issues. what we have as attacks on me. we're talking to people each and every day about jobs and the economy, trying to get good schools and put food on the table. he is attacking me. >> i think you have your fair share of a tax on each other. >> what do you do for fun? >> i play with my three kids every chance i get. >> i play with my kids and they are the light of my life. >> if money were no object, what would you buy for yourself? >> i would probably buy a motorcycle. >> i would probably buy a home theater. i love movies. i would love to be able to have

a nice theater at home. i do not get out much anymore. >> what was your biggest mistake after current job? i> short version of that t-- put a lot of sweat with a startup that did not come to fruition. i had nothing to show for it. >> the biggest issue with my current job is not giving more authority to managers. that is one of the things where they are looking more and more to do. letting the police a little bit more. >> gentleman, i think we learned a little bit more about but the view. thank you very much. >> thank you so much. >> our next candidate for and will be tomorrow night. a fully full list and schedule, log onto our website. click on the button and the top

right corner. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the candidate for a south korea -- south dakota were out campaigning. she continued her bus tour of the state. speaking to supporters in rapid city. meanwhile, the representative campaign in the suit falls area. we will air their final debate from earlier. after that, an election preview. later, a discussion on elections preparations with a number of officials. >> in addition to the campaign coverage and archive debates, there is a lot more at the c- span video library.

it's all free and index online at the c-span video library. >> incumbent rep is in a tight reelection race for south dakota's only house seat. she debated challengers last week. this is courtesy and was held in sioux falls. >> campaign 2010. u.s. house debate. >> good evening. thank you for being with us. on tuesday, voters were had to the polls for the 2010 midterm election. cool represents south dakota in the u.s. house seat -- who will represent south dakota in the u.s. house seat?

before you cast your vote, they will answer your questions. each candidate will have one minute for an opening statement. then we will begin a slow -- free-flowing conversation with no time restrictions. at the end of the hour, each candidate will once again have one minute to make their closing statement. the candid it's true numbers to determine the order. -- the candidate drew numbers to determine the order. >> thank you for having us today. we have some important things to discuss and i appreciate you for tuning and and listening to us. we all believed that washington d.c. is broken. i know that and you know that. we have increased spending. we have a $13 trillion deficit that we need to deal with. we have had government takeover for private and mysteries. we have a lot of things that

need to be fixed to get us back on track. last night, we had a debate and congresswoman said she did not vote for any bill helps. but she did. we need to make sure that we are talking about her records accurate label we are having these discussions. hopefully, we will do a lot of that tonight. >> ok, it is getting down to the wire. all of you are just now being -- getting ready to focus. both of my opponents have raised and spent over $2 million to buy ahmadinejad the only pays $174,000 a year. i have little trouble with that math.

really want working on the next federal budget. should these campaigns really be about money? should experience and education matter? i am proudly independent. i have 31 years of public administration experience at the community level, state level, federal, and even international. you do not have to send a partisan politician to d.c. to represent us. >> thank you. this campaign has been mostly about the last two years in washington. since i have had the honor of representing you before the last six years, i have worked with both political parties. i have stood up to both political parties to do what is

right on behalf of south dakota, to strengthen our economy. i have been one of the few in congress that have been consistent about my concern of a dead and discipline -- and restoring fiscal discipline. it needs to be about the additional jobs that we need to create and the wind and history energy. the investments in transportation as well as the ability to be a centrist and not be a part of the partisan politics that have been rampant in washington. at the beginning of this debate, she repeated a blatant falsehood about my records and we will have an opportunity tonight to set the record straight once again. i've been setting the record straight all week. >> we ask our viewers for questions and we received more than 400 questions. this has been a heated race between at least two of the

candidate. many feel that the negative ads are overshadowing the issues. let's get down to it. first question, the recession played a key role in the election in iraq -- across the nation. has it -- has the stimulus been successful? >> any of us can start? >> i would say that the stimulus package has not been successful. it is one of those things that put us almost a trillion dollars further into debt. it increased this country's deficit. those dollars did not go to create jobs. we lost jobs. we needed to give our businesses, are small businesses certainties. we needed to assure them that we would not raise taxes. give them some assurance that we're not going to add new regulations and a bureaucracy

that was going to keep them from reinvesting. that is what they need. they do not need a bailout packages. they do not need turtle tunnels built. what they need is government to stop picking winners and losers. they need them to give them the assurance that they will let them to go out there competently expand their business and ran past. >> we should probably stick to the facts here. in just a few months ago, the governor was quoted as citing the stimulus having traded about 7000 jobs. other statistics show about 8000. others show about 3200. the statistics vary. but it is clear that the stimulus was not a failure. until just a few months ago, we had the same position on the stimulus. i voted for it and congress and she voted to spend a stimulus

funds three consecutive times in state budgets. leadership that went out of the session without passing the budget in the hopes that more federal money would be coming for medicare and other reasons. we need to look at the facts. the governor and other statistics are the statistics that voters are likely to believe more than some of what we have heard from christine. the facts have not been accurate time and time again. but she has said about my record, her service. she voted to spend a stimulus funds three times. it has not been a complete failure. we needed to act. the economy was hemorrhaging 20,000 jobs a day. we needed to stabilize the economy. they differed in the mix of

spending and tax cuts. the stimulus and i voted for, over 30% of it was tax cuts. for working families and for small businesses. i have talked to businesses across south dakota to told me that provisions from the stimulus allow them to hire people back. we have seen the unemployment rate dropped in committees like watertown. -- communities like watertown. voters do not want someone who wants to have it both ways. she has tried to deflecting and running away from her record. if you are not -- if you say that you would have voted for it, what cuts would you have made? what else do you think we needed to do is stabilize the economy? it certainly was not going to magically correct itself. >> that would be great. the congresswoman is one of the very few people do is still

defending the stimulus package as being effective. people are saying that the stimulus package was not what we needed bread she is one of the few that still says it actually worked. the reason that this legislature decided to take those dollars is because the congresswoman and leadership tied our hands. we did not have the option to not take the dollars and let it go back to pay down our debts. we asked those questions. if we did not accept the stimulus dollars, would go back? they tied our hands from doing it. it's still refuse those dollars, they will go to states like california and massachusetts. we made the best decision for south dakota. we sat down and said, if we cannot send those dollars back and take care of the deficit, we will put our people that live in our state in the best position. it sure did not make any sense to do what this administration

wanted to do. our congressman - 2 have the dollars go to bailout states like california and massachusetts. that certainly was not the answer. we took those dollars and we put them where we needed to to make sure we did not put ourselves in a situation where we were forced to spend our states reserves. we make wise decisions knowing that our people here in south dakota were going to be living in the same situation that the rest of the country would be living in. we would be living in a recession that would continue on because that was not the answer. we would be living on higher inflation eventually. it would still be a very difficult time. we prepared our state for the next couple of years. we made some cuts. we did our jobs. >> the congresswoman is shaking

her head over there. >> how can you say that the stimulus has failed when dividend say, yes, we used to be money to plug budget gaps. yet you are not specific about what cuts you would have made. my point is, the stimulus was not a failure. we have to stand and strengthening recovery. but we stabilize debt. this is not about defending the stimulus. this is about setting the record straight. what i hear from the governor, what i hear from other community leaders. setting the record straight that you cannot have it both ways. --y're disappointed from the about the attacks for weeks on end about my vote on the stimulus. no specifics on what you would ve cut at the state level. just took the money, spend it, and now condemned the stimulus. it is political doublespeak.

>> my impression is very short-term thinking. not very strategic at all. typical with what congress comes up with when a credit crisis and rush to solve it for us. the money could have been spent below weiser. the best stimulus that we could put out there would have been to revise our entire system of collecting tax revenues. i have been an advocate of the fair tax concept. it would just take all the penalties off of the businesses that are going overseas because we're taxing investment, taxing savings. i think a fair tax would be the best stimulus package we could possibly come up with. i think that ought to happen quickly. >> what needs to be done to continue to keep the economy on

a bright path? >> we need to extend some of the tax cuts, all the tax cuts temporarily. anyone who is serious about the deficit cannot seriously support permit extension of all of them. we were running a red ink in 2004. we have to be pragmatic. we have a lot of businesses in south dakota that are strong in assets and weaker on cash flow. i think it is important to be pragmatic and. extend them for at least one year or two, particularly for small businesses. we also have to transition to a clean energy economy without cap-and-trade system. we need to keep creating wind energy and jobs here in south dakota. we need to pass the

transportation bill because it is very important for infrastructure investment. we know what the needs are all across south dakota. the need to act to make those kinds of investments. it is also an important that we increase exports. i have been working with my colleagues in a bipartisan way to enhance export opportunities, but we have done a remarkable job in renewable energy in south dakota. we will continue to do that. >> i have a much different position than the congresswoman. i do not believe that we should raise taxes on businesses. that is what she wants to do. she wants to balance our budget and generate revenue. in my -- we do not have a revenue problem in this country. we have a spending problem. it has gone out of control the last two years. we have increased spending by 21%. that is six times the rate of inflation.

we have a house of representatives that did not even propose a budget this year. it tells me that beep -- there is a failure of leadership. it tells me that they did not have a plan for how they spend our dollars. they do not have a plan for how they will pay out this country's debts. they do not have a plan for creating jobs. i run businesses and i have been involved in agriculture. when we talk about knowing about agriculture and getting input, i have lived agriculture. i've invested in the industry. i know what works because i had to worry about a bottom line. we run a hunting lodge and a restaurant. my husband and i also run an insurance agency. my knowledge with running businesses and talking to business owners every day, they are saying, we need certainty. extending tax cuts for one year does not tell me anything.

