having me. you know, normally i tell a bunch of jokes at the front end and, you know, all like that but the problem is we've got so much to talk about this morning that would chew up too much of my time so let's just stipulate that i'm extremely funny. [laughter] >> and move on. but i don't want -- we got meat and potatoes here that i want to chew into. i want to start at 50,000 feet and work my way down. when you think about three numbers, 40, 12 and 14 and then think of circles, and you say what is this guy talking about? think about for a second, for 40 years from 1955 through 1994, democrats had control of the u.s. house of representatives. 40 years. and during that time you had a big chunk of the cold war. you had the civil rights struggle. vietnam war. three tragic assassinations, you

know, watergate. gosh, i have to count up how many recessions we have had in those 40 years. but to think about it a lot went on during that 40-year period of time and yet through the whole 40 years 20 consecutive elections democrats had a majority in the house of representatives. and you think of everything that went on in american society, everything that went on in our country 20 consecutive elections, democrats had the house. in 34 out of those 40 years democrats also had a majority in the senate. in 26 of those 40 years republicans had the white house. and so here you had this incredibly tumultuous period in america and yet our political process was really remarkably stable. then in 1994 you had -- it was president clinton you remember the first midterm election and the first midterm election and you had that newt republican tsunami tidal wave

election that washed democrats out of their majorities for the -- in the house for the first time in 40 years and the senate as i said that democrats had had for 34 out of 40 years. and for the next 12 years republicans had control of the house. and for much of that time also controlled the senate. the president was actually evenly split during that period of time. then in 2006, you had another tidal wave election coming in. although this was a democratic tidal wave election that was washing republicans out. so in 2006, republicans lose their majorities in the house and the senate. so here we are in 2010, just four years after that last wave election. and we're looking at another wave. and the question is, do democrats -- democrats are almost certainly not going to lose their majority in the senate. but the thing is they're either going to barely -- they're either going to lose the house or they're going to come really close to losing the house.

i personally think that they're more likely to lose it than not. it's a close call and there are very talented people on the other side of the equation from me. everybody agrees that the house is in very, very real danger. now if you think about it, 40 years, 12 years maybe 4 years. it's like the circle is getting tighter and tighter, faster and faster. and i think what this is telling us is that voters are getting increasingly less patient, less tolerant with their elected officials and with their parties. think about the old burger king commercial, have it your way. well, right now voters want to have it their way and they want it their way now. and they're getting very itchy trigger fingers. and just as they turned republicans out in congress and the republicans out of the

presidency as well and they may be throwing the democrats out of the house of representatives this time. but, boy, it is i said it is an itchy trigger finger. and i say that because although the great former speaker, late speaker of the house, tip o'neill, used to say that all politics is local, and that's probably one of the most widely quoted lines in american politics, the charlie cook variation of that is that all politics is local except when it's not. now, it's deeply profound stuff here. [laughter] >> but the thing is from time to time, we have -- you know, most elections are local. and you look at the state senate or state representative district and you study the people, you know, in that place. you study the voting patterns in that place. you look at the candidates, the campaigns, the issues. you know, who's got money, who isn't, that sort of thing. and you could pretty much figure

out most cases who's likely to win a general election there, the kind of stovepipe. but occasionally we have these elections where all politics isn't local. you know, go tell a democrat during that 1994 gingrich tidal wave election that all politics is local. they'll think you're crazy. or republican in 2006. they'll think you're crazy. and so you have to just kind of be aware that from time to time we have these wave elections where there's like an invisible hand that's pushing the candidates of one party forward and pulling the candidates of the other party backward. and in those kinds of elections, independent voters generally swing overwhelming in one direction. undecided voters usually swing overwhelmingly in one direction. one side voter's is really motivated. another side's voters are lethargic. anyway, big things tend to happen in these kinds of wave elections. and the other thing to remember is that these midterm elections -- they're not just

sort of a preference between parties or in a lot of cases not even preferences between candidates. that people are not saying well, gee, i think i like republicans more than democrats this year. or i think i like democrats more than republicans. midterm elections are referendum on the party that's in power. now, sometimes if you have one party with the white house and one party in congress or congress is split, it gets kind of complicated and not quite as clean-cut. but when one party has the presidency, the house, the senate, oh, and a majority of the governorship, then in that circumstance there's only one place if anybody is unhappy with anything, there's only one party to blame. and so that's why this business -- and i'll talk about this in a few minutes. well, they don't like either party or they're upset with incumbents of either parties. don't buy that.

