>> good afternoon and welcome to georgetown university. in the dean of the school of foreign service. that was the center for the german and european studies that is coasting this important event. i am really delighted to and excited to be here today because something happened on tuesday. i am not sure what it is. i have to say that i have been in politics myself and i am a little puzzled by all the messages that may be out there. we know that the message is fairly clear. the president said it himself. what are the messages that the boaters one of us to receive on tuesday? what difference is this going to make a going forward for american politics going forward.

what does it say about where the american policy is? this is a question i always ask for it how important is this tension between those that are comfortable with a larger government and those of a smaller government? this goes back to the beginning of the republic. it is something that i find a peculiar to the american political debate. these are the questions that are in my mind and i am sure they are in your mind. we have the experts at this table that have, hopefully, some of the answers. i will turn the event over to professor john christopher view of who has been dealing with this. he has kindly put this together. thank you so much, john. it is over to you. >> thank you for the opportunity.

it is nice to be a professor even though i have just done it for eight months. i take that with great honor and great gratitude. i want to shout out to our leader in the german center. it is professor jeff anderson. he is not here with us today. he is here in mind and spirit. thanks to our gracious friends at c-span. you can watch the entire show from home where run

who has survived the sonometer it passed the some money. -- the tsunami. we face the cold heart community -- reality. this is what we referred to. where do we go from here? where do we go from here as a country? despite the endless spend that you have heard, and you will not hear any of that today. we have no place in this fight.

what do the voters want? what message were they saying? what message were the voters saying to the various operations, parties and people and elected officials. the republicans would tell you that it is a repudiation of the policies of barack obama and the democrats. some democrats would tell you that it is no such thing, but a failure to deliver a message. what the tea party might say is that their success, in a large sense, is because there is a large group of disaffected americans who were turned off by government and desperate to hear from anyone that has a common- sense approach to fix the problems of america from within. these are individuals that can address that and will speak amongst ourselves and we will

then for this out to you and get you involved in the last portion of this event. i would like to introduce adam bolten, who is a colleague of mine. he is the sky news political editor and host of a a program. adam bolten is here during the first hundred days of barack obama is administration. -- barack obama's a administration. he has written a book called come together he has interviewed everyone from nelson mandela to george bush and barack obama and woody allen and jane fonda in between.

he goes back a while. i will say one thing about adam boulton. when you are in an interview with adam, you will say that that is the last question that he will ask because he will not go any further with this interview. adam will pull out another question and i guarantee you that he will make news with the question you never would have thought that he could do. harold ickes has a heart of gold but is a political icon. he has a history, despite what you heard, he is probably the most tender man i know. he is a good friend. he has advised presidents and hillary clinton and was a senior adviser to the president as deputy chief of staff during bill clinton's administration. he has a history of human rights

and advocacy that goes back to the civil-rights days and we are very honored to have herald with us today. harold ickes. what can i say, dennis this image is here. it is very good for his constituents -- dennis to cinch is here. he was the youngest elected mayor in his day. that was a little while ago. this is his ninth term as a member of the house of representatives. he is a member of the oversight and government reform and education look and labor committee. we are grateful that he could put that train back on the rail so we could -- so he could get here. if anybody could do that, he can. thank you for being with us. henry olson is the director of the american enterprise institute. he is going to tell us what happens and how the voters turned it and why they do what they do.

he is an expert on voting behavior. a couple of days after, we need a bit of a reality check and find out what happened from a man of his stature. we are happy to have him here. there are two lines. all of you students that the not know these lines, i wanted to write them down because they are part of our history and the lexicon of our history and they come from an american master. i remember both of them. one is, i will to a little bit of my dan rather imitation. it was in 1968 when walter cronkite said at the convention in chicago, and a equally handsome dan rather with those old headphones on i believe it said to the police. i will not call them goons.

it was a raucous time and i believe you said, "unless you are going to arrest me, take your hands off me. and i sort of there? >> dead accurate. >> thank you, sir. >> another line, and i want you students to look this up. "no sir, mr. president, are you? i think he was asking if he was running for something. dan rather is now the anchor and managing editor of dan rather report. he is one of the most authoritative voices. he served as anchor and managing editor of cbs from 1981 until 2005.

