documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin

the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin the release of the wikileaks documents.udin will go toward advertising. the "los angeles times" tells us this morning that rather than going to the internet, many campaigns are playing it old media safe. here's what they write on the front page.

and you are seeing a great deal of it this year. the "detroit news" talks about a flurry of attack at.

that is from the "dietrich news" today. another one i want to assure you from the kentucky senate race. you heard, no doubt, about the incident earlier this week where supporters of rand paul got into a ruckus with a moveon.org supporter. the campaign denounced it, but it has quickly made it into a campaign have. let me read you this from the "baltimore sun" today.

we will show it to you and see what you think. [indiscriminate yelling]

>> on rand paul and i approve this message. >> the now, wait is attacking rand paul's fayed. rand paul keeps christ in his heart and in the light he shares with his wife and three boys. it is better politics at its worst. what kind of shameful politics would think this low. to bear false witness against another man just to win an election? this one would, jack conway. host: there you see it, both sides in the kentucky debate. how do you, as a voter, respond to-tell -- and negative ads? let's go to phone calls. democrats line, good morning. caller: my take on the issue is

that negative advertising is just a smokescreen to divert people from the issues. it is very divisive. as far as what i was looking at a few minutes ago at rand paul, how far have we fallen to let a man stepped on a woman's throat? where is the outcry from the questions thatr question they call themselves, or the conservative right? it is appalling. host: next is detroit, jefferson, an independent. caller: thank you for c-span. i do not pay any attention to the negative ads. it is just comedy. what i appreciate is what i see and what i see is a man stepping

on this woman's neck and on her head. there is no way you can excuse that. these are facts. that is what impresses me, not all of this man -- this nonsense about going to church and reading the bible. yeah, we go to church, but that does not explain the attitudes and a wave of these people were treating this woman. it is a very irritating. host: for you as a caller then, it-advertisement can be informing -- the negative advertisement can be informing. caller: he shows himself playing with his kids and going to church and being happy, but that does not excuse the attitudes of the people stomping this woman in the throat. host: thanks for your comments

this morning. the "washington times" has the story this morning. this is an associated press story. the more private investigators get hired. next is a call from cliff on the independent line. caller: i agree with the last

caller, the negative ads can sometimes be very informative. what i see is informative is that the party in power cannot talk about the issues at all and this time in 2010. they do not want to talk about the economy, cat and trade, stimulus, health care, the war in afghanistan, the deficit, spending. they want to talk about the our quota or sharing a goal wall-to- wall. -- they want to talk about the faqua buddha or sharing a goal wall-to-wall. what they have done to some candidates, there was one that they called a war. it was the white house that drew the -- through the freedom of information act request information on nine specific republicans. do you know what the store and referring to? host: i do not.

caller: did not see this story? host: just finish your point, please. caller: i know more than you do about what is going on? maybe host: you do. -- maybe you do. please go on. caller: the administration requested information about nine republicans running for office. host: cliff from brentwood, california. this is an article from the 27th.

next is a call from murfreesboro, tennessee. this is george live on the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. i think politician should start at center in the positives. there are a lot of people suffering out here -- should start accentuating the positives. there are a lot of people suffering out here. they need hope. they do not need politicians fighting one another and telling half truths and lies. in fact, i think the politicians should take a salary of $20,000 a year and see if they can live on its and then come back and give us a report. stop this month leaning against one another.

people need help. the children are suffering. that is all i have to stay. -- all i have to say. host: next up is stand in clearwater, florida. caller: a couple of things, i think that the negative ads provide so much information. sometimes we do not know which way to look. sometimes it gives you the point that is made so that we can do the research to find out if it is true. for instance, the video that you showed, it did not show the entire video. there is another one that shows the protester from moveon.org trying to push this line through the window of rand paul's vehicle. host: i'm showing the ad that was made from the event. that is the point of the conversation this morning. caller: ok, then it just reinforces my first point, that

if you do the research you will see what led up to it. that way, you can make a more informed decision. also, the stomping, stomping and applies pressure or a cake in most people's mind. the fourth was placed on her back to restrain her. it did not look to me as if there would be any injury in that. host: we are talking about the ad that was made. talk about what was constructed from the event. how they put the ad together, how would that resonate with voters in the state? in caller: would send the exact opposite message from the truth. host: are suggesting that voters need to be got -- need to go out and be better informed and not rely on the advertising.

caller: absolutely. host: next want to go to a story in the "washington *." later on in this piece they say the traditional open quote get to know me and" -- the

traditional "get to know me s ds" happened earlier in the campaign. next caller from wyoming. caller: good morning. by does want to talk about how discussed i am with these attack ads. the american people would like to know more about the issues and what the politics stand for, you know, where their stand is on politics rather than whether or not he picks his nose wrong or whatever. it almost looks to me the more these attack ads are being made public, it almost looks to me like we are witnessing a fall in our government system.

the people that are posting these ads are calling the american people stupid. that is the only point i wanted to make. host: thank you charles, from wyoming. one of our followers, cindy rights -- -- cindy, writes -- we will be talking to two political pollsters this morning about women in politics in this campaign. a shift in gender gap.

and, of course, those ads going into their homes on a regular basis. next in pennsylvania, this is a call from i read on the democrats line. -- baichwal from eyrie on the democrats line. caller: i want to say something about the negative ads, those commercials. i really love the church. i also watch when i listen to. i listened to msnbc, rick dramatics, and keith olbermann,

also, hard ball. i find that they tell the truth. some programs we watch, people live a lot -- people like a lot, or they're a spin. i heard -- people lie a lot, or there is spin. i heard rand paul explained he would like to repeal certain taxes. i also heard him say that if he had a store and people he did not want to come into the store, they should not come in. i heard abouthat. when he was on rachel maddux and he will say he did not say that. but i know the facts because i watch tv. people should be very careful what they watch because most --

well, i'm going to say one broadcasting, fox. i do not think that is a new station. i think that is a propaganda station. host: i have one question. how'd you know when what people are saying on tv is a factual? caller: i saw what he said at his event and they were talking about it. when rachel had him on, that was rand paul, they were talking about it. host: thanks for your call. next up is fort lauderdale. this is hugh, an independent. caller: my genealogy goes back to 6220 in this country. -- 1620 in this country. my relatives were sharecroppers. they had no slaves and all

worked together. i have been watching politics for a while now and i have come to a conclusion that this is a country you cannot get any work and is run by people who refuse to work. the negativeact to the- campaign ads. caller: the negative campaign ads car [unintelligible] host: all right, we're going to let you go. this is a gift from pennsylvania. -- skip from pennsylvania. caller: i think more and more, the electorate, we are turned off by the negative ads. people want to hear about the issues. you know, what are you going to do for me? what are the positive? it is almost like going into a job and laying your resume on the table and saying, hey, this

is what are for compared to my opponent and these are the issues -- this is what i offer compared to my opponent and these are the issues. host: how many races like this are you seen this year? caller: more, but there are still a lot of negatives. one more thing, you are airing the commercial about rand paul. you shorten the commercial. it starts with her jumping into the car. host: we are saying we did not make the spot. we are just showing you the political focus on the campaign using the video. for those calling in saying we're not showing you the whole video, we are not showing the video. we are showing the ad.

that is the point. let's take a look at some of the ads that californians are seen. >> with jerry brown, it is just one dishonest sneer after another and another. and one -- just a dishonest politician. more of the same old failure from sacramento. jocular, jerry brown. always more taxes, more spending, and more lost jobs. >> insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. >> insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. >> i entered this office building to no one.

>> i will my office to no one by you. >> i do not know anyone. >> i do not know anyone. >> we do not have a revenue problem. >> we do not have a revenue problem. >> we have a spending problem. >> we have a spending problem. >> we need leadership. >> it is time for different leadership. >> jobs.com and jobs, jobs. >> jobs, jobs, jobs. >> i think the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and opened for different results. >> i'll be back. host: california renaulgoverno's races. we talk about negative ads and how you respond. next caller.

caller: if you cannot back up your claims, a trip not be on a commercial. host: next up is chris from florida. how do you respond to negative ads? caller: they work. they work on me and on her body. it would not have used them the first time, certainly not the second time, if they did not work. host: is the most interesting thing you have seen in florida this year? caller: as far as negative ads? host: yes. caller: probably the funniest ones were against rick scott. we don't really know who years. he could be an actor. -- who he is. he could be an actor. people should understand it

works on all of us. any time you look at a politician, you say, this politician is crooked, or this politician is a liar. where did you get that information? there's only one way to get that information because it costs money to get that information out to the masses and there's only one person who would have the motive to spend that money, the opponent. whenever you think these ads are not working on you, you are mistaken. these are some the best psychology experts in the world running these campaigns. they would not do it if it did not work, plain and simple. if you are angry and that you keep seeing them, look in the mirror. host: chris, from spring hill, florida. libby in at sheppard says -- colorado, the mayor of denver who is running for

colorado's governor has taken a pledge against attack ads. this is written by kirk johnson, who filed a from idaho springs in that state.

that is the current mayor, running against the republican candidates, dannay's. next is there and on the republican line this morning. what do you have host: to say -- what do you have to say? caller: thank you for c-span. it is so refreshing. i wish it was on regular air so that regular people could see it, too. i wish more people had cable. host: actually, those numbers are pretty small now. we are actually in 96% of homes in the country now. caller: that is great. i did not know that. a negative ads, i do not like them one bit because they take you off the discourse. the reason why they were, i

think, is because people are not really engaged. -- the reason why they work, i think, is because people are not really engaged. the 2008 election, it was the most participated in ever and it was still not that high. we should have 90% participation in our politics, and i bet you we would at all. people do not understand what power you have when you vote. what is it, about $4 billion estimated this year? host: in advertisements, the specific number that i just read, i think, was $3 billion. caller: all this money to get you to go vote for this person or that person. it is so powerful, but people do not really understand their one single vote is. if they did, everybody would be running to the polls and these

politicians would not be doing negative advertising. host: thank you, darren from baltimore. as we go into the final days, we -- we will bebout the talking about how you respond to the negative ads. democrats increasingly go-in midterm adds. this is an analysis of the wesleyan media project. it shows that the democrats are hard -- running a higher percentage of negative ads.

