strong tide toward the republicans tomorrow. it will probably be in the high. 's, may be the low 60's in terms of numbers of seats that will go over. the senate is harder to predict. 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 the 1930's, the senate has also tipped over. that mostly happens with contagion from the top, a presidential coattails bringing the senate over. . to be very tight on the senate side -- 52 or 53 democrats being reelected. i live in the state of connecticut and i have been doing my informal yard sn pole and a note it reflects the amount of spending, but i think

we may see linda mcmahon coming in much stronger than people think she's going to. >> you may get that 12 or 13. >> on the enthusiasm get, very rarely do we actually have terms we all use behind the scenes seem to be part of the lexicon because everyone is talking about it. for those of you who have not followed this closely, we started to see this late last year in the virginia and new jersey gubernatorial race, we're seeing republicans turn out in record numbers. we see low democratic turnout. we have talked a lot about the enthusiasm gap, particularly the enthusiasm. you pointed out a single women and younger voters and you had hoped to see some uptick in those groups to offset the republican margin. have you seen that or any evidence in this poll or anywhe else that the enthusiasm gap has closed and it

will not be for bad as democrats? >> it has closed, but it is bigger than it has been in the st. what is really interesting is if we think about 2012 as opposed to 2010, 2010 is the last election of the 20th-century electorate. 2012 on will be elections of the 21st century electorate. what is interesting is all of the new, younger voters, the much more diverse and minority- oriented electorate. the unmarried an electorate are not showing up to vote in anywhere near the numbers they need to in 2010 and that is affecting democrats pretty seriously. you can expect them to be back in 2012 and 2012 on. whatever t setbacks are tomorrow night, it is going to be a fast comeback for the democrats in 2012 and beyond. the second thing i would say is that turnout is very important.

in many of these states, you see very impressive early vote and a vote by mail efforts. that can all make a difference and not sure that is getting fully pickedp the least traditional polls. the enthusiasm gap is a big prlem. it is not too late to turn the enthusiasm -- the enthusiasm get ahead -- go votive you are democratic. it is a problem we are unlikely to see in 2012 and 2014. >> ed is beaming the behalf of self-confidence. >> the election is wednesday, right? [laughter] >> only in chicago. >> if tomorrow night, it turns out you were wrong and the number is in the low 40's, what might you be missing?

>> that is speculation. there is such data out there today and one of the misperceions, one of the myths of the 2008 campaign, was there was the talk of a new electric, a different electric, massive change in who was turning out. -- different electorate. what 3 look to the african- american vote, hispanic voters, new voters, they were all within a percentage point of what had been four years older -- four years earlier. total turnout wasnly 0.2% higher than four yearearlier. we pretty much have this down. there may be stories out there, but we pretty much have this down on who is going to turn out. about 70% in a presidential year and 50% in a non- presidential year. every survey out today and this weekend was just confirming a trend that was there. at is interesting about the enthusiasm gap is it surfaced

and we identified that in 1994, but it was not called the enthusiasm gap. it was only 6% in 1994. it has been running between 12% and 14% this year. that's going to be a hard thing to miss. you see things like president obama in cleveland on sunday. 8000 people turned up. when he was inleveland to years ago, 80,000 people tued out. turnout in terms of early voters -- 5000 on the day he was there- year, this time, 650. the erivthe voters a little ledge and at this time we have to drag them kicking and screaming to the polls, i don't think there is going to be a massive difference. are there a lot of close races?

absolutely. are there enough close races in the house that you and up with 30 rather than the 65, i don't think there are that many. the real story, if there is a difference are stories like nevada s, does it end up going against harry reid. nobody is watching delaware anymore. we pretty much know that the witch is dead. there are not going to be many surprises there. >> one of the most interesting things in the poll we saw this ti and last time is that conventional wisdom in washington as people see congress as beinmuch more liberal than obama. but when you match up obama vs congress, he does worse and by a big margin that congressional democrats that when they are matched up against congressional republicans. how do you think obama should interpret theesults of this

election? is it a repudiation of him and his policies or is a 9.6% unemployment and there's nothg you can do? >> he has the economy working against him. to some extent, is the enthusiasm gap or what the queues and recalls the engagement cap, is real. the question is what is causing it? to a large extent, is that t public prefers divided government. they are unhappy with the drift of the policy in washingn where all three congress, both sides of congress and the white house have been in one party's hands. when you ask people a bunch of questions, they seem to be voting as much against obama as they are for the republicans. so i think it would be easy for republicans to overstate this

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

you see very similar numbers in a four-one strongly against health care. spending has come roaring up as the no. 2 issue in a country. the economy, if it improves, you'll see spending as the number-one issue. all that is driven by obama policies. one of the things that ultimately the president and his people have to sit back and look at, they will 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 don't like and want something done different. part of it is we cannot overreact and aim is a mandate. i think there will be huge expectations in terms of us being able to turn around some of the wrong in terms of policy. but also think the president is going to have to address it in terms of i've got the message. if he walks away from this saying -- not saying that the

message, i think he is going to be in deep trouble and almost doesn't matter. >> this notion of a divided government, is there any empirical evidence that people vote the strategically and not only prefer divided government, but vote as such? >> people prefer divided government, but i want to argue a little bit with the premise laid out here. we have asked in several polls, which bothers you more -- the policy going the wrong direction or nothing getting done. more people are bothered by nothing getting done. we need to separate out when people are unhappy about the stimulus and the recovery, lot of voters, not republicans -- republicans are totally unhappy with the solutions. but among independent voters and female voters, they're upset because nothing is getting done. the challenge here is your going to come back with parties even

more polarized than before. a republican party made a more conservative and a democratic party or the liberals will have succeeded because of the districts they come from. i don't think voters will tolerate gridlock for very long. you could see the electorate just as angry. i don't see this as a rejection as 2008, but 2010 -- still marks our failure as a party. it is an affirmation of what we sold in 2008. voters want change. they want something new and different. i think that is not happening. >> the new and different their voting against it -- voting against is what they are seeing in that the new and different voting for. >> for the republic, for not getting direction from the public on which we want to go. >> i think the best way to get an indication is the question we asked, do you have more trust or less trust of government than

two years ago. by 62-32, they said the trust government less than two years ago. one of the numbers we saw going into the 2008 campaign is a high volume of people saying we want to see the government doing more. now what you are saying is we want the government to do less. they're doing too much and are too involved. the president himself finally had to acknowledge in terms of the stimulus that he has come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a set -- as a shovel-ready project. >> this is complicated because -- this is a sincere debate there will go on between the parties and within both parties. you think government is doing too much and we listed focus groups with blue-collar, democratic leading voters, they say yes in terms of doing too much for the banks and not

enough on a moratorium for foreclosures. the a difference between kinds of things are getting done and are not getting done. the democrats would have been in a better position if we had got more loans to small businesses and your bailout to banks and put limits on ceo salaries and have a public option inhe health care plan. i think there is a real, legitimate debate about the message the public is sending. they just know they're damn unhappy and they want something to be done differently. your rightabout mandate. i'm with you. the most overused word. mandate -- i agree with you. >> here is where the secret is. the cret is the underlying focus you have seen on this explosive into second place focus on spending. >> primarily republicans. >> it is not traded is

overwhelming with independence and conservative democrats. it is not just a republican thing and that's why it's the no. 2 issue in the country. >> if demrats deliver on the economy, we should not lose focus on delivering on the economy. if we do things like that social security to deal with the deficit, the democrats are going to be a prominent minority party, primarily beat and the fourth they even get started. >> the things that have been different about this election that have worked in republicans favor is -- one day, republican spending. the last couple of elections, they have been at a disadvantage. this has brought -- as these -- these at a outside groups have bought republicans to parity. >> parity? >> if you take all of the money, is parity. >> not if you take it in the

last couple of months. the avalanche of money because of citizens united -- >> democrats have a much bigger advantage of a party mmittee in individual races. if you factor those, i think it's about even. >> somebody fact check us. >> the other points that we will discuss bonds -- it you party movement, fascinating for all of us. it may dissipate, it may not, but it has fascinating to cover. and the swing to -- swing from independence who were with obama and moved away from democrats and never me back. which is more important? is it the independence or b t party movement that has risen up and given new motivation to the -- the tea party movement that has given motivation to the republicans? >> part of that is the tea party