that is the longest running tenure of any broadcast journalist. like i said, we are honored to have a true american master with us today. dan rather. and it is all true. >> lynn sweet is -- i do not want to tell you what she is. she is the chicago sun times bureau chief and columnist for politicsdaily.com. linh a sweet is probably the most powerful woman in that room. when i am with her, and there is no way that i will get a question if lynn's wait -- if lynn sweet is sitting next to me. she is appreciated. she is the washington bureau chief for the "chicago sun- times." she has a wonderful blogging and

she is a regular guest. we are honored to have her. dr. james a saudi -- dr. james a zogby has a book that is extremely relevant at this time. his book is right here. he would love to sign them for you. we can also get an online if you go to his website which is aai.com which is currently posted in several countries. his out reach is massive and very important to all of us when we look at the politics of this country and these last couple of years. what i thought i would do was

start the conversation on a few topics. i would like our distinguished guests to join in. oh, one more guest. who did i get? >> of john zogby. >> i just did john zogby. for anyone who did not hear this, we have an extra plug. do you have a deal? did i get everyone? adam keeps me straight. i hope i did not do anything wrong, but for give me if i did in advance. i want to throw this out. on tuesday, the republicans won

61 house seats and came very close to controlling the senate. this is the third change election in a row. 2006, 2008, 2010. i would like to open this up to our folks here and hear from you exactly what message the voters were sending on tuesday night. who would like to go first? go ahead. >> with the brains on this panel, i have to get in early or may not be able to say anything at all. >> or the egos, maybe. >> there is no ego like an anchor man's ego. believe me. it is clear that the electorate was saying to both parties, if you want to include the tea party movement, to everybody, economically, we are in trouble. when you look around the globe, iraq and afghanistan, we thank

the globe is in trouble and we expect you to do what you can to make things better. that is one message. i think it is economic growth and jobs. i think that is basically what this election was about president obama had the case that he promised a lot and maybe he overpromise, but in our view, you have under delivered. i think there is a message for the republican party, although the republicans would probably disagree with this and i am often wrong about such things, but i don't care what your party is, we expect better than we expected to get better in a hurry. if it does not, come 2012, there will be another turnover. you used the phrase of a tsunami. from a historical perspective, i

would disagree. not a tsunami, but maybe a hurricane two or hurricane four. unless all of you address that problem and address it directly and address it boldly and address it with some audacity, we will be turning people out from washington in the foreseeable future. >> i think that dan has done a terrific job of summarizing what i would have said. my sense is that there are people on the fringes that will talk about the size of government. i think that people are not as concerned about the size of government, whether large or small, but what they want is an effective government and what they have seen is not their view.

having said that, against the backdrop of what has gone on, it is hard to have effective government instantaneously in the sense of creating the jobs with the economic engine that is going to be required to pull this country back to where it was. my sense is that there was a huge sweep of independent voters. one reckoning was a 28 point swing of independent voters. democrats had an 8 percent margin and republicans had a 18% margin. it is that group of voters that are saying that we are hurting. we are petrified tree we are frightened. we do not think that things are going well for us. we are tired of the bickering .ack in washington thi

washington has a very short leash. if they lose, the republicans will try to figure out how to drive the rhetoric of their hard-line tea party people with trying to get something done because they are now in charge of at least one house and you can claim that they are in charge of both houses because with a 60 vote requirement, they can block whatever they want to block. it is effective government, and that is the message. >> jim? >> this was yet another of the post-katrina elections. the loss of confidence in the government to solve problems. katrina, in that context, is more significant than 9/11. 9/11 saw the country come together and katrina had us fall

apart. look at this. i did town meetings all over the country in 2008. i experienced things that i have never seen before. this is the first generation of americans that no longer believes that their children -- the standard of living will not be had that they have themselves. there is this collapse of the dream. it is a shock to the system. it is the collapse of financial institutions. it is the collapse of the housing market. the overall collapse of the economy that has resulted in more people out of work or fearing that they will be out of work. it has caused a tremendous strain through there is a loss of confidence in the federal government to solve that and that has taken a toll. i have a ph.d. in religion and a post-doctoral in religion dealing with the religion under

stress for it what happens when a culture suffers tremendous stress. i think that what happened in 2008 is just the reverse of what just happened that now. in some ways, 2008 surprised me. i do not recall a situation where an organism under the kind of stress that we were, to boris that were unwinnable, the economic collapse, the loss of confidence in government, people who voted for hope and it was unexpected and irrational. similarly, this was similarly irrational. out of the same kind of fear and the same kind of anxiety that made them believe that barack obama could bring a different order -- a different process to work in washington.

i use this one last example. after 9/11, i got death threats in my office from people saying that i must die. we have police protection. it was so frightening that some people in my office building, not my staff, but other offices came to provide us with lunches and one day a woman came and knocked on the door and we have security at the door and she said that she made these brownies for us. i completely lost it when she did that. what i said was that her act was gratuitous. it was undeserved. i did not deserve her kindness in that way, nor did not deserve the threats. but the system was in shock. the people responded this way and then the people responded that way. it is the same way in the electorate. they responded with hope and then they responded with fear and anger.