our next phone call is from anchorage, alaska. tommy, a very early good morning

to you. the army, are you there? -- tommy, are you there? all right, let's move on to culver city, republican line. you're on the air. caller: i have a couple of comments. people say they listen to msnbc and some of the other stations. those are leftist stations. they have a leftist or liberal point of view. i think it was interesting when you asked the lady a few callers ago how you know when they are telling the truth. i try to watch all of them, fox news, and msnbc. ofget a better point of view b what is going on by watching c- span. also, it should be said about the negative ads, i think the negative ad about grandpa's is -- about rand paul is in-at it.

i think -- is a negative advertising. i do not think it is-when they talk about what an incumbent may have done in the past -- i do not think it notnegatrive when they talk about what an income and may have done in his past. when they show these extreme things, people saying things, and the accusation about met with enough during california about the illegal alien, i do not put -- about meg whitman out here in california about the illegal alien, i do not put too much stock in that. i think she may not have known. host: thank you so much. calling from culver city, california. next up is daniel from pittsburgh. go ahead, please. caller: i wanted to comment on

the political action committees. 75% or 80% of the commercials are have seen -- i have seen, it is hard to tell which is negative and which is positive. where is the information coming from? like the previous caller said, fox news is so far to the right, msnbc is so far to the left, c- span is the only place to turn for information. thank you. host: thanks from -- for your call. this story has been getting a lot of attention since it broke yesterday. contrast that to the miami herald. the lead story, meek, no one

told me to quit. houston, texas is the next caller, david, you are on the air. caller: good morning. i watch your c-span programs occasionally just to keep abreast of both sides of an issue, or what both candidates

made the same, and how picking that up.e canada u in regard to the question that you are raising and trying to gather people's opinions, you have misrepresented your own question and input as a journalist. you have created a bias. and as you were called on it by several of your callers, the expression that is on your face shows the pride that you take in how you have raised such a false presentation. host: ok, david, how have i been biased exactly? caller: number one, your program needed to have first set this question of property. and because it included a

visual, you needed to show enough of a visual in order to present the issue properly. created aof bias has several of the presentations on several networks. host: let me ask a question. the question at -- the question as this morning is how you respond to the-better teisinger. we showed an advertisement from one side and then showed another ad by the other side. what is biased about that? caller: number one, it showed it may be having her neck and head stomped on, as you guys are report -- are presenting it. it is not true. because he is trying to put his

shoe on her left shoulder or back because she was moving. what she was doing was trying to bring harm in regard to begin today. -- in regard to a candidate. host: ok, let me stop you again. the point here is not that we are discussing the incident, which might have had longer video. the point here is that candidates have used some of the video to create an ad. i do not understand how you can suggest that we are being biased when we show the ad that is presented and an advertisement from the other side and ask people how they are voting. caller: because you cannot take things out of context the way you have with this presentation. journalists to do this with law enforcement videos and other news presentations by not presenting the item in full

content. host: all right, david, i'm sorry you're frustrated, but you are missing the point. we are showing the ad. we have not taken the ad out of context in the least. caller: the next call is from herndon, va., susan on the democratic line. what you think about the negative ads? caller: first, i would like to say something funny. host: i'm ready. go ahead. [laughter] caller: in absence of observation, i wonder if there is any reality left. you made it very clear this morning exactly what you are asking us to call about. that was good enough. and i heard you. i just want to share, susan, that during the political season, to keep myself together i've watched the best tv i can,

which is old movies and have the things. and i try to stay from commercial kibaki -- and happy things. and i try to stay away from commercial television. i really feel sad in a way that our air waves have become so limited in the discourse. this is not really healthy. when you think of our forefathers, our ancestors, they spoke so eloquently and they wrote so beautifully. i like that we can do much better -- i like the idea that we can do much better in the way that we talk to one another. i look forward to that one day.

thank you, susan. you make complete sense to me. have a wonderful day. host: thank you for the call from herndon, virginia. we showed you some-advertising for the governor's race in colorado. let's show you some advertising in the senate race in that state. >> who is can vote? and does he speak for colorado? but wants to privatize social security and even questions whether it should exist at all. on education, ken but wants to and student loans -- ken buck wants to end the student loans

for middle-class kids. and his view on abortion -- >> i am pro-life. i do not believe in concessions for rape and incest. buck, he should not be speaking from colorado. >> michael bennett is outraged. >> the tragedy is, we have nothing to show for it. >> but he pledged to spend an average of $2.5 billion per day on things like pork-barrel stimulus and obama care. now he is outraged. senator, we are outraged. you have wasted our money. host: and we are back with you on this friday morning, leading into the last weekend before voting day. we are talking about how you, as

a boater, respond to the negative advertising. -- as a voter, respond to the negative advertising. this is anthony, an independent. good morning. caller: good morning. good to be on with you. it is amazing to me because if you understand that people do not -- they would not put the money in if they did not believe the ads were working. the negative advertising that is going on now, basically, the ads this morning for example, the person that came on right after advertisement wasa emotionally distraught. he is a perfect example of how people react and how they will

remember that had. i think it is a negative impact on society as a whole because they are not accurate in most instances. they only show a part. democrats or republicans, nobody is in is and when it comes to these ads. here in maine, for example, in negative advertising on it yet -- on a candidate who wants to raise the flat tax, all you hear is that he wants to raise taxes 23% across the board. they do not even mention the flat tax. i am not for the flat tax, but i am for honesty. and there is absolutely no honesty in most of this advertising. how i react to it, it makes me more angry to see people react like the first caller who called up, in fear of watching someone be stomped on. and that was not the truth.

it is just so sad. host: thank you for your call from maine. a story from the "new york times" --

i also wonder sure you this one about future political ambitions from the "washington post." our last caller is, appropriately, from reno, nevada. i can only imagine that you have seen a lot of negative advertising out there. the what do you think of them? caller: hello? this is bob, sorry. host: that is our fault. go ahead.

caller: ok, i think that harry reid controls the senate pretty good. i would get rid of him. at least angle can only have one vote. host: we are talking about an ounce this morning. ds thise talking about asd morning. caller: that is what i'm saying. we have been getting swamped. host: and how they affect your decision? caller: well, really not, because i want to get rid of reid. angle only has one vote. ried as the majority leader has

more. host: thanks, bob for being the lost boys. we have vote -- for being the last voice. we got a lot more coming up. we will be talking about campaign 2010 and women voters with a republican and a democratic pollster -- with a republican pollster and a democrat pollster. but first, a campaign break. >> c-span's local content vehicles are traveling the country, looking at the most closely contested house races in this year's midterm elections. >> that eyes of the nation are on this seat because we are literally drawing the attention of the country into a grass- roots race to make sure that nancy pelosi is removed as the speaker, and to make sure that the seat makes a difference not only in the congress, but in the actual policy the direction of this country will go.

>> economic security, a good job, and decent health care. to many residents of our state have either lost insurance because they have lost their jobs, or premiums are too high and have a pre-existing condition and were never able to get coverage in the first place. >> the incumbent in this district is joe dollinger. he is it democrat and has been in office for two terms. he is widely considered to be a blue dog democrat. his opponent is a state representative running for congress for the first time. i think that the constituents in this district would definitely agree it is a district that is dependent heavily on manufacturing.

trying to rebound from the recession and from the several visits that obama has made in elkhart that has put the district on the map. it is one area that has been hurt by the recession. >> it is difficult to find a job, i would say that. i moved to indiana from seattle. seattle is a little more insular and less affected by the economic downturn. but here in indiana, have noticed tons of businesses have closed. balad of joblessness right now. -- a lot of joblessness right now. i think it has been a a really difficult time for our country. >> really, what i hear most is jobs. it is broken promises right now.

barack obama came to help the country, and my current district, and all that people have seen are broken promises, an unbelievable unemployment rate. and some of the things that we have seen our about the tax money, you know, trying to leverage jobs, and it did not leverage jobs. now we see that it went to prisoners or to get people or to china. -- two dead people or to china. it is not the 1930's. people are tired of the spending. they do not want to be part of a national health-care program. >> close the gaps in medicare prescription coverage. and i have always voted to protect social security. i am joe donnelly and i approve this at. social security should always be rock-solid. >> he has been focusing, as democrats across the country

have, on social security as one vulnerability for republican candidates. she has said in a few interviews and on questionnaires that she supports privatizing social security. and she has come out that she does not think it should be a wholesale change broadway, that seniors today should still be entitled to those benefits they were promised, and that they paid into. but that is one thing she has said on the campaign and has had to defend herself on that point. >> i'm worried with the new election coming up that health care will be revisited. i worked at a clinic where i felt -- i take care of all of the young adults without health insurance. those numbers are growing every day.

i would like to see ever one get access to care. >> i supported the health care bill in congress because i thought it made coverage more affordable and available. in addition, it covers pre- existing conditions, as mentioned, and it is also extraordinarily helpful for seniors. >> i think it is competitive, first of all, because the incumbent is a moderate democrat running in a pretty middle-of-the-road district. people are conservative about a lot of fiscal issues. though, just the way the government has spent money on the stimulus and gotten involved in the bankruptcy for general motors and chrysler, and health care reform -- those are big issues that make a significant

portion of this district uncomfortable. those are things he has to explain to the constituents, why those were good for the district, why those were good for them. and his opponent, she is a republican running in a republican year, and running in an anti-incumbent year. those are things she can hammer on. those are big-ticket items that he voted for. i think that is representative of what a lot of people are calling the narrative of this election year, where incumbents that were previously very popular and secure in their seats, like joe kolly, who won two-thirds of the vote in 2008 joe donnelly, who won two-

thirds of the vote in 2008. republicans are making gains and democrats are having trouble convincing voters that the current path we are on is the path we should stay on. >> leading up to the november 7 midterm elections, we are travelling the country and visiting congressional districts where some of the most closely contested house races are taking place. for more information on what the local content vehicles are up to this election season, visit our web site c-span.org/lcv. host: as we continue on this friday morning, more on campaign 2010 and a special focus on women in the election year. let me introduce you to our two guests. kellyanne conway, a republican pollster.