because it's generally -- it's a referendum on the party that's in power. and, you know, some first term midterm elections are worse than others but, boy, one common denominator with the exception of the election right after 9/11 the party holding the white house get hit in those first midterm elections. well, let's step back for a second and talk about the parties. and, you know, we tend to think of this as a two-party system but increasingly, it's almost like we've got three parties. now, gallup organizations they're doing interviews every single night. and then they lump them up by weeks and months and by quarters. and coming out with -- they've got a new designed website, lots of really good stuff. but when gallup asks the question, you know, generally speaking do you consider yourself a democrat, a republican or an independent, and then they ask the independents and that's what -- they call it straight party identification. and then what they'll do is then

ask the independents well, do you lean to the democratic side or do you lean to the republican side just to kind of get another cut on it? when you do that and you sort of push the leaners each way, for the first quarter of this year, democrats, 46%, republicans 45% and then there are 8% in the middle that are independents that don't lean either way. they are what we call pure independents. now, compared to the fourth quarter of 2008 when democrats won the presidency and picked up that second big wad of seats in the house of representatives and in the senate, democrats were nationally up by 11 points. in the fourth quarter of 2006, they were up by 14 points. so this majority was built in elections when democrats had party identification advantages of 11 and 14% in what we call lean party identification. and now they have an advantage of only 1 point.

wow, that's kind of a warning sign. if you don't push the leaners and just leave democrats, republicans and the big wad of independents there, it's 32% for democrats. 28% for republicans. and 39% for independents, the people that do do the swinging around a lot. and the thing is even -- you know, using that measurement at the time of the 2008 election, democrats were up by 7, and republicans were up by 6, and now they're up by only 4. so you can see there's been real erosion on that party identification situation. now, let's look at each of the parties. now, let's talk about the 32% of the american people, of the voters that are pure democrats. that aren't leaners. they don't just -- independents who lean democrat. they really are democrats. the president has an 86% job approval rating among these democrats. 86%. and generally speaking you could

say that these democrats -- they love president obama. they may have misgivings about some of his policies, the troop surge in afghanistan, the lack of a public option on health care, offshore drilling, support for building nuclear power plants but basically they're loyal to the guy -- they love the guy. now, they love president obama but they kind of like the democratic congress. now, these are democrats. they are not real enthusiastic at all about their friendly neighborhood democrats but they are really, really loyal to president obama. then you go over to the republican side, the 28% that appear republicans. the president's approval rating is 12% among republicans. i'm not sure who the 12% are. i haven't seen many lately. i did see a decent number of republicans that actually voted for him in november, 2008. but a lot of them kind of fell by the wayside during the spring and summer of last year. now, i don't want to say that these republicans hate president obama. let's just say they really,

really, really, really, really intensely dislike him. [laughter] it's interesting that even when they agree with him on something like the issues i mentioned before the -- that there's an ulterior motive. i know there's something behind that. i know he can't possibly be right on this issue, you know? there's that assumption. but the thing about it is, even though they really, really, really, really intensely dislike president obama, they actually loathe the democratic congress. they're just loathe, despise, hate, pick your word. they really, really are not big fans of speaker pelosi. majority leader harry reid, the democratic congress. boy, there is a huge -- an even greater intensity there. now, you kind of expect, okay, your team is going to love you.

the other team is going to hate you. you kind of expect that. it's the independents to me that are the really interesting people. and when you sit behind the glass in a focus group or you look through the polling data and you try to understand these independents, they really are a different kettle of fish than the other two. and among that 39% that are the big lump -- a big group of independents including the leaders, president obama has a job approval rating of about 45%. you know, he had been above 50% until sort of the second half of the summer. and he started dropping down. now, among these independents, they like president obama personally, the polls show, and they think he's really bright. and they think that the symbolism of his presidency of having an african-american president -- they really like that. but as i said, starting about the middle part of the summer,

they began dropping sort of out of the approval column. and you started seeing them questioning, gosh, i thought he was a centrist. or i thought he saw the role of government in the same way i did. and while they still like him and respect him but they're beginning to think that he's not exactly who they thought he was or to put it differently, this wasn't the cruise they signed up for. and now whatever affection and respect that they do have for president obama does not extend to the democratic congress. they are really, really, really unhappy with the democratic congress. it's not quite loathing like republicans. but it's a pretty poetent feeling. -- potent feeling. that's the way i slice up the electorate. now, in my business, what -- there's two kinds of elections. there's sort of normal elections and then there's sort of abnormal elections when you have these waves.