they looked for a target to direct their hope to and then they'd look for a target to direct their anchor. i think that republicans have got a short leash on life. this could just as quickly turn the other way. >> would you like to add to that? >> i am in agreement with what dan and john and harold said. this is where the incoming party is as unpopular as the outgoing party. in 1994, when republicans took congress for the first time in four years, voters had a positive opinion of the republican party. in 2006, when the democrats swept into power, boaters had a positive opinion of the democratic party. we should not interpret this as an endorsement of them. there is definitely an idea of

working together for the common good. i would estimate that about one- third of the electorate are very numerous, but in the middle, this is that swing vote that affected government. it is very difficult to look at the election without saying, as far as the current results of repudiation of the policies has happened. since i study voting statistics, i will throw out a few members here. try and there with me with this. the group that i was looking at was the like working class. that is defined very broadly to me. if you take a look at the non- whites, they stuck with the democratic party with the exception of african-americans, who turned out in record high

numbers for the president did they dropped back to their historic voting to about 10% of the electorate. other minorities turned out in the same percentage as they did for obama. whites without a college degree moved massively for republicans at a 10% margin and voted for mccain by an 18% margin. that is a record. it is not just southern whites that have been voting at the top of the ticket for republicans for years, but they have been voting them to congress.

17% democrats lost reelection in the south and that was once the dominant base of the party. there are more republicans in the house for new york and new england and then there are white democrats representing the south. it is also the north. throughout northern working- class areas that voted for dukakis and clinton and kerrey, many of these district return republicans to congress for the first time in decades. that is like jim oberstar's district. like the illinois 17 which is a working-class district. these are historic democratic voters have voted republican for the first time. when you look at the polls, is not hard to figure out why. president obama's approval

rating among white working class men -- they have not released the data from the exit poll, but it was below 30% and white working-class women were above 30%. 's.rge bush ' s it is hard to see this in anything other than a repudiation. >> >> the->> let's listen from rep kucinich. >> one of the problems is that you keep it at the level of democrats and republicans, we have to look at the economic system and structure of it.

it is structured to accelerate the will of the country upwards -- the wealth of the country upwards. people work their whole lives to achieve a home. they had either lost or on the verge of losing it and they do not know how or why this has come about. the party in power is charged with the responsibility for being able to create the jobs. there is a reason why there are 15 million americans unemployed. the private sector has chosen to consolidate well and improve its stock a performance. our trade laws accelerate jobs out of this country. there is tremendous downward pressure on wages. people expected the democrats to get america back to work.

a few million jobs is insufficient. we have historic mandates in 2008 and the democratic party blew it. i sat on the risers looking at two million people during the inauguration. we had a moment where we could summon a new deal type of energy that could put millions of people back to work. we missed it. we would not have had to take this minimalist approach with health care and a minimalist approach in getting this economy moving again. we took care of wall street. we ended up with a health care system that still left people at the mercy of insurance companies. we ended up with energy

policies that paid homage to oil. the economic system is set up so that if either democrats or republicans are in charge, we have trade lines that continue to take jobs out of this country. we have a monetary policy where the fed gave $600 billion to the banks that have been holding onto their cash. businesses cannot get money for capital and the jobs are not there. the war was based on lies. this is not a partisan statement. for the life of the, i do not understand what barack obama did not hold george bush accountable to why he took us into iraq and kept us there in

the trillions of dollars that are being sucked out of our economy for those wars in the tax policies under the previous administration that accelerated the wealth to the top. how could she not have people in revolt? 50 million americans out of work, 6 million people lost their homes and another 6 million are in jeopardy of losing their homes. until the health care bill goes into effect, another 50 million are uninsured. while some might be doing well, it points to the fact that until we looked at structural reforms so the government can sufficiently rebuild the infrastructure and were the federal reserve is brought back into the control of the government, not an entity of its own, and were the banking system is thoroughly investigated, until we look at

those kinds of things, we can talk about republicans until now of -- from now until kingdom come. by 2016, this country might be ready for an independent movement that defines the economic issues. >> lynn sweet, your thoughts on that? [laughter] [applause] your readers, are these the concerns that your readers have? your the washington bureau chief and the white house correspondent. what is your feeling about what exactly was the issue here? >> the issue was jobs and the economy.

the obama white house did not move fast enough to solve the problem. dennis outlined this. i want to take a quick look forward to where we go from here. the message cell was a liver on tuesday dictates the next step. the white house knows it. the white house knows that they will have to deal with speaker boehner and they will have to restructure and go into a defensive mode where they have been in an offensive mode, bracing for this new arrangement. while that may be harder to govern, it may be easier, politically for obama after he gets through these next few weeks, i say that because the republicans have to be accountable.