and margie omero is a democratic pollster. i will go to a third party poll to begin with. party preference in 2006, democrats and republican, 51 to 36. in 2010, that number has moved, but only slightly, 5239. by contrast, men, 41 to 50, and in 2010, 5039. what is happening in this campaign cycle to women? think you will continue to see a gender gap where women will prefer the democratic party over men. that is something that has been happening for decades. i think that will continue to be

true because of what we are seeing in the national debate. the party is really sticking up for issues than the other side. guest: says the year in 2010 where we are starting to see a pulling away by traditional women of this whole report of "women's issues." the debate about education and health care has the ball to the cycle into economic issues. this whole basket of issues for women for 28 straight months has been jobs as the number-one issue. i believe the average female voter is more sophisticated now than in past elections and the economy is important to her. this is the first up, i think, in what you will see as a transformative process for many women who are not enraged, as many people like to say, but engaged in the process.

pulte -- women are participating in more political conversations this year. they are using the internet to bring them up to speed on the issues of the day. and i think we are seeing more female candidates. host: what are you seeing about how much the economy matters to female voters? guest: i agree very much with kellyanne. i think both sides can sometimes put that in the basket of women's issues. whereas, young people just like older people say that the economy is the number-one issue. i see that as very much something that is important to women. host: when you drill down into your polling results, when you ask about which party can better address economic issues, even if they are generally supportive of the democrats, how do the democratic candidates fare will

win? -- fair with women? guest: i think they fare pretty well. i think it can get down to issues like lilly ledbetter getting the paper reported. it is a good example of how the democrats are on the side of women. when you talk about health care, rather than talking about it brought the, but in terms of maternity coverage as opposed to republicans that say that they do not need maternity care. i think issues like that reach out to women. host: when you draw it down, how do women rate the economic issues? guest: it is a much smaller gap than they prefer in the generic congressional ballot. again, it shows that they are

looking at the selection trend economic plans. there, the republican party has gained ground, particularly since 2006. we released a poll last week that showed a slim majorities, but majority nonetheless, of women across this country the believe that tarp, the balance of the auto industry and health care have been more failures than successes. i think that is interesting because the bailout -- if the bailout and initial spending were the tip of the iceberg, then health care was to be tipping point. women control two out of every three health care dollars spent in this country. they are the chief health care officers of their households. and they overpopulate the health-care industry. they are 95% of nurses, 90% of

health care eighth, 40% after pharmacists, about one-third of the doctors. and yet, they rejected this health care plan. i think the big story here is that president obama, who beat two women to become president, who beat killer clinton in the primary, and to be the ticket that this set -- to be to hillary clinton in the primary, and coo beat the ticket that -- who beat sarah palin on her ticket is not seen as positive lieberman today. -- as positive by women today. host: what is the report card

when you are asking specifically how the president is doing right now? . . and it was just so bad, but it's not good enough yet for me. and i think that's what a lot of women here, and they have a lot more knew once a than

sometimes we give them credit for than our media can sometimes suggest. >> we're talking about women and campaign 2010. we'd like to give you our numbers so you can call or comment on our topics. republicans -- and our lines for democrats and independents. at the bottom of your screen. you can also reach us on twitter at twitter.com/cspanwj and we have an email address. we'll put the email on the bottom of the screen. before we get to calls, i want to move from women voters to women candidates. from rutgers university center for politics, 36 women filed for u.s. senate. a record year, 262 women, 134

d's and 128 r's filed for u.s. house previous record set in 1992. right now there are 1 the 3 women lost in the primaries. 69 incumbent bentz running for re-election. 12 open seats and 57 running as challengers. overall do men and women today in 2010 respond differently to female candidates? >> i think it depends on a case-by-case. somebody who works with democrats only, i'd still like to see republican women candidates. they can be accomplished executives or perennial candidates with little knowledge of the facts. just like male candidates come in all shapes and sizes. i think that's a good thing. but i do think women candidates, both parties do sometimes have to go through

some personal attacks maybe sometimes men don't have to. there's a little bit more of agreed. we all came out particularly feeling a little icky for the way senator clinton and governor palin were treated. but fast forward to 2010, and you see a record number of women running. so the depressing factor so many women wanting to run for higher office really was not seen. there's such an inordinate amount of coverage on hair and couture when it comes to female candidates. what about the paufrpbly beer bellies and bad combovers?

there's many of them. i remember the narrative was with senator palin, my god, she has five children and a brand-new baby who is a special needs baby and i'm really worried about children. i said i read in a comment you don't even like children, how do you respond to that? >> motherhood is a choice and it's on your byography like anything else. and i eventually learned to say, well, look, sarah palin's got plenty of time to be the vice president of the united states because she doesn't have a boyfriend or play golf, so right there she has 20 extra hours a week a lot of these guys don't have. so but in terms of a record number of women running, it really has added to the debate, because women are not just talking about health care, education, abortion, etc.

they are talking about running the family business, success stories and another using her motherhood as an as credit. women are usually seen as the outsiders, and that's a fre tremendous -- they are still seen as outsiders a little bit beyond reapproach. but that's why barbra boxer and those are seen as insiders and are having trouble hanging on to their seats because what was at once outsider is now the insider. host: taylor in michigan, debbie, independent line. go ahead, pleads. caller: good morning. i find it really interesting, and i'm glad you have both these young women on the air here today. i really would like to come from the perspective of i'm a

mother. i'm a young grandmother. at least i like to think so , of 10 grandchildren. and what i think about when i vote, and i am very independent, i voted both democrat and republican. i vote for the person. and i vote for the person that respects women's rights. and what i'm finding, i am so proud that there are so many women candidates running. but my problem comes in the same way i think about male candidates running. i don't want dumb, uneducated, unthinking and disrespectful candidates whether they be male or female. and what i find running today, on some of the -- with some of the women is they are. and uneducated, disrespectful

toward the fight that my generation of women fought for, so that women like you can sit there, and these women candidates can run. host: thank you. you suggested you liked the fact that there was a full pan my of women out there. guest: debbie has a point that we see a lot. men and women will vote with their party allegiancenses and then gender plays a role, but it's not the sole determining factor in how folks vote. you have these candidates like barbra boxer and men running against republican women because they lead their republican opponent for some of the reasons debbie mentions or the other issues voters care about. and i do think what debbie talked about in terms of her

family background, things like that, we were with the democratic cand dat, and she is a grandmother and talks about it in her ads. and that's part of her profile and something she talks about, because that is something that voters really relate to, and it's part of her. host: we're going to take a call. from marietta, california. this is howard. a republican. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i would like to say -- ha, to the gentleman from texas that didn't quite get the argument down last in the last segment. i appreciate your patience, dear. uh, ladies. let me see the last lady that called wanted to emphasize dumb women, and uneducated women. mind you before any conversation you should have, i think you should put out there

$13 trillion deficit. that would be a good way for democratic women to explain what they are going to do for this country, ok? we have in california an opportunity to elect two very bright women. and i am voting for them and supporting them 100%. these aren't long-lived, political activists. these are women that have been very snuff business. one of the comments about mrs. whitman is she shipped 30,000 jobs overseas and not to bureau bank like -- suggests, and i would suggest when meg left her corporation, she was employing 30,000 people. host: howard, thank you so much. i was looking at statistics from rutgers, and to the point

of having these two women choice ins california. there are now 14 different races this year. governor, senate, house that are women versus women. is that a record? sounds like it might be. >> it is, and your previous caller was in the state of michigan where they do have a female governor and senator. howard raises an excellent insight that is verytyical of this year's voter, that's the concern about mack crowe economics. for years we pollsters and strategists saw that the household budget, the kitchen table concerns. that's now being coupled this political cycle with a real appreciation and knowledge of financially sophisticated knowledge for voters of knowledge. since the first time gallup asked the question, they asked looking ahead 25 years what do you think will be the most important problem? the federal budget deficit was

the number one issue. that just blew me away to think american men and women are not saying economics and education and nuclear holocaust, it tells you a great about this election crike that many male and female voters can tell you about the stimulus package. they read the 2,000 pages even if the members of congress have not. host: charlotte, you're on the air. caller: fwoong. i'm a first-time caller. thank you. back in 2000, i seriously looked at john mccain. i am a democrat, but i also look at the person running. and john mccain of 2008 was so different from the john mccain of 2000, that there's no way i could have voted for him. and the problem that i had was that the republican party put up sarah palin.

who, in my opinion, was almost an insult to women. that they put a person up that thought that women would just say oh, ok. she wears a dress, so i will vote for her. >> i did vote for spirit that clinton in the primary. i will vote for women in the future. but not women who don't know the issues. not women who run on a campaign of just nelling -- negative ads, negativety. and so i -- that's one reason i will never vote republican is my issues. the democrats always have my top three issues. that's abortion, environmental rights and rights for gays. and republicans will almost never get my vote simply because they do not come down on the side of the issue they come down on. host: thank you. response to her? >> i think because we don't

have that many examples of women at the top of the ticket, sometimes we find ourselves looking to -- and this is the story that the press wants us to sometimes have -- to grasp on to these women candidates of the story of all women like them. so meg whitman and carly fiorina, many look at them as a sign of women as executives don't work as women as candidates. i think it's a shame that folks have made voters believe that sarah palin should be an example of all women or all mother candidates when really these women candidates are all individuals and specific to their races and as we have more women candidates, that's going to be less of a swing voter. >> well, that caller is rarely a swing voter. but it's good because it proves

women don't necessarily vote for women. women look for someone who share their idea of issues on their values, however, you define values not gender. it's a strength. that's why the traditional gender gap of men favoring republicans and women favoring democrats is still true. what exploited this year by and large is that men prefer republicans that much more. but when she talks about the last thing, the caller from charlotte, north carolina talks about, her three top issues. abortion, environment and gay roots. -- gay rights. that's where this president has seen a lot of disappointment among his own ranks. the particular don't ask don't tell and this president not making good on his own promises. so i wonder how those issues will play out in 2012.

