found 1100 absentee ballot in the same hang.

-- handwriting. they reran the democratic primary from june to september 28th. best we could do was call for best 2 out of 3. and anyway, we ended up winning. my guy won the race. came down to washington. i becameñi his chief of staff a 24 years old or something like that. you know what? i was really good at campaigns but terrible at my administration t$q' -- start talking about all the little detailed stuff that you go through before youñiñr get to t media sttdf, that's something to pay attention to. something to pay attention to this a campaign. anyway, so i decided that the campaign is for me and i kept working for the republican national party and other organizations and the company that did ronald reagan's polling. i worked for races in cincinnati, ohio, to presidential campaigning in the ukraine. ukraine to races -- the first

democratic poll down in south africa. i've done work all over the world and over the country. i worked in every single state but one and i haven't worked in wyoming yet. anyway, this experience you're going to go through is incredible. this is how i got started. this is how my partner glenn bulger got started. it's really terrific that all of you were here. i wish there were more republicans, but, you know, i can understand. first thing i want to do here is -- i'll give you a little quiz. i'll give you a little quiz. everybody take out a piece of paper or pencil and it will be graded my me, it doesn't count as a real grade, just to see how you do. so national political environment quiz. okay, the first question is, what percent of americans own an ipod or other type of mp3 player. this is a telephone survey, 800 americans across the country. what percent of americans.

is it under 10, 10 to 19, 20 to 39, 50 plus. everybody put down your answer. i'm just going to call on people. what number. >> 20 to 29. >> 50 plus. >> 40 to 49. >> 40 to 49. >> okay, the actual answer is. 47% of americans own an ipod or other type of mp3 player. three years ago, it was 13%. three years ago it was 13%. okay. give yourself a point if you got that one. next, what percent of likely voters in california think marijuana should be legalized to help solve california's fiscal problems? anybody here from california? okay. what's your answer? what do you think? >> i'm going to say 40 to 49. >> fiscal problems that bad there? >> yes. >> who else? other guesses? 50, 59.

>> 40, 49. >> oh, 60 plus. >> young lady? >> 30-39. >> before i give you an answer to this one, different survey, what percent of adult americans say they have actually tried marijuana? what percent of adult americans have actually tried marijuana? >> i say like 80%. >> oh, my god! [laughter] >> 80%. >> i think so. >> okay. indianapolis, where are you? what percent? >> on this once? >> what percent of adult americans say they tried marijuana. >> well, method they actually tried? >> that's exactly right. on a telephone survey to an unnamed questioner, yes. >> i think it's less than 50%. >> okay. how about you? >> i'd say about 40%. >> one-third of americans will admit on a telephone call that they actually tried marijuana. this questioner, you're right the budget problems in

california are so serious 54% of california voters say that they -- that marijuana should be legalized to help solve california's problems. now, i'm not sure if that says more about marijuana or the budget problems. okay. third, what percent of adult americans would rather -- with home computers, with home computers would rather give up their tv than their computer, would give up their tv than their computer. if you had to give up one of them, what percent would give up their tv rather than their computer. >> 30-39. >> you guys? >> 40-49. >> 60 plus. 30-39. right answer here is 56% of americans with home computers would rather give up their tvs than their computers. so now think -- you know,

backing up for a second, think of what that means for political campaigns down the road. think about how that means to how to commute to people and reach out to people if you really can't reach them by tv. question four, what percent of americans say they have a gun in their homes? again, will admit to a stranger on the phone they have a gun in their homes. the answer is 20. how many people say he's right. he's not. >> new jersey. >> that could be. what percent? >> 40-49. >> let's see. you in the back. 30-39. who is here from the rural midwest? young, lady, you. >> 30-39. >> 44%. 44% americans say they have a gun in their house. the nra's image in this country

is better than the republican party and the democratic party. come on now. and the final question is, what percent of americans say that a ufo crashed in roswell, new mexico in 1947. this is probably before most of you were born. [laughter] >> what percent of adult americans? all right. who wants to venture a guess? yes. hoping under 20. is he right? is he right? no. what else? 40-49. anybody here -- who here is like from far west besides -- not california. where are you from? >> california. >> california, okay. the answer here is 65%. 65% of -- the government is keeping this a secret, folks, come on, now. all right. this gives you a little attest of public opinion and it may be