and what we look for sort of diagnostic indicators to tell us is this going to be a normal election or is this going to be a -- that other kind of election? and maybe it's sort of -- this is probably a tortured analogy, but it's kind of -- you put the parties through stress tests sort of. you have to figure out, you know, how strong are they? and i always like to think about that mid to late 1960s tv show "lost in space." and remember they had the robot that would say, danger robinson, danger, danger. what we're looking for are the danger signs, you know, in a midterm election that it might be this other kind of -- this wave kind of election. and the first one we typically look at is a question that do you think the country is headed in the right direction or do you think it's off in the wrong track? dick worthland who was president reagan's pollster used to say

that was the dow jones indicator of american politics. in the latest nbc "wall street journal" poll, only 33% of americans think the country is headed in the right direction. 59% say it's off on the wrong track. we start off with that, that just tell us that the natives are very restless. then you look at congressional approval. and i use the gallup numbers for the month of march. 23% of americans approve the job congress was doing. 72% disapprove. now, among democrats, 41% of democratic voters approve. only 20% of independents, 7% of republicans. so first of all, for democrats, for the democratic-controlled congress keep in mind they've got 59% of all the -- around 59, 60% of seats in congress are held by democrats. 41% of the people in their own party isn't happy with congress.

but among the independents, the voters that are the real swing voters, which is where you get your mojo, only 20% -- 1 in 5 approve congress -- approve the job congress is doing. boy, that's another danger will robinson danger. then when gallup ask the question, do most members of congress deserve re-election and among registered voters only 28% say yes. 65% say no. that is a record low, lower than it was before the last two tidal wave elections in 1994 and 2006. and only 25% of independent voters think that most members of congress deserve re-election. and then but you always hear people say, well, people don't like congress but their like their congressman. and we do hear that a lot. and so gallup asked the question, does the member of congress in your congressional

district deserve re-election? and only 49% of voters said yes. and that was almost a record low. and the no, my local member of congress does not deserve re-election was 40%, which is a record high. and by 46 to 43 independent voters said no. that's another danger will robinson, danger, danger. when your opponent is starting off with 40% they don't even know who the heck it is, you know, 40% -- i don't care who you are. i'm voting for you. wow! that's kind of interesting. and independents by a 3-point margin going that way. and then finally you look -- or not finally. but then you think of the party favorable/unfavorable ratings. and the thing is you have to think about over the last decade, republicans did a remarkable job of destroying their corporate brand. i mean, they did a fabulous job.

in a year and a half democrats have basically replicated that feat. [laughter] >> and, you know, we saw the republican party's favorable ratings go, had been up in the mid-50s, dropped down in the 30s early last year. right now in a gallup poll, 41% of americans rate the democratic party favorably. 41% and 54% unfavorably. the republican party, 42% of americans rate the republican party favorably, 1 point higher. and 51% rate them unfavorably which is actually 3 points lower. to give you comparison in 2006, that wave election when democrats took control of congress, democrats had a favorable 52, unfavorable 57. so they had an 11-point drop since then. and in 2008 of it 55 favorable,

35 unfavorable. you see that democratic party brand is now as badly damaged as the republican side but remember what we talked about earlier. this isn't even about preferences. it's a referendum party in power. and you look at the president's job approval ratings. and they're at 48, 49, which are not horrible. but they're basically on track with where president clinton's were at this point and we kind of remember what happened in 1994 and i talked about party identification which is a lagging indicator and they've gone on party identification. and then the final thing that we look at is what we call the generic congressional ballot test. and different pollsters ask it in different ways. if the election was held today would you vote for the democratic candidate or which party would you rather see and control. now, a couple things about this question. most of the time when you see it, it's asked of just registered voters. all registered voters.