>> i wanted to show you an opinion piece written by andrew yaro. historian and journalist in this morning's baltimore sun, the year of the macho woman. female candidates epitomize the tough guy image. this is referring to sarah palin's mama grizzly quote, the man up comment shared by by sharon angle and characterizes if the one characterizes masculine and femininity, never has the rest of the party been so browbeaten into playing the role of wimp. meanwhile democratic party is seen as comprising nearly all women and as of arnold schwarzenegger said girly men. if it's about that rather than fighting with live fewery then the tea party republicans and

johnny come lately advocates take the star role in the remake of "true grit." host: what do you think about this need to project that tough person or tough guy image as a female candidate. >> i mean, i can certainly see why there's a tendency for folks who want to do that. i find the man up comment and this sort of -- >> it's a little bit of a caricature that i find a little bit regretible. i think of that. women candidates can be republican or democratic and be strong and convey strength without having to use the certain nomenclature that i think really emphasizes the stereotypes that show the difference between the candidates without having to use phrases like man up. i think to me that detracts

from the debate and makes it a little more cartoonish and simple rather than the complexity we have with these women candidates. >> that's what you hear when you poll but what about the people you talk to? >> well things like this, this manup is a big moment because the republicans used it and within a day -- i'm not sure that's something ultimately swing voters that decide late disarmed breathlessly the way c-span audience does. i think that that's not necessarily -- >> one of the greatest obstacles for female candidates takeover deck atesdz has been their ability to raise money and the other obstacle is to be seen as tough enough against another vote torse win these seats. that includes tough enough between men and women voters,

and this toughness is that much more important when the big issues are economic and we all know when people say let the girls handle the health care and let them do the education and health care thing and let them talk about the environment and stick some abortion middle to there. but by and large you have to say economy and jobs. you do have to project some kind of toughness. i'm not a fan of name-calling, not say that was but margaret thatcher had a great phrase and was tough and said being powerful is like being a lady. if you have to say you are, you're probably not. >> i think there's a way to show you're qualified tough for the job but not lose your lady-like behavior. but look ladies, this recession has hit men really hard. seven of the 10 jobs -- job losses, the women are having to carry most of or if not all of

the freight for the household but the toughness is being reflected in some of our candidates. host: callers specifically talked about reaction to nancy pelosi and she's involved in the perception on the voters. but from arling on the, virginia, david on the independent line. good morning? we're going to move on. let's go to lafayette, georgia, sheila, republican line. caller: hi. i was responding to the lady that's talking about dumb women. those are -- that was about women being dumb, but running for host: sheila, you're hearing your tv volume in the background and you can't talk and listen to that delay. will you hit the mute button and go ahead? caller: all right can you hear me now?

host: yes. we can. caller: they need raise into al franken's are they even running now? host: we're going to move on to a call from anchorage, alaska. tommy, you've got a big race coming up there. what's your perspective? caller: miss palin is supposed to be the governor of alaska. and we appear, and she quit. she want to run for president. but when he get -- things get a little bit tough. she takes off. it's a lot of great women in this world that is fighters. and it just that when you a fighter, you don't just stop when things get rough. now she quit as the governor of alaska. and we got wars in iran and all them kind of places, when

things get tough, she going to say, ok, i quit? host: let me ask you about the senate race with lisa mar cows can i? caller: you know what, though? the truth is i don't -- up here we got a lot of [inaudible] into corruption. and she was mixed up in a land deal. and our mayor was mixed up -- i mean [inaudible] mixed up in a land deal. so it's just that alaska seems like it's one of the third countries. so y'all down there don't hear too much about what actually going on up here, you know? it's, like, we appear as -- i'm a black man. we appear as black. we over -- it'st just that we don't have no voice. our courts have one of the highest conviction rates there is up here. and our governor and senators

like mr. president don young told us be sure all the citizens' rights going to be protected. but all they doing now is trying to get electsed. they ain't thinking about no citizen up here. host: how long have you been in alaska? caller: since 1977. host: and a what are you doing up so early? caller: excuse me? host: why are you up so earl >>i caller: i've been watching your show all this time trying to get on the phone to talk to you. [laughter] host: what do you do for a living? caller: i got injured in 2006 and i'm unbachelor's degree right now and not working, because i'm injured. host: well, thank you for spending some of your late night-early morning with us. tommy from anchorage, alaska. there were senate and other comments. i'll let you respond. guest: well, we now know lots

about what's going on in alaska. a few years ago we didn't follow up with the twists and turns of alaskain' policy so now i think the country is very familiar with the political landscape there in alaska. but it's interesting saying governor palin was quitting. and another said i don't want to be in a stuffy office. it's not a good preview to a presidential run. so i think tommy and the caller maybe have a lot in common. guest: well, when governor palin left the governorship, a lot of people had feelings about why it was and whether or not it was appropriate. but ital seems she thought she could make a bigger impact on the national ticks and landscape and i don't think anybody can argue that was indeed true. she's gone and waived her magic wand and endorsed people and they have won. so i think everybody's voice

the important. because that's democracy. particularly on the eve of the midterm elections, there's always people who believe some will positively run and win and they end up not running. then there are always some dark horses and light dark horses, like, oh, yes, i thought that person might get in the race and now they definitely will. so she will have an impact on politics. i think you would be hard presentationed to find political figure who brings out more passion and political passion. the running of senator clinton and sarah palin in 2008 ended up having a positive effect for women wanting to run into office. generally it's women are hardwired against it. they are not part of the old or

new boys thing and you have to have fair to in your belly but also in your throat because of the way candidates are treated now and the ads and ubiquitousal slights against the candidates. but i think clinton and palin have been good for women running for offices. host: let me talk about nancy pelosi and john boehner. both. the republicans about a month ago mr. president boehner attempted to nationalize the exral elections by putting out their pledge and also many appearances by mr. president boehner who has now become quieter. nancy pelosi has been less visible. will you talk about the leadership in congress and talk about how much it might or might not affect local elections? guest: well, first, when they rolled out the pledge, and john boehner said well, we're going to be exactly how we've been,

that sort of was the beginning and end of john boehner's national role. i don't think it was a good thing to say, because it played into what people think about the republicans currently. in terms of nancy pelosi, i think that has been a great thing for women and women candidates, and i do think that if she was a man, you know? or our past male speakers have not had to say some of the personal caricatures she has, i mean, calling her a witch. as her opponent's done and other people have done in web dial videos and that sort of thing, i think that's a very gender way to talk about her, and it's not something you can find a comfortable example for. certainly not for boehner who is not particularly well known or even past speakers. there's not anything similar for former speaker hastert, for

example,. host: nancy pelosi has been a lightning rod for candidates. is the reaction to her gender-based or policy-based? >> policy-based because she was the first female speaker of the house. that really did pay political dividends for democrats. she is not a very popular figure out on the campaign tray. she is not in demand. you do not see people lining up -- when you asked do you approve or do not approve of nancy pelosi's job? people said i don't know, i don't know enough about her. she is now clearly in negative readings with calls from candidates and sitting incumbent bentz who said they won't vote for her for speaker. you had one until north

carolina who voted against the health care plan and so that's gratuitous but it's also strategic a couple days before the election. and ended up being more the congresswoman from san francisco than the speaker of the house. she's hyper partisan and helps push the obama agenda threw, and that's unpopular. guest: in relation to being a speaker or majority leader, it's never a nationally popular condition. governor mcconnell -- i think there's something particular about nancy pelosi that i think has been unfair. she's seen as partisan, because that's how she's been character -- that's how people talk about her. she's not out there specifically -- and this is my view. her statements are not as far

to the left as people imagine that they are. eshe is from san francisco, and people have a imagination about what people from san francisco are like, but i think it's less to do with something particular that she's done as it is about the caricature. caller: i've got two quick comments. one a comment and one a question for your democratic poster. but in california they keep re-electing the same two senators over and of. why don't they pick one other person out of the 35 million people to give it a try and a go. i don't understand how we ended up with barbra boxer who made the comments to a general of all people. in 2003 and 2004, the republicans had strong majority, and they blew it.

and they allowed to democrats to get in. and now the democrats got in and elected pelosi as the speaker of the house, and if you don't know it, she's a very polarizing person and how did the democrats can a pitch waits and allow the far left people to run their party and don't you think that's the reason why your party is in trouble right now electorally? it's as simple as the car eleft is -- you're going to let illegal aliens the right to vote so they can vote primarily democratic and it's like you are just stuck on this to win. guest: i think the number one reason this is going to be a difficult year for democrats is because the economy is still struggling. that's clearly the prevailing concern. i don't think one member of congress is really part of what the national prevailing mood. i think it really is a lot of

-- people are still struggling, and they want to see it speed up a little bit. in terms of the senators from crarks they -- they are in -- senator boxer is in a tough race, but she seems to be pulling it out. she seems to be ahead according to public polls, and she's had -- she's faced some tough challenges before, and wins with the majority of the voters. so i think that this is why people are failing more active this year. you have a lot more attention on these races. butal ultimately i think the national mood and how people feel about democrats is more about how people feel about the economy rather than one senator. host: the house of representatives, when you look at the polls, it also suggests restive voters. and the republicans maycom into

the majority with pretty low approval ratings overall. what messages are republicans sending to voters? >> that you have 1.5 shot at this. that voters are not going to be countenance a repeat of run away spending they saw in the mid 2000s. in 2006, the democrats won control of the house and senate. in my view, because a republicans started to act like democrats. they had entitles and run away with spending and what happened was that many of the conservative voters stayed home, i call them conscientious objectors. they -- the tea party movement is really an outshoot of frustration during the obama and bush years. these are people who were against the bridge to no where,

medicare part d. no child left behind. they can tick off chapter-verse of republican and democratic -led policies that have wrangled them. the irony of this election is i think the democrats who will be left in the congress are going to be more your base, more liberal than conservatives. and a lot of these blue dog democrats are -- as your viewers can appreciate they have been fistically conservative. health care which is a trillion-plus and the majority of voters are rejecting cap and trade and the blue dogs that went along with nancy pelosi and obama, neither which is going to lose this year, they went along with them and they are paying the political price. you're going to end up with a more conservative journey.

host: we are talking about campaign tweand women. next caller from jackie from pittsburgh on the independent line. caller: good morning. i watch politics a lot. what really amazes me is people are not asking about aned a it of every government organization. i mean, everything up there should be up for an audit. i'm sure there's a law of duplicity. inefficiency is unknown. i have kids. and two of them need help and we don't have a lot of money, but i know -- all i see is what obama and democrats have done is it made it harder for business to do business. and this health care bill, when i saw senator baucus say he didn't read the bill, because he didn't think he wanted his constituents wanted him to waste his time, because they

didn't understand it, what we really need is bills someone can understand. host: let me interrupt you from your innings asks to political choice. you've described yourself as an independent. have you voted for democrats in the past caller: i have. i like old mr. president casey. young mr. president casey i don't care for. host: and what are you going to do in the senate race? caller: i'm going to vote for tomby. somebody has to take accountability for the money they are spending. and i'm really upset with public unions. every time i hear an ad put on by a public union, they are using my taxpayers and trying to support a candidate that i do not, and it's not just the democrats. it's the republicans, too. i saw boehner.