i am not going to take my dollars and reinvest them, expand, take a risk to hire new workers, only know of my taxes will be for one year. i need to no longer term than that. you need more of one year than a certainty. first of all, if you need to make sure that we keep taxes low and small businesses. we need to make sure that we do not have any more bureaucracy and regulations that come down. that is done to add more to their administrative red tape. i talk to business owners every day that said, the health care bill is going to raise my costs. i have the epa pushing through capt. pulte -- cap-and-trade policy. it bought the house, but it did not get past the legislative process. we have an epa agency that is going for it and pushing it that way. i have a financial reform bill that is going to -- all of that

is creating an uncertainty that is keeping them from reinvesting. we need to make sure that they know that government is not going to come out with new policies. they are not going to pick winners and losers. they will tell them exactly what they're going to do to make sure they can go out and hire new workers to create jobs here in south dakota. >> deregulation is certainly a big part of that. i have a couple broader issues that need to be factored in to address this as well. this goes back a long time. it has been for decades since the government spend what it took in. this has been building under red and blue administration's for a long time. for stock and the process has got to be putting more restrictions on congress itself -- the first step i need a process has got to be putting more restrictions on congress itself. we were talking about something

broader, like a fiscal responsibility and then then that will put a card limits on the national debt. something that ties it to gross domestic product. put some hard deadlines on the budget. to rid of the earmarks -- gets rid of the earmarks. those of the kinds of things that need to go into the constitution. until it is there, congress will continue to play games. the second step is a few years back, we've been through a very painful base realignment process. the major base in our state survived. it may be time to do the same type of process to the 1300's federal agencies that exist. we would have some basic questions. how is your mission accomplished or is it still pending? are you performing a mission that might better be performed

at the state and local level? lastly, are your operational cost exceeding the tangible benefits we're getting out of this agency? if so, maybe you need to be looked at. >> let's move on. the criticism of health-care reform has come from outside. what specific areas are used for and against? should be repealed completely? can be fixed? >> would like to start this one? >> i am a federal retiree. i've got a pretty good. we do have private insurance and we paid into it all those years i was in federal service. it has worked out pretty well. once a year, i get a menu of choices and i usually pick the same company. at least i have those choices. we need to provide to all

american citizens. -- it is someone's personal responsibility to take care of their family, their dependents and themselves and make sure they did not become a burden on society. i am not interested in government run health care. i do not think the employee based -- employer based model works very well either. long term loyalty between employers and employees it does not exist anymore. and that is unfortunate. in terms of repeal, the republicans are thinking wistfully on that. this next congress is going to be back in balance. we still have a democrat president for the next two years. the proper course of action to the next two years is going to be fix what is not working and adds in the things that are believed missing. >> repeal is not realistic. earlier this spring, she had knowledge that repeal was unrealistic. we've got to be more about

scoring actual victories. it was very difficult -- a difficult debate. we had a lot of disagreements as the health-care debate unfolded. they know that i stick to my guns on behalf of south dakota. i was concerned about the increase eligibility rates. i was concerned about the cuts to medicare and our long-term care facilities in south dakota. i was concerned an earlier version of about the improvement tax that would put great plains tribe at a disadvantage. i was concerned that we did not make the hard decisions on cost containment and delivery system reform. it was not irresponsible bill. it was deeply flawed and that is why i opposed it. but i do not believe we should crowd out other legislative

priorities. i will not presume and unproductive strategy that would be further dismissive and unproductive. that is why i focus on fixing the flaws in the bill. we have already repealed a provision to repeal the 1099 reporting provision for businesses. i am a member of the quality care provision. -- coalition. we will have other opportunities to identify flaws, problems, and challenges without foreign the baby out with the bathwater. there are provisions that are worth retaining. all we have fought for a long time to have -- prohibit insurance companies from denying people with pre-existing conditions. she has been all over the map on

her position with that. it is not clear that she supports this provision. allowing children to stay on their parents policies until they're 26. allowing people the canal enter into a high-risk pool. i think that we need to recognize that there are reimbursement provisions and good for our providers in south dakota, that they would not want to see go away. it filing gives more equity under medicare reimbursement. the concern is that is not sustainable if we do not find more cost containment. the exchange's -- it -- again, if we do not force the hard decisions on a cost containment, that will not be sustainable

over time. people will be paying more of pocket for health insurance premiums. >> should it be repealed? kennedy fixed? >> -- accounted be fixed? >> i it's been very clear on my position on health care from the very beginning. i always thought we needed to repeal it. it raises taxes by over $500 billion. it makes cuts to medicare of over $500 billion. i do not believe we should cut medicare. it also has included takeovers of the student loan industry. we're going to lose hundreds of jobs because that industry was taken over and is now going to be run by our government. , the congressman thinks that was a good decision. i do not think so. i do not know why the people of south dakota -- they recognize that we cannot afford it. it does nothing to make our health care cheaper.

i do not know why they would vote for somebody it was not willing to get rid of it. at theo back and look time frame on this health care debate. back when it was being talked about in washington d.c., people across the state wanted to meet with their congressman. they want to sit down with her. it was very difficult. i've had many people tell me that when they would call her office, there were no town halls being held. they were also being told how they did -- that she did not know how she would vote. she did voted instead bill. there was some discussions had back and forth, the leadership called into the state on her behalf. they made a deal. she would not work to repeal this bill if he did not run against and the primary. that is exactly what we do not like about washington d.c. they did not like the backroom

deals. they want somebody who is willing to go and work for their personal -- >> what would you do to this health care reform bill? >> i would repeal this bill. make sure we have more competition. we can purchase policies across state lines. the we have meaningful tort reform. doctors are practicing defensive medicine. all of those would make sure that it was more competitive, that we have lower cost, and it would not add to our federal deficit to play $5 trillion. -- to play $5 trillion. -- $2.5 trillion. there are some good provisions in there. to leave all the other things in this bill in place and skilled jobs in south dakota is not the

right answer. >> please. so much of what she just sad really distorts the truth. it distorts the truth about my position. it mischaracterized so much of what i just stated. she has done that in a few other responses. it is an insult on our integrity. there was no deal. that is outrageous. it shows the ongoing tax on my record, on my integrity, suggesting how i represented south dakota has not been independent or accessible. i held numerous public meetings in south dakota. even before the health-care debate started in july. some of those meetings, i was called a socialist and a nazi. but i had numerous meetings with constituents. i was clear in my communication

with constituents here in south dakota as well as with leadership in washington. where i was, what my focus was, what i needed to do to protect south dakota. i have opposed some of those medicare cuts. medicare advantage was a program that was subsidized by taxpayers. the details matter here. the fax matter. once again, we see a distortion of the truth. it is a direct attack on my integrity. >> this is just the beginning. we are going to take a quick break. stay with us. >> welcome back. we are going to move along here.

we received dozens of questions to see this as a disregard for the law. what do you have to say to those voters to question whether you should be able to make the law if you don't follow it? >> i have apologized for the speeding tickets. they have all been paid. i paid a couple of the late years ago. i apologize for that. i am determined to do better and will do better. it is very important that we know that our representatives and the people of rubbers and our state do acknowledge -- and the people who do represent our state acknowledged a lot. we need to be very clear that there is only one candidate in this race who has violated federal election laws. also traded food for votes as well. we're talking about the

importance of law, it is make -- it is important that you of knowledge the law. it is also important that we do not ignore our federal laws. they deserve to make sure that we have legitimate results. it is extremely important that we make sure that we get them. the federal election laws as well. we need to make sure that we have people that we are collecting and supporting that do not violate federal election laws. when you have an election like this and we're talking about character and we are talking about personal negative attacks, we need to make sure that we look at both campaigns. my campaign, my ads on tv, have reflected the issues that the people s.d. care about the table misstated facts about her record

washington d.c.. her ads have focused on my driving record. character attacks. that is something that i did nothing should be the main goal year. we have a recession. we had people did not have jobs. people are trying to take care of their families. she knows that every minute we're talking about my driving record, we're not talking about her voting record and what she has been doing in washington. that is a benefit to her. i determined from the very beginning that i was going to hold her accountable to what was going on in washington and her actions and her endorsement of this administration. the leadership that she put into place, the president that she endorsed, that she campaigned for and voted for. i was going to talk about that because that is what people are alarmed about. she has chosen to come after me personally and negatively and

tried to not talk about what it's been going on in washington. >> i want to give you a chance to respond. >> i believe the speech that she gave after the primary, she chose as a strategy to be negative and to personally attack. she accused me of using my office for personal and political gain in her speech that evening. when asked to back up such serious allegations, she could not. you said that you had many viewers right in concerned about the arrest warrant, the failures to appear in court. i never the same concern across south dakota about someone who is a legislator, who has a pattern of behavior of violating the law, of ignoring court appearances, of having arrest warrants that require taxpayer money to repair.

it is an issue of irresponsibility. that is what i have heard from the viewers. to distract away from her record, and she is not talked about her record, she now accuses me of violating federal law? there is not even an investigation but i am aware of. she made the needs to be more specific as it relates to what she thinks has been a violation surcharges. my understanding is that the attorney general is gathering facts on both political parties and candidates. i am confident that nothing improper was done. these attacks started the day of the general election by her campaign. trying to distract away from that it is very disturbing and

to suggest that a native american elder does not have the same right to vote as a senior citizen who lives at the waterford or a republican and democratic voter is indefensible. i think it is hard to defend or even answer some of the allegations that she just made because -- can you be more specific? >> we were talking about violating federal election law. back in 2003, she paid penalty and fines for not following the federal election law. all of us recognize that you cannot trade -- feed people and then tell them to go vote. it has been very clear for many years. she is an attorney. she knows that. she should be very clear on what our law says here at the state

level and the federal level. you want to be clear about positions. there was a joint press release issued during that health care debate between her bed said exactly what went on. we do know that the leadership with them and to lobby to keep for coming back and now in their party stay in power. all that is very well documented. i would not say if it was not fact. i did not say that this campaign would be fine. it is very hard. there are tough issues. people across the state are recognizing every day that we have to get our government string doubt. they are unhappy with what is going on out there. they're very unhappy with what they see as a backroom deals, with spending that is out of control. we have the opportunity to send

someone to washington that understands that. there is a time to be responsible. >> your husband works as a lobbyist. is it a conflict of interest a spouse to work as a lobbyist? >> i have a strict policy in place. these are not the facts. i do not know if we have time for me be able to respond to all the outrageous accusations that are being lodged against me this evening. as it relates to my policy, the rules of the house, no member of my family lobby's me or my office. any family member who lobbies is not allowed to contact my office in any way related to any matter related to their business. there is no gray area. it is a strict policy. period. >> i would like to bring this

back to a higher level. it is a concern at it is that the congressional level, there seems to be a culture in congress for they consider themselves exempt from a lot of the laws they pass the rest of us. i wonder where that comes from. a really good example is many years ago, when i was with the department of state, a locking down the every federal agency would have to establish an office of inspector general to root out waste, fraud, and abuse. is there an inspector general for the united states congress? that is one example of many that needs to be fixed. bring it back down to the local level, it is a shame that things degenerated those kinds of rhetoric. the way to fix that has been brought home to me during this campaign. public funding of these kinds of campaigns. if you had a very limited

amount, the one-year salary that we would earn if they got this position, and that is all we were allowed to spend, we would not have time to degenerate into this kind of discussion. we would only see about one week of tv political ads. >> with 3% of the vote, what kind of impact are you hoping to have in this election? what do of to accomplish? >> i am not going to buy into the scientific polls at this point. my travels around the state indicate to me that about 80% of the state is really independent minded folks. i think they will look at qualifications and concepts in this race and not just the -- i am looking for a little bit of a result and that. >> we are going to take another quick break. let me come back, lou find out each candidate will work for the state. >> -- we will find that out each

candidate will work for the state. >> welcome back. as we mentioned, viewers want to know specifically how you would represent the best interest of the state. how do you balance making decisions better definition as whole versus the interest of those he represent? >> i would say you represent south dakota. we are elected by the people of south dakota. to that we are guided by the constitution. we need to make sure that when we are looking at our federal government, in one of the fact that the chairman never joint chiefs of staff to s came out recently with a statement that said, our greatest national security threat to our country is our debts. we need to balance that. we looked at our federal government, we need to make sure

that our spending is as small as possible. then you fight for south dakota's fair share. they want to know if they have a real advocate in washington. you only have one representative in the house. it is a balance. you need to know and recommend and keep in touch with the people back home. people in south dakota recognize that i grew up here and i live here and i've been running businesses here. my kids go to school year. none of that would change if they were to choose to elect me to be their representative. that is extremely important because that is how you stay in touch with your state. that is how you know what they're going through every day. >> congresswoman? >> bling need an independent voice to can advocate on behalf -- we need an independent voice to can advocate. a lot of the challenges do not break down along partisan lines. they tend to be regional lines.