movement and the life they have breathed into the republican party. the story is the independence moving back and forth across the electorate depending upon who is in power and their unhappiness with whoever is in power. 2008, there were looking back toward the bush administration and the not like that. we wound up with a democratic administration. now the independents are swinging back the other way. >> aren't independence fickle and you can't satisfy them no matter what? >> they distrust both parties. the bigger thing is they dropped from 26% -- 36% in a presidential year and 26%. >> they are just not likely voters in our poll. >> they are still there, but what you are going to see tomorrow, as we have seen in many of the elections that have

occurred already, you see the republican bill leading by 15 or 20 points with independence. that will translate on election day into a two-one margin. it is the angry independent that here now to vote. i have to go back to the spending. our analysis is that parity. your living in a different world when you have george soros on tv attacking karl rove for the money is bringing into the election. >> maybe we can unite here on campaign finance reform. i do agree about the angry independence, but the other thing i would say is [unintelligible]

which means they are hard hit in this economy. one of the untold stories is how much the independents have suffered in this economy and how much the policies have not touched their lives. whichever party comes into power is going to have to deliver. if you want to win in 2012, you better have an economic policy that delivers for blue-collar america or the tea party will be nominating the next president of the united states. we have economic policies in both parties that have not heed blue-collar america. >> the conventional wisdom is post-election, obama will be more consolatory and gravitate toward the center. i'm not sold that that is what he will do, nor do i think it will be that easy to gravitate toward the middle because there is incentive not to move to the middle as there was a 1994. it doesn't seem like he can win the election without changing

the numbers. >> i think the presse on the independence is whether you win them back because the levy or whether you win them back because they hate your any worse than they hate you. heght now, it's not that republicans have won the independence because they love republicans. the most important thing is angry independence -- particularly in off-year elections. they drive the vote particularly in off-year elections. an important pie here is to draw a clear economic distinction and what's really have a debate, particularly with these tea party candidates. these independent vots to not want to deal with the minimum- wage -- do away with minimum- wage, security, cut funding for education or keep tax breaks for millionaires. fight in athe

visible way. i think the president is going to be torn between trying to work for halves with a house that's not going to work with him and drawing a clear distinction on the policies so these independent voters have a clear choice in 2012. >> going back to the question about whether the president is going to try to unite. he is going to have an opportunity because so many districts are blue dog districts. that means the democrat congress is going to be much less conservative. it's going to be that much more liberal. the republican congress is going to be that much more conservative, which allows them to triangulate. does he have it in him to do it? without getting into it, want to talk about the elections and not policy, because i would disagree with almost everything she said

in terms of policy. it's a simplistic view of where these voters are. it's a simplistic view of what has been done. they can play class warfare on the demoatic side and they have i will give you an example. the democrats in this campaign have been in race after race after race bringing out partial privatization, the typical scare tactics late in the campaign in terms of this is what t republicans are going to do. guess what we were able to do? all we had to do is talk about health care bill. seniors take the president's health care barrel. they hate obama care. phillips going to hurt the men don't think it's in their best interest. we have current policy verses manufactured policy to discuss in the campaign and that's why did not make headway with seniors and the largest propensity to vote in the off- year election, that senior group,s going to vote overwhelmingly republican to our night. >> since you have already told us we're going to happen on

tuesday, let's talk about 2012. are there certain candidates that emerge stronger on the republican side as a result of what we're likely to see tomorrow? is there a candidate out there that when you look to the issue matrix of what people care about looks more appealing tomorrow than they did six months ago? >> i do not think there will be a challenge in the democratic party. item think it will be anybody other than obama as the nominee. on the republican side, the tea party represents a real challenge to washington establishment. the question becomes who they might be interested in putting up against sarah palin or a candidate of that ilk. you may want to look at a governor like haley barbour or tim pawlenty.

just to give you my view of obama triangulation, and it's going to be difficult for him because the key party is going to hold the republican leadership to a very rigid line. i'm not sure how far across the aisle obama is willing to reach in order to reach a compromise. other than the mandatory bills on spending, i look forward to very little getting done over the next two years and the president retreating into foreign-policy as an area where he has more leverage and independence. >> knowing you will never vote for any of them, is there any hope the republican candidates you think looks better tomorrow than they might have six mont ago, given the issues we're talking about? >> sarah palin looks better than

she did six months ago. i can't wait to have her nominated. go girl. i like the fact it was a woman they gave them some much trouble. on a serious note, i agree with chris. voters are frustrated with washington and will be frustrated with washington in two years. one of the big difference is for clinton's triangulation was because the economy was coming out, he had the ability to do smaller things and package them in a way that looked like bigger things. obama does not have that luxury. the economy is in terrible shape and voters are pessimistic about the future. there's a real divide in this country and the tea party does not think small. there is a real division here about what is possible to get this country going. i think the governors, because they have to deliver in tough times in their states, could have a real opportunity here.

i think haley barbour is a good one. he is tied to washington with an outsider's perspective. he is a good candidate, but the party will have to juggle the palin faction. she will sell well in some places. >> i feel like they want me to be nicer to them because they both know i am close to haley and he is my guy. one thing we see is that there's a feeling inside the republican party that all too often we have gone wh the next person in line. the one who has been there the longest. there are some indications that and it's who were in the last round of the presidential sweepstakes are not going to be

looked as closely as what would traditionally be the case. new faces are going to be looked at closer and i think it's a good thing for the republin party. do think some of that is driven by the fact that they feel like at the end of doing in 2008 even though that wasn't the case. a muchou're going to see longer process to see some names surface that will be the real names in the campaign. it may be one of the other governors. it is clearly -- i think governors have a leg up here. i'm beginning to hear from some of the democrats that were big obama supporters is they are beginning to say i still like the guy, but he did not have enough experience and maybe he was too young or was too early for him. i think that's going to drive a little bit of looking for some maturity on the republican side.

who is a grown-up in the room will be a key issue. even the supporters of obama who may like some of the things he has done wi take a step back and say if i were to acknowledge a witness, this is the witness i would acknowledge. >> there is a reserve of goodwill -- 65% of these likely voters in this election year still like obama or support him as a person, not his policies, but as a person. >> the other tng i would say about the data in terms of democrats, there may be questions about whether obama comes to a state or not because of the independent voters, but there is no question that they have welcomed his calls. democratic voters love obama and

think he's doing a good job. it is the independence. >> the more fun thing to watch has been the competition between build clinton for hillary and joe biden to prove it would be dead vice- presidential nominee for president next time around. -- would be best vice- presidential nominee. >> we have all these college kids here. they want to know if they're going to be a will to get a job and if washington could quit being so damn dysfunctional. they want to see of government can operate. >> be nice to your mom because you're probably going home. >> how do you fix this problem where we are constantly in the state of partisan warfare and you have people not voting for something. a seem to be voting against it

except for potentially obama and the mgins. give us a cure. how do you fix it? >> i think we need campaign finance reform. i think the special interests have way too much power. whether you have been outspent or not -- we can talk about that later -- the democrats feel outspent. they will not wanto alienate the special interests. you did manage to drag yourself back to washington, the republicans are totally indebted to special interests. >> true or false -- after this election, democrats are going to see what republicans did and they're going to copy it and make sure they do a better than republicans did this time. >> we can't. we don't have that. to that have access

kind of corporate money. insurance companies are not going to do that. i think democrats are going to be energized around campaign finance reform. the second thing is filibuster reform. there is a growing momentum on the democratic side and now looks really good. filibuster reform is something -- it is not right. >> give us some hope >> are not sure i've got any hope for you. if i will say that the last time we had this strong partisanship was in the early '50s and it was the rise of an external threat, the soviet union, that pulled people together, first on foreign-policy than domestic policy. we could speculate about what kind of foreign threats might do that and i'm not sure we want to get into that nor hope will happen.