a little different from what you may have imagined. how many people got all five right? right. okay. four? three? okay. stand up. you guys got three right. i know you're republican. [laughter] >> stay standing up. okay. all right. we're going to have -- we have a prize for the one who got the most right so we have to do a little kind of question-off here. let's see. okay. what percent of americans consider themselves evangelical christians? what percent of americans. you need to pick a number. [inaudible] >> pardon me? just get a number. >> 65. >> 65. >> 47. >> 47. >> 32. >> 24. this guy gets it. the correct number is 42% of americans consider themselves evangelical christians. now there's a prize for you.

you are a democrat, though, unfortunately? well, we have -- [inaudible] >> i know. public opinion strategies t-shirt but the most important is what's on the back. it's enough that i win, all others must lose. [laughter] >> and you probably didn't wear this but this is a quote from attila the hun as it says right there. and you believe everything that's written, right? congratulations. okay. now let's go to the actual numbers, all right? national political environment, what's going on in the country, the first question we ask in all our surveys is a question is, do you think things are generally going in the right direction or they've gotten off the wrong track. not surprisingly this is the right -- when americans think are going well and they reelect incumbents and if things are going poorly, they kick them out of office. it's as simple as that.

in the 2008 election, 12% right directions, 78 wrong track. i've done polling in bulgaria than we had better numbers than that. there's an incredibly negative political environment, much more negative than it was in 2006. 2006 it was 31-54. this is 12 to 78. this was a change electorate. i mean, status quo, you know, didn't cut it in 2008. voters became much more optimistic after obama took office. and do you know what's interesting? everything flipped. republicans were more -- who are more optimistic before obama got in are pessimistic and democrats who were pessimistic became optimistic, optimistic because their guy was in and there's hope for the futures. -- future. see the first number, 31-54. similar to 2006. the mood in the country has slipped back to where it was in the 2006 election as the major

changes that people were hoping would take place. so the mood in the country is negative now, as negative it was in '06, and not as negative as '08. that's key how that impacts the political environment and how it impacts races across the country. do you feel confident or not confident that life for our children's generation will be better than it's been for us? 27% say yes they're confident. 66% say they aren't. there's a real concern about the future, about the future for our children not being as good as it is for ourselves. and that's been a real pessimism kind of underlying american attitudes right now. yeah. [inaudible] >> that's a good question. we don't really specify on that. right now everything is being driven more by the economy than anything else.

i would have to think in the current political environment that would be more economic. because of just the situation the country is in. obama's approval rating. february at 60 to 26. april 61 -- i mean, the april numbers -- this is what nbc/"wall street journal" poll. our firm does the republican side of that poll. i borrow a lot from their polling. 61-30. and then you look at the far right-hand side the most current data 47-46 so it's dead even. what's most interesting it's not the numbers but the it's the intensity and you need to pay attention to your own individual races. 25% strongly approve 34% strongly disapprove. what does that tell you? what's that tell you? anybody? [inaudible] >> no. part.

if there's intensity, where the hell is the intensity, guys? on the anti side. they are moving against the president because that 25% strong approval, do you know where that was here, that was at 42%. the intensity of his approval rating has fallen by half. the intensity of his disapproval has gone up. the intensity now -- the energy as you saw in virginia and new jersey, the energy is now anti-obama. it is on the republican side. everybody see that? so look at the left-hand side, september, his approval -- obama's approval rating among republicans 16-76. among democrats, 86-9. independents 41-46. his approval rating among independents is 50-40.

50 approve 40 disapprove. these are the key to winning a election. we got 40% of the sample being democrat. 34% being republican so the country is still tilted democrat but these independents are a key to winning elections. that's how you win elections. by appealing to these votes and appealing to the middle. [inaudible] >> in this poll they do include leaners. and what's interesting is, republicans in the past, in the last election in the mccain election, there was a real softening of the republican base because of the george w. bush years and his unpopularity. and so republicans lost support -- those voters went to independents and soft independents went to democrats. so you had kind of like a three-way cuts and some of the democrats showed as much as a 10