what is good for our agriculture, health care delivery system, poverty for the great plains tribe. telling our unique story about how we can help provide some of these solutions to our nation's challenges. my record reflect that i have been successful in doing that. i'd been effective in demonstrating that saving the base and bringing in new missions have been important to our national security. the military -- renewable energy dollars on loan deficiency payments. we have had a renewable fuel standard, both in the 2005 and 2007 energy bills. we meet our national energy needs and to make our nation both -- more secure. i've been able to tell the story

of veterans, not just in south dakota, but across the country. there needs for health care, modernized education benefits. linden advocates to can talk about -- we need an advocate in can talk about the unique role that we have to play. the common sense that we bring to the table. my record reflects that i can do that. i have done it for sixth place five years. -- 6.5 years. >> do you need me to repeat the question? >> there is only one independent in this race. this independent has significant advantages in this scenario. a significant portion of our population is disenfranchised. only the independent can look across the artificial device that we have, east river, west

river. it is important to note that the title of this position is united states representative. if you follow the model that all 435 of those folks from the congress looking out for their own self interest and their own state, that is the formula for what you see in congress now. chaos. i am hoping that there will -- there is no independent in congress right now. we need to have a few more. that would balance out the discussion the law better. >> i want to go back to the air force base. the field that it has been adequately funded? >> we have been able to increase in the structured investment. we have been able to make progress on a final decision sometime next year on the expanded training complex at of north care -- north dakota.

we have worked closely as a delegation. we are investing in other missions like the financial services center. the rally piloted vehicle program. it is well positioned for another squadron and investments that we have been making a cross the border on these missions. wheeler to -- we worked closely with a delegation to prioritize the air force base. we worked closely with the authority at the state level, all of our partners, and a way that sets politics aside. i am confident that we will continue to be able to do that effectively this year and in the years ahead. >> it has been a sticking point with your campaign. >> the funding has been. it is a perfect example of someone not being there when you really needed them. the president requested $200 billion for upgrades to the b1

bomber. the senate also requested the $200 million. when i got to the house, -- what i got to the house, what came out of that committee was cut in half. $99 million were cut general petraeus says this is the workhorse of what is being done in afghanistan. is a tool that our troops need. the need to have the technology that they can depend upon. the fact that the house, whether congress woman serving in the house comment/that funding in half, is something that we have dropped the ball. we needed somebody to be there. either she did not know that they were going to cut the funding or she did not care enough to do something about it. we all know how powerful the subcommittee is.

nine times that of 10, whatever the recommendation is, passes on the house floor. the president requested the $200 million. the house has cut in half. there will be negotiations going on back and forth. it is a lose-lose. it is extremely important to our national defense and to south dakota. we need that finding. now it is in jeopardy. that is one thing that we are really looking at the effectiveness of our representative is making sure that they are paying attention when we needed to be. it would have just taken a heads up, a letter, this is important to me. this is important to south dakota. make sure that this gets funded. the last bomber was set up -- was built in 1986. we need those technology upgrades. congresswoman?

>> this is another distortion of the truth. the house has not cut anything. she is citing an unpublished, on official leaked reports. the house defense appropriations committee, the subcommittee, there are 17 or 18 members on that committee. the full house appropriations committee has not yet acted. there is nothing filed with the house of representatives. it is a blatant misstatement of the fax. -- facts. i have a clear record of working in a bipartisan way. this is another example of her willingness to go to any length to distort my record. those are not the facts. the house has not cut anything. she is not familiar with the work that i've done. the opportunities that exist in

the legislative process here and to cite a leaped on official report and to suggest there are cuts in the house is misleading. it is misinformation. voters know it. >> it is hard to sit here and be lectured on the process. the process did not even give us a budget this year. the house of representatives has the purse -- hold the purse strings to the country and did not give us a budget. we have a health care bill or the process gave us louisiana purchase. everything that people are unhappy with is the process. i.e. stated the facts. this subcommittee, the majority of the time what they recommend is what happens on the house floor. i did not say this had already been approved. most of the time, this powerful committee, their recommendation is heavily weighted. now we are negotiating.

>> i guess i am a little concerned about the process. i know there is something in the works that will make some pretty draft -- drastic cuts to the defense budget. i am really concerned that we will still have that global reach that we need to secure the nation. the process is what bothers me here. the fact that these folks are getting into individual weapons systems is a concern. is the role of congress to set a budget for the defense of the nation. we should turn it over to the professionals to best decide how they should work their mission. >> we only have two minutes left. what is the single most important issue that he would fight for in washington that is contradictory to what your opponent stands for?

>> i have not heard my opponent talk a lot for the needs of veterans. my record is clear on my support and prioritization for our needs for american -- american tribes and investment. it is indicative of when she is asked which you do for veterans, she said to repeal the health care bill. it seems like everything is about the health care bill in her campaign. that overlooks the fax. -- facts. it is important to point out my record and restate what the facts are. >> i would cut spending. it has to be done and the congresswoman has repeatedly

voted for more spending. she voted for every major spending bill. she voted for the budget summer out of balance. we need to balance our budget. we need to cut our spending. so we can take care of our veterans. we can take care of our native americans and honor our commitments that we made to them. >> a desire to radically simplify our lives by changing the tax code. getting rid of the unfathomable 17,000 pages that we have right now replacing it was something that is very simple. that would do tremendous things for a south dakota and america and terms of revitalizing the economy. >> i apologize for the interruption. when we come back, we will have the closing statements. >> welcome back.

each candidate now has one minute for closing statements. >> thank you for taking the time tonight to comment to listen to us and to 2:09 a.m. to hear about the important issues that we've been hearing from south dakota across the state. and we sat down and decided to run for congress, we did it to the south dakota could restore its voice to washington. we could take some common sense back. i believe in a small and limited government. i believe in keeping taxes low. i think our children need to have the same opportunities that we had liver groin not. we need to protect them and defend them. i've talked every day about my legislative record. i defended our second amendment rights. i made sure we created jobs in south dakota. i know what is important to you.

i know that our spending is jeopardized and everything right now. we need to spend -- we need to send somebody was not been their that knows what a tough -- but knows what to do. i would appreciate your support on november 2. >> this is the last time i will get to speak to a major voting bloc in south dakota. i've been trying to get across the message that we do not have to settle for government and politics as usual. you had a very qualified independent candidate on the battle. i am making a pretty exciting proposal for you. we will establish a system to where you will have input to the major national policy decisions that might affect you and your family. this will not be a great trouble. we'll be contacting you on a quarterly basis and asking for your decision on those items. here's the kicker. i will take the results of those referendum and that'll be my

marching orders in d.c. i will argue and vote on your behalf. the voice will not go to ohio and it will not go to california. the bulls to right here in south dakota. you can stay home and make excuses or you can go down and both independent and make some history. >> it has been an honor to represent your the last six years. we have a very difficult needle to fred. -- thread. we need to continue to sustain and strengthen the economic recovery would smart, a targeted investment in our infrastructure and transitioning to a clean energy economy and writing and other farm bill and extending tax cuts and pour into small-business is. that is our obligation to today's workforce. that is our obligation to today's economy in south dakota. we have a clear obligation to the next generation of south dakota and americans, a

commitment that i've been focused on the last six years in changing the way washington does business. too many people in both political parties have been reckless spending. there is too much partisanship. we do not need any more. we need people with proven records to reduce the debt, to constrain spending. my record is clear that i will make the hard decisions to get our economy back on track. >> thank you to all the candidates. an hour goes fast. our next update is around the corner. we will bring you several more opportunities to hear about the issues. we have gathered people on both sides. that is this sunday, following the 10:00 news. on monday night, we will air an election preview special. that is all the time we have for tonight. if we thank you for joining us.

have a good night. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> voters go to the polls tomorrow. our live coverage begins at 7:00. we will have election results and candidate speeches from around the country. plus, your calls, e-mails. watched c-span live election coverage. >> our local content vehicles are traveling the country visiting congressional districts to look at the most closely contested house races in this year's midterm elections. >> the one thing about this race in pennsylvania is that pennsylvania is having an

earlier federal election. we can set the pace for what happens across the country. they will take back the house. pennsylvania could be the first step towards that. if the democrats across pennsylvania have a strong showing, that could mean that they will retain the house. after our election on november 2, you will hear a lot of the political analyst saying, we thought this, but this is but this is what happened in the 12th district. >> i went to congress to do things. that is what i have been doing. in my campaign, but closing the tax loopholes, they allowed to send jobs over seas. i worked to close the loophole.

i am happy to say that i sponsored and supported a bill to go after china for manipulating their currency. >> if you lived on first street, you could take 1% tax. you would you living as close to first street as possible. we have the second highest corporate tax rate in the and world. >> i think we have been well represented by mr. murtha for over 30 years. i want to see that continue. i want a congressman that represents us, that is not a puppet or a third-party or a global business for outsourcing. >> i think mr. burns was the

victor by for tonight. he started a small business in his basement, began a millionaire. he has common sense, which is lacking in washington, d.c. in has a touch on the business needs that we have. he is a family guy. i like to hear that. on the other side, i heard a lot of the old government rhetoric that comes out all the time. it is exactly what i expected. all of my neighbors are totally tired of it. >> ended up as district director. when he passed away and mrs. murtha decided not to run for the open seat, i really had an epiphany or a watershed moment where i thought i had to do this. i ran the special election. i announced on february 22 and won the special election on may

18. i was sworn in may 20. now i am running again. >> when i interviewed him, he said it was really joyous martha who encouraged him to seek the seat. timber is it is interesting. he started the race about a year-and-a-half ago. he is a businessman. he started a software company in his basement. it grew to 400 employees. then you decided to enter this race because he was upset with the direction that the country was going and you wanted to be able to tell his young son's teddy did everything he possibly could to change the direction. >> -- tell his young sons that he did everything he possibly could to change the direction. >> when you look at the popularity of congress and the

president, we're no different than anybody else. that is the duty of the tea party. it is not an elitist club. everyone is welcome. we have everyone come together and we do not preach to the choir. what is our opinion of washington? it is no different than anybody else's who is watching right now. >> i have no problem with washington. [laughter] i really do not have issues to debate. i would just like to see things progress and have our voices heard and have money coming in and that our children get educated and that people get health care. >> of want to talk about washington, p a. it is about me and it is about you. i have not taken a day off since i started running because it is a lack important. i have done six telephone town halls and six public town halls. i do not work for the white

house. i do not work for nancy pelosi. i work for you and want to continue doing it. >> de think this administration is taking this country in the right direction -- do you think this administration is taking this country in the right direction? if you believe that you want someone who will fight for what you know is right, if you want someone will fight for you, then i would ask for your support. >> leading up to the november 2 midterm elections, we are traveling the country and visiting congressional districts where some of the most closely contested house races are taking place. for more for mission on with the local content vehicles are up to this election season, visit our website c-span.org,/-- visit our website, c-span.org/lcv.

