in the poll we saw this time and last time is that conventional wisdom in washington as people see congress as being much 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 the results of this election? is it a repudiation of him and his policies or is a 9.6% unemployment and there's nothing 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 the public prefers divided government. they are unhappy with the drift of the policy in washington 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 what politics 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 claim 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 i 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 in the 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 secret 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 democrats 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 committee 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 came 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 helped 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 pressure 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. thet 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 piece here is to draw a clear economic distinction and what's really have a debate, particularly with these tea party candidates. these independent voters 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 democratic 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 the 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, is 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 months 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 with 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 republican party. i 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 will 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 thing 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 margins. 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 want to 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, i would 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 this what 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 have 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 between 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 in 2008 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 young people that obama had. so it is comparing two very different phenomenon. >> i think it is wrong to think of you as complete monolithic. 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 back in 2012? the interesting thing about you, as you know, particularly hard

hit by the economy, so i think there is they've put into an economic change and i think the single biggest challenge the democrats face 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. what 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 republicans 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 mean and 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 never hear -- a realization that there are not enough millionaires to pay for all this stuff. they know the bill will 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 far 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 the way 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, the investment 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 able 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 nationalistic and 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 going 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 with 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 young people 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 with young people, on a difference between young 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 splitting of that between the use that have land lines and use that have cell phones, then he would have that much more of a drive 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 funds. 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 to 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 that takes into account how intense they are about voting, how intense effort can't it, the older 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. when you look at the likely voters, our generic ballot in this survey 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. some people 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 real clear politics, which takes an average of all but polls out there. if you look it real clear politics through today, their average in terms of the generic ballot was eight points for the republican. that is probably about right. maybe lighter from 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, and their

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 candidates if they are elected to the house or the senate? t think they will be able to make rational decisions? [laughter] >> wholly loaded question, batman. >> would you like to reword that? >> i thank you for your incredibly insightful question and i agree with you.

i would love 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 and bring 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 elected, 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 a party 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 waves 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 democrats as it is with republicans or populist or however you want 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 up with 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 would never say that about the institution. a majority of the senators will be in their first term.

the senate is much more partisan than it 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 i would differ run -- that democrats for years have had candidates 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 republican party, being able to stand shoulder to shoulder with other republicans on what they view as

the enemy, which is obama with the wrong solutions. i think that they are underestimated. the republicans as a whole 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 sense in 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 everything to do with having a common cause. at georgereshman here washington. if understood the demon sheep joke. talking about interparty division, what will happen tomorrow in 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 building for handling the logistics 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 performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [inaudible] >> the c-span networks, provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books and american history, all available on television, radio, on line, and social media networking sites. find our content than a time on the c-span video library and we take c-span on the road with the digital bus, local content

vehicle. it is washington your way. the c-span networks now available in more than 100 million homes. created by cable, provided as a public service. >> "washington journal" is next. we will take your calls. later this morning, it discussion on the challenges facing new governors after today's elections. live coverage of the urban institute. and our election coverage begins at 7:00 p.m. eastern. we will have election results and candidates' speeches from key house, senate, and governor's races. watch c-span's live the election coverage. coming up this hour, morton kondracke from "roll call." and we will look at some of the and we will look at some of the key