well, if you think about it, all registered voters -- that means everybody that voted and a half presidential election and the people who were registered to vote who didn't happen to vote in the presidential election -- that poll question tests all those people. well, we also know that in midterm elections turnout tends to be a third lower than in presidential elections. and we know that even -- not knowing what kind of year it is, in midterm elections it's more senior citizens who are voting, fewer young people, fewer minorities. you kind of get the general idea. you say, well, who are democrats, who are the president the democrats are having problems with right now. older voters. who are they stronger among, younger voters. and stronger among minority voters and weaker with, white voters. the point is these polls that we see among registered voters are inflating how democrats are

doing. and so keeping that in mind in both the pollster.com and the realclearpolitics.com averages of all the national polls on the generic ballot test, republicans are ahead. in the gallup poll, republicans were ahead in the last two weeks. we don't have but we'll get later today the numbers for this past week but the week before, republicans were ahead by 3 and 4 points. in those two previous weeks but more importantly, when gallup asked the question, how enthusiastic are you about voting in the midterm election or about this midterm election and this was for the latest -- for the week ending april 18th, 45% of republican voters were enthusiastic. 45%. only 28% of democratic voters were enthusiastic. so 45 for republicans. 28 democrats. 27 independents. you could see that republicans are loaded for bear.

nbc/wall street poll asked it a slightly different way. they asked on a scale of 1 to 10, how interested are you? and in the categories of very, very -- of very, very interested, 67% of republicans are very interested. 46% of democrats are very interested. so you sort of look at these diagnostic indicators and they tell you this is, you know, warning signs that something bad may be happening. -- to democrats. this is a bad -- you know, it's never a good time to have a bad election. boy, that's another profound one. [laughter] >> but there are worst times than others to have a bad election. and one of the worst times is an election that ends nasier. -- in a zero. that's the election where you elect the governors and state legislatures that draw the maps for state legislatures and congressional districts in most states for the next decade. so the thing is if you're going

to get hosed, you really don't want to get hosed in the election of the census year when they pick the people they're going to be drawing the maps. so that's one reason. but the second is democrats are going into this election really, really overexposed. they're sort of at a high watermark based in part on what happened in 2006/2008. basically democrats had back to back great elections in '06 and '08 that have left them at a point where they have no place to go but down. you know, think back to 2006. president bush's job approval rating was 38% going into that election. now, president obama's job approval rating right this moment is 48, 49, 50% which is not real sporty but imagine your party going into a midterm election when you're president it's at 38%. the war in iraq was at its absolute low point going into the 2006 election.

we had had a series of scandals, jack abramoff, tom delay, scooter libby, mark foley, the mood change out there was pervasive. the democratic voters were hypermotivated. the republican voters were lethargic. independent voters swung by an 18-point margin by democrats and boom, big midterm election. democrats pick up 30 seats in the house and control the house. 6 senate seats and control the senate. big old election pushes them way up. then you had the 2008 election. now, president obama -- excuse me, president bush's approval rates weren't in the 30 ratings. they were 26%. the war in iraq was getting better but oh, the economy had collapsed. the time for change movement was just as pervasive. republican voters were still lethargic and not particularly energized by senator john mccain's candidacy.

democratic voters were hypermotivated. and you had young voters and minority voters that were particularly worked up and energized and exercised. and they were voting for barack obama. and while they were there they were going to vote for anybody with a blue jersey on. and then independent voters swung by an 8-point margin in favor of president obama. and while they were there they were generally voting for democrats, too. and lo and behold democrats picked up another 21 house seats on top of the 8 -- the 30 they picked up before. they picked up 8 senate seats on top of the 6 before. and the end result, what we had focusing on the house is 53 democrats today that are sitting in seats that were held by republicans four years ago. they were '06, '08 in subsequent special elections. we have 48 house democrats that are in districts that john mccain won. 47 are in districts that mccain and george w. bush want.

and keep in mind the margin the democrats in the house have is 40. and so they just flat have a whole bunch of people that are in enemy territory. now, the senate is a little different because it's got that 6-year calendar. but there's still some weird exposure there. and let's face it, you know, democrats are very, very, very, very, very likely to lose the seat, the senate seat, that president obama had in illinois. the seat that vice president biden had in delaware. and the seat that ken salazar, who was senator -- democratic senator now secretary of interior, you know, that he had is basically a toss-up. you throw in some -- the tough environment, tough retirement by byron dorgan in north dakota and evan bayh in indiana and there's others and i'm combining the retirements you have an unusually great level of broad exposure in the senate as well. and so you think of that exposure and it's like wow, this