>> we will hear from mark helprin, claire shipman, and another. there is a novel of on each table.

please fill them out and put them in the envelope and they will be for medically sealed. [laughter] we would like to introduce our panel. may i have your attention, please? jim and then the day -- jim vandahey. he is the co-founder of politico. he was recently at "the washington post." he wants to change the way people look at politics because , by confounding political, he has made a major dent in the political news coverage and probably changed their reading habits. we're lucky to have jim year. claire shipman, she is the senior national correspondent for abc news. she has in the white house correspondent at nbc news. then she spent a decade at cnn. i think she will be involved in

the abc election coverage tonight and tomorrow i guess. and mark helprin is the senior political analyst at "time" magazine. among other things, he is the co-author of "game change," -- it is a book that i think many of us have read and it is an extraordinary book about the election, the previous presidential election. mark was previously at nbc news where he covered five presidential elections. between them, we have enormous amount of political talent. let me step right into the first questions. is there anybody on this panel who think that the democrats will retain control of the house? anybody? >> is there anybody in this

room? [laughter] >> how many seats do you think the republicans will win? >> i think it will be a least 55 and could be as many as 85. anybody who tells you they know what the number will be between those, i think they're kidding you. other than people on this panel. do you want an exact number? sunday 5.2. >> really? >> i think it will be above 55 and it could be as high as 85. >> clare? >> i am going with 58 for no reason other than i think mark will be somewhere in between. >> i would be shocked if it is

85. like everyone else, i think that the democrats will is a bunch. it is possible for to be lower than 50. there are so many races right now where democratic polling has them below 60%. we have democratic -- we have seen seats in maine and rhode island, all over the place, that are tighter than anyone would have imagined. i do not think it is inconceivable that it is much bigger in the house and the senate than anyone is anticipating. one thing has been true. sometimes politics is not that difficult. if you go back and look at the races in virginia and new jersey. you go through the special elections in new york and the primary results. it has been the exact outcome in

every single race. a high conservative turn out and independence moving away from obama and the democrats. democrat turnouts have been lower. that is why 85 is not possible. >> different than a normal year, over this past weekend, i would've had a different experience, which is talking to a lot of people die house races on the democratic side. on a normal year, we were over 50 on our polls. we had good energy at our events. none of that from democrats this week. i did not talk with a single democratic consultant who said we are feeling really good and we have ourselves over 50. the other thing, with the exception of the new york races, where democrats are

doing really well, the opposite is true in places like michigan, pennsylvania, ohio. you see one or both of the top of the tickets and you have republicans getting a substantial lead. >> let me finish on the house. are there any prominent house democrats you think might lose their election? >> i think jim oberstar is the one we have been looking at in the last couple of weeks. no one was thinking about him a couple of months ago. he did a lot of fund raising, none of it in his district. i do not think he did much preparation for the race. he could easily lose that race. it happened in 1994. >> anybody else? >> spratt. >> i think people anticipated that. >> i saw barney frank borrowed some money from his own account.

>> he would be the 86 to lose. [laughter] but he is having to work for it. democrats could lose and the republicans have been shut out of congressional seats except for judd gregg in new england. >> let's suppose you are all correct and the house goes republican. do you think nancy pelosi will stay as the leader of the democrats? if so, how long will she stay as leader or not stay? >> i think she will retire in six months. >> i think she is starting to tell people that she would make sure she would be allowed to hand off the power. there is no underestimation on how much she controls. and then set the stage for what happens in her own district.

i do not think mainly because he will win mostly moderate democrats. i do not think there are enough liberals who will live with him. i think there will be -- if democrats lose 60 seats or 70 seats, you will have an entirely different complexion of the democratic party and they will want change. >> i think the other reason people like him is because he effectively rejected the aside. i think that will be on most democratic minds. >> one of the variables that none of us can speak to with any certainty is the dynamic that will exist between congressional republicans and the white house after substantial losses. well hoyer be seen as a white house -- will that be a popular posture to have?

i think they will. i think the white house and where will stick together. pelosi, i think, will become critical of the white house. i think that will be seen as a popular position in the house. >> one addendum to that, if you had whereas leader or boehner as leader, that is a different complexion for leadership. -- if you have hoyer as leader or boehner as leader, that is a different complexion for leadership. i think the makeup of their own caucuses will make a compromise impossible. but at the leadership level, this is not newt gingrich and nancy pelosi. >> is there any doubt that boehner would be the speaker? >> no. >> is there anybody here who believes that republicans will gain control of the senate? >> if it is above 68 seats, it could be as high as 11 and they

would take control. but there would have to win two out of three out of west virginia, washington, and california. the polling does not suggest that they will win even one of those three. but if there is enough of a wave to produce two seats or six seats, there could be a change. >> i think washington is the key seat to watch. >> i would not be surprised at all if west virginia went republican. since world war ii, i think i have it right, whenever there has been a change in the house, there has always been a change in the senate. this will be the first time if it did not change in the senate, where there has not been both houses changing. >> i think this is the first time since world war ii that sharon angle has been a candidate. [laughter] again, if there is a way of a

mother does not need to be a big enough wave in the house for republicans to take a control theire. a big factor to me is cap and trade. >> you may be looking at a lot of people looking at christine o'donnell and say, we would've had the senate. >> let's suppose you are all correct and the senate may be goes republican or maybe not, but very close, and let's suppose the democrats lose the house. what would the white house say? they were misunderstood? it was not their policy to go to local elections? or will they say, yes, we had to change? >> i think they will say that the country wants change and the country wants us to work together and the country want

deficit reduction and so does the white house. and they will say, on these issues, we can work together, immigration, anergy, afghanistan, health care implementation, and we will come up with ideas on how to reach out to republicans to make those deals and try as much as possible to put the onus on republicans to be specific, first, in november, december, and january before the president puts out a budget. >> i think we will hear from the president very quickly. i think he will say -- i have heard with the american people said. they're looking for something different. we are listening. you will see the republican leadership in the white house very quickly. i do not think, unless they really have not gotten the message about the communication, that you will see a lot of -- it was not our fault. it was just that communication. this economic mess was not our fault. i think you'll see an immediate

focus on bipartisanship a verbally. >> it does not matter what they said, but what they will do. i do not know. there seems to be conventional wisdom about what's president clinton did. i do not think it is a foregone conclusion. he is bringing in -- i do not see any moves to the center. i do not know -- something stuck with me a couple of months ago that one of his top advisers said. he is significantly more liberal than he thinks he is. [laughter] it may make it harder for him to move to the middle. he says, i have been in the middle. liberals do not like what i did with health care.

>> a triangulation. >> i do not know that that is how he sees politics and that he is actually setting up a mechanism within the what has to do that. >> i think the thing they will have to reckon with demille is the issue of debt reduction and the deficit. there will have the commission results. what they do with that and how quickly they say, let's try to call the bluff and say this is what you were all talking about, fine, we are all on board and let's do it. that will anchor a lot of the president's party. that will -- that will anger a lot of the president's party. but it could be an obvious move with this new foil. >> triangulation is thought of of how bill clinton was elected. bill clinton did not want to

pass welfare reform and pass the budget because he thought it would not help and to get reelected. he did it because he thought it was the right thing to do. this president wants to get things done. that is why he is there. i am not a math genius, but, after tuesday, by january, the only way to get things done is going to be with republican votes. i think he will triangulate in that he will try to do deals in the vein of john boehner. it will not be because he wants to be reelected. >> you recommend he bearing in a republican chief of staff? >> my gift to america is to tell the president make ken duberstein your chief of staff. he endorsed them in the election. he has great relationships in d.c.

i think the biggest crisis with the president is now the tea party and the people in our business. it is with the business community. this popularity and the lack of trust is extraordinary. from co's to people in the real- estate business and people in the pits a parlor, they do not think that he and a sense how markets work. he needs to bring in someone, a chief of staff, someone from the business community to have dialogue. how can we implement health care? how will we do energy and deficit-reduction in a way that business can feel like there is certainty? in dealing with the bush tax cuts, everything that is on his plate, with the possible ,xception of afghanistan will need the involvement of the business committee. >> ordinarily, it is not what it would focus on. they need some anythings.

i think they will try to get somebody who will fill all of those bills. but they have not been able to get that many people interested in it. >> larry has not left yet. but they have not been able to find the proverbial ceo female. now they're looking for somebody else? >> that slowed down because when ram was trying to move quickly and when he left he moved slower. they need somebody to be a spokesperson on economic issues. it is not just the business community that is skeptical. it is the democratic ceo's who supported him in the election who have privately walk away with meetings from him not just feeling that the policies are not there, but that he is not there. if they can do that, it makes it

easier. then you can talk about tax reform and corporate tax rates and trade agreements. the list of stars to come together. that is where there is an overlap with republicans. getting there is much more difficult. i think there's a sense somewhere in there. why not go through the cabinet officers, another we're talking about this? [laughter] >> it is a centralized in the white house. secretary gets will stay least through next year and maybe even beyond. he is one of the most patriotic and sell sacrificing people we have seen in this country in my lifetime. but i think he will stay. i think salazar might go. but these are people who are not

playing major roles. >> of people are expecting geithner or major changes -- >> i think it goes earlier next year. gates goes superdelegate earlier next year. >> what could he have done to change this tide? >> i think there was a clear choice to focus on health care as opposed to the economy. i do not think, in the white house, there is the sense that anybody knew, when they took that on, how long it would take and -- how big it would become. and i think communication was something there is a sense, looking back, that we did not

have time, we didn't have the platform, we cannot get the message out. that is unbelievable. of course it could get their message out. the problem is, i think, a president who is not comfortable with some of these issues. i think an extreme focus on jobs and the economy would have made an enormous difference. >> the change happened in june of last year. it has not changed decisively and the numbers have been not moved since then. he lost independence. -- he lost independents. those numbers locked in and they

never changed. many have to figure out how you could do health care in smaller pieces. there is a much in the energy bill that he could've gotten the republican vote. ram was advocating a much smaller bill. i don't think republicans had any incentive to do anything to help obama. the tea party is the story of the election today. i do not think that they are as important as the swing vote. >> one thing that might help this the devastating toll number than 90% of americans do not understand that there was a tax cut involved. -- involved in the stimulus bill. could they have separated out some of those pieces and be able to more successful a message around them? >> they should not have done a stimulus in a partisan way.