the other possibility is sooner or later, leadership emerges that puts together a majority party in which the minority party begins to accept it is the loyal minority and not trying everything it can to get back into the majority. we have had divided 50/50 governments since 1988 and we have been directionless as a nation since then. >> the country has been basically split a 50/50. what you are seeing is the government is reflective of what you see where as the party ideas of the country -- i think that is tough. sometimes they say it is a good line -- this is about the future of our children and the future of our grandchildren. the line you're hearing this year is it's about the future of our country. i believe there's a deep feeling

that goes way beyond the tea party that economically, we are in deep trouble. there is a better than what is given credit for understanding that the reason why the stimuluses and working is that when you spend that kind of money to create government jobs and the money runs out any have not created a mentality for growth, you have ended up with a deeper hole than you started out with and they understand that and are reacting to that in this campaign. quite frankly, if we don't get back to basics, the class warfare, but the basics of how do you build an economy that you can truly grow -- 2% growth is not going to do anything to change the unemployment rate -- we may very well be facing the economy that for the last two years will look the same for the next eight years. that's the concern and it's not about class warfare, it's about government can only do one thing

-- it can create a better environment in terms of growing the economy. it cannot create a better economy. >> if you want to help, there you are. >> we're going to take some questions from students. if i was going to create my own newspaper, iould not end up naming at times, the post -- i would name at the hatchet. >> "and had" is excited to co- sponsor this event with politico. -- "the hachette" is excited to co-sponsor this with politico. students were really get excited for obama last election cycle, but thiwhat we are not turning out. is it a fair comparison to compare midterm election cycles to the last presidential cycle? was the last presidential cycle an anomaly how should we look at this

tomorrow? >> i would say it is not a fair comparison. it's something we know going into the election. what you hav seen in the last four presidential elections, these growth has grown from 16, to 17, to 18%. during that entire time, the youth vote turning out in a non- presidential year hovers tween 10% and 11% and it has not changed year to year, even with the intensity of what was there in the 2006 election where there was a higher support level. the support margin of the youth vote for democratic candidates was almost the same as a loss for obama in 2008. but it did not impact turnout. it is an unfair comparison. i do know there is some

disenchantment, if you will, with what they expected to happen. it is lived by the sword, die by the sword. our feeling about president obama when he ran i2008 was he left himself to be a blank slate. he allowed whoever wanted to apply whenever hopes or dreams they had to him specific about what he was going to do. he allowed it to be whoever heard the message out there. that works for you in the tide is in your direction and it works against you in a big way when the time -- with the tide is against you. >> inevitably, elections are about candidates. we're looking at about 435 separate elections plus gubernatorial and as candidates don't have the visibility and charge for the yng people that obama had. so it is comparing two very different phenomenon. >> i think it is wrong to think

of you as coleteonolithic. one of the things that you see more enthusiastic are conservative views. one of the questions on the table is did democratic youth turnout as much in 2010 as they did in 2006? that is still up for grabs. will the use turnout have peaked in 2008 or will they be bk in 2012? the interesting thing about you, as younow, particularly hard hit by the economy, so i think there is they've put into an economic cnge and i think the single biggest challenge the decratface is outlining an economic policy where real people think at a micro level and not a macro level, that they think they can get a job, start a family, purchased a house, and

that is true for people who are 55 and true for people who are 18. >> the only thing i would add is it is so easy to fall into a trap that this is a new group of young people what turned out when in fact we only saw within the margin of error increase in their percentage of the vote. at was more important in terms of the numbers is that in 2000, george w. bush when the youth vote -- when the youth vote by 1 percent sign. he lost by 11% in 2004 and 34% in 2008. what happened with the youth vote for republicans and specifically the republican party was not that a bunch of new young people came into the process and started voting against them, they lost the support of the youth vote. that's much more important message for the republicans and internally something we have been dealing with. >> it is still the only segment

the democrats do well with. >> and freshman rep for the george washington college republicans. >> with republicans expected to take back the house and perhaps the senate, led to the american 60 -- what do the american people expect in policy changes that will republicans be able to do it without gaining back the senate and having the presidency? question. tough expectations are very high. the expectations with the electorate is that they want republican to stop the bad things that happening, the direction of the country, the spending at the level is going on. they're scared about the health care bill and what that's going to mn d potential taxes coming. as much as the democrats may play class warfare, what i am hearing in the group's is something that i would nev

hear -- a realization that there are not enough millionaires to pay for all this stuff. they know the bill wi come back on them. can it be done without the full house? probably not. are they going to have to deal with those expectations? absolutely. the question is can they play the role of the calvary? stop the bad things from happening until the real troops get year. the real troops are going to be the white house. >> that's the one certainty about the republican majority. they have to deliver on spending cuts, even if they are fairly superficial. i of the next congress is going to tackle anything structural as far as entitlement reform. i think it will ban earmarks or limit them as r as non-defense discretionary spending which is a tiny portion of the budget. they have to do that symbolically because that's the one message the tea party and

those independents have come together on. that is for republicans can have success and it's also where they lost their way. by spending standards, a few compared bush to lbj, this is a big government liberal theay bush covered as far as the prescription drug benefit and that's why the republican new had soured so much. they will be under a lot of pressure to repeal health care. my guess is they will do a vote early and move on, knowing they can do anything with it. that's my assumption, that it will try to get out of the way early in the session. >> if you remember years ago, there was also security and medicaid provisions they tried to undo because it ends of not being the right thing. it wasn't until the with the president that would uphold not be dealt with trying to do that they would veto the legislation.

it's going to take the white house. >> one of the sad things about the political system as you can take issues were there is tremendous overlap between the two parties -- whether it is reauthorization of natal of behind, free trade agreements, thinvestment component of the energy bill that went down last time around, on tax cuts for people making less than $250,000, immigration reform, there's a lot of overlap. making it easier for people who come overseas to be ab to stay and keep a job. on every one of those issues, they end up getting snarled in part -- in partisan politics. >> one of the dilemmas, and this is where the tea party is an interesting new factor, both of the parties are divided internally and some of these questions. if you look for example trade

policies, the democrats are divided and trade press the. if you look at the deep party, they are populist, pretty blue collar and nationalisticnd their economic policies. you could imagine a trade dialogue tell be quite appealing to them, a made in america dialogue. some of these issues ride both parties in that complicated. it'll be interesting if the republicans go up fast and tried to do some big things. the republicans used to say repeal health-care and other sears' repeal and replaced because repeal is unpopular. voters don't want to go back and start over again. they would like to make it better. if the republicans come in fast and deal with some of the problem -- some of the policies of the campaign trail, it allows democrats to oppose joint things that should be done together,

for example the 1099 provisions which are very unpopular on both sides of the aisle. if republicans say repeal, we can say let's get this done. you may be able to avoid a presidential veto. there is a lot of jockeying for both parties. >> your ing to have a very different leaders in the house. john boehner is not new to gingrich. -- is not new to gingrich. -- newt gingrich. there is a least a potential to work together. nate purchase -- a perkins is president of the gw college

democrats. >> a lot of people my age in have cellphone. a recent study by the pure research center said there is a 4%-6% gap that survey people wi only sell funds and other surveys that only do headlines. for each of the pollsters, what are you doing to combat this and how are you coping with this problem? >> that is a really good question. both of our firms are using cell phones all lot. in all of our studies this year, we have used voter files for most of our studies. if you put down your cell phone, which most youngeople do, as your point of contact on the voter registration, that is the phone we use. we have also tried to assess the problem and encourage all clients to use self funds. in preparation for the 2012

electorate, it's going to be mandatory. you are not going to have an accurate sample if you do not use sell funds. >> i would differ a little bit with what pugh is finding. its 18% of the electorate 10% of the electorate, you're talking but a difference. we not only the battle ground together, but we are the pollsters for rock the vote. we've been dealing this for quite some time. what we have been doing on our side is doing a series of surveys where we look at a set of issues, particularly th young people, on a difference betweeyoung people what cell phones and young people with land lines. what we have done to date is not much of a difference between us. i think some of the difference is overstated. the use of in terms of the voting in that 34% net democrat

is fairly monolithic in how their viewing the issue then voting. if you begin to see a splittin of that between the use that have land lines and use that have cell phones, then he would have that much more ofriuch more to assemble that includes sell funds, which can be done. it is a matter of cost or do you see the divergence between those with landline then sell fun. is it something we are monitoring very closely. -- landlines verses cell phones. they don't like the polls, so they come up with reasons why it's working. believe me, we are interning every stone in terms of how we approach looking at this. quite frankly, as opposed to public polls, when we do polls for individual candidates, if we are wrong lot, we are no longer in business. the public polls can say