to 12-point lead in the partisanship. which is an incredibly difficult job for a republican candidate to overcome. americans are no longer confident obama has the right set of goals and policies to become president. what you're looking here -- whether you agree or disagree the way the question is worded, that's really not relevant in some of these cases. what you look at here this question has been asked for a year. and you look at the trend of the data. the question is, and how confident are you that barack obama has the right set of goals and policies to be president of the united states? extremely confident, quite confident, somewhat, not at all confident. he's gone from in december, before he'd taken office, 54-45 plus 9 to now minus 22. wow! that's a huge difference. and you see it's been a gradual s -- there are growinga gradual

doubts about obama that are reflected not just in the approval rating but in a question like this. here is why this is important forok 2010 elections. datingñr back to -- even before when i was in,e1yçó in politic, 196 2, what cz did is we tracked here the president's job approval rating in midterm elections and then correlated that with the gain or loss in the house of the president's party. right hand side, when the president's job approval rating is 60-plus, his job party usually has an average pickup of a seat. if it is 12, average loss of four seats. what does that tell you about

2010? those of you who are leaning one way or another, it would be a good time to run a republican campaign, wouldn't it?ñiçóñi it is a really very interesting day. you know, here is an example. i lived through the 1982 campaign. i was very involved in that campaign. we lost -- we republicans lost 26 seats if the house. 26 republican incumbents. they outspent their challenges by $150,000 a race. made? nada. nothing. it didn't make a darn bit of difference. we outspent them and we still got beat. only one republican challenger in the country won in 1982. anybody have an idea who that might be? john casey. for those working the ohio

campaigns, he's governor in ohio. president job approval will play a huge role in this campaign. the republican's image he will say yes, they still don't like the republican party and that may be true. the image of the republican party hadn't really changed throughout the year. 28% positive, four 3% negative. minus -- it's been minus 21 to minus 13. it hasn't changed. it hasn't changed a bit. what has changed, though -- what has changed the image of the democratic party from in february plus 18 positive/negative 31, 41 and look at what it's happened. really as a result of the healthcare debate. the image of the democratic party is now more negative than it had been all yearlong. still more positive than the republicans. but republicans haven't moved. it's voters souring on the democratic party which ought to

give people hope, democrats hope, that you know what? we did it to ourselves. we can turn it around. it's the highest negative rating the democratic party has ever received in these nbc news wall street polls since the question was first asked in 1990. wow! you know, other candidates you have to look out for in 2010 are the tea party candidates. this is a perfect political environment for a third-party to be formed and potentially have some traction with voters. it reminds me a lot of kind of the 1992 ross perot movement. so on the economy, approve or disapprove how obama is handling the economy. again, and this is -- it's going to be repetitive after a while but some plus 25 in february which is probably, you know, those are too optimistic, too positive to now now minus 9. 42 to 51. a majority of americans now disapprove of the job obama is doing as president.

okay. now keep in mind for you democrats in the room, i'm not trying to depress you. you know, i'm not trying to do that on purpose. it does feel good but i'm not trying to do that. keep in mind for the last two election cycles as a republican pollster i have been by far the depressing person in the room. cocktail parties are not fun. but you need to understand how this political environment affects your individual campaigns. and it affects your strategy. it changes what you're going to do. you're not going to run the same campaign you ran in '08. and '10. i promise you're not going to do that. if you do, you lose. i'm going to read i two statements about the role government and i would like to know what's closer to your view. government should do more to solve problems and meet the needs of people or the government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals. in february voters said government should do more to help solve problems of people. what happened after february government began to do that.

and people said, i wasn't really serious about that. you know, it's a little too far. now it's a minus 3. so you've begun from plus 11 to minus 3, a 14-point shift in voters attitude. people saying whoa, wait a second. you're going too fast, too far, spending too much money and you know what i'm not seeing any benefit of it. in fact, when we do focus groups in ohio, what voters are saying you know what? they're bailing out those bankers in wall street. where's my money? where are my jobs? where are my jobs in parma, ohio, right outside of cleveland which is a key swing area? you know when am i going to get mine? which do you think would do more to help create jobs right now? is it cutting taxes on individuals and small businesses or is it passing a new government stimulus plan focused on job creation? wow! 50% say tax cuts, 38% new economic stimulus plan. as a democrat, you know, you

might be cross-pressured on that. republicans, it might be easy. 69-22. independents 59-26. democrats say stimulus. democrats on the wrong side of the issue. and it's going downhill. congress, people hate congress, love their congressman, right? it's really -- for the longest period of time, you know, they really didn't hate congress. they were lukewarm to congress. now i do think they hate it. and now they really don't love their congressman anymore. it's really a different kind of relationship. so voters are now more lukewarm indeed to their own member of congress. in the next election for u.s. congress do you feel your representative deserves to be re-elected or is it time to elect a new person to do a better job. the anti-incumbent sentiment, 79% reelect.