that led to a lot of other problems. they should have done a bipartisan. no. 2, they should not have let speaker pelosi become the face of his agenda. they should not have done the cap and trade vote. and the last thing is, every time he says, i will play golf, they should have said that he will spend the day with a working family somewhere in the country. [applause] >> i do not play ball. >> will there be a lame duck? >> on the tax cuts, who will blink first, the president or the republicans on terms of the upper income tax cut preservation? >> the president will blink either in the lame duck or in

january. >> is that a one-year tax cut for everybody in? >> two years or maybe even three years or even permanent on middle-class is the most he can hope for. >> on tax cuts, they may be able to pull them apart and tried to get some thing, maybe a little bit more than some other economic agenda. >> i don't know if i entirely agree that obama will be the one to blink on this. if you gave out the scenario, essentially, obama will have to break the promise he made more frequently on the campaign trail. and then he will have to extend tax cuts for a year or two years at a time when liberals will be outraged many ways and he will

have to flirt rhetorically with republicans? he may do it in exchange for permanency for anybody below two hundred $50,000 -- below $250,000. >> what about secretary of state hillary? [laughter] >> i think she will stay as long as the president wants her. i think he will want her for a while. if bill gates, i think he will want her for that. >> but she will not be the secretary of defense? >> i think she will be if bill gates leaves. >> she has a lot this she wants to accomplish. she has been an effective

secretary of state, but she has not -- there are no high-profile achievements to date. i think it is in her own interest to stay on. >> there will be no chance she will be vice president. she could be defense secretary next year. there is a high possibility she could run in 2016. >> if biden does not want to run in 2016, there is a chance if she will run. there are people around the president -- >> how about 2012? >> i do not think she will run in 2012. it happens in the summer or spring of 2012. i think having a vice president without political ambition to run for president is a good thing so you do not have competing power centers in the white house. vice-president biden said he would not run in 2012, but then

he took that back. you leave a vacuum if you do not run for reelection with someone who will run the next time. if she wants to run, and you is more likely to want to run and joe biden, it would make sense to have her switch jobs. >> [crosstalk] >> let's go back to the senate. if harry reid were to lose, who would replace him as the leader of the party for the democrats? >> obviously, it would be between schumer and durban. the money is under been because he is even more -- the money is because he is even more ambitious. he will make the argument that i

will show you how to raise money and never underestimate his ambition. >> and there still remains, right? >> yes. >> listing is so low-key because no one wants to do it in public. -- this thing has been so low- key because no one wants to do it in public. schumer has been raising money. >> i thought he was doing this senator reid -- >> he can do both. [laughter] >> hedging your bets. theet's go down a couple of senate races. alaska may be the most interesting one because you have a right in cabinet a write-in candidate. how about alaska?

>> i think she will win. we will not have to wait three weeks to know. >> you have seen the latest news on the last-minute flood of write-in candidates to confuse the ballot. a lot of them have similar names so it will be easier to challenge. i think she will win, but i do not think we will know it quickly. >> i do not think it is a foregone conclusion. i think there is a poll which shows that he is winning and it is more accurate than anyone on this campaign cycle. they do a better job at factoring in conservative .urnout appeare >> so you think blanche lincoln cannot win?

>> someone told me a couple of weeks ago that president clinton said, "she can still do it." >> what about california? >> that is the 10th or 11th seed. if there is a national wave, i think your arena can win. she can benefit from that whitman money because whitman is -- i think your rihanna -- i think fiorina can win. she can benefit from that whitman money. >> how about colorado? that is very close. >> i was bullied into taking bennett. but i think all races will go to the republicans. >> i think so, to. >> what about convicted?

the democrats are ahead in the race. nobody disagrees with that. >> he is the luckiest man in politics. he went from being lost to being issuing. it was a slam dunk win on a night that is a slam-dunk loss for the party. >> i think she has not been a terrible candidate. if you watch her, she is a fairly effective politician. compared to sarah palin, she is probably more effective on tv talking about issues than sarah palin. that does not mean she will win. >> she is charismatic. >> in florida? is meek going to be dropping

out? >> he is not dropping out. but his numbers are pretty low. the rays could be close, but not close enough -- the race could be close, but not close enough. >> illinois? >> ugly. is that on the ballot? i do not know. [laughter] >> mark kirk. >> is kentucky decided? >> hailed the aqua buddha. [laughter] >> nevada? >> i think that is too close right now. >> i have no view. >> i think sharon angle will somehow win that race. it was amazing.

every time it was clear how they were both coast, and harry reid was asked a question, one thing is that you have to take her seriously. and he is like, i cannot believe i am standing on stage with this woman. at the end, you have to show that your likable. and then you would see him go -- [laughter] >> what about pennsylvania? is that decided? who would you say? >> i was not surprised that it is close. >> the governor's race will help thune. >> i will let you comment on west virginia. what do you think will happen

there? >> that is the 10th seed. if there is a national wave, given that it is a totally anti- obama state, i think if there is a wave, they will lose. >> he could easily lose that race. given the demographics of west virginia, i do not think it is a long shot. it is a 50%-50% chance. >> washington state? >> polls have basically shown the same thing. you can walk away thinking that it is probably true. it is a close race. >> i think patty murray is close

enough. it is a terrific illustration of what is at work this year. she is campaigning on all the things that she has brought to that state. and that, in this year, is a negative. she seems the consummate insider for having gotten money from washington. >> it is hard for these old timers to run. i am on the proportions and i can dole out port. all of this is now -- i am on the appropriations and i can dole out pork. all of this is now that. >> one of the great untold stories of the cycle is the democrats did what you normally a bad year.anticipating in the house, they voted on cap and trade. patty murray, -- they have the

baggage of washington. they have the baggage of specific votes. they have the baggage of running as appropriators. i think she will lose. >> one last state we have not covered is wisconsin. is that decided? >> yes. >> johnson will win. >> it feels like it will. i am from there. if there's anybody who should be able to say that i am not part of the washington crowd and i have not stood up to my party it is rangel. >> let me switch to a couple of governors races. how about new york? >> cool will win. cuomo welle when. >> what about california?

>> i think the house leader situation really hurt her. it is an extraordinary amount of money, more than ever has been spent. >> he is a genius. he just knew that she come in the end, would spend all her money on negative ads. >> it is tight. i am from ohio. ohio costly struggles with red/blue. strickland has a great machine. this will be really tough. >> the one saving grace for obama is if they can pull out florida and ohio.

for get new york. they can get california. >> do you think the gubernatorial race will go democratic? >> if it does go that way, i think obama will be looking for some silver lining. >> we can still count on california. [laughter] >> the simpson told report is due in november. will it be taken seriously and affect anything or will it be another series of commission reports that nobody pays attention to? departure will be important because he was stage- managing it. they will try to massage the outcome of the report to dovetail with the election results to strengthen the president's hand on the state of the union and budget. i do not think it will be able to get anything out of the commission in terms of the bus required for a majority, unless

the president quickly moves to take control of it and reaches out to republicans on deficit reduction. i think that will be a big lever em in january. now i think it will be a stalemate. >> it is set up anyway for to be hard to be effectual. it does not take a rocket science to walk away from this campaign knowing that you have to focus on cutting spending somewhere. if they don't do that, there's no way you will win back independents. you need to set the stage to talk about either tax reform or entitlements, which i do not think that they have enough courage to do, until they are forced to do it, but they will put things on the table without too many specifics. >> i think it will be a bold move. i do not know it will be a right move for the administration to

use that as an opportunity to say -- i have heard you and i have heard you, republicans, yes, let's do it. i am challenging you now to work with me and do something now. >> right now, in your view, what republican candidates for president in 2012 will be most helped by this election? do you think someone will be helped more than anybody else? could it be the frontrunners for republican nominations for 2012 as a result of this or does it matter? >> the candidates who have been working with or helped by the tea party will get something of a boost. i think huckabee gets more of a boost than he would of had. sarah palin, obviously. >> will she run for president? >> i do not know. i cannot imagine she will spend all this time not planning to do something. but jim has written about that

recently. >> i have. people in washington think there she will run and could easily win the nomination. no one can turn out voters and ignite more controversy and more news and raise more money potentially than she could from the active as part of the party. if she wins, she is a serious contender. haley barbour was helped a lot by this. it has reinforced the belief that he is a republican strategist. when he tells people, yes, it is true, but take a look at me versus all these other people. i do not have your liabilities than they do. i think he seriously wants to run, could run, and people underestimate how good he is on tv. he could be a better candidate than people think. >> i think there are seven people who could win the nomination today.

i think the front-runner today, the most likely, is romney. the people most likely to beat him r barber, gov. daniels, sarah palin, and gingrich. >> romney, he has not been helped by this cycle necessarily. just in terms of health care becoming a big issue and his focus on health care in massachusetts and a cooling in what we saw in california. the businessman or businesswoman is not necessarily the silver bullet anymore, i do not think, for republicans. >> we have 10 minutes for questions for our guests. any questions? nobody has a question? not one question? here is one. stand up and speak up. [inaudible]o

>> the question is about the blue dogs. >> gene taylor and a lot of others will lose. there will be some left. i think there will be a lot of interpersonal drama is playing out with political implications. one of which is within the democratic caucus in the house -- what is their posture towards recovery for the next elections? the blue dogs will argue that we were too liberal in our recovery and they were to centers. there will be -- they will be fewer in number. the caucus, i think the question is, did they, along with where, build a relationship with the white house? i think that a coalition that includes the republican congress and the blue dogs. >> what happens after the elections if you're john conyers

and your 81 -- and you are 81? do you decide that you will retire fairly soon? he will not only have leadership at the top, but at the committee level. there could be a rethinking of how democrats position themselves. the dynamic will be on the senate republican side. you could have anywhere between five two party candidates to 93 candidates. -- to 9 tea party candidates. they are coming year to wait a philosophical war. they see themselves as messengers and not legislators. how do you work with them to bring them into your fold, to be able to vote on to the legislation? you could take someone like

cockburn and bring them into leadership so they have someone they feel they can have a working relationship with to be their outreach leader for the tea party candidate. if they all come in and govern like jim demint, it will be difficult for mitch mcconnell. demint has shown that you do not need washington to build your own power base. you can use the power of cable tv and the internet and access to the republican party to create your own power base. paul and angle will probably try to do the same thing and cause difficulty. >> will run an annual be elected mayor of chicago? >> -- will rahm emanuel be elected mayor of chicago? >> it looks like he will be. people focus on the fund-raising one chicago. it changes on december 31. it is currently unlimited contributions.