i'm a real paul ryan fan. this young guy has good ideas. people are tired of the same old elitists that are trying to tell me how to live my life. host: there's something in there for both of you. the kind of voter either one of your parties needs to attack. let's start with kelly. guest: this matter of public union you see the stuelings approval polling and the public unions have really falling. i think a lot of that is because they see what governor chris christy are doing and basically challenging the teachers union to take a pay freeze and they are saying no. so do you care more about your children the children or your pay increase this year? ? california these people are going to jail, which is a good thing, for really violating the public trust and remaining the

public coughers to fund their salaries. when enshe says she's incensed when she sees a public union running an az, ask me has $1.6 members, they spent $1 00 million rand just tapping into a $60 million emergency fund. they are giving all their money to democrats, and i wonder if in a place like this -- where they have heavily unionized states. i wonder if they do pay union workers out of the that fund and like because of c-span, people now understand that this is an idea that the member of a public union is a neighbor next door gig out much more money than they could have in the private sector. people are looking at public

union money wrongly and if you opt boo a package lick union, you ought to be able to opt out of it being used for ads you don't support. >> the overwhelming amount of the outside groups to the one our republican-leading groups and democratic-leading groups, you have no idea who is behind them. i think that's particularly troubling new this year and for our democracy. if second piece, which i think is important is the accountability thing. and that is the big theme this election that people are looking for, and it's actually big in a lot of state and local elections where people are asking for a lot more accountability from their state government. running for state senate oregon, chuck riley, he has a bill that made national news that every government document should be written in plain language and something

incredibly popular that people responded to because of the reasons the caller just explained. host: good morning john. caller: thank you, very much for c-span. i would like to say the -- [inaudible] is nothing but a carbon copy of the male politician. they both express themselves exactly like [inaudible] and they both fit exactly alike. and they both dress exactly alike. so i see no difference in this eeh locracy we are leaving in. host: is the goal to look sound a the same or should women bring something different to the table? >> i think the goal should be for women to express and dress

the way they want and true to them and not feel they have to be a carbon copy of men unless they want to. >> and you look back to 10 years ago when hillary clinton ran successfully, she put herself in what i describe as the campaign uniform, and i see females operating under that where she was criticized for wearing this color pantsuit or changing her hair style. she then started to put herself in a navy pantsuit and never changed her hair and sub scribed to that boring famous pantsuit presidential run. but my view is she and other candidates trying to get into the coverage.

but the hair color and whether it matches your bag and shoes rather than what you say. it is what it is. we are all visual creatures. we do gravitate towards someone and remember them based on what they look like or what they are wearing, but eventually i think voters dismiss that and gauge what you're saying. people aren't auditioning to dance or sing. this is serious stuff, and i have faith in the average voter to focus not just on what people are wearing or how they are looking but what they are saying. host: when there are a record number of two female c57bd dats going head-to-head in races, we're pleased to have our two guests, kellyanne conway and margie omero, to talk to us about women candidates and voters in the days leading up to the election. >> thank you. host: we have more coming up.

our next guest is going to switch topics but will have an impact. the economics reporter will be here. we've been talking latest economic numbers have hit the wires. the president will talk about them later today and we'll get a snapshot from him about thousand economy is doing leading into election day. but we'll be right back after the 2010 update. joipping us this morning, the theme seems to be to quit or not to quit. let's start with florida. that senate race. we've heard the headlines and the news that supposedly former president bill clinton asked meek to step down from the race. he said it was actually former governor charlie crist that asked him to step out. so the chris campaign seesed the poll.

it was high in the double digits or high single digits, whichever poll you believe but if t only way he can win is if he gets meeks to drop out and do the late-surge or hail -- you look at how many voters are casting their ballots for candidates who have shown more -- their beliefs in their views and chris has seen the nuns and think it is only way he can pull off the upset is if he can get the democratic vote and enough of the independent vote and told rube yo to just get into the republican base, butt it looks like he aveiled and with meeks still in the race and as defiant as ever, it

looks likes an increasingly lost cause for the cyst race. host: what areas of florida will you be watching? caller: the biggest is the i-4 corridor, charlie crist's base. if he can't be leading or isn't leading in the contaminate parks ain't -- there's no way he can win. rube yo needs rack up the large numbers in the rural parts of the state. northwest florida, the panhandle. but cyst needs win his base. if he doesn't, it's game over. host: it says tom tan creedo, the former -- tom tan cade yo. is pressuring dan maze to get out. why? guest: well, the interesting thing about this race, the candidate do you have worst

vote total for a major party candidate in quite some time and creedo is a -- what is increasingly seen as a non-viable candidate to have a chance at winning it. the republicans are looking at tancredo as a real candidate and another has strong favoribility ratings and has been playing preventtive defense, believing there's no way they can get a majority. and if you look at his majority in the -- from the democratic side, not from hekken looper. so i wouldn't expect hekken looper to go on the attack much. if he does, that would suggest

this race is tightening. host: so what are you expecting between tom and mays? >> well, tancredo needs to disqualify mays and get across that he is the really republican candidate own though he's running on the constitution platform. if dan mays even gets 57-7% of the vote, it's going to be i mean possible for tancredo to have a chance against hekken looper. even to closest polling isn't going to necessary state a rebound -- the republican against senator michael bennett. this could be one of the tightest races in the country. at least as far as the u.s. senate campaigns are concerned

and could be a long night on the nine west counting the ballots if it does emerge to be a close race. john with the hotline, thank you. >> thank you. >> for more information on campaign 2010 go to espn.org /politics. host: let me introduce you to our next guest of the morning. neal irwin is an economics reporter for "the washington post." while we were doing our last segment on politics the latest numbers came over the wire. what did they say? guest: the gross domestic product rose in the third quarter from july to sent a bit of an acceleration 1 .7%, but certainly nothing to write home about. 2% is where the exi is capable of growing in the longer term and not really strong enough to bring down the unemployment

line, so the but not fast enough to make a difference for how politicians feel. host: i know people suggested this report could have political implications going forth. yow do talk to people about the economy and your job. i wonder if anything said by public officials could influence how americans are feeling about the economy right now? >> people are feeling miserable about the economy because unemployment 9.6% and even though technically the recession ended a year ago, things don't feel better yet. so a lo of anger you see in political fields, even though it's a fifth straight quarter of growth, it's not kind of growth that would get us out of

this hole we're in and the kind of a sharp [inaudible] you want to move the dial. host: the fed suggests its big worry is deflation. what does deflation look like? guest: it's when prices are falling. normal times the prices start to rise but they start declining and can become a self-[inaudible] cycle. you horde your earnings which can cause more -- which in turn causes more deflation nation. the japanese through this. we dent have that. prices are rising but at about 1% a year. it's below their target, so that's more disinflation than -- so the question is what now will the fed do to keep inflation remaining lower than its target and the answer will

be using more activism to try to get inflation up a little bit. host: questions about the u.s. economy. our topic is how it's doing overall and what the trends are going forward with our guest neal irwin from the "washington post." the numbers are on the screen below. we are at twitter at twitter.com/cspanwj. you can also send us an email if you would like, and we will try to tackle all that in our discussion here. it's journal@c-span.org. speaking of the fed, you did an interesting piece people can read on the "washington post" which was an interview, but it's a pseudointerview with ben bernanke, the fed chairman. tell our audience how you strucktured this. >> ben bernanke. one of those powerful people in washington that shapes our economic future and has a lot

of power, he doesn't really do a lot of press interviews. host: would you say none? [laughter] guest: doesn't do on the record interviews or press conferences but he duds get out there a lot. makes speeches and does q and a's with college or business people, whatever the case may be. so if i could do a normal q & a i made up a pretend q and a and posed questions found a answers in the speeches he made and the basic answer is he's worry about inflation being too low and growth being weak and the unemployment rate not coming down rapidly enough. so he's clearly sent signals that they are indeclined take new action to try to change that. host: and that new action is on the money supply. so explain to people what the

fed is likely to do. guest: sure. the way they do that is play around with target interest rates. they buy and sell bonds to get it out that point but 239 set interest rate is already near zero, they have to turn to other tools to try to get growth to be stronger. so the tool that looks like they are probably going to use is called quabt tative easing which means going into the bond market and buying long-term bonds so they would try to force down rates throughout the economy. it makes it cheap tore get a mortgage and for a company to borrow money to build a factory and by making long-term rates lower, it stim lates the economy. it comes with risk of inflation down the road and can cause a decline in the dollar and a number of potential problems but it looks like in the

federal reserve they think the risks are worth it. host: but is the problem the interest rate available to people or that people are not willing to lend money to people who are seeking it? guest: that's one of the big arguments against those seeking money. it's not a shortage of capital or money. you know, corporations are sitting on lots of money. you have individuals. mortgage rates are very low. people are not buying houses because mortgage rates are too high. so there's an open question of whether having this cheaper money available will result in the economic impact. that they are pushing on a string, trying to push money on to an economy that is not ready to use it. there's thought that there will be some impact even if it's not a dramatic impact and the view of enter nangey and the fed is when unemployment is this high

they need to do what they can even if it's not sure whether they will work. host: from san antonio, texas, mario? good morning. caller: good morning. this is probably the most important election in this century. if you live to be 100, you need to vote, because the first 10 years of this century are moot because of the analysis from the last administration. that almost bankrupted this government. the $13 trillion, it's like that's what it needed to fix the mess. but it's been based on a lie. like a long-short attention span. to fix a mess from the last administration. and the immigration -- host: i'm going to stop you, because let's stay with your