something changed between this poll in this poll, so it doesn't matter. >> the last question is from the news director emeritus wgur radio. >> in a "new york times" poll, and eight silver reiser is a great deal of consternation in his in box about the generic congressional ballot. gallup shows republicans up 15 points, fox news says 13, cnn says 10. cbs says six and "newsweek" reports democrats ahead by three points. he explains the distinctions. in this polling pluralism, what are americans supposed to take away from all this besides confusion? >> listen to the battleground poll. >> i can give you an example

inside the battleground poll. we saw this as a standard in the last election. a lot of people were speculating what the electorate would look like and they began pulling samples not on what they knew the electorate would look like, which was not much different. but what they assume that the electorate was going t look like. we screen out people and say the are definitely not going to vote and include everyone else. internally, will lead to is modeling tt takes into account how intense they are about voting, how intense effort can't it, thelder they are, a higher propensity, the more educated, the higher the propensity to vote. if youif you are college-educatu will come out much higher. we thought it would come out around 50% of the electorate. en you look at the likely

voters, our generic ballot in this surve was five points, the republicans' five points ahead. but when you look at our vote model on what we think the electorate will look like, it was different. it is not just a five-point lead but that 12 point lead. what we're getting in these various surveys is people playing around with the model and likely voters. someeople are taking straight registrations. what you're seeing is a very diverse out there. the one thing you can say is that usually what you see in the polling, they tend in the last week to start poult -- polling close together. i think that both of us like to look it reallear politics, which takes an average of all

but polls out there. if you look it real clear politi through today, their average in terms of the generic ballot was eight points for the republican. that is probably about right. maybe lighter fm the vote model, but it is showing that kind of margin opposed to the huge gaps you are seeing between the others. the one thing i was glad to see with gallup, the confusing numbers for a high turnout and for low turnout, andheir release them on the same day. give me a gun and let me shoot myself. >> we will take some questions from the audience. if you have a green bay packers shirt on, you have an 95% better chance of getting to ask a question. >> there you go.

a second year student, and i have a question for both of you. what you think of that competency of the tea party ndidates if they are elected to the house or the senate? t think they will be able to make rational decisions? [laughter] >> wlly loaded question, batman. >> would you like to reword that? >> i thank you for your incredibly insightfuquestion and i agree with you. i would ve to be a mouse in that caucus. thinkk it -- i don't there is a question of confidence. -- competence. i think these candidates -- it

has been fascinating to watch the republican party try to bring these candidates into line andring in more traditional teams. i do not know. what does that first tea party caucus really look like? i think it is a real challenge here. somebody up here said that these guys are winning on partial privatization of social security. voters do not have a lot of ideas and they do not have any interest that these candidates, if they are ected, they are getting elected because the voters are looking for change. they want to but someone out of washington. they wanted -- they were really unhappy.

what happens when these tea party candidates -- i think they're really interesting group of voters in that regard is going to be women voters. the women voters still want a role for government. they are very unhappy with how that role is implemented right now. women want government to do something and that tea party perspective is very challenging. i think it helped move the women voters back over to the democratic side. >> everyone keeps referring to the tea party movement. they look at it like aarty and not understanding that it is a movement. is it an attitude or believe orate under current of feelings about the country? yes, you can look at what has

occurred in some of these campaigns. there has been some demonization of certain candidates. some with a little bit of. -- of help. >> of your the one that said the men she. -- you are the one that said demon sheep. >> they are everyday people that have an everyday attitude about what the problems are and what the solutions should be. some will rise to the occasion in terms of representing not only their group of voters but the wider state or congressional district they are elected to. some will not. one of the reasons why the senate is more susceptible to was is that in an election like this, you may have some people elected that six years from now, there is no way to get

them reelected. the same has been true with liberal demrats as it is with republicans or populist or however youant to betray them. once the campaign is over and they settle down to doing their job, just like everyone else, some will excel and some will not. to blanket a sense that because what is the trade in the press or the campaign is going to dictate that type of representatives they're going to be, i think, is not good. that is not the way it is going to play out. >> there is something slightly different about the ones that have qualified. you talk to them and they do not sound like your typical person running for the senate. they're not coming here to move

a specific piece of legislation. they're coming here to wage philosophical war on the nature of government and what is happening to society. they say they have already made the strategic decision. they're not coming here to be legislatures, but messengers. mitch mcconnell will have a miserable job. if he gets the 11 and they win control, otherwise he will not have that much power. eight different candidates -- usually the republican party establishes a tremendous amount of authority over its candid it. in the senate, there are eight different candidates defeated by tea party candidates. they will have no real attachment to the establishment. that will have tremendous incentive to block the establishment.

and you do not know when someone comes here, to the end of changing or become a legislature? it is impossible to know. it is highly likely you could end upith six or seven jim demints. that will be problematic for republicans putting the other -- putting together of the governing coalition. i think the senate is a sexy story, and i thought i wou never say that about the institution. a majority of the senators will be in their firsterm. the senate is much more partisan than it used to be. you have a lot more people going from the house to the senate and a high percentage used to partisan warfare going to the senate. it is becoming a chamber where there is more partisanship. it will be an interesting story watch them manage this. >> the only thing iould differ

run -- that democrats for years have had cdidates the were vastly different in terms of philosophy, northeastern democrats versus californian democrats. and they have stood shoulder to shoulder, facing what they view as the enemy and they have done just fine. myselfways considered more populist and i see them as some modern day extension of populists inside the repubcan party, being ablto stand shoulder to shoulder with other republicansn what they view as the enemy, which is obama with the wrong solutions. i think that they are underestimated. the republicans as a who are being underestimated on their ability to stand the -- stand together on a goal that is very clear to everyone on the republican camp, whether a tea party candidates or not. >> the point is that the democrats may be the enemy, but

the republican leadership may be the opposition. >> good. [laughter] what it is talking about is the normal course of things. they run against washington, and in three months they are totally corrupt. about the politics, you listen to their rhetoric and it might be at odds with mitch mcconnell. all the sudden, we now have one enemy and therefore i will put aside some of my -- >> a lot of words are being put into the mouths of the tea party. they want to stop the direction on spending, they want government involvement in certain levels to stop. we want there to be philosophy in terms of economics that makes sensen moving the country forward again.

i think you will see a lot more alike than not alike. and it has nothing to do with corruption in washington, and everhing to do with having a common cause. at georgereshmahere washington. if understood the demon sheep joke. talking about interpty division, what will happen tomorrown alaska, considering that if elected, lisa murkowski will be the first in a while to win a right in the election? >> all of this obsession, republicans will be holding that seat in alaska when this election is over. >> i should say you're seeing a surge for him, a lot of alaskans

are fed up with this being of national debate. it is a very interesting question, about this right in potential, and that is another case where there are some many disputed ballots. it is going to be -- that race is not going to be over tomorrow. it will not be over for a while. the other thing that is very interesting here to go back to the previous question, i love it when you describe that -- just like the democrats are united [unintelligible] there you go. i think the republicans would use that unity phrase a lot.

it is a precursor to how long the tranquillity last, presumably when you are defined by your so-called enemies. >> i agree with what salinas says on everything. -- celinda says on everything. >> there are all kinds of polls out there. it is hard to pull that end. shooting alaska is hard to poll. you have to find nine people. [laughter] who have a phone. >> that concludes this version of the rally for sanity and or fear. [laughter] our thanks to the terrific panelists.