it would change to caps on individuals and corporations. he is out there raising money like crazy. others are not because they're still deciding whether or not to run. he will have a ton of bank by december 31. >> any disagreement on that? any other questions? >> earlier, you mentioned part of obama's challenges is that the business community is disaffected from him. since they represent a very small session of the voting public, what is it that you think that the obama team needs to do for the masses of people in either the emotional feelings can for the substance of accomplishment camp to get this train back on the tracks before

2012? >> we were talking about this earlier. i think that economic policies are really the key. if they cannot figure out how to turn the economy around, 2012 will look ugly for him, what ever other legislative accomplishments or bipartisanship or anything else that has gone has happened. i think that is what people are feeling. that is why we suddenly have average americans worrying about the deficit spending, which really does not happen normally unless they themselves are feeling financially insecure. that is number one. it will not be easy. they have to figure out the communication message. i still do not understand why he is not -- even when they tried to get out there somehow with ordinary people and get him talking and relating -- i do not understand why michelle obama is

not doing more or is at his side on that message all the time. i do not know how you do that. maybe you need a can do christine -- a ken duberstein to do it. >> is there any chance that the obama -- that obama will be chosen by the left in the 2012 primaries? >> we do not think so. mainly, there is not an obvious person out there. maybe russ feingold would be the only person out there that has any national standing. >> there is howard dean. >> i am skeptical that howard immediatwould do it.

>> you have kucinich having a degree. >> we have time for one more question. speak loudly. >> [inaudible] >> i think they will make a step that repealing health care. >> of the funding it or -- >> i think they will have to do some sort of pro-form vote. they will try to do something. they can also effectively, throughout the country, try to slow-walking, too. >> they will have a symbolic vote on repealing health care that will not go anywhere, but they will do to placate the base. they will do is spending cuts

package. that the show that they got the message. they will ban earmarked for a short time, given boehner's position on this. they will probably try to lay down a couple of markers that they can work with on no -- worked on with obama -- that they can work on with obama. in early february, you have to raise the deficit. you have all of these candidates coming back from washington and all they talked about was debt. you cannot keep government functioning unless you raise that debt limit. it will really test boehner's leadership ability. i think it is much more difficult to work around that, even for a short time. >> the last question, what will be the biggest surprise tomorrow night? >> given conventional wisdom, i

would say republicans taking control of the senate. >> i agree. i would say the california senate seat for the washington senate seat going republican. >> it would be a shocker is that democrats would hold the house. [laughter] >> all right. thank you very much. [applause]

>> the secretaries of state -- >> the secretaries of state are coming up. then pollsters' talk about the elections. later, the day for new mexico's second congressional seat. >> more about the elections on to mars "washington journal." we will talk about the 2010 campaign. we will also talk about some of the key house and senate races. after that, ford is investing

$50 million in michigan and critical hundred new jobs. "washington journal" each week at 7:00 a.m. later this one, a decision on the challenge -- a discussion on the challenges facing governors. live coverage from the urban institute at 11:45 a.m. eastern. >> our first guest secretary of state larry busher. thank you so much for being with us. >> is a pleasure. >> our guests and questioners are jessica taylor and rita wilson. thank you to both of you.

jessica, we will start with you. >> thank you so much for joining us this morning. i saw a report this morning that shows that early voting in your state has hit 1 million already. i want to ask about these numbers. you have the mailing ballots. how do you think that is helping curtis turnout? tell us a little bit about early voting their. >> colorado allows citizens to vote in three ways. by mail, early voting, and election day voting. we have had almost 1 million voters who vote already. we expect about 1,000,000.7. that changes the way -- we expect about 1.7 million. that changes the way they count the ballots. it smooths it out. we are pleased in the with the election is going right now. the turnout is a little below,

but we're pleased. >> people are already picking over the early as to get some tea leaf readings. what can you tell us about it? >> we are seeing, as of friday at 3:00 p.m., we had about 53,000 more republicans that had voted than democrats. unaffiliated seemed to be voting very slowly. we're looking to see whether we see a third of >> early voting has changed the way campaigns have been run. what are you seeing from the national party is? they have been investing in these early voting programs. are they making a difference in terms of the turnout? >> that is hard from us to tell from our vantage point. the u.s. senate race has led to an investment that is unprecedented in colorado.

the number of television advertisements is dominating the airwaves. i know the candidates have been working hard the last few days on getting out the vote, but they have the ability to tell who has already voted. since 60% of the folks who will vote in this election had already voted, they are concentrating on the last 40%. >> you mentioned 1 million people have voted. i know nevada has the 60% of the turnout coming early, what do you see in the future? do you see more people taking to the polls before the election day? >> we have seen a continued growth of the number of citizens who have signed up as permanent mail ballot voters. i suspect we will be over 75%

this year when everything is counted. it is not inconceivable colorado follows the lead of oregon and washington and becomes an all mail in ballot state. the ap stopped reporting how many precincts have reported. how has early voting change how you count the ballots? >> in colorado, is by the counties. the county supplies the a permission to the news organizations, and they do most of the compiling. the results are not presented to my office for several days after the election, but i am doing the same thing. i am looking at the percentage of expected votes rather than the precinct. >> with the early voting, how

are you expecting this to cut down on the long lines at the polls? how are you preparing if there are lines? are provisional ballots factoring in to that? >> we have not had problems for the last four years with lines at the polls. that is because we keep track of the percentage that has voted, and the potential turnout on election day. it is most below 60%. since we have a robust system of ways you can vote we do not expect to have lines or problems at the polls. >> just to understand mechanics and getting their money's worth, after the 2000 election congress passed a law that sent billions

of dollars to the states to bring their voting systems up to date. in colorado, what has been the effect of that? how have things changed? >> because we have gone to a ballots, we have ended up with a system that is very expensive. the touch screen equipment is not being used with the numbers it was originally designed for. we have an early voting system and an election day system. the counties are really struggling with the costs of the elections. >> you mentioned the touch screen machines in some of the precincts. those have engendered a lot of

skepticism. what kind of voting machines do you prefer if you had an unlimited budget? >> colorado made a decision along time ago that we let each county choose the equipment they want to use. that resulted in colorado having all four major systems. my office has to certify all the systems. we ended up with a result more expensive and it has been a challenge for us to administer. what we are focusing on is the scanning equipment that reads the ballots and tries to limit the touch screen machines. >> you would rather have the paper trail? >> that is what the citizens are using. since we have a surplus of touch screen equipment we are

encouraging the county to concentrate on the scanning equipment. >> just picking up on reid wilson's implication, considering the tightness of the senate race in colorado already showing mobilizations on both sides of the aisle, what kinds of safeguards do you have that you will be able to accurately reflect what people say at the polls? >> that has been the focus of a lot of work. on friday i was on the telephone with 40 of the county clerk's talking about the possibility of a recount. a recount is a secretary of state's worst nightmare. i am hoping everybody wins the race that they are-by more than 0.5%.

we have a number of races that look like they could be very close. we had a set of procedures that if it becomes necessary we will mail out to the county clerk's on wednesday morning. they have seen most of them. many have been involved in recounts before. unlike minnesota, we have a process that has to be completed within 25 days. our recap process will go along very quickly and will be done by the county clerk. it will be certified by my office within 25 days after it the election. >> minnesota was the state that took many months to count the last cycle. how does the specter of a breakout change the way you may have operated in your office?

>> that is a great question. i spent some time -- we reviewed all of our rules about recounts after the minnesota procedure. i have personally met and talked on the telephone to the secretary of state about what they learned from their process and what advice they could give me for a recount, if it becomes necessary. it creates as much confidence in the system as possible. to make sure that the citizens have the ability to see what is being done and to make sure our procedures are well-defined, which they are. then we can move through it as quickly as possible.

>> you are not giving the voters a lot of opportunity to make their millions of dollars like in minnesota. >> let's hope not. >> particularly if our u.s. senate race in -- and is in a recount there will be plenty of people over the state. if there is a recount -- a couple of fairly narrow areas. machines have been calibrated properly. the first thing we do is to retest the machines to see if they were reading the ballots correctly. the second is with the provisional process of voting. i am sure every vote will be examined very carefully. the third is in those situations where a ballot has to be duplicated after it is received by the county clerk.

that happens when there has been coffee spilled on the ballot or the ballots received overseas that cannot be scanned by the machines. we have a very precise process in which a democrat and republican are reviewing the ballot and making be replicated ballot. they are observed by a second democrat and republican. we had a careful process and i suspect those three situations are where the election attorneys would spend their time and effort. >> you mentioned you are in a state of fiscal stress. everyone is watching their budgets very carefully. i have to go into a recount and you have a 25 day time frame. that seems like lots of people

working around the clock. how are you able to handle the fiscal impact of post-election counting? >> i was worrying about that thing. the state statutes say for the secretary of state's obligation we can go to the general fund. fairlyope the costs are minimal. the county would have to bear most of the costs. the commissioners will have to build those to their general fund obligation. it is a significant problem. making sure that our ballots are counted properly and the system runs well is the fundamental thing about our form of representative democracy. we will spend whatever money is necessary and will make it work. >> all of our discussions have

been on the accuracy part. colorado is one of the states that has a fair number of people who english might be a second language. i am wondering about ballot access for people whose original language might have been spanish. let's have you talk about that. >> this issue is mandated by federal law. if there is more than 5% that are spanish speakers you have to supply ballots in that language. it is determined county by county. we have a couple of counties in which spanish-language ballots are supplied and the election materials are in spanish. after the results are compiled of the census i anticipate we will have more county is that do

the same thing. >> you mentioned earlier the overseas ballots and people having to vote in different ways. election in officials ran a test of internet voting in hopes of the figuring out the vulnerabilities. they ask computer hackers to hack into the system and they achieved it within an hour. what is the future of internet voting or is that a dream? >> there are pilot programs going on in 11 different states to deliver ballots overseas two men and women serving in our military. the ballots are in scripted and printed out overseas and delivered back by male or by e- mail attachments.