$13 trillion debt number. the economists that you have interviewed on this question, are they mixed on the effect of a debt of this size on the u.s. economy? guest: there's interplay between the debt and the u.s. economy. part of the reason the debt is so high is because economy is so weak. when the economy is so weak you have less revenue, people are maybing less money and you have higher expenses with medicaid. so anytime you have a definite the -- a recession, the deficit widens. that explains a big part of the deficit but there are parts of it driven by other factors. the wars over the last several years are certainly a part of it. the expansion of the medicare part d. prescription drug benefit passed in the early 2000's didn't include taxs to pay for it.

so that's increased the debt. then there's the structural debt that accounted for by more general spending. so a lot of factors go into the debt. the idea it's important, the election, clearly a tumultuous time and hard issue it is country is going to have to be dealing with, and the people elected tuesday will be the ones to try to figure that out. host: republican, good morning. caller: good morning. i'm trying to figure out if that's the case, how come the governor of new jersey trying to stuff a big [inaudible] in new jersey? because that will be a lot of money generating for not going for new yorkers but also new jerseyens and civilians and is he trying to under --

host: thank you, robert. guest: i know a little bit about that. the tunnel under new york from the hudson to new jersey. i don't know the specifics, but i believe the situation is governor christy in new jersey is weighing whether to or has weighed whether to raise gas taxes in order pay for this tunnel and is not inclined to do that, so looks like the project may fall through and not be done. this is a basic argument about the role of government and trying to deal with our whoas. republicans are -- democrats would say this is the time of all times we need to be doing public infrastructure projects, so we need be spinding money on roads and tunnels and projects. so this is an argument about policy of what we should be doing right now in the state of new jersey. host: this next telephone call

is from wisconsin and leon the independent line, good morning. caller: good morning. i don't know. this is like watching "dancing with the stars." i watched john rad began an msnbc and i think he had the that tisk on this. in the -- the statistic on this. our economy create 450,000 jobs all createed in china. so that's the alpha and omega of this whole thing. thank you for letting me clear that. guest: certainly american companies do hiring abroad. our companies operate around the world and do a lot of things. job growth in the u.s. has been pretty weak. the private sector has been adding lots of jobs.

state and local governments are cutting jobs by the tens of thousands which is causing a drain on the job market. it's certainly the case we do not have robust job growth in the united states and the reason conditions do not feel very good. host: the numbers on the economy's last quarter, the results are a modest uptick, about 2% growth for the economy. the "orange county register"ster has on its front page next year's economic outlook based on economists' productions. analysts what are they saying about what next year looks like? guest: most of the estimates i see are -- will have growth in the 3% ballpark which is what we've been saying. it's growth, which beats contraction, which is what we had during the recession, but it's not really enough to move the dial. because the economy grows

around 2.5%. you have population growth and workers becoming more productive and that into the normal course of things to drive up g.d.p. drives up the economy so if you're growing 3%, you're read thing water. you're not making up for the big gap between what we're capable of producing and what we're actually producing >> right. and nevada and parts of michigan, what is the outlook for the harder-hit areas of the country? guest: we have pockets of the country where in some cases you had bigger than usual bubbles. .

guest: businesses do not have great confidence the consumer will be there if they try to make more stuff. they have a profound lack of confidence there will be demand. the central problem is that consumers are trying to

deleverage, pay down their debts, trying to get income and spending more in line. 17% are under employed. that includes people working part time who want a full-time job. when you have 17% under employment and the overhang of debt, it is hard to get consumer spending going in a way that will kickstart growth. you get out of that very slowly unfortunately. it takes the gradual healing to get past it. host: is the public being told to save more? guest: it is interesting contradiction called the paradigm of thrift. you need higher savings in the long run. it is counterproductive in a recession. it gets in the way. the ideal way things would work is that people would just savings gradually over 10 years.

the economy would adjust accordingly. instead, the adjustment has happened over one or two of years. you have people trying to pay down debts. they're trying to get income and spending more in line. it is good in the long run, but that in the short term. host: the answer is to save more, but not right now. guest: exactly. host: here is a comment from twitter. thaddeus is on the democrats' line. caller: i am a first-time caller. the government does not create jobs. if the government does not create jobs, why is a ready blaming obama about the jobs? the private sector is the they say create jobs all the time. it is like throwing in the ocean without any arms or legs. you want to create jobs, but you do not want the government involved. i do not understand it.

guest: government does create some jobs for policeman, firefighters, teachers, public servants. some of the rhetoric is that a government job is not a real job. i think that is misleading. the vast majority of the planet in the country is in the private sector. i do not think anybody wants to change that. it is in the hands of business to try to invest, expand, and hire people. government does create the conditions that allow businesses to create jobs. you need a solid government. you need a well run government. you need to put conditions in place where businesses think it is a good idea to go out and expand, build a factory, invest in the future. if businesses are not confident in the outlook and do not believe the economy is on solid footing and well run, that can stand the way of creating jobs. it is a bit of a mixed bag.

host: philadelphia, john, republican line. caller: i wanted to wave the flag for corporations in america. about 1/3 of the jobs are corporate. 2/3 are small business in the private sector. if most americans want to retire, they are invested in a 41 k plan. it is invested neither bonds -- in either bonds or actual corporations on the standard and poor's index. we are all in the same boat together. i wanted to also mentioned there is a lot of nafta backing these. under reagan, 20 million new jobs were created. under clinton, 23 million jobs were created. finally, thank god for the cable corporations that pay for c- span. thank you. host: thank you for the last

comment. you are part of that because it comes from the cable bill that you pay. thank you for your support. i want to raise the flag for corporations. generally, are the corporations not in good stead with society right now? guest: i think there is a lot of resentment with all institutions with power. that includes the government. i wrote a story in august. i went to chicago and talked to a number of ceo's and top executives of companies. i wrote about what i heard from them on why they are not investing more aggressively and hiring. the reason was what we just talked about. they do not have great confidence there will be demand for their products and the road. what i found interesting was reactions from the readers to the story. there was a vitriolic sense that they were not consuming because businesses would not hire, speaking of the chicken and egg issue. the truth is corporate america is very competitive in the

global marketplace. our biggest companies compete with anybody around the world. whether that competition strong corporate street will translate into a struggle economy in the years ahead is still the open question. to what degree will the success of the biggest companies in the global marketplace translate into jobs for americans, they are not as certain. host: the next caller is diane from georgia. caller: good morning. i am a first-time caller. i am recuperating from german -- surgery. i heard him say the economy is growing. after three years, i sold my home for $395,000. i know many people that are doing this. many people are out of work. i would like to know in what

sector the economy is growing. host: where are you going now that you have sold your home? host: we have a much -- caller: we have a much smaller home on the lake that my uncle left us. we have downsized. my husband and i both registered nurses. host: are you both working? caller: i am trying to retire. i am 68. my husband is gender. i am not entirely retired. -- my husband is younger. i am not entirely retired. i am curious about where mr. irwin believes the economy is growing. i worked in a nursing home to the economy is not growing that we can see. we could create jobs by handing out money like we do for section

8 and food stamps. we could put these people's money to work to earn the money. we could put these people to work to earn the money. i cannot afford to go have my hair done and spend $90. i cannot afford to have my nails done every other week. these girls can. they turned down time to work. you ask them why they are not working when they do not make that much. they said they are only paying $31 a month for a four-bedroom house. host: i understand your question and example. guest: it is important to understand growth and stocks and flows. there is the growth rate. there is the level of output. we are still functioning way below what we're capable of. there's about $900 billion gap between what the united states is capable of producing if

everybody who wanted the job was working, if all factories working at full capacity, if all buildings were full. that would be called full potential output. then there is the actual output. there's about $900 billion gap between those. all the people who are not working, are not able to find a job, are not able to earn their potential income, the factories idled, the buildings in the, -- empty, there is about $9 billion gap. you are not making progress in narrowing the gap. that is where we are now. a continued mechanically there is 2.6% growth in personal expenditures. trade was a bit of a dream. housing was up a bit. the federal government was up a bit. i do not think that is what you are asking. the real answer is that the reason it does not feel like we're going is because we are

growing slowly. there is a deep hole and we are climbing out of it too slowly. host: the next call is from south carolina, brandon. caller: where are the jobs that? i am in the count was 17% unemployment. every county nearby has 20% unemployment. where are the jobs if they save the economy grew 2.6%? host: that is reflecting what people really feel. guest: there are places in the country where the job market is better. the midwest, neb., up to the dakotas, things are little better. in texas, the economy is fairly strong. there are parts of the country where unemployment is far lower than in the part of the world. this gets back to the basic point that the growth we're seeing is too slow to really

bring down joblessness. economy is capable of growing faster in the long run. that is just treading water and holding still, that is not really making a dent in joblessness. host: one of our viewers picking up on the paradox of thrift rights does. it is just another way to say that nobody really knows what is going on are how to fix it. caller: the next call is from jackie on the democrats' line. caller: when someone called in about chris christie deciding not to do the tunnel because it would raise taxes, do you think if people were working, they could pay the taxes? to me, that is a non-issue. i do not understand how they say the economy is so bad, i am sure

for some people is. people have lots of money to give campaigns. people have lots of money to go to the rallies. people have lots of money to give to the tea party. they of lots of money for the democrat side as well. they never quit going to baseball games, basketball games. i am kind of confused. we're supposed to not have so many jobs and people unemployed. it seems like there's a lot of money is spinning around in the united states. host: thank you. we will get a response. guest: 10% unemployment means that of 90% employment. you can ask people who are in ok shape were still able to go to a baseball game or a glenn beck rally. it is a big country. there can be widely divergent

circumstances for individuals. host: flannery tweets this. health care went up 40%. energy went up 100%. guest: one of the effects of new easing by the federal reserve would put downward pressure on the dollar. talk has bubbled up about new fed action to the dollar is down about 7% or 8% against other major currencies. people think of the dollar, the value of the dollar in more realistic terms on the international market. it is better for u.s. exporters. one of the adjustments that used to happen in the global economy as we need to export more and consume less. there are down sides to a weaker dollar as well. oil is more expensive. imports are more expensive.

it is not a good thing no matter what. within reason, it can actually help correct the global imbalances that one of the underlying causes of the crisis. host: i have an e-mail that asks about inflation rates. does the calculations include food, gas, and medicine? if not, what is the inflation rate when these are included? guest: including those and everything else, the consumer price index rose one put 1% over the last year. if you a excludes food and energy, the kitchen to about 0.8% change over the last year. -- that gets you to about 0.8% change over the last year. energy can be volatile and move for various reasons. you still have a low rate of inflation. host: gary on the independent line. caller: it is my birthday.