really is a bad time to have a bad election. and then you think of the economy. and, you know, with any recession, the party that's in power will have problems even if they inherited the recession. and if you have the worst economic downturn since the end of world war ii, that's even more problematic. but the thing about it is, it's worse than it should be for democrats because of the strategic decision, the calculation that president obama and the democratic leadership made to focus last year on health care more than economy and jobs, that's left democrats even more exposed than they would be in this kind of recession. remember 1992 when he was running for president, bill clinton said, if elected i'm going to focus on the economy like a laser beam. and what a great metaphor. focus like a laser beam. now, you could have a great argument about whether a

president, a congress, a federal government -- how much they can affect the course of the trajectory of the economy. and how much they could affect unemployment. but from the voters standpoint, they want you to give a college try. they want to focus. and i would argue that every month, every week, every day, every hour that washington seemed focus on health care -- and even for all those voters to think that health care is important, the polls were pretty, pretty clear their preference was, hey, that's fine. that's nice. we ought to do that sometime. but we would rather you focus on the economy and jobs. that's what people were looking for. and so that's why democrats are particularly exposed at this point. and then you sort of throw in the broader issue of climate agenda. and one thing is that we have

seen a shift in attitudes over the last year or two. and in one poll question that gallup asked, do you think government is trying to do too many things better left to businesses, individuals in business. 57%. only 38% say government should do more to solve our country's problems. that's a 19-point spread. and that's the widest gap in a dozen years. and that gap -- and it's fairly different from where it was a year or two ago. and it's sort of the opposite direction from where a lot of democrats would kind of like that kind of issue agenda to be. and i think there's something broader that goes on. this is kind of touches into what you folks know about for a long time. and i know i'm trying to -- you know, it sounds like i'm trying to behave like a psychologist or something. for many, many years people have been warned that government spending deficits -- that we had to get government spending

deficits under control. that we had to rein in entitlement spending and our debt and our personal saving rates up. we were told if we don't get our fiscal house in order collectively and individually, that the sky is going to fall. then came september, 2008, when lehman brothers fell and the american people were terrified and they wondered if the skied fallen. now obviously what happened in september 2008 had nothing to do with federal budget deficits and the debt and all of that. but the fact is the american people did, in fact, get in the head with something. they had long been warned about the sky falling. and it really kind of sobered them up. and it got them to thinking about all those warnings from all those people, all those years. and it kind of sensitized them to something.

and then you had t.a.r.p. you had various bailouts and takeovers. you had the economic stimulus package. cap-and-trade. health care. and then health care reform. and all these alarm bells started going off. and particularly for republican voters but even by a pretty good degree by independent voters, not so much with democrats. now, the thing is with t.a.r.p. and, you know, this is something that you guys all know a lot about than i do. it may have been imperfect. and i'm sure if fed chairman ben bernanke and hank paulson had to do it all over again, they would have probably -- they may have made some changes here or there. but the fact is, we were about to go off a cliff. and -- i mean, we were looking at an economic apocalypse and it may have been imperfect and maybe it should have been done somewhat differently. but it did stabilize the credit markets. and it did keep us from going into something that looked more like the great depression just a

lot more complicated. but having said that -- and i say this as someone who thought that it was something that was necessary. that we really needed to do. in a million years you will never be able to convince the american people that t.a.r.p. was necessary or good. and it is real, real, real clear in the polling focus groups, that sort of thing, that they don't get t.a.r.p. they don't get the bailouts and the takeovers. they are really, really, really upset about it. and i think in some ways, some of our policymakers -- there may have been a reticence to sort of, you know, level with people about what the alternative to getting t.a.r.p. through. but no matter what -- whatever it is, the american people are really, really, really against it. they saw it as an unnecessary and dangerous expansion of government. they saw the economic stimulus package as an extension of that. and i confess it was undisciplined and flawed.

but in the minds of the voters it was totally discredited. and while most americans wouldn't know cap-and-trade from cap and gown, you know, enough of the ones that did know what it was didn't like it at all. and then you kind of segued into health care. and what you ended up was sort of like a series of explosions. in the voters minds that have just made an enormous, enormous impact. so what's the bottom line? democrats would have a net loss of 40 seats to turn the house over. although that number may change 'cause we've got two special elections for the house coming up in the next month. in pennsylvania and hawaii. the cook political report -- what we're projecting officially right now that republicans will be gaining at least 30, probably in the 30 to 40 range. so in other words, a lot more than average. all the way up to the point that would be the tipping point of the house. now, that's the official line.