[applause] we want to thank our co- sponsors, the student groups, the college republicans, the college democrats, and the radio station. our graduate school of political management. we also want to thank the director and her great team here in the public affairs ilding for handling the logiscs for the evening. sarah olson and my colleagues, as well as our terrific student in turns and our volunteers. thanks also and most of all two are terrific audience for joining us here tonight thank you very much. we hope you consider coming back on thursday evening when the

graduate with school of political management will post by a rigid will host a post- election forum. it will be moderated by an nbc news correspondent. join us on the second floor for a reception and a continuation of the discussion with the folks on stage. to everyone watching and listening to this program, please exercise your right and responsibility as americans tomorrow and a vote. thank you and good night. [applause] ♪ [captioning perford by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

[inaudible]

and another.

there is a novel of on each table. please fill them o 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. heas 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 atnn. i think she will be involved in the abc election coverage tonight and tomorrow i guess. and rk helprin is the senior political analyst at "time" magazine. among other things, he is the co-author "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 thin 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 anye 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 50n 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 yorkaces, 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 thinkg 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 sti together. pelosi, i think, will become critical of the white house. i think that will be seen as a popular position in the hse. >> 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 theres 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 ithat 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'nnell 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 supposehe 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, anerg afghanistan, health care implentation, 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 cmunication, 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 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 e 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 busine. 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 hand a sense how markets work. he nds 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 ey have noteen 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 sptical. 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 ay 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 the 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 prident 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 theace 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 othis. 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 makeense to have her switch jobs. >> [crosstalk]

>> let's go back to the senate. if harry reid were to lose, who uld 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 latt 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 beuse whitman

is -- i think your rihanna -- i think fiorina can win. she can benefit frothat whitman money. >> how about colorado? that is very close. >> i was bullied into taking bennett. but i tnk 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 politi. 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. >> floda? 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 aave, 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. >> washiton state? >> polls have basically shown the same thing. you can walk away tnking 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 ofhis 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 baggagof washington. they have the baggage of specific votes. they have the baggage of running as aropriators. 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 upo 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 f 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 stillountn 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 w 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 for them 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 aut 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 haveea 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 frontrners for republican nominations for 2012 as a result of this or does it matter? >> the candidates who have been working with or help by the tea party will get something of a boost. i think huckabee gets more of a boost than he would of had. sara 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 serious contender.

haley barbour was helped a lot by this. it has reinforced the belief that he is a reblican strategist. when he tells people, yes, it is tr, 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 runand 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 se. 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 theouse -- 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, ihink 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 athe top, but at the committee level. there could be a retnking of how democrats positn 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 comg year to wait a philosophical war. they see themselves as messengers and not legislators. how do you work with them to bring th 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 acss 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 loo 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 tre 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 talng about this earlier. i think that economic policies are really the key. if they cannot figure out how to turn the economy around, 2012 wi look ugly for him, what ever other legislative accomplishments or bipartanship or ything else that has gone has happened. ihink 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 beasy. 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 b chosen by the left in the 2012 primaries? >> we do not think so. mainly, there is not an obvus person out there. maybe russ feingold would be the only person out there that has any national standing. >> there is howa 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 maka 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' position on this. they wl 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 candidate 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 righ thank you very much. [applause]

>> good morning, and welcome to "newsmakers" live on this sunday before the election. our guests joining us from colorado is that state's secretary of state. you are responsible for fair and accurate balloting on november 2. thanks for being with us. >> it's a pleasure. >> our two questions are jessica, politico's assist nt and reed wilson of hot line editor and chief and familiar face to our viewers this season. thanks to both of you. >> thanks for joining us this morning. i just wanted to ask you, i'd seen a report this morning about early voting in your state has hit 1 million already and i wanted to ask you about these numbers. you have the mail-in ballot system. how do you think it will help encourage turnout? or if you could tell us about early voting. >> colorado allows citizens to

vote in three ways. by mail, early voting, and election day voting. we've had almost 1 million voters vote already. we expect about 1 million-7. that changes the dynamic of the way candidates run their campaigns and it also smooths out the burden for our county clerks in counting the ballots. we're very pleased with the way the election is going right now. turnout is a little bit low, but we're very pleased. >> people are already picking over those early ballots to see some tea leaf reading. what can you tell us about what are you seeing and who is voting early? >> we're seeing as of friday, 3:00, we had about 53,000 more republicans that had voted than democrats. unaffiliated seem to be voting very, very slowly, so we're watching to see whether we see a surge of unaffiliateds on

election day. >> you mentioned that early voting has changed the way campaigns have been run. what are you seeing from the national parties that they've been so heavily engaged in in investing in these early voting programs? are they making a difference in terms of turnout from previous mid-terms? >> that's hard to tell from our vanityage point. clearly the u.s. senate race has led to an investment by both parties that is unprecedented in colorado. the number of television advertisements is just dominating the airways. and i know that the candidates have been working hard the last few days on getting out the vote. but they have the ability now to tell who has already voted. and since half, maybe 60% of the folks that are going to vote in this election have already voted, they're concentrating on that last 40%.

>> and you mentioned that already 1 million people have voted. i know nevada has the same sort of 55 to 60% of the turnout is going to come early. what do you see in the future? do you see more people taking to the pols before election day? >> we've seen a continued growth of the number of citizens that have signed up as permanent mail ballot voters. we were about 60% in the last election. i suspect we're going to be over 75% this year when everything is counted. and it's not inconceivable that colorado follow it is lead of oregon and washington and becomes an all-mail ballot state in a few years. >> the ap has changed the way they were reporting numbers. they've stopped reporting how many presinchingtses are reporting. how they're reporting the percentage of expected vote.

how has early reporting changed how you count the ballots? >> in colorado, the reporting is by the counties, and the counties then supply the information to the news organizations and the news organizations do most of the compiling. the results are not actually presented to my office for several days after the election. but personally, i'm doing the same thing, i'm looking at the percentage of expected vote rather than precinct level reporting. >> secretary, with the mail ballot, heavy early voting, how are you expecting us to cut down at long lines at the polls? how are you preparing if there are lines in some precincts with provisional ballots factoring into that especially with a tight senate race and tight house races there as well? >> well, we simply have not had problems for the last four years with lines at the polls. that's because we keep track of the percentage that has voted

and the potential turnout o election day for most of our counties, it is below 60% at this point. since we've got a robust system of ways that you can vote in colorado, we do not expect to have lines or problems at the polls at all. >> just to understand i guess mechanics and getting their money's worth, citizens, 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 specifically, what's been the effect of the money that's gone into that process? how have thinged whanged with that law? >> because we've gone to a system of mail ballot, at this point about 65 to 70% of our voters using that, we've ended up with a system that is very

expensive. we've got counties using the touch screen equipment, but it's not being used with the numbers that it was originally designed for. and so we've got a mail ballot system, we've got an early voting system and then an election day system. and since we've got all three, the counties are really struggling with the cost of elections in colorado. >> you mentioned the touch screen machines in some of the precincts in colorado. obviously those have engendered a lot of skepticism and problems around the country. what kind of machines do you prefer? what would you buy for your county? >> colorado made a decision a long time ago that we let each county choose the equipment that they want to use. that resulted in colorado having all four major systems in our state, which means that my office has to certify all four systems. again, we ended up with a

result that is more expensive than most states and has been a challenge for us to administrator. clearly what we're focusing on is the scanning system that reads the ballots when they come in and try to limit the investment in touch screen machines. >> you would rather have the actual paper trail then? >> well, that's clearly what the citizens are choosing. since we've got a surplus at this point of touch screen equipment, we're encouraging the counties to concentrate on the scanning equipment. yes. >> well, just a question on the touch screen, just picking up on reed wilson's implication there on the paper trail. considering the tightness of race and the senate race in colorado, already we're seeing mobilization on both sides of the aisle for challenges afterwards. what kinds of safe guards do you have when a challenge comes that you are goin to be able to

accuratery reflect what people did at the polls? >> that's been a focus of a lot of work in our office. on friday, i was on the telephone with about 40 of the county clerks out of 64 around the state talking about the possibility of a recount. and i will say, a recount is a secretary of state's worst nightmare. i'm hoping that everybody wins the race that they're in by more than a half a percent. a half -- one half of one pernts is the trigger in colorado. and we have a number of races right now that look like they could be very, very close. we have a set of procedures that, if it becomes necessary, we will mail out all the county clerks on wednesday morning. they've seen most of them. many of them have been involved in recounts before, but unlike minnesota we have a process

that has to be completed within 25 days. so our recount process will go along very quickly. it will be done by the county clerks if necessary. and it will be certified by my office within 25 days after the election. >> you brought up minnesota. of course, that was the state that took many months to count last cycle. how did that, the spebtor of a recount of that magnitude, how did that change the way you may have operated in your office or even secretaries that you've talked to as well? >> that's a great question. first, we reviewed all of our statutes and our rules about recounts. after the minnesota recount procedure. i've also both personally met and talked on the telephone to mark richie, the secretary of state in minnesota about what they learned from their process and what advice he could give