i am hoping to get a birth the answer with my questions. my understanding is we have $3 trillion sitting on the sidelines that the business community and investors are just holding to play it safe because of the overregulation and trying to compete with overseas markets. the cost of business in the united states makes that difficult. there's also the capital gains tax being lowered. eliminating the death tax, with that region would that -- would that give our country back in the game again if those things were in place?

unemployment, underemployment, people on welfare, section 8 -- could there be a program where those people who are struggling can volunteer in nursing homes or cleaning roads or service related areas where we could use some help while we are giving them the money they need to survive? host: thank you and happy birthday. guest: on the first point, this is a basic argument happening right now between the two parties. this tax policy and major in edition for corporate hiring? -- it is tax policy a major inhibition for corporate hiring? the best tax and lower dividend tax were only put in place in 2001 and 2003. -- the death tax and lower dividend tax were only put in

place in 2001 and 2003. there were higher taxes on all these things. the idea that you cannot have growth with taxes higher than they are now is not accurate. what is the best policy to get the economy growing rapidly again? what is one to move the dial? that is when you get into a basic philosophy of governing. if you think we're better off having the government jumpstart growth by having new spending programs and infrastructure, or do you believe it is better to cut taxes? if you do keep tax rates low, then you have the deficit problem unless you cut spending aggressively. trying to thread the needle is going to be the big test for congress over the years ahead. host: bill in chicago, you are the last caller for neil irwin. caller: there are several facets of the deficit. one is the trade deficit.

there is the federal, savings, and leadership deficit. the trade deficit cannot understand that we are dead last in exporting goods -- the trade deficit, anderson appeared dead last in exporting its first in importing goods. we owe a lot to china. should we be more concerned about what we know or to whom we know -- owe? i have a question about social security. i am 41. do you think by the time i retire in about 30 years that social security will still be there for me? thank you. guest: social security is not going anywhere. it is a wildly popular program. the funding deficit is pretty manageable. you can tweak a few things on

the incoming exemption on the tax side or the age of retirement on the benefits side. there tweaks you can do to make it solvent. those are minor. there is no reason to think that congress will not find a way to make those in the years ahead. i have a great deal confidence that social security will continue to be able to pay benefits for your generation and my generation. on trade, we have a situation where there is a flow happening. the chinese and other nations around the world buyup our debt. the pump money into our economy. we use that to buy their products and by more than we produce. we have a trade deficit. we import more than we export. getting the trade deficit down as one of the goals for the years ahead. i do believe the imbalances were a major cause of the

recession. figuring out how to fix that is the hard part. the weaker dollar plays a role. you also need to find things that we are good that and develop and invest in those export industries to make sure that we can be as competitive in the global marketplace as we can possibly be. i think that is very much something that needs to be on the minds of policy makers and something the obama administration needs to be working on. host: confined our guest on the "washington post" website. you can find his interview with ben bernanke posted on monday. he is a graduate with a master's degree from columbia university in journalism. he also had a scholarship in economics and business journalism. thank you for being here this morning. we have one more test ahead on "washington journal -- one more test ahead on "washington journal." tim storey is with the national

conference of state legislatures. he has an expert peace in congressional districts, particularly in the apportionment of them, redistricting and legislation and management. thank you so much for joining us this morning. i want to tell our viewers that the next big battle after election day is going to be on redistricting. explain for those who might not know why redistricting is such an important topic. guest: every 10 years after the census is taken, the census bureau delivers it to the state legislatures and governments. the governor and legislators have to start drawing the new boundaries using the population data from the census. that is required by the u.s. constitution. it has to take place before the next election can be run. it is before 2012 in most states. there are four states with

elections in 2011. the risk districting -- redistricting data will begin next february. they will go over them according to the population. host: what does that mean for people? guest: it can have a pretty substantial impact. it is a constitutionally required task of the states have to go through every 10 years. there are substantial political ramifications on how the districts get drawn. many people think that redistricting will determine many elections in the future. that is not entirely true. many members in the house and legislature will start with districts that may favor a republican or democratic candidate. the kind of have an advantage going in.

some of that is because of the way the american population is clustered. there are certain parts of states that we more democratically. their parts that lean more republican. the district has an inherent advantage for one party or the other before the election begins. many things determine who wins the election. how does the canada, hello funded is the campaign -- how good is the candidate, how well funded is the campaign? host: we will open up the phone lines to talk with you about redistricting and what that might mean for your state. we will put the phone numbers on the screen. there is an organization called election data services, eds. last month based on 2009 data from the census bureau, they projected what the outcome might be of the redistricting question. they concluded that 11 states

could lose at least one seat from the house of representatives after reapportionment. here they are. they are sure to lose at least one seat. they say ohio will likely go blue. ohio and nebraska may lose a seat depending on the results of the census data. there are a number of states set to gain seats. there arizona, florida, georgia, nevada, south carolina, utah, and washington state. the state of texas could gain as many as " receipts -- as many as four seats. could you comment on those? guest: we're talking about the apportionment of the u.s. house. is really a zero sum game. if one state gains a seat, it means another state has lost it

based strictly on the population numbers. after christmas and before new year's, the census bureau reports the total apportionment data. that is the state resident lus the militaryiv population overseas. using these apportionment counts, the census bureau regions the clerk of the u.s. house has a formula for equal proportion. it is a mathematical formula. each state find out how many seats they will have in congress. all of the states are growing. i think the next census will show that there may be small growth in a couple of states but growth in just about every state since the 2000 census.

some states are growing much faster than others. that is why a state like texas is growing by three or four seats in the house. host: could to comment on the redistricting ballot issue in florida? guest: there are three states that have those issues this year. one of the states as florida. the other is california. we may get to talk about that. in florida, there are two measures. amendment 5 requires redistricting. amendment 6 applies to congressional redistricting. they are not necessarily changing who draws the line. the amendment would leave the process in the hands of the legislature. they would put additional criteria on how the legislature can draw the lines. it is a fairly innovative approach.

no other state would have any kind of restrictions or language like what is being proposed in florida. it would require the legislature to draw districts that do not favor or disfavor any incumbent or political party. it would try to restrict any ability to draw districts that are gerrymandered. that is an american phrase coined in 1812. it would limit the legislature's ability to draw districts that might be to the vantage of one party or candidate. for an amendment to pass in florida, it has to get 60% of the votes. in some states, we only need 50%. it is fairly close. the proponents are hopeful they can get it over the line to 60%. the other thing about that is that florida -- the change in

florida would be quite different than in other states. there are six states that have some kind of border commission to draw up house districts. there are 13 states that have a border commission that draws the local districts, including california. the california voters also have an initiative on the ballot, proposition 20, the change redistricting for the house in california. host: tampa, becky, on the democrats' line. caller: my tv is turned down. thank you for c-span. the twitter person asked my question. i am kind of confused about the amendments. i want to know more about them. thank you for your time. guest: the one thing i would add is that you could guarantee it is the amendments passed, they will be challenged in court.

redistricting is inevitably a very litigious process. even the process of redistricting before you get to the drawing of the lines can be very litigious. the fact that she is unclear is kind of natural. i think that will be played out in the courts if the amendment passes. in the 2000 round of redistricting, there was litigation in 43 of the 50 states about a line drawing process. the districting and court battles go hand-in-hand. host: how long did it take for the issue in the state of texas to get resolved? guest: what you are referring to is what many people call a re-redistricting in the state of texas. it replaced a plan that had been installed by court in texas if memory serves.

the legislature replacing a plan that had been drawn by a court used for the 2002 election. that episode was challenged in court. it went all the way to the supreme court. it to about 1.5 years to take it -- make it to the supreme court before it was finally resolved. the supreme court said that the state of texas have the right to draw districts in the middle of the decade. if the state constitution does not prohibit drawing districts 1 and once in a decade, a state could come back and redraw the lines. the litigation did result in the changing of the congressional districts. it had to do with the voting rights issue and not the whole episode around drawing the districts more than once a decade. host: we have another call on the republican line. caller: i would like to know who are the folks that actually draw the lines? i heard the fellow talk about commissions a few minutes ago.

people are appointed by the commission. it is not something that the folks who draw the lines are partial? host: tell us how they do it in the majority of states. guest: that is a terrific question. it does vary considerably from state to state. there are six states with some kind of a board or commission to draw the lines. typically, those are appointed by legislative leaders. commissionsf those varies greatly from state to state. in arkansas, there is a three- person commission. the people who draw the lines of the governor, the attorney general, and the secretary of state. that is for legislative plans in arkansas. california just adopted a commission for their legislative plan. this gives you an idea of the

variance between them. in california, and a 14-member commission. all californians eligible were invited to apply to be on the california redistricting commission. they have now mirrored the pool to 60 people. 20 republicans, 20 democrats, and 20 people from either of the two major parties. that will eventually have a board made up of 14 people. when they pass the plan, nine people have to agree on the legislative plan for california. you have to have three from the two major parties. you have to have three from three different parties. california voters are voting on whether to shift congressional house redistricting. california still has the largest congressional delegation in the country. the voters in california will decide if they want the commission to do the congressional lines as well. this could be a major change for

redistricting. for the first time since california became a state in 1860 i think, california has not projected to gain a seat in the u.s. house. they have added people to the population. they have also lost people from california to other states. for the first time in the history of the state, the california delegation in washington will not grow after the census, if the projections are accurate. host: john is on the democrats' line from massachusetts. caller: when the next election comes, make sure the next party that comes into power can in up influencing the election by gerrymandering, redistricting to favor one party or the other. what tends to happen is that

redistricting happens in different states. there are only so many people in so many states. it is strange to me that they would add more seats to certain places where there is less population in order to influence an election or to drown out certain people from voting. basically, that is what i think. it is gerrymandering. host: ok, john, thank you. guest: with the caller is referring to is that we are required to redraw the district after the census because of the one person-one vote principle in the constitution. any legislative body based on population, if you want every member's voice to be equally represented. you need the population to be essentially the same from district to district. the fact that we do not add