personally, me personally, i think it's actually -- if the election were held today, it would be going higher than that. i think that just sort of -- when we do our race by race count, our internal model we have it at 30 seats. and my experience has been in sort of normal elections that model works great. but in wave elections, it understates it. it's the starting point not the midpoint. and i think -- i think if the election were held today it would be going north of that. it would be going over 40 seats, i think, if the election were held today. in the senate it's 59/41. republicans would need a net gain of 10 seats to get the senate back and vi-biden would break a tie. i think that the sort of -- the worse case scenario for republicans -- best case

scenario for democrats would be democrats pick up 4-5 and the best scenario for republicans worse for democrats would be 7 or 8. the 6 is kind of a midpoint. and i'm suggesting that i'm pretty sure the democrats are going to hold on to their majority in the senate. but the scary thing that democrats need to keep in mind is that the in the next two elections, 2012, 2014, that's when all those senate seats that they won in 2006, 2008 -- those fabulous years for democrats come up. and suddenly that's when -- whether they're 29 democratic -- i'm sorry, there are only 9 republican seats up -- yeah, here we go. in 2012, there are 24 democratic seats up. only 9 republican seats up. in 2014, there are 20 democratic seats up. 13 republican seats.

so in those combined years, there's 44 democratic seats up. only 22 republican seats. let me translate that for you. there's a republican senate in your future. it's probably just not in 2000. it's probably not in 2010. so to sort of look at this. could things change in the next six months? and could democrats avoid, you know, this near apocalyptic election? yeah. things could change over the next six months. they could. but that would be -- but change is the operative term. things would have to change. 'cause the trajectory is headed towards a bad place. now, if i wanted to be nasty i could say things could change in the next six months. i could be thin in the next six months. [laughter] . >> but that would be tacky. [laughter] >> when you ask -- okay.

what could change things? well, unemployment could change. if unemployment got a lot better it was 9.7% in january, 9.7 in february. 9.7 in march and we've got new numbers coming up in the next two weeks -- if unemployment got a lot better between now and then, sure, it could. but the thing is the economic forecasts, both the blue chip economic indicators forecast -- you know, for example, you know they're suggesting between now and the third, fourth quarter, you know, maybe it gets better by two-tenth, three-tenth of a percentage point, that's all. that doesn't bring the mission accomplished banner. it's got to get better. the economic advisor said their february forecast for the year was just sort of -- let's just say 10%. and it's like wow. you can't accuse them of being overly optimistic. at least on unemployment this year.

unemployment is not likely to be the lifeline between now and then. you know, that for every -- you know, it takes 100,000 net new jobs a month just to cover population growth. and then it probably takes another 100,000 or so net new jobs on top of that just to pick up the people that had been unemployed, that had given up looking for work and start trying to re-enter the labor force, start looking for jobs and coming in and then they get thrown back in the unemployment rate. so unemployment is not likely to happen. and then secondly well, could public attitudes towards health care reform change? between now and november? actually, this is where i probably should have said, yeah, it could. of course, i could be thin. actually, it would be more appropriate there. but the thing is, with health care, you know, yes, there are some positive things that were in the bill that may be kicking in between now and november. yes, that's absolutely true. but i think that's going to be

off-set by any business, any person that get a rate increase on their health insurance premiums between now and november. whether it has anything to do with health care reform or not, boom, it gets blamed on it. anybody that has a claim disallowed between now and november, it will get blamed on health care. i think those things will sort of cancel itself out. and so the final -- so i'm left with just two possibilities. one would be is there some kind of -- as they say a black swan event, you know, some kind of an outside the box, totally unanticipated event that could change things significantly? sure. it could. and that's always the case. but the other thing would be -- in the more realistic possibility, you know, if democrats are going to avoid this -- you know, a disastrous midterm election, would the -- can republicans seize defeat from the jaws of victory?

and there's sort of two different scenarios here. one is that -- i think in a lot of these -- given this current political climate, i think there are a lot of races around the country, senate races, house races, races for other things where if republicans nominated a placebo, they'd probably win. [laughter] >> but and i'm going to use a term that my wife has asked me not to use. but -- and this is a technical political science term. what if they nominate a whack job? where if you nominate a placebo. ...