-- itboehnern banjohn believe this will be in chicago. you will have not only the tea party critics, the regular republican establishment critics, a new aggressive gop leadership, but you will have the republican presidential candidates traveling around the country opening up new fronts all over the place. you'll have the obama white house that will have to do with the reality. -- deal with the new reality. the republicans have to share in the miserable economy. if the job rate is still stuck high, if people's homes are still being foreclosed on and if

mortgage modification as i get simpler and if people do not understand that there is no brightening spot in the economy, then the obama white house can use this contrast to argue over what the situation is now. the republican leadership will have to show something in this era of new government. we know that speaker mcconnell said that one of his goals is to make president obama a one-term president. both things cannot be true. you cannot have an era of both sides saying they have agendas when you have all of the rest of these stalemates. what will happen? there will be some boutique issues where people will find a compromise, but you will have a new era of gridlock with some off ramps now and then with very

narrow focused issues that are designed to let both sides show some gains. well the message of the shellacking came through, at the moment, the reality of dealing with the divided power, now, no matter how they got here, the white house knows that the republican leadership will have its own internal problems as they know they have problems with the democratic base. now the republicans will have their own set of internal problems and that is the set up as we go forward. that is one of the messages. >> before i ask adam bolten for his thoughts, the word triangulation comes into my mind. i like to talk about that in a

minute. how do you deal with this particular congress and how do you deal with the fact that they need to do something. i would really like to hear adam boulton, who has spent so much time in the united states and stayed glued to what is going on here. >> thank you, very much. as i know that you know, you get into a few scrapes along the way. there is one thing worse than talking about politics in your own country, it is talking about politics in someone else's country. i am going to take this extremely gently. i will outline three questions which the rest of the world, including britain, is asking following the midterm elections. the first big question everyone

is asking is if president obama is finished? will he be a one-term president? presidents have higher popularity ratings abroad than they do alone. that is still the case in the case of barack obama. i think the conclusion is that everyone is experiencing the reactions against the incumbents. they can be reminded of their history of what happened to clinton or what happened after reagan. the short answer is that they know that president obama is not finished. he can come back. that said, i do not think that people have been pulled -- particularly impressed since the defeat for the buildup of the defeat of the democrats.

there is a desire for leadership. i think that there is a question as to whether this was a response that the president has given so far. is this one that is left to be particularly inspiring? probably. i think that the -- i think that this applies domestically as well as for the rest of the world. he would be helped if there can be some real tests where he succeeds abroad. obviously, people are looking for a reduction in the arms protection committee. -- arms reduction committee. if you look at iraq, which seems to be going back to the battle

again or afghanistan, neither of these look to be particularly heroic. do they carry on with the white house or do they start reminding republicans that they, too, are conservative. that said, i was reporting on the rally for solidarity over the weekend. what struck me there was whether it was david cameron or nick played, they were in a different place. the rest of the world is assessed by the influence of the tea party. is it a good thing or a bad thing?

i know that many people are inclining to condemn the tea party. i have to say -- i spend a lot of time talking to conservatives and i think they make a strong analysis which is a significant moment that helps the republicans across the board. i know there are problems in the senate. when the tea party decided to throw its lot in with the republican party, there is no doubt that it energized the republican base. particularly accepting what has already been said. if you recognize that, there is a growing group of people that

would describe themselves as independents who are volatile in politics. i think it is this phenomenon across the democratic world. back here, we have a bipartisan system. the lease until 2016. finally, the question we are all asking ourselves is about the economy. the united states remains the main economy for britain and much of europe. it is astonishing that you appear to be struggling. there does not seem to be much possibility of stimulus if you except that that moment was missed. at the same time, unlike the experiment which the coalition government in britain is going under, it is clear that there were will not be dramatic cuts

in the deficit over the next two years. that really leaves the united states and drifting, waiting for the upturn. one other final cheery thought, that might president of the financial sector in britain reminds me about, of the last 20 centuries, china has been the dominant economy in 18. >> that could be a trend. >> one thing i do want to point out, we concentrated on what is the majority -- what is the majority of the country what? we have not taken into effect what the many special interests who contribute only amounts of

money to campaigns in both parties the democrats have plenty of money this time. let's see clearly that in modern times, a great deal of what our election is about, and never more than in the most recent elections, is to give us the most money to whom, expecting to get what? it is all well and good for us to talk about what it is that we the people one, but there is a growing group of people in the country and it cuts across party lines that by the ability to contribute huge amounts of money -- bear in mind that this was a $4 billion midterm election. while some people give money altruistic lee, an awful lot of people that give that kind of money expect to get something in return. let's be clear that we talk