it's the lowest we've seen in midterm elections since 1994. what happened again in 1994? refresh me. oh, yeah. but the good thing is numbers do change. so there's a sense out there that a the mood of congress is changing and obama is overreaching and pull him back, checks and balances and now you're having people, new person. i'm not sure i like these guys. interesting question. here's a question, i'm going to describe three types of candidates for congress. for each one please tell me whether it would be more likely or less likely to vote for this type of candidate for congress or whether it wouldn't make a difference. left-hand side the candidate who supported the candidate

positions? is .. that's a negative as well. 46-35. a candidate who supported nancy pelosi's issues 90% of the time, whoa baby, 20% to 52%. she's at 55% negative. let me think, if i'm a republican candidate and we're running advertising eventually, do you think we might want to tie our democratic inculp fwonet nancy pelosi? that's like -- that's better than the democrats sty tying our candidates to george w. bush. is there a question over here?ñi is a significant way around

democrat candidacy in 2010. what is your preference for the outcome in the next year's election? congress controlled by republicans or democrats? what did we learn so far? how should we analyze this? how should i analyze that? how should i analyze that? >> the biggest thing is look at the changes. >> the trend! you say republicans are still behind my people, yes, but look how far they have come. this is -- there is really something going on here. attitudes are changing. republicans are -- margin of error is usually plus or minus 3-1/2 points.

the next congressional election, 2010, are you more likely to vote for the republican seconding obama's power or democrats to pass his policies and programs? check 42-49. gives you a real -- looked at the trend here. 15 point shift. this is telling the same story. something is going on here. this is a much different political environment. in 2006-2008, from my -- they were still trying to send a message in both elections to change policies and express frustration. with republicans. running campaigns and those two years on the republican side would like campaigning up hill. going into a strong wind.

you had to be much more aggressive in this campaign and you knew you were likely not to succeed. this can't be much different. republicans hold a significant enthusiasm advantage. think about new jersey and virginia. in new jersey the public polls showed corzine winning by 5 points and he lost by five. in virginia and no one saw mcdonnell winning 60% of the vote. in a survey done just recently, a you going to vote republican or democrat? among those who voted republican, 37% voted democrat. one point margin for democrats. then they asked how enthusiastic are you about this coming

collection. 50% of republicans were enthusiastic. what does that mean in terms of turnout? that helps the environment of who -- you can't simply contact those obama 2008 voters and say come back out in 2010 because we need your vote. it is not as easy as that. we lost too many seats. look at the independents. 35% voting republican 56-22 advantage for republicans. there's something going on here if this continues next year will give republicans the day. how interested are you in the upcoming election? this is a question we ask closer to election day. absolutely interested in the

vote, great indicator of who is most likely to vote. 56% of republicans, 46-10. we saw exactly the same number as two went four years ago but they had different labels. democrats had the higher interest. republicans for the lower. even data from the liberal bloggers showed partisan intensity had the generic ballot relatively close. and definitely voting 39% definitely voting republican. the generic ballot they had democrats winning by four points. they have a four point democratic advantage with that intensity, will take that any day of the week as a republican. people come out to vote in that direction. republican party verses obama. this is the extent of what is going on in terms of trend data,

people have more faith in the republican party than barack obama. who will do a better job handling the economy? left hand side, republicans from 923--11. health-care reform, republicans are 7 points down in health care reform. think about that. 7 points down on health care reform and it is not driven by but republicans are putting forward the reaction to what people are thinking about obama and what congress is doing on health care reform. the republican party feared even better against democrats rather than barack obama. two surveys. july survey, november survey, and the movement on the economy. plus 3. it has gone from plus 11 to plus 7. basically lost a couple points.