>> a couple of last points. number one, i do think there is a liberal blogger that called me for democrats the prophet of doom. considering we were the first to predict that democrats would take the house back in 2006, then i'm comfortable being the worst to >> it is a huge mistake to make any assumptions about the 2012 presidential year based on what happens in this midterm election.

midterm elections are terrible predictors of what will happen in the next presidential election. republicans took some tough losses in 1982. in that midterm election, they lost 26 seats in the house of representatives. if democrats had put a full team on the field and recruited candidates, they would not -- they did not know they would have a good year. if they had a full team on the field, democrats probably would have picked up more than 26. there was no net change in the senate, i think there were four republican victories that were by a grand total of 50,000 votes nationwide. they came within that of losing their majority. 1982 was a an ugly year. there was a recession and that was an ugly year for republicans and what happens two years later was that ronald reagan was reelected with a 49-state

landslide. mondale's home state of minnesota and the district of columbia. so that midterm election was of no value. or the other one is look in 1994, president bill clinton's first term midterm election, the year the democrats lost their majorities in the house and senate. it doesn't get much uglier than that. what happened two years later? he when pretty company in 1996. just simply not predictive indicators. one historical fact, and i wouldn't over read this, and there are important qualifiers here, among the elected presidents, that means elected, not appointed, come in because someone died or something. elected presidents who, when they took office, they took over for the other party. only one of them in the last century had lost reelection. and that was jimmy carter in 1980. elected incumbents who took over

from the other party. now, i look at the 2012 at the republicans that may be running in 2012. and the people that are thinking about it, you know, people that are likely to run and the people that are sort of thinking about it, thinking about it, being mentioned. i see some really bright talented people and i see some reasonably bright, reasonably talented people. you know, i can see one that, let's face it, i wouldn't cheat off her in physics class. [laughter] >> but i don't see donald reagan. that's my point. and i'm not saying that means that present obama will get reelected. there's a lot of things they can negate. and how is the economy doing, what's unemployment like in 2012? keep in mind that the president's council of economic advisers, they're projecting unemployment of over 8% in 2012.

which is, well, that's pretty high. how are things going in afghanistan? right now because the surge in iraq work, the surge in afghanistan has been given the benefit of the doubt. liberals love president obama so they're giving him a year or so. for the troop surge in afghanistan to work, but after a year or so, that might not be, you know, that may run than and you may -- you hear that howard dean's of the world, russ feingold, some of the people far, far far left of the democratic party start to jump out of harness there. you have to harness on afghanistan. there will be all kinds of things that are going to get baked into the cake for 2012 that we don't know about you. but the thing about it is, just don't assume that because there's a bad midterm election this time, don't deserve anything at all. but the biggest thing is how

does president obama perform after this midterm election. i have a theory that presidents, presidents perform better, they become better presidents after they have had, and i'm going to use another technical political science term here, after they've had a midterm election face plant. flat down, face down, mud. and i would argue that president clinton was a better president in his last six years in office that he was his to. and i would argue, i think that george w. bush was a better president in his last two years after that 2006. remember, he didn't have a first term midterm election disaster face plant because 2002 election was immediately after 9/11. he had his in 2006, but if you think about it, getting elected president of the united states, leader of the free world has got

to be an incredibly intoxicating experience. and it's kind of hard i think for any of us to imagine how emboldening that must be. but eventually they face these disasters. and when that happens, i think the over, humble, i think the hubris is gone. they become more pragmatic, and become better president. and i think president obama is intellectually one of the brightest presidents we have ever had, but i also think he is one of the least experienced. and experience basically, when you talk about experience, what do you really mean? you really mean judgment. or what's the opposite of experts is inexperienced. what do you get with inexperience is sometimes faulty judgment. i think the president obama is going to come out of this midterm election a lot wiser, and i think some of the decisions might be different than he may have made last summer. and a last year when he could

have said, shifted course when it became clear that unemployment was on a different trajectory and the economy was sort of war stubborn than anticipated. and that's my hunch, but we will see. so what's going to happen? just looking very briefly at the republican side, then we'll open it up for questions, comments or accusations. almost certainly running, minnesota former massachusetts governor mitt romney, and minnesota governor tim polin t. you know, that's pretty much there there. shocked if they didn't run. and then people who really, really really would like to run, but are not certain to make it, i think former alaska governor sarah palin, i think former house speaker newt gingrich. he desperately would like to run. i think gingrich, i knew newt gingrich is, he is aware, i