about the direction, it is sort of the overarching narrative. where do we go from here? one of the places that we go from here, unless things change dramatically, is that if you think that this was a very expensive election in which a lot of money, much of it secret money, influenced the election, stand by for 2012. the last presidential election was a two billion dollar presidential election. you could imagine what it will be in 2012 given what we have been through in 2008 in 2010. that is in the background of everything that we talk about today. these are the tremendous sums that come from corporations. there is a lot of special interest money around. one of the reasons this is growing is because it is increasingly difficult to put

the sun shine on its -- the sun shine on it. >> who is getting rich out of this? where is this $4 billion going? is it the consultants that are wrecking it up? -- racking it up? >> a lot goes into the ads. i agree with them, wholeheartedly -- i agree with dan rather, wholeheartedly. the disgraceful decision on citizens united has opened up overruling over 100 years of beening corporate contributions. i think it augers real concern about the federal cases that are

going on with respect to the health care bill. the health care bill does not have this ability close to it. -- have a civibility clause to it. i'll want to come back to where do we go? if i could wave a magic wand, it is unclear to me what i would is anyone to do. you have a group of tea part iers. there is no small irony there. you have the two republican leaders that have said very bluntly that our task is to take the president of the nine states

down in 2012. that is our central task. i do not think that you can expect a lot of cooperation from them. they have the tea party and john painter has a bigger problem -- john boehner has a bigger problem. you can see something getting through the senate, possibly. there are 10 moderate democrats. you could see something being passed and getting to the senate. does it get it accepted by the much more radical house? when you think about the politics in the context of what needs to be done, the economy, the economy, the economy. mr. bernanke has given up on the

congress and the president and is now want to buy $600 billion worth of government bonds to try to stimulate the economy while the corporations are holding trillions of dollars in their treasury. as you look at the political landscape, and if you believe that we need more stimulus -- i cannot agree with the congressman more. you'll be hard-pressed to find a democrat in congress that will vote for additional stimulus. if you look at this, you can't talk about cooperation until you're blue in the face. what is the remedy? i think we're in a very scary time. when you look at what happened in japan, as they came out of their free fall in the early 90's, they decided that they had to cut the deficit. what did they do in 1997?

the increase the consumption tax from 3% to 5%. those people that study japan say that that is why it killed the recovery. >> thank you, harold. >> your thoughts? >> i am one to stick with the voting pattern street i think we are looking at both parties bases insisting on open wolf -- open warfare. i think it is something that is being rejected by people in the middle. about one-third of americans are partisan democrats and one-third are partisan republican stemmed 1/3 in the middle. they do not understand why they cannot sit down and sacrifice

some sacred cows. seeing a wave of openness for a third-party candidate, if not in 2012, then the next one. this seeks to curb the excesses of the base to gain favor in the middle. >> i think that the points that band and congressman -- that dan and congressman kucinich made, i think it was exploited in the way that campaigns were run about issues that had nothing to do with what the campaign was about.

part 51 became the subject of campaign ads in several doesn't elections. can you explain that? the building the islamic center in south manhattan. a district in west virginia had unemployment at 13.5% and a mine disaster took lives. it was a fear of miners going back to work. a republican democrat challenged the democrat- republican candidate challenge the democrat. they were doing ads saying that he was a supporter of terrorism and was affiliated with radical islam and that he took money from this and that in the other. one might argue that the issue had nothing to do with what the election was about.

hundreds of thousands of dollars were poured into this campaign. it was not the issue and it was not what big kohl was interested in but it was the wedge that was used to create fear. islamaphobia typical. this was not the party of george herbert walker bush and james baker any more. this is the party of those that exported here all summer long and unified their base and then were able to exploit it in the election. i am very concerned about how this played out and i am waiting to see what the next year campaign will be as we move to