me so that our recount, if one becomes necessary, is as transparent, as open, and creates as much confidence in the system as possible. >> mr. secretary, you adwere -- to make it as open and transparent as possible to make sure the citizens see what has been done and to make sure our procedures were well defined, which they are, and that we can move through it as quickly as possible. >> you're not giving the election lawyers a lot of opportunity to make their millions of dollars here like they did in minnesota. >> well, let's hope not. you know, i'm certain that if particularly our u.s. senate race ends up in a recount, that we'll have plenty of attorneys in colorado all over the state. you know, the focus, if there is a recount, is on a couple of

fairly narrow areas. one is that the machines have been calibrated properly, and the first thing we do is retest the machines to see that they were reading the ballots correctly. the second is in the process of provisional voting. and i'm sure that every provisional vote will be examined very, very carefully. and the third is in those situations where a ballot has to be duplicated or replicated after it's received by the county clerk. that happens when there's been coffee spilled on the ballot or the ballots that are received overseas in a format that can't be scanned by the machine. in those situations, we have a very precise process in which a democrat and a republican are reviewing the ballots, making the replicated ballot, and they're being observed by a second and -- second democrat

and republican. so we've got a very careful process and i suspect those three situations are where the election attorneys would spend their time and effort. >> you mentioned earlier that your state, like all, are in a state of fiscal, i don't know if i should say stress, but certainly everyone is watching their budgets very carefully. if you have to go into a recount and you have a 25-day timeframe, that seems like lots of people working around the clock which seems like it would put a budget stress on you. how are you able to handle the fiscal aspect of post-election counting? >> you know, i was up early this morning just worrying about exactly that thing. the state statutes say that for the secretary of state's obligation we can go to the general fund. let's hope that the cost of that are fairly minimal. the counties would have to bear

most of the costs, and the county commissioners would have to build those costs into their general fund obligations. it would be a significant problem, but making sure that our ballots are counted properly and that this system runs well is the fundamental thing about our form of representative democracy. and so we'll spend whatever money is necessary and we'll make it work. >> all of our discussion so far has been on the accuracy part. let me move to the fairness part. colorado is one of the states that has a fair number of population for whom english might be a second language. and i'm wondering about ballot access for people whose original language might have been spanish. let's start with there and have you talk about how colorado approaches that. >> well, this issue of course is mandated by federal law, that if you have a percentage,

i believe it's more than 5% that are spanish speakers or any other language, you have to supply ballots in that language. and it's determined county by county. we have a couple of counties in which spanish language ballots are supplied and all of the election materials are in spanish. after the results are compiled of the census, i anticipate that, going forward, we'll have more counties that do the same thing. >> you mentioned earlier the overseas ballots and people having to vote in different ways obviously. here in washington, d.c., the election officials ran a test of internet voting in hopes of figuring out the vulnerabilities. they asked several computer experts to try to hack into the system and those hackers achieved their goal in about an hour. what do you see about the future of internet voting? is that going to happen or is

that just a dream? >> there are pilot programs going on in i believe it's 11 different states right now to deliver ballots overseas to men and women serving in our military and others. the ballots are encriptted. they are transmitted, printed out overseas, filled out, signed, and then delivered back either by mail, by fax, or by e-mail attachment. that seems to be working very, very well in our state. the experiment in washington, d.c. was exactly that. it was designed to find out whether the system could be hacked, and it was successfully hacked by some students at the university of michigan. the story is that a test proved that it could be hacked and so they're going to continue to

develop procedures to fully encrypt ballots to provide the security that is necessary. i anticipate that some day we'll get the technology that will make that work. but right now it is purely in the experimental stage. >> with so many people entrusted in so many rates, especially in your states, people often go in your web sites and are looking for returns, myself and reed included, how do you feel like your website is equipped to handle this and equipped for people who are interested and will constantly be refreshing and looking for updated returns there? >> well, we don't report the returns on our website. we leave that to the media. because until those returns are certified to my office as official, we don't report them. so i think in colorado most people will be looking at the denver post or one of the television stations for their

up-to-date reporting. we concentrate on making sure that folks can access our site for things like tracing their ballot and seeing that their ballot, once mailed, has been received by the county clerk and processed. >> secretary busher, stay with us as we introduce a new voice into the conversation. jennifer bruner is ohio's secretary of state, another key ballot ground state in this election 2010. thanks for being with us. we have seen projections from you that you're expecting a 52% turnout in your state, and wondering how you're doing with early voting in ohio. >> early voting is very popular , and in fact, the president will be in cleveland today and we do expect that there will be bus loads of folks who will be going to the board of elections to vote today. and i think the board is prepared for the large number of people who will be doing that. >> questions for ohio's secretary of state.

>> secretary, with this influx of early voting in 2008 one of the main concerns there in ohio was there were very long lines at the polls. do you think this will curtail some of the lines? how are you equiping the precinct captains there to expedite the lines and deal with the process sf >> in 2008, there were some lines during early voting in franklin coipt because that coint has more voters than they had planned on the with the ballot on demand machines that they decided to use at their sthrilet locations. but we expect that early voting will alleviate that conjection and we have told voters not to expect long lines on voting day. >> we learned that he has already spoken with a number of the county clerks planning to, the possibility at least of a recount.

what have you done to make some plans for some of the, i think there are seven or eight competitive house races in ohio? >> well, there's not just competitive house races but also a very competitive governor's race. so in my state, the secretary of state drafts directives that carry the force of law for the boards of elections. so in crafting for instance, the unofficial canvasing directive, we have provided for very specific evidence-based recording of information so that when the unofficial canvas is complete, there later is a complete canvas or official canvas later on, that we will know how many military votes are still outstanding from within the united states, outside the united states, the overseas votes, as well as even the number of e over votes for what we call a double bubble where the person has overemphasized the vote by

voting for their candidate and putting in a write in. because in ohio we have a law that says the voter intent must be expressed >> for house and for governor. you left out one of the races. the open senate seat there in ohio. you ran in the democratic primary, the lieutenant governor lee fisher is trailing badly in the polls. would you have been in the same position or do you think you would have performed better in the general election? >> well, that remains to be actually it will never be decided because for the ohio voters it's what they're going to get is an election where they can make their choices and a secretary of state who is more than fully engaged in the process of making sure that every vote counts. and that we have a very good, smooth election here in ohio. >> we've been talking about the different balloting systems that are being used.

can you explain to us the different types that are used throughout the state by different counties? >> ye yes. we have primarily the touch screen and the optical scan ballots. for the viewers, the touch screen of course is the electronic recording of the votes at the time that the voter places their vote and then the optical scan of course is the paper ballot that the voter can place into the precinct scanner themselves. we have about 47 counties using the debolt system. the remainder, except for two using the es system and the other using hart. it's a variety but it reflects the diversity of the people of the state of ohio and we have overriding rules that deal with the reporting of the votes, they'll all come in electronically, we'll be reporting those then through our election at reporting system on election night. >> we learned from secretary busher in colorado that they have a 25-day maximum under

state law if there is a recount in order to certify results. is there any such limitation in ohio? >> it's actually a building of days upon days. once the unofficial canvas is done election night, there's a ten-day period for the military and the overseas ballots to come in, as well as the late absentee ballot that is are post marked at least the day before the elecked. and then there will also be the provisional ballots. the official canvas has to begin between 11 to 15 days after the election. so it could extend a little bit after that to get the official canvas and it's at that point that any recount would begin. and a statewide recount would be done by the counties. we have a very specific process where if it's an electronic volting machine, there's a v pat daut trail that is actually a percentage is hand coutted and compared with the electronic result. if they don't match within two

votes, then they go on and do a larger sample with the potential of having to do an entire hand count of the county. but having done this since 2008 in this particular process, we think that things should go smoothly. the boards of elections have had a couple of years to get some new procedures under their belts, and we don't anticipate a lot of problems. >> question for both secretaries ofs. there have been advertisements that have been running in some states that some groups are suggested intended to intim date people from going to the polls. specifically directed towards perhaps hispanic americans. have you seen any ed in your state of colorado and then later secretary bruner in ohio at any attempts of voter suppression this year? >> i have not. i'm not perhaps the best person to ask that question because i don't watch a whole lot of television advertising but i've not seen any and i've not been told of any.