think he is aware he is a very bright, bright guy with a lot of ideas. a lot of them are good ideas. real creative thinker. also think he knows that he carries sort of mayflower van line full of baggage 90 and. and, you know, here's a guy who is very, very self-aware. and he's going to make a judgment call whether to do it or not. and i would say rick will look at a very closely. and we are looking at some of the people that may run, and these are some of the most intriguing people. mitch daniels, the governor of indiana who i've known for a long time, real bright guy. and haley barbour, the governor of mississippi. those will be too fascinating people if they decide to run. at the end of the day my hunch is they won't, but they will look at. congressman ron paul will look at it again. senator john thune of south dakota may look at it. mike huckabee may take a look at it but i don't think he goes,

and then we are keeping an eye on rick perry, the governor of texas. it could be a very, very interesting field, lots of fun people and i hope i don't, sound like a know it all. the only thing that we're certain about is uncertainty. i mean, this is a scrutiny business, weird things happen, that this is sort of my best cut on what i think is happening, why it's happening and what to look for for the next couple of years. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the role that goldman sachs and banks had in the current downturn. goldman sachs executives testify before a subcommittee to day lives at 10:00 a.m. eastern on cspan 3. >> our public affairs content is

available on television, radio, and online and you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook, and youtube and sign up for our scheduled over e- mails that c-span.org. this year's studentcam competition ask students to create a five-eight minute video dealing with one of our country's greatest strengths or challenges. here is this year's grand prize winner," i've got the power." >> ♪ i've got the power ♪ ♪ i got the power ♪ i've got the power ♪

>> energy consumption will outpace production in the next 20 years. the challenge is how to address the energy shortfall. how would you define the word challenge? >> challenge is a hurdle for something hard we are trying to overcome them a challenge is something that is very hard and something to be achieved with hard work. >> challenges and optical -- challenge is an obstacle. >> the united states senate proposed a solution to this challenge. >> one senator offered to build 100 nuclear power plants in the next 20 years. >> some individuals question

this plan. >> there is some movement toward nuclear in the u.s. but 100 is a bit of a stretch. >> 100 new nuclear power plant to the next 20 years, we can achieve that. >> these could cost $1 billion each. [unintelligible] >> i don't know if that make plants could be built in exactly that time. looking back through history, during the 19 70's and 1980's, the united states was building 35 or 40 nuclear plants per decade. we know we can build 30 or 40 nuclear plants every tenures. >> there is a significant lack

of knowledge with the general public in regard to nuclear energy. when we as 100 adults and 100 students how many nuclear plants are operational, the responses were all over. >> a couple of hundred. >> i have no idea. >> the individuals serve said -- survey did -- surveyed did not have a clue about clean emissions. these three neutrons strike other atoms causing a chain reactions. this energy is used that spins a turbine and turns water into electricity. is this most efficient?

water the benefits of nuclear power? >> there are a large number of benefits to nuclear power. the first one from environmental point of view it does not emit as coal plants do. >> it is reliable. >> one reason is to provide things that cannot be provided through other sources of energy. >> nuclear energy creates skepticism. it is dangerous. >> the scientists in the future will fix everything.

nuclear power plants will not melt down and kill people them. >> the drawback of nuclear power -- >> none of the main drawbacks is the issue of what to do with the. >> this is clearly overblown because it is not hurting anyone where it is now. it is stored safely and securely at reactor sites in large concrete and steel containers that weighed 82 tons that are not going anywhere. they will be there for a long, long time safe and secure. >> [unintelligible]

>> the obama administration is putting together a blue ribbon panel to find out what other options are available for the united states to store nuclear fuel. until they come up with a national repository, we will continue to have different storage plans. >> what do you do to ensure we do not have a nuclear power meltdown? >> we have highly trained operators. we train them from 12 months-two years to make sure that they are capable to operate the facility safely. we design our plants so they can meet all the criteria to keep the public say. all of our safety systems are

redundant and testable. >> there is the potential of a terrorist attack. >> if the terrorist attack, i would go to youtube and type and plane crashing into walls. you'll see a test conducted and 1980's. they crushed a 500 mile per hour vehicle into a brick wall. the containment structure, the nuclear plant, was fined after the crash. there was not much left of the airplane. >> people in the united states are beginning to look at nuclear power more favorably.

will the people of the united states to accept this challenge? >> to see all the winning entries of the contest, visit studentcam,org. "washington journal" is next and will take your calls. later this morning, homeland security secretary janet napolitano said testifies before the senate judiciary committee. she will get questions on the new arizona immigration law and we will bring you portions of that testimony before the house comes in. coming up this hour, we will get an update on banking regulations. after that,