seats in an area losing population. it is going to be rural areas that are not growing nearly as fast as suburban and urban parts of states. the data that will come out early next year will reflect the demographic trends in the united states. rural areas will continue to lose population. that means they will lose representation. that is not entirely accurate. there is a narrative that redistricting is all about gerrymandering. people who draw the lines where they often times do have political considerations in mind. it is also important to note that there are numerous federal requirements established by the supreme court that govern how long they can go in drawing the

districts. there is a little bit of variants for legislative districts. they have to comply with the voting rights act. redistricting used prior to the 1960's was used an insidious ways to undermine the influence of minority voters in their ability to participate in the process. they have to comply with the voting rights act. they have to be sensitive to other principals like contiguous districts, compact districts, preserving course of previous districts to minimize the people from one district plan to the next. there are partisan considerations for people drawing the lines, but they also have numerous restrictions in terms of how far they can go in complying with the law. host: our guest tim storey has a

master's degree from the private school of public affairs at the university of colorado. earlier, he was a reporter and later a legislative aide to the general assembly. he was a research assistant at the university of north carolina. his with the national conference of state legislatures. how long? guest: 20 years living here in beautiful colorado. the growth in western north carolina, another beautiful part of the country. -- i grew up in western north carolina, and other beautiful part of the country. host: we have a call from florida, mark on the independent line. caller: i was calling to answer the question for the woman in florida. she was asking about more information. our amendments were put in place because 10 years ago when we did our redistricting, we took a

piece of the mainland out by sarasota and ignored the bay. that started it. during the process, they started drawing lines. they were ignoring natural boundaries. they were saying that the bay connected panales and sarasota. we got together trying to find out how to fix it. it was cut in the republicans' favor. the person responsible for stopping this is a republican. he wants to unseat someone. she is a solid democratic district. we ended up with various untouchable members of congress. that is the reason why we have

five and six. from now on, natural boundaries contiguous -- it is not just communities. there is talk about miami beach as a beach community. they are so far away from each other is ridiculous. that is just an example. host: we're running out of time quickly. unless you have more to add, i am going to move on to another caller. he give us more information on what is happening in florida and an example of how these battles can get. caller: my question is about illegal immigrants. the census asks about citizenship. people in arizona are illegals and get extra representation.

how exactly does that work? guest: the redistricting of house and legislative districts, county districts, city districts, anything based on a population, redistricting is based on the actual census enumeration. that is in the u.s. constitution. that is why the census is taken. it is based on the census data. they do not ask citizenship in the senses. the census does ask citizenship on a different survey. data is not connected to the producing files. the redrawing is based on actual residency. it does not ask about citizenship. it is the number of people living in a place, all ages. the data that the state's use does not have citizenship information.

the base the quality is strictly on who lives in the district. -- de base the equality strictly on who lives in the district. someone could be here on out work visa or born here. everyone is represented in the legislative body. they have the ability to contact their representatives. host: the was an extra effort this year to include the counting of illegal residents. guest: illegal aliens are counted in the senses. everyone is counted in the senses. host: did i read that the census bureau deployed extra resources to capture more of them in the accounting than 10 years ago? guest: i think the census bureau employed a number of new strategies to count everyone. i do not think they made any special effort to count

documented or undocumented. they had a number of special programs to count what they refer to as hard to camp populations. this can be an extremely vital areas. this can be in dense areas with transient populations. -- this can be an extremely rural areas. to my knowledge, they did not have any special program that had to do with illegal immigration. host: i am thinking about the at par to camp populations. the next call is from gary, indiana. caller: you talked about people losing seats. you never talked about the state of indiana. are they going to lose any seats in the democratic party? guest: you will see a number of projections. i think it is important to

underscore that these are truly projections. we will all find out the data truth between christmas and new year's from the official 2010 census. none of the projections i have seen show indiana gaining or losing a seat in the u.s. house. many of the states around indiana are the ones that are most likely to lose representation in the u.s. house. the states in the south and west are gaining representation in the house. there will be a pretty substantial shift in congressional power and a delegation from the great lakes states and northeast to the west and south. those numbers are not only used for representation in the u.s. house, but the electoral college votes are based on that as well. it also has an impact on the 2012 presidential election and

the number of electoral votes the states will have for the presidential election. host: our topic is redistricting tim storey t. it will be on the forefront with many state legislatures after the new year. a like to ask if he can comment on the practicality of the florida amendment that requires no favoritism for a party or candidate. how can that possibly be effective and direct it seems it would require a perfect balance between republicans and democrats, and independents in drawing the boundaries. guest: that is an outstanding question. it is a question that many attorneys in florida are pondering at this moment. i alluded earlier to the fact that the amendments will certainly be challenged.

if they do get the 60% of the vote in florida. how can you draw up any plan that does not favor or disfavor any particular candidate or party? every district no matter who draws it, whether drawn randomly by a computer or those who want to favor a party, every plan always has political implications. one thing you often hear when you deal with people who talk about redistricting reform is how to take the politics out of redistricting. the effect of any redistricting plan is extraordinary political in nature, regardless of how you draw the lines. i think it is going to be an extraordinary challenge for the legislature if the amendments pass and are appalled by the court. host: gilbert, pa., michael on the independent line.

caller: good morning. i have two questions. the first has to do with the number of representatives in the u.s. house. that is 235. it has not been changed in 100 years. you were talking about how they have to make the population in each district the same. you have wyoming, the smallest state with one representative. then you have montana that has nearly the same with one representative and they have almost twice the population. why have they not done anything about that in 100 years? while looking around on the internet, i noticed that at various times and in various states, they have had a general ticket election where they have

elected a number of representatives on the general ticket in the state. they have 15 representatives. the whole state that to elect 15. guest: it really is remarkable the insight and intelligence that your callers bring to the show. this is a fantastic question. i think the number of 435 members in congress was set in the 1920's or 1930's. it is almost 100 years. the caller is pretty close. the caller is right. no. did it expands temporarily when alaska and hawaii became states. it then went back to for the 35. -- the number did expand temporarily when alaska and hawaii became states. it then went back to 435. how do they continue to

represent enormous numbers of people? in most states, the congressional district will be around eight and a thousand people after this census. -- around 800,000 people after this census. the california senator represents a couple of hundred thousand extra people. the questions of representation get to the heart of our democracy. the number has been frozen. the congressional formula for how best seats -- how the seats are distributed is built into the formula. there are seven states that only have one member of the house, including wyoming and montana, alaska, north and south dakota, and vermont. the only have one member of the u.s. house. in montana, they always fall short. it is called the method of equal proportion. the congress could change this.

the congress could also change the number of members in the u.s. house. there has been some discussion of perhaps giving the district of columbia and rep and expanding the number to 437. they do have the power and authority to do that. under the current formula, each state gets one member. montana always has not quite enough people to get a second district. they have the most people of any of the one-district states. one tenet is -- montana is somewhat underrepresented in and that is part of the formula. you cannot have out large elections for the u.s. house. that is now prohibited. host: a twitter viewer says it would make them less doglike and -- god-like and more

accountable. the next caller is arnold. caller: what is wrong with representation based on ethnic background? host: proportional representation based on ethnic background. guest: i guess i do not fully understand what he means by that. proportional representation is an alternative voting system. united states currently uses a winner-take-all system. the person who gets the most votes is a person elected versus wear based on the distribution of votes, you have distribution within the elected body. a number of localities employ some versions of proportional representation or cumulative

voting and other alternative voting systems. no state currently uses that. no state uses it for the u.s. house. host: did you have a second question? caller: based on populations and districts i researched, it would be wise to go that route. in 151 years based on populations and trends, there will be no europeans left on the face of the earth. check it out. host: we will move on to a call from raleigh, n.c., andy on the independent line. you are on the air. caller: it seems like he understated the role of political intent in redistricting. i wanted to take you back to the texas redistricting into the house and three. they have the right to do it according to the supreme court.

it was a violation of the voting rights act. it was said it illegally discriminated. the republican lawmakers were aware it was discriminatory but they did it anyway because it would maximize republican representation. the intent was there. it was struck down because of the fact. with the intent and the fact, why was there no criminal or illegal -- legal punishment for this? it was intentionally done and they were caught red handed. guest: he makes an excellent point. that is the balance between trying to achieve the objectives and comply with the laws that govern the process. the texas legislature -- the

texas governor signed the plan as well. when they redrew the plan, there is little doubt that there was a republican majority in the legislature with the republican governor. they were trying to maximize the republican advantage through the process. they also did it in a way that ran afoul of the voting rights act. people brought challenges. eventually, the u.s. supreme court ruled in favor of the plan. the overturned part of the plan, not all of the plan. it was really one district. i think texas may have 24 districts in the house. that is going to change as we discussed previously. this is the tension that legislators are under. they may have objectives and push the boundaries too far, but it has to withstand a court challenge eventually. in this case, it did not. the legislature had to come back and correct the plan.

it really only affected a handful of districts in texas and not the entire map in terms of the remedial aspects of fixing the plan. host: here is a tweet. we're talking about redistricting. the next call is from silver spring, maryland. caller: the last caller kind of messed me up. i wanted to ask the question about why there are no punishments. and remember seeing how there was a majority in certain parts. the way they drew the redistricting lines as they picked a little piece of every part of the black majority district and split it up throughout the state. here is my larger question. i will be quick.

quite a few of the southern states are under whatch from the voting rights court actions and what not. if there is no punishment, what is to stop these legislators from doing funny little things unfairly with redistricting? guest: that is another fine question from one of your viewers. a couple of points here. one is that the ramifications of drawing the plan is eventually found illegal looms over the heads of anyone trying the plan. they do not want the court to wind up dropping the plan. it is very much in their interest to drop a plan that complies with the voting rights act. it would be illegal to take a concentrated minority

population that is complex. it would be flat-out illegal to take a minority population that is the he said in a geographic area does get it could be defeated if they were divided into multiple districts. to take that publish and put them into multiple districts would be illegal. that is extraordinarily unlikely it would survive. there are numerous watchdog groups deeply involved in the process of redistricting to make sure that states comply with the laws. they do or they would lose the plans in court. the penalty is that the court would wind up driving the plan or adopt a plan drawn by another party. there is a strong incentive to comply with the voting rights act. political gerrymandering is not illegal. the supreme court ie