that seems to be working very well in our state. the experiment in washington was exactly that. it was designed to find out whether the system could be hacked. it was successfully attacked by students at the university of michigan. the story is a test proved it could be packed so we will continue developing procedures to fully in crypt balance to provide the security necessary. i anticipate we will get the technology that will make that work, but right now it is the experimental stage. >> people often go to your web site and are looking for returns. anxiously looking at the returns. how do you feel like your web site is equipped for people and

will be looking for updated returns there? >> we do not report the returns on our web site. we leave that to the media because until those returns are certified as official, we don't report them. i think in colorado most people will be looking at the "denver post" for their up to date reporting. we concentrate on making sure folks can access our site for things like tracing their ballot and seeing their ballot has been received by the county clerk. >> stay with us as we introduce a new voice. jennifer brunner is ohio's secretary of state. thanks for being with us. we have seen projections that you are expecting a 62% turnout

in your state. i am wondering how you are doing with early voting. >> early voting is very popular. the president will be in cleveland today. we do expect there will be bus loads of folks who will be voting today. i think the board is prepared for the large number of people who will be doing that. >> questions from the ohio secretary of state. >> with this influx of early voting in 20081 of the main concerns was there were long lines at the polls. do you think this will curtail some of the lines? how are you dealing with the lines of this process? >> in 2008 there were some lines during early voting-franklin county because they had more voters than they had planned on.

but we expect that early voting will alleviate congestion on election day. we have told voters not to expect long lines. >> we heard that the secretary has already spoken with a number of county clerks planning on the possibility of a recount. what have you done to make plans -- i think there are seven or eight competitive house races. >> there is a competitive governor suarez. the secretary of state -- governor's race. in crafting the unofficial can best we have provided for a very specific evidence-based recording of information so that

when the can this is complete there is -- we will know how many military boats are still outstanding from within the u.s., outside the u. s, the overseas votes and the number of older folks we need to examine later for a double bubble. in ohio we had a require -- requirement it must be fully expressed. >> the competitive races for house and governor you left out one of the braces. the open senate seat in ohio. iran as trailing badly in the polls. would you have been in the same position or would you have performed better? >> that remains to be decided --

it will never be decided. i am not on the ballot. for the ohio voters, what they will get is an election where they can make their choices and a secretary of state who is more than engaged in making sure every vote counts. we have a smooth election in ohio. >> we have been talking about some of the different systems. can you explain the different types used by different counties? >> we have primarily the touchscreens and optical scan ballots. the electronic recording of the votes at the time the voter places their boats. then a paper ballot they can place into it themselves. we have 47 counties using the [unintelligible]

the remainder of using the [unintelligible] it is a variety, but it reflects the diversity of the people of ohio. we have over writing rules that deal with the reporting of the votes. they will come in electronically and will be reporting those on election night. >> we learn from colorado that they had a 25 day maximum under state law if there is a recount in order to certify results. is there any kind of limitation in ohio? >> it is building upon days upon days. there is a 10-day period for the military balance to come in as well as the absentee ballots. there will also be the provisional ballots. the official canvass has to begin 11-15 days before the

election. it could extend after that. it is at that point any recount would begin. it would be done by the counties. we have a very specific process where if it is and electronic machine there is a voter verified paper audit trail where a percentage is hand counted. if they don't match within two votes than they do a larger sample with the potential of having to do a higher hand count. having done this since 2008, we think things should go smoothly. the board of elections have had new -- we don't anticipate a lot of problems. >> let me start with bernie buescher. there have been advertisements that some groups say are intended to intimidate people

from going to the polls. perhaps going to hispanic and maryland -- hispanic voters. have you seen any evidence of voter suppression this year? >> i have not. i am not the best person to ask that question because i don't watch a whole lot of television advertising. i have not been told of any. >> we just learned about a situation of a mcdonald's operator who put letters in his employees' paychecks saying if they did not vote for a particular candidates that they could affect their ability to get raises. the reports aren't this was done without knowledge that violates ohio law. i had just appointed an attorney from northeast ohio, rebecca who

will lead investigating this for me. there are a lot of folks concerned about this because there is a specific prohibition that an employer cannot influence his or her employees to vote for a particular person with the incentives that it could affect their employee benefits. >> we have heard charges across the country that there is voter fraud going on. after the last couple of elections it has become the go to excuse. have you seen any instances of voter fraud or around the country? >> we are investigating an instance where in southern ohio where two individuals took

absentee ballots and have them fill them out, but the return address were to a couple of p.o. boxes. as the board of elections spot check they had intended for them to go to their residence -- when we see an instance like this, and it could be voter intimidation, voter registration front, we get on it right away because it is important that people's votes are not diluted by someone who should not be voted. it is important everyone entitled to vote have the opportunity. >> have you seen any instances in colorado? >> the instances of voter fraud are very rare. >> we have an on-line voter database. the main address and information about every single voter is on

that database. it is a public record. folks comb through that. i have said many times if anyone sees on that list someone who is not eligible to vote, let us know. we just don't get that information. you are always concerned about the possibility of voter fraud, but we see very few instances in colorado. >> we are just about out of time. we have heard a lot about the details. i think you have helped our audience understand the level of planning, but let me ask both of jiabao, what is keeping -- let me ask both of you what is keeping you up at night until

election day? >> a recount is the nightmare. even worse, because i am on the ballot come that would be a recount in the secretary of state's office. the procedures we have been working on and making sure they are open and transparent regarding a recount are very solid. we are making sure those are communicated well to our county clerk so we are on the same page. >> the flip side of that is how confident are you going into the election day? >> i am very comfortable. we have been talking to the county clerk's daily. the election in colorado is running quite smoothly. >> bernie buescher, what are you most concerned about as we get into the election day itself? >> my greatest concern has to do

with whether or not we will have a recount. we are already seeing public records requests of the board of elections of all the names of their provisional voters, which means some of these campaigns are expecting a very close race. the important thing will be that our ports of elections follow the correct procedures. we have directives that give them instructions of what they need to do, but when things get tough is went either side attempts to litigate the results of an election. i am a former judge, so i understand the intensity that goes into that. the last thing we want to see is anything that would shake the confidence of the voters. we are prepared for this election. if we have a recap it will be

frustration because we will not know the results of our election. officials are prepared and ready to move forward to conduct everything fairly. we are confident that ohio will do well even if we have to suffer through the difficulties of a recount. >> many thanks to both of you as we start the busiest week of your job. jennifer brunner and bernie buescher, thanks to both of you for being on "newsmakers" today. let me turn to our two guests. jessica taylor is running politico's 2010 coverage. reid wilson, on hotline. we heard two confident secretaries of state, but what they seem to be confident of is there will be court challenge as. is this the way of the world for

elections in the u.s. where our society is? >> minnesota especially gave us a new standard. both parties have been preparing for this. we have seen fund-raising appeals and we have to be ready to go on november 3. it is almost inevitably going to be senate races still deadlocked, so it is not over for us journalists. i think what you doocy from both of them is people want to minimize the time and the length. they don't want the election is running for months, especially if it does hinge on one or two seats. >> both sides have already ready to their fleets of warriors around the country. there are a number of organizations that prepare for this the two weeks after the

elections went every partisan lawyer went down to florida and had an occasion -- had a vacation for six weeks. that is the national republicans lawyers association that has a fleet of volunteer attorneys ready to get on planes on election nights it was telling that the lead attorney on the democratic side was there shortly after election day and took control in explaining to reporters what was going on and the democratic view of the process. the republican side was handled through a press aide and was less smooth. after the lessons of minnesota, we will see a lot all lawyers going to these seats and taking over the process. >> the but they came out of the

2003 count, it tended to make voting easy and accurate. all the counties in florida at different methods -- remember the hanging chad's? we have replaced paper complexity with electronic complicity. >> it is very tough. a lot election officials had seen these touchscreen machines. they are the newest technology. we're seeing around the country election officials taking those away and going back to pay. -- paper ballots. the optical scanning ballots are presently the one that everyone would like to see. it hasn't actual voter mark. it is a tangible piece of paper that you can go back and look at. there are always going to be computer problems. given the sheer number of

machines, there will be problems somewhere. they will have to be reprogrammed. with paper ballots, that is what most people would prefer. i was surprised to hear that the 47 machines -- counties in ohio using the touchscreen machine. >> you heard secretary of state dealing with different kinds of equipment that are tabulating votes, paper ballots, early voting, overseas balloting -- it is rather complex to ensure a final count. >> recounts get down into the nitty gritty with that. there are the different methods that people would. it is important to encourage this and give people more engaged in democracy. you can go early vote and request absentee ballots now. people do not have time to wait in line for hours and hours.

i think that is something that we're seeing in so many states throughout the country. >> one thing but colorado and ohio just told us is that they have no fault absentee voting. you a request of ballot. you do not have to have a reason to vote absentee. you can vote absentee if you simply do not want to go to the polling place. lots of states -- oregon has gone to all male in the balloting. -- all mail-in balloting. this no-fault balloting will tend to grow around the country and become commonplace in states where you now have reason to get an absentee ballot. >> how people vote has changed. we cannot remiss to and where we

are overall what is your sense of where the electorate is? >> with the house republicans increasingly confident. we have seen the projections of upward of 55, maybe as many as 60 seats. several stories out this morning saying that the republican senate is looking increasingly less likely. we definitely -- several early closing states should give as a good idea on election night. indiana and kentucky have the early as closing time. they will give us a feel whether this will be a big republican tidal wave. >> how about the government mansion's? >> of bloody field for democrats. republicans will have a good night on the governorships. one thing that early voting has done, it has made the 72 -- the