2012. >> the thing that this will intensify? the things that there will be more of these kinds of things raising their head? >> probably. >> is it just naturally so or it is this a difficult and farm it creates even more of this kind of thing? >> well, i think some of it is situational. it will depend on the political environment. thes just say that if package is aboard that plane last week had exploded, we would have a different political climate today than we do. it would change everything in a minute and i think that some of the islamaphobia is situational. president obama left on a big

international selling being held tonight and he will go to indonesia. one of the things that i will be waiting to see is if that strikes in a resurgence stories about his boyhood in indonesia. that would be a little telling point of something. i am not sure what of. there are always flash points. there have always been flashpoints that are ugly. i do not see what the would not be more. >> this is kind of an under- implicit assumption. this is in the interest of the unemployed to have stimulus that harold talked about. we can debate that as a matter of policy preferences. the polls suggest that among

working-class voters, that they do not share that. iew. but the polls suggest that, among at least white working class voters, that they don't share that. that two to one believe that less government, -- that more government is more harmful to the economy than less government. and that's an abstract level. but i think the argument that you are making is that it's a distraction from what what they really care about. they're really concerned that the government that sthay see coming from washington is not in their long-term economic interest. and that could be a failure, they could be misinformed. i don't believe they are but they could be misinformed. but that's a perception issue that's real and it's something that if you're trying to interpret what's going forward and what's just happened and where we're going forward has to be taken into account. the very people who were most affected by the unemployment and the economy did not believe

that the remedies that are being advanced were adequate and not because they weren't too little but because they were too much. >> congressman, your thoughts here. >> well, we could talk about post election anlitches but it depends on what questions you ask the people. if you say too much government. look, i know about white working class people. my father was a truck driver. i grew up the oldest of seven. my parents never owned a home. and as the family expanded we kept moving. by the time i was 17 we lived in a couple different places including a couple cars. i know about the experience of america. the idea tha government just doesn't work. government works. the question is who is it working for. it sure is working for wall street.

it sure is working for international monetary systems. it's working for multinational companies. it's working for arms marchents. when people look to the government and they say, well, look, where is my right to organize? i was promised that. how come we're not out of iraq? the democrats promised that when they took over in 2006. how come my wages are frozen? why is my pension in trouble? is social security going to be in trouble next? when you create that kind of uncertainty there is going to be a backlash. and the democratic party, which based on the new deal, won the affection of working class people, that white working class, frankly where i grew up, there were african americans having the same kine of economic problems in the same boat. we can talk about less

government. but let's talk about less government in terms of this new congress. if we don't have any government stimulus and private sector isn't providing jobs and we're talking about cutting taxes, looking at dedeflation. there's just no other path possible. so i know a little bit about that working class. i live in the same house today in ohio i bought in 1971. working class neighborhood. people want government to produce results. and, frankly, temporizing, minimalism. great speeches. well, to quote walter mon dale from many years ago, where is the beef? there was no divery that was adequate enough to be able to meet the size of the challenge. and the american people had every right to expect that would happen. so again, where do we go from here? well, if we're going in the

direction of tax cuts and stop stimulus and reduce the deficit at the expense of social spending and we stay in iraq and afghanistan, god hel us. >> i note, i'm going to have one more thought from adam. i'm ing to ask him for his -- there is a huge movement, a coalition government in great britain, and he can testifies to that, he s there. but there's also a real interest in cutting services and spending as a solution by the coalition government. adam, just quickly, what parallels do you see and how is this country going down that particular path? and will it be beneficial? will it be a detriment? host: well, the short >> >> >> i don't see big parallels. i think we have got a right of center government in britain

which is trying out a very different experiment, which is basically trying to cut the structural deficit over the next four or five years. a lot of people are worried in exact thri same way that the representative is worried that this will simply strangle any sign of ecovery. re we are seeing welfare cuts, support for defense, support for education being cut. and even within our national health service, our socialized medicine, we're seeing a stand still in the budget there, whicof course given that there is still medical inplation -- inflation, means fective cuts. and we are doing that in britain because we don't have the advantage of being a reserve currency and the argument has been made, and f

the time being accepted by the electorate that wasn't th room to borrow more to finance the further stimulus, because in an open economy like ours, the effect of that on the economy would simply be to postpone a worse reckoning. but, i would put a question back, if you'd like, to our panel is as we look at the way we go forward, let's assume that america does now have a decent recovery to a certain extt. is president obama right when he says if unemployment was half of what it is now, the democrats wouldn't have had a problem? or given the acsell ration of the political cycle, if that ppens, could it actually be the republicans are given the credit for it? >> of course one of the most difficult things going forward

must be dealt with that on the one hand you have election returns which indicate people say they want less government, want the government to get out of tngs. that would indicate at least slightly a trend line that says it favors the republican or the right, we need to get the government out of things. and depend more on the private sector the kind of people who give this huge money to each election campaign. but when you get down to individual programs, the certain who says i want the government out of my life. you say, well, then we'll cut your medicare, wait a minute. i'm not talking about medicare. or if you say we want to raise the eligible for social security, you go to someone and you say i want to get the government out of my life. well, we'd like to raise your retirement age to 67, 68. wait a minute, i'm not talking about social security. this is what the elected