>> and secretary brunner. >> well, we just learned about a situation of a mcdonald's operator in northeast ohio who put letters in his employee's pay checks saying that if they did not vote for particular candidates, which in this case happened to be republicans, that it could affect their ability to get raises later on. i think the reports are that this was done without knowledge that this clearly violates ohio law. i have just appointed an attorney from northeast ohio, former prosecutor, who is going to be investigating this for me. and we'll be reporting this to the ohio attorney general. there are a lot of folks up in arms about this, as they should be, because an employer cannot attempt to influence his or her employees with to vote for a particular person or against a particular person with the incentive that it could affect their employee benefits in the future. >> for both of you we've heard

charges across the country i think that there is voter fraud going on. i feel like after the last couple of elections this has just become sort of the go to excuse even before election day. have you seen any instances of voter fraud in either colorado or ohio or anywhere around the country? >> we are actually investigating an instance where in very southern ohio in lawrence county where two individuals took absentee applications to various voters, had them fill them out. but the return address were to a couple of po boxes. clearly, a problem, because as the board of elections spot checked with the voters, the voters had intended for them to go to them in their rezz dense. so when we see an instance like this and it could be voter suppression, voter infilm

dation, voter fraud, voter registration fraud, we get on it right away because it's important that when people vote that their vote is not diluted by someone who should not be voting. and it's also important that everyone who is entitled to vote have the opportunity to vote. >> secretary, have you seen any instances in colorado? >> the instances of voter fraud are very, very rare in colorado. like most states, we have a online voter data base, the name, address, and information about every single voter is on that data base. it's a public record. and folks comb through that. obviously candidates prepare their walk lists and their get out the vote efforts based on that list. and i have said many, many times, if anyone sees on that list someone who is not eligible to vote, let us know. contact our office. and we just don't get that information.

so i'm -- you're always concerned about the possibility of voter fraud, but we seem -- we see very, very few instances in colorado. >> we are just about out of time with both of you. for wrapup question, we've heard a lot about the details and i think you helped our audience understand a great deal more about the level of planning that's going into election 2010. but let me ask both of you, what is keeping you up at night these two days going into election day? >> well, as i said, every count is the nightmare -- a recount is the nightmare, even worse since i'm on the ballot also, would be a recount in the secretary of state's office. that's the number one thing that i worry about. the procedures that we've been working on and making sure are open and transparent regarding a recount i think are very, very solid and we're making sure that those are communicated well to our county

clerks so that we're all on the same page if that should happen. >> well, then the twin of that question or the flip side is, how confident are you going into election day that all the systems are in place? >> i'm very, very comfortable. we've been talking to the county clerks daily, and the election in colorado is running quite smoothly right now. >> and secretary, the same questions for you. first, what are you most concerned about as we go into the election day itself? >> my greatest concern really has more to do with whether or not we'll have a recount. already we're seeing public records requests of, for instance, the board of elections of all the names of their provisional voters who will be voting provisionally on election day, which means i suspect that some of these campaigns are expecting very, very close race. and the important thing will be that our boards of elections follow the correct procedures.

we have imnume rabble directives that give them the instructions of what they need to do. but what, when things get really tough is when either side attempts to litigate the results of an election. i myself am a former judge, a former election attorney, so i understand the intensity that goes into that. and the last thing that we want to see is anything that would shake the confidence of the voters. clearly in ohio we're prepared for this election. if we have a recount there will be frustration on the parts of people because we won't know for certain what the results of our election are. but our election officials are well trained, prepared, and ready to move forward to conduct everything fairly and according to the procedures that we've carefully set out. so we're 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 you start the busiest week of your job. ohio secretary of state, and colorado secretary of state.

thanks to both of you for being on c-span's "newsmakers" today. >> thank you. >> we appreciate it. >> let me turn to our two guests in studio in washington. jessica of politico. reed of hot line, also knee deep with all your staff in this year's election. we heard two confident secretaries of state, but what they also seem to be pretty confident of is that there are going to be court challenges going forward? is this the way of the world for elections in the united states from where our society is is? >> i think minnesota gave us a new standard, and both parties have been preparing definitely for this. we've seen fund raising appeals come out from both sides saying we have to be ready to go on november 3rd. and it's almost inevitably going to be either the house race, several senate races so dedloked in the polls. so it's not going to surprise

journalists. but i think what you did see from both of them is that people want to minimize the time and the length. they don't want the elections running out months, especially if it does hinnage on one or two seats that could control the senate. that people want that resolved very quickly but also very fairly as well. >> both sides have already sort of readied their fleets of lawyers roont the country there are a number of organization that is prepare for the two weeks after the election, after the 2000 when every lawyer went to the fla and had a working revasion. but now the national public association has a fleet of volunteer attorneys who are ready to get on planes on election night or the very soon after, the morning after, and fly out to these contested races. it was very telling in minnesota that the lead

election lawyer on the democratic side, a guy named mark, was in minnesota very shortly after election day and really took control sort of explaining to reporters what was going on, explaining to reporters how the democrat's view of the process. the republican side was handled through a press aide and it was a little less smooth. so i think it's -- after the lessons of minnesota we're going to see a lot of very high powered lawyers going to these seats and really taking over the process. >> the law, which is help america vote act, which came out of the 2000 recount was intended to make voting more easy, more accurate and easier, because all of the counties in florida had different methods. what struck me in listening to the colorado secretary of state, that we've replaced papor complexity with electronic complexity. >> it's very telling. i think a lot of election

officials have seen these touch screen machines. they are the newest technology. and we're seeing around the country election officials taking those away, going back to papor ballots, going back to optical scan ballots. i think everybody agrees at the moment the optical scan ballot is probably the one that everybody would like to see. it's got an actual voter mark, it's an actual tangible piece of paper that you can go back and hand count. it's not going to print out a receipt that a voter will have to take. given the sheer number of machines, there will be bugs somewhere. things will have to be reprogrammed. so with that actual paper ballot, i think that's what most people would prefer. i was surprised to hear that 47 counties in ohio are using the touch screen machines. >> because they have a tradition of county by county decision making here, you heard secretaries of state who are dealing with different kinds of equipment that are tabulating votes. then we have paper ballots,

early voting, overseas voting. it seems rather complex to ensure the final tally. >> that's why it does take so long in recounts and you get down into the nitty-gritty with that. but i think one thing that is helping alleviate that is in the different methods that people vote, it's important to encourage to get people more engaged in democracy, it's amenable to our lifestyle that you can early vote, you can request an absen tee ballot now. and people don't have time to wait in line for hours and hours. so i think that's something that we're seeing especially both in so many states continue to stress. >> one thing they told suss that their states have no fault absentee voting. that is you request a ballot. you don't have to have a reason to vote absentee. you don't have to be out of town, visiting a sick relative in the hospital. you can vote absentee if you

don't want to go to the polling place. washington state and oregon have already gone to all mail-in ballots. it has improved turnout in states. some people like that, some don't. but it has improved turnout. and i think that this new trend is going to continue to grow around the country and become common place in states where right now you have to have a reason to get an absentee ballot. >> all of this change in how people vote has changed the parties' and candidates' strategies. so we'd be remiss not to end with where we are overall. what is your sense of where the electorate is? >> i think with the house, republicans are increasingly confident. we've seen several projections come out over the last week upwards of 55, some people saying as many as 60 seats. but we did see several stories out this morning saying that the republican senate is looking less likely.

all the cards would have to fall in their favor to definitely attack the republicans or running with and i think several early closing states especially should give us a good idea on election night. indiana and kentucky have the earliest closing times that will sort of give us a feel of whether this is going to be as big of a republican tidal wave. >> and how about the governor's mansions? >> a bloody field for democrats. republicans are going to have a very good night. one interesting thing that early voting has done is it has taken the republicans 72-hour program and made it obsleet. what we're now seeing is a 720 hour program, one that stretches back for 30 days. people have been running their turnout operations at if you will steam since very early october. so turnout is going to be higher than the average mid-term this year. >> thanks for being here on this sunday morning. >> thank you. >> and thanks for watching. we have lots of politics ahead on c-span on this sunday

leading into november 2nd

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 have cut at the state level. just took the money, spend it, and now condemned the stimulus. it is political doublespeak. >> my impression of the stimulus package was that it 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 today. democratic and republican pollsters talked yesterday about some of the key races around the country. that is next on c-span. on this morning's "washington journal," we'll talk about campaign 2010. and later this morning, a discussion on the challenges

facing new governors in today's elections. live coverage at 11:45 eastern. voters go to the polls today. our live coverage begins at 7:00 p.m. eastern. we'll have election results and candidate speeches from around the country for key house, senate and governor races. watch c-span's live election coverage. >> this year's student cam video documentary competition is in full swing. make a 5-8-minute video. your do you meanry should include more than one point of view along with c-span programming. upload your video before the delirningse january 20. the competition is open to middle and high school students grades 6-12.