72-hour program obsolete. now we have the 7200 our program. they have been running this at all speed since early october. turnout will be higher than the average midterm this year. >> thanks to both of you for being here on sunday morning. we appreciate it. and thank you for watching. we have lots of politics ahead on c-span leading into november 2nd balloting. thank you for being with us. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> @ c-span's local content vehicles are looking at the closely contested house races in this year's midterm elections. to in the 18th district is in the center of the state. it is down from the south. it does not touch any of the borders but it takes and a very large territory in the middle

and southern and eastern half of ohio. it is a very large district and it has five media markets which makes it very extensive -- expensive for that candidates and other organizations to play. this is one of the largest cities in the district but there is no major urban center in the district. it is not necessarily role, but it is very spread out. candidates are the congressman, a two-term congressman running for reelection for the second time. >> [unintelligible] in the last two years, i am getting beat up by the far left and the far right. >> we also have a state senator who is running for the first

time. >> [unintelligible] deficit spending [unintelligible] >> in a district like this, the big issues are jobs in the economy. the congressman was attacking his opponent on trade. he is airing tv ads stressing the positions on nafta and other trade deals and using his own words to attackg him on ittoibbs -- to attack him on it. gibbs is attacking on jobs in the unemployment rate. that is the major issue, although this is not a republican district. he is using immigration to his advantage in accusing bob gibbs

of being for, i guess, worker programs. you might see it come from a republican but he is using that issue to his advantage. he is hitting dibs on a immigration. guinness is definitely going -- definitely trying to tie space to nancy pelosi. he did not start out -- he started the race, president obama in an unpopular position. he is less popular here. that is an easy attack for gibbs. he is benefiting from that. he wou be in thee, otherwise. he is not as strong a candidate to be in the race without the national tide. republicans -- national republicans have got involved and getting involved -- hitting

him for his ties to nancy pelosi. democrats are coming on the other side and hitting trade, the economy. supporting tax cuts for the upper income groups. we're not really seeing anything different. on the micro side as we are seeing in most other districts. >> you see him introducing [unintelligible] going to the committee process. [unintelligible] >> on guns, immigration, [unintelligible] it is not because i wanted to but my party leadership, it is

because [unintelligible] i thought my party was wrong. >> this is a very expensive race. it cost $300,000 a week on the conservative side air at tv ad here. even that candidates like state senator gives got in a rather late. he has been able to use that to his advantage to define gibbs as out of touch for the district. the outside groups have definitely been involved. but because it is so expensive, it is happened later. i think that the end of the day, republicans think this is one of their better pick up opportunities in the state. but democrats acknowledge that that is the case, and this is a

tough district to hold up -- hold on to in any year. >> leading up to the november 2nd midterm elections, we're traveling 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. >> voters go to the polls to mark. our live coverage begins at 7:00 p.m. eastern. we will have election results and candid it speaks -- speeches around the country for key races. your calls, e-mails, and tweets. whites our live election coverage. -- watch our live election coverage. now our preview of tomorrow's midterm elections. democratic and republican pollsters analyze their final poll numbers and offer insight into some of the most contested

races -- races. this is hosted by political and george washington university. >> and the director of our global media institute, the university's home. with a partnership that produces the battleground poll. i would like to a knowledge the director of our gw school of media and public affairs, i think that you're all familiar with him. [applause] thanks for joining us tonight, frank. frank has been a huge supporter of this project and the acting

executive director of the graduate school of political management, chuck cushman. [applause] tomorrow americans will into the poll in the midterm election that will determine the makeup of the next congress. also at stake, 37 gubernatorial positions, lot of state legislative positions -- and this election is going to set the stage for the legislative agenda over the next two years and likely serve as the starting gate for the 2012 presidential race. tonight we're going to take a look at the numbers and see what they tell us about tomorrow and beyond. our excellent primary source of information this evening is the bipartisan battle ground poll which was founded more than 20 years ago by ed goeas of the strategic polling firm the tarrance group, and salicylate, the democratic public opinion and political strategy firm lake research partners.

ed, so when the -- celinda, and their firms are accurate. several years ago, we became a partner in the polls and this fall politico, america's leading political news source, joined us in the project. together we have produced three polls over the last six weeks, taking the pulse of the public in the run-up to tomorrow's election. this evening we have gathered the brain trust of the partnership to share insights with our students, our faculty, and our friends. we're very pleased to be joined tonight by four student group co-sponsors, including our student newspaper, the college republicans, the college democrats, and our student radio station.

we're also very pleased to welcome c-span viewers across the country. our format for the evening will comprise the conversation among our panelists on stage. initial questions from our cosponsoring student groups. then questions from our audience. now it is my great pleasure to introduce from right to left, that is geographic not ideological, at george washington university graduate school of political management professor christopher arterton, the president and ceo of the tarrance group, ed goeas, president of lake research partners, celinda lake. and the executive editor of the politico, jim vandehei. [applause] >> thank you all for coming. thank you to gw for this amazing partnership and for our readers.

we have a great sample and great pollsters. it has been fantastic and everyone associated with politico these can be of a logistical nightmare. off we are very pleased with the partnership. einkorn to make a prediction that democrats are born to lose seats to more. [laughter] these guys will make much more specific predictions. let's go around with a quick prediction on house seats, senate seats, and thorough in a surprise, and then we will move from there. >> in terms of the -- democrats are going to lose some seats. i think we will hold on to the senate. i think the margin in the house is being overstated. one of the things that is important to remember is that the key to picking up seats on tuesday -- when the republicans

lost 52 seats in 2002 and 2008. the report of the demise of the republicans was overstated in 2008. i think the report of the democrats is also overstated. and in terms of a surprise, watch for alaska. we do not know what really happens until the end of november or early december. the number three counts as an close races. >> my specifics, and we have worked together all the time. i feel badly for of celinda, maybe when we were losing the 52 seats, i think it is going to be a huge night tomorrow night for republicans. we are seeing an intensity gap, an enthusiasm gap between republicans and democrats, almost double in 1994. we're doing a generic ballot it

vanished that is double what we saw in 1994. in the house we started out with a party that is making 60 raises competitive and ending up with 100 races being competitive. right now my count would be that -- we only need 39 to get control. i think we are already past that by about six or seven seats in terms of definitely going into the republican column. 43 tossup seats. if i had to give a floor for tomorrow night, the floor is 56, 57 seats. more likely it will be toward the top of that ceiling that i see which is in a high 60's. i would say 65, 66 seats are very likely for tomorrow night. i have always been one that believes if you look at the center, it tends to be the way that the house -- the senate, i think that 48 seats are ready.

all we have to do is win half of the tossup seeds. this is the type of an election where anything is close. that would go our way. i can see a scenario where we are at 50-50 very easy tomorrow night. however we will not know if tomorrow night. i would agree with her there. it will probably go for weeks before we have a final answer on that. in terms of governorships, 31, 32 governors out of 50. and i think the untold story is that i am looking at somewhere between 425 and 450 state legislative seats going republican, which would be somewhere between 14 and 15 chambers turning republican tomorrow night. >> thank you both. i am in the middle. i think we're certainly going to

see of fairly strong tide running toward the republicans tomorrow. it will probably be in the high 50's, maybe the loss 60's in terms of numbers of seats that will go over. the senate is harder to predict. i want to point out that it was deliberately designed to be insulated from short-term cycles, which is why it takes six years to really get a full body elected. it is also the case that in every way the election that has occurred on the house side, with one exception in 1930, the senate has also tipped over. mostly that happens when you get contagion from the top, a presidential coattail bringing the senate over. but i think it will be very tight on the senate side, 52-53, democrats being reflected. my surprise is that i live in the state of connecticut and i have been doing my yard sign pole. i know are reflects the amount of spending, but i think we may

see linda make may and come in and much stronger than people actually think she is going to. >> i want to talk about the enthusiasm gap. . rarely in midterm elections where we have the term that we use behind the scenes that seem to be part of the popular lexicon. everyone is talking about it. for those of you that have not followed, we saw this late last year in the virginia race. the new jersey race, where you see republicans turning out in record numbers. we have seen it in the primaries in low democratic turnout. last year we talked about the enthusiasm gap, particularly the specifics of it. you talk about single women and younger voters. you're hoping to see some uptick in this final poll in those groups to offset the republican margin. had you seen it? is the enthusiasm gap closing and it will not be as bad for

democrats as you anticipate christian art >> has closed, but it is bigger than it has been in the past. if you think about 2012, i think 2010 is the last election were that there was a 20th- century elektra. from 2012 on, it will be the 21st century electorate. all of those new voters, they're much more diverse and minority- oriented the electorate. that is affecting democrats very seriously. from 2012 on, what ever the setbacks are tomorrow night, it is going to be a fast combat for the democrats in 2012 and beyond. turnout is very important.

in many of the states, very aggressive get out the vote operations in the african- american community and for unmarried women. i am not sure it is getting fully picked up in any additional polling. the enthusiasm gap is a big problem. it is not too late. go voted fewer democratic! [laughter] but it is a problem that we are unlikely to see in 2012 and 2014. >> it is beaming with confidence. >> adding to the message, go out and vote on wednesday, is that right? [laughter] >> it turns out tomorrow night that you are wrong, the number turns out to be the lower 40's, what might you be missing? >> if you break down the numbers.

>> that is a speculation. there is so much that at their today. one of the misperceptions, the myth of the 2008 campaign, is that there was the thought of a new electorate, massive changes on who is turning out. and whether you look at the african-american vote or the hispanic vote, the female voters or new voters are young voters, they were always in a percentage point of what they had been earlier. if you look at total turnout, it was only 0.2% higher than it was earlier. there may be stories there, but we pretty much had it down on who is going to turn up. about 70% of the presidential year of registered voters, about 50% in a non-presidential year. everyone out this weekend was confirming a trend that was there.

the enthusiasm gap surface and we actually identified that in 1994. but it was not called the enthusiasm gap. it was only 6% in 1994. it has been running between 12%-14% this year. that will be a hard thing to miss. you say things like president obama in cleveland on sunday. 8000 people showed up. two years ago, 80,000 people turned out. by thousand and cleaner on the day that he was there last time. this time 650. the difference between 2008 -- just had to give those voters a little nudge and this year or they have to basically try to drag them kicking and screaming to the polls, i do not think that there is going to be a massive difference.

are there a lot of clothes is -- close races out there? absolutely. where you end up with 45 rather than 55 per 65, i do not think you'll see that kind of a difference. the that, it does it end up going against reid? a key race. no one is watching delaware anymore. there is not going to be many surprises out there. >> a little bit about what the most interesting things in the poll but we saw this time and the last time -- conventional wisdom in washington, people see that congress as being much more liberal than obama, but we match up obama versus congress on the economy, he does worse than the congressional democrats when they are matched up against congressional republicans. would you make of this? how do you think obama should

interpret the results of this poll action and a repudiation of him and his policies, and 9.69 unemployment? >> he's got the economy totally working against him. but there is the enthusiasm gap or the engagement gap, it is real. what is causing that. to a large extent, the public prefers divided government. they are unhappy with the drift of the policy in washington where all three congresses -- they have all been in one party hands. when you ask people -- we asked people a bunch of questions. they seem to be voting as much against obama as they are for the republicans. i think it would be easy for the

republicans to overstate this mandate. and they should watch that just as a lot of democrats, me included, overstated the mandate that obama got in 2008. >> if the leadership comes to you tomorrow? >> the republican numbers are still in the tank. the two words in politics i hate the most, one is branding, which has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with marketing products, and that is not what politics is all about. and the other is mandate. if there is any interpretation of the mandate, it is a huge mistake on the republicans' part. what we see is basically a total rejection of the obama solution. they do not believe it is working. they do not believe it is beginning to work. they are basically -- 60% of

americans believe the stimulus is not working. you see a very similar number, 4-1 strongly against the health care spending. spending has come roaring up as the no. 2 issue in the country. you will see spending is the number-one issue when the economy improves. it is all driven by the obama policies. one of the things that ultimately the president and his people will have to sit back and look at, they are going have to say basically it is not a matter of us not being able to communicate what we want to do. what the american public has seen, they do not like and they want something to be done different. part of that is, we cannot over react with a mandate. i think there will be huge expectations in terms of us being able to turn around. some of it is wrong in terms of politics, but i also think the president will have to address it in terms of -- i