officials and the rest of us must come to grips with. which way is it? do you want to go say raise social security the retirement age, raise that up? do you want to get control of medicare? some in the republican party, some in the tea party want to get rid of medicare. but it's going to be done but it's going to be a part of a cutnd thrust of the debate and the argument as you go forward. we can't have it both ways. if you don't want the government in your life, then medicare and the new health program, social security, will albe affected. i'm sure the other side will say, wait a minute, we're not talking about that. but if you want -- i don't want to be a one-note about this. we can talk about what needs to be done, what should be done, but if you want to know what is

going to be done, follow the dollar. follow the money. find out who contributed what to whom and what amounts in the last campaign, whether they be lynn or democrat, and you can just bet the rent money on it that that's the way the policy is going to go. you want to know where the policy is going? follow the money, follow the dollar. that will tell you where we are going to go, not necessarily where we should be going. >>hank you, dan. indeed sage advice. and if you think about raising the retirement level age, just look at our friends in france. take a lesson from some of the goings on. >> the retirement age has gone up. >> there you go. we've got two wonderful people here with microphones, and i'd like to spend the next 15, 20 minutes really listening to your questions. and if you will make them questions and not propaganda statements, we would prefer that. and we'll keep them short and i

will ask my distinguished panel to keep your answers short, too. because i'd like everybody to go. this man has been raising his hand since wednesday, so we want to make sure that he goes. yes, sir. tell us who you are and how you're affiated. >> bob weaner, national columnist and jointly cover the white house with you, john. >> that's not why i called on him because he covers the white house with me. >> and good to see some friends on the panel, too. one issue that hasn't been rayed, i wanted to bring it because i was a youth voter registration director in 1971 when the youth vote was first allowed in the constitution there were 15 million more youth 18 to 29 who voted in 2008 than 2010. but as cnn reported yesterday, the congressional election margin of republicans over democrats was 5 million. is there any way to build that

turnout of youth but also minorities, especially here in the college setting, very appropriate to ask this question, an off-year election? and if not this election, which had this kind of controversy, when? so how can that be done? >> we're going to ask each panel member to take about0 seconds to answer that, because i'd like to get everybody's perspective. and adam, we'll start with you. >> in an off-year election, i really think we're going to struggle probably the way to get young people involved is to have at the top of the agenda an issue which they think affects them, which again in britain we've got a lot of discussion now about university college financing. that does motivate people. but in a sense that's why we're here. >> well, the way you positioned the question is presumes that -- you're coming from good governance and good civil

behavior. it might not be in the best interest sometimes to want to raise or the bow the boat depending on where you're running. what we saw in 2008 with the obama phenomenon, which was compared to a unique chapter. >> the young person saw a chance for change. you'd see the turnout start to change. so you give ung people a stake, that's what we should be doing. people say how are you going to pay for it. >> do you feel a stake in it? i see a few students out here.

fair question? do you feel there was a stake in this election personally for you that you got out and voted? see a lot of thees and not a lot of thees. i see one yes, one no. that's interesting. bear that in mind. but they're hear meaning that they're here to participate. >>ut the -- look, there are so many young people right now who are stock piling debt or their parents are where by the time they leave school they will owe 80,000 and more. and so their whole lives then from the time they graduate until they're in their mdle age period are going to be about retiring educational debt. we have a system that is just wrong when it comes to investing in our young people. so if you show them that you have a stake in the election because there will be education for all, everyone who is 18 or over will be out there to

gister and vote. at least those who want a higher education. >> do you see any similarities back in, you were a reporter in vietnam for the field. when i as a college student was scared to death i would lose my 2 s and if i did i would hav to go to vietnam. that motivated us. we voted because we knew what was at stake. it was a certain part of the anatomy i want mention here but we were really scared and we voted. there's no draft right now. your thoughts on that. >> one question, it raises a larger issue. i think that with young people, with people of any age, the question is how do we reach the percentage of people eligible to vote? i think we need to study what the experience of some other countries. for example, i'm not suggesting this but we don't even discuss it. some form of either you vote or

you pay a price for it. i don't mean literally a price. for example, when you go to apply for employment, they ask you for your social security number your birth certificate. did you vote in the elast and some proof of that. i think the subject is broader than just young people becae it's been a long time ago, it isn't true that sam houston was still writing when i was young but it's been a long time ago. young people have other things to do. and we understand that. but i think the larger question is how to increase the, in the american style, there are some countries where it's mandatory to vote. there are others where there are high incentives to vote. i don't know the answer to this question. but i don't expect, frankly, that the percentage of young people, however you define that, will be significantly higher in 2012 than it was in 2008 depending on the race it