for all the rules, go to studentcam.org. a preview of today's midterm elections. democratic pollsters analysis the numbers and offer insight into some of the most contested races. >> good morning. time director of the global media institute. in our audience tonight i would

like to acknowledge director of our g.w. media and public affairs, a person i think all of you are familiar with, frank sesno. thanks for joining us tonight. frank has been a huge supporter of this project and also the acting executive director, chuck kushman. tomorrow american also head to the polls in a midterm election that will determine the makeup of the next congress. also at stake, 37 gubernatorial positions, lots of legislative positions. this election is going 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 singh the bipartisan battleground poll which was founded more than 20 years ago by ed goeas and celinda lake. public opinion and lake research partners. their teams have produced one of the most historic and accurate public opinion predictors in all of survey research. seven years ago, the george washington university with our graduate school of political management became a partner in the poll and this fall, politico 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 in sites with their students, our faculty and friends. we are very pleased to be joined tonight by force to end group co-sponsors, including the gw hatchet, the gw college republicans and gw democrats. we're also pleased to welcome c- span viewers across the country. our format will comprise a conversation among the panelists on stage. initial questions from cosponsoring student groups and then questions from the audience. it is my pleasure to introduce from right to left, geographic, not ideological, george washington university graduate school of political management professor christopher arderton. the president of the terence group and the president of lake

partners and our moderator for the evening, the executive editor of political -- politico. [applause] >> thank you for coming. thank you for this amazing partnership. these polls have been fantastic for our readers and all of us to dissect. we have a great sample and great posters. everybody that has helped to pull these things together, this has -- this can be a real logistical nightmare, so we are really pleased with the partnership. i am going to make a bold prediction that democrats are going to lose some seats tomorrow. [laughter] i'm going to let these guys make much more serious predictions. let's get a quick prediction on the house seats and senate seats and may be a surprise if you have one.

>> i think democrats are going to lose some seats. i think we're going to hold on to the senate. i think the margin in the house is being overstated. i think one of the things important to remember is the key to picking of seats on tuesday, the seeds were planted when the republicans lost 52 seats in 2006 and 2008. just as the report of the demise of republicans was overstated in 2008, the report of the demise of democrats is vastly overstated as well. i also think in terms of surprise, watch for alaska. the other surprises we don't know what really happens until we don't have -- we don't know what happens because of the number of recounts from the number of close races. >> i have to say that we have worked together for a long time and i feel badly for her because i've been in this situation

before, maybe when we were losing the 52 seats of the last two cycles. i think it's going to be a huge night tomorrow night for republicans. we are seeing an intensity gap and an enthusiasm gap that is almost double 1994. we see a generic ballot advantage that is double what we saw in 1994. i think in the house, we started off with a target of making 60 races competitive and ended up with 100 races being competitive. right now, my count would be -- we only need 39 to get control. i think we're past that by six or seven seats in terms of definitely going in the republican column with another 43 tossup seats. if i had to get a floor for tomorrow night, i would say 56 or 57 seats. i would say more likely we will be toward the top of that

ceiling, in the high 60s. if i were to bet, i would say 65 or 66 seats are very likely for tomorrow night. in terms of the senate, i have always been one that believes if you look at the senate, the senate tend to be more susceptible to waves than even the house. i see as at 48 seats already with four tossup seats. all we have to do is one half of the tossup seats. this is the type of election where anything close goes our way just like in 2006, anything close went to democrats. i could see a scenario where we are at 50/50 rather easily. tomorrow night -- we will not know tomorrow night, i believe it is probably going to go for weeks before we have a final answer. in a terms of governorships, i think we are at 31 governors of the 50. the untold story is i am looking at somewhere between 425 and 450

state legislative seats going to the republican direction which would be somewhere between 14 and 15 chambers turning republican to our night. >> thank you. i guess i'm sort of in the middle. i think we're certainly going to see a fairly strong tide running toward the republicans tomorrow and i think it will be in the high fifties or low 60s in terms of numbers of seats. i think the senate is harder to predict and 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 get a poll body elected. it is also the case -- to get a full body elected. in every way -- everyway that occurred and the house side, the senate as also tipped over. mostly that has happened when you get contagion from the top, when you get the presidential

coattails bringing the senate over. i think it is going to be very tight on the senate side -- 52 or 53 democrats being reelected. i live in the state of connecticut and i have been doing my informal yard sign pole and a note it reflects the amount of spending, but i think we may see linda mcmahon coming in much stronger than people think she's going to. >> you may get that 12 or 13. >> on the enthusiasm get, very rarely do we actually have terms we all use behind the scenes seem to be part of the lexicon because everyone is talking about it. for those of you who have not followed this closely, we started to see this late last year in the virginia and new jersey gubernatorial race, we're seeing republicans turn out in record numbers. we see low democratic turnout.

we have talked a lot about the enthusiasm gap, particularly the enthusiasm. you pointed out a single women and younger voters and you had hoped to see some uptick in those groups to offset the republican margin. have you seen that or any evidence in this poll or anywhere else that the enthusiasm gap has closed and it will not be for bad as democrats? >> it has closed, but it is bigger than it has been in the past. what is really interesting is if we think about 2012 as opposed to 2010, 2010 is the last election of the 20th-century electorate. 2012 on will be elections of the 21st century electorate. what is interesting is all of the new, younger voters, the much more diverse and minority- oriented electorate. the unmarried an electorate are not showing up to vote in anywhere near the numbers they need to in 2010 and that is

affecting democrats pretty seriously. you can expect them to be back in 2012 and 2012 on. whatever the setbacks are tomorrow night, it is going to be a fast comeback for the democrats in 2012 and beyond. the second thing i would say is that turnout is very important. in many of these states, you see very impressive early vote and a vote by mail efforts. that can all make a difference and not sure that is getting fully picked up the least traditional polls. the enthusiasm gap is a big problem. it is not too late to turn the enthusiasm -- the enthusiasm get ahead -- go votive you are democratic. it is a problem we are unlikely to see in 2012 and 2014. >> ed is beaming the behalf of self-confidence. >> the election is wednesday,

right? [laughter] >> only in chicago. >> if tomorrow night, it turns out you were wrong and the number is in the low 40's, what might you be missing? >> that is speculation. there is such data out there today and one of the misperceptions, one of the myths of the 2008 campaign, was there was the talk of a new electric, a different electric, massive change in who was turning out. -- different electorate. what 3 look to the african- american vote, hispanic voters, new voters, they were all within a percentage point of what had been four years older -- four years earlier. total turnout was only 0.2% higher than four years earlier. we pretty much have this down.

there may be stories out there, but we pretty much have this down on who is going to turn out. about 70% in a presidential year and 50% in a non- presidential year. every survey out today and this weekend was just confirming a trend that was there. what is interesting about the enthusiasm gap is it surfaced and we identified that in 1994, but it was not called the enthusiasm gap. it was only 6% in 1994. it has been running between 12% and 14% this year. that's going to be a hard thing to miss. you see things like president obama in cleveland on sunday. 8000 people turned up. when he was in cleveland to years ago, 80,000 people turned out. turnout in terms of early voters

-- 5000 on the day he was there- year, this time, 650. the difference between 2008 we had to give the voters a little ledge and at this time we have to drag them kicking and screaming to the polls, i don't think there is going to be a massive difference. are there a lot of close races? absolutely. are there enough close races in the house that you and up with 30 rather than the 65, i don't think there are that many. the real story, if there is a difference are stories like nevada s, does it end up going against harry reid. nobody is watching delaware anymore. we pretty much know that the witch is dead. there are not going to be many surprises there. >> one of the most