could be lower. and i don't think the miderms of 2014 will reflect much higher percentage of young people voting this time. it's just in the nature of our particular american advance of democracy. >> the short and the long answer is no. >> i forgot the question, harold. >> to his question. no. >> no. >> i would agree with dan and harold, that we ha a high turnout election this time by mid-term standards. we had about 42% of eligible who cast ballots, about 5 points higher. and for decades we've seen voter participation increase with age and the degree to which you're settled in the community. so unless you move to a compulsory system that many european. >> australia. >> i don't think you're going to see mobilization of young

people in what we've seen in the past. >> the republicans nationalize this election on the president on fear and insecurity, and to some degree it worked those who were coordinated national campaign. democrats tried in the last month to sort of put the president back out there and make it an election about supporting him to get first-time obama voters the votes, who turned out in 2008, back to the polls. but he wasn't on the ballot. and the hope wasn't there, fear was. but 2012 will be different. and i think that you will see a replay of the kind of turnouts that qued we had in 2008. >> that may be good news for certain people. the young lady down here. >> thank you. i'm a student at the center. the panel discussed a lot about how the election reflected the

american desire for an effective government and how we're really loong for congress and the white house to do what the people are looking for. i'm wondering, in recent years not just the 2008 but just recent years there's been record numbers of phil busters and presidential vetos. how can we ensures that with the numbers that congress is facing now that there will be action taken in 2010 and that people will work across partisan lines to ensure that the very real american issues get dealt with? >> i'd like to answer that? very good question. >> i think you vote republican. if i could put it that way, thatertainly in the 30 odd years i've been covering american politics it's no news that there has been a polarization, that the

republican party and the democratic party are more clearly defined. and, you know, if we look abroad, we can see that party structures are more volume tile with their forces do come into creation. one of the other things that's been going on in the 30 odd years that i've covered british politics that our sector has grown from being a couple of percentage points to really just about if you put all the liberals and the nationals together on a par with the other two main parties, now you haven't had that take part in your american, in your political system, and if bipartisanship is going to become almost a dirty word in here in congressional polls,

some relationship between congress and t president, something has got to give. because it does point to fairly parallels put in the system. >> good one. >> my name is elizabeth and i'm a student in the democracy and governance program here at georgetown. and my question has to do with the spending and the wars in afghanistan and iraq. shortly before the election, reported on a poll that said voters in this election were obviously prioritizing the economy and that the war ranked lowest if at all on their sort of list of priority issues. and i was wondering if you could commint on why they focused onhe economy and how much we're spending seems divorced fm how much, as congressman kucinich mentioned, we're spending in the wars. >> let's have someone beside congressman kucinich. i think we have an idea of how he stands. >> people can be concerned

about a few things at once. i don't take so much stock in the poll that just puts the concerns. it doesn't mean that it's not there. but until you have a mortgage you can't pay, a house you can't sell, a retirement you can't have, and a job whose pay may be chopped, or you're furloughed, you have to deal with that right in your face. and that is why the economic situation is so tough. and so important politically. >> a good answer for those. the gentleman right here. tell us who you are. >> i'm chris. i'm a freshman at the for foreign service. president obama said back when he was president elect said that he liked the majority to

be inclusive, that the minority to be constructive. and my question is, which side of this has been more true? i don't think it can be true without the other being true. >> thank you. >> good question. >> sum rising. >> back to barack obama's statement. >> so baracobama said the majority has to be inclusive and the minority has to be instructive. and i'm wondering, has the democrats over the last two years been as inclusive as they could have been? have the republicans been as constructive? how does that play into voters what perceived. >> i'll put that to congressman

kucinich. >> the dynamic that the country was expecting with stronger leadership from the white house was then pull the congress along, andf the republicans had a plan to basically frustrate the president, the president cod go over their heads to the american people and some of the support and you would have seen a diffent result in the electn. that didn't happen. so >> is that called a bully pull pitt? >> again, i want to go back to inaugural day, 2008 -- how many of you staw inauguration and were there? i had this chance to just sit up and right at the back rise where i could see it all and it was an amazing thing and i could feel the energy. and i was thinking, my god, we're at the moment of real

transformation here. and the energy dissipated. it w squandered. and so we didn't have to -- it didn't have to be that way. >> well, it didn't have to be that way, congressman. here's what president obama does, he has to be accountable on this. which in sports, in basketball, you don't try to sit, you try to get up and pull it off. in military terms, every even noncommissioned officer knows, exploit success. and i agree that in there was an aura about inauguration day, not just in washington, but around the country. and even many people who had not voted for barack obama felt strongly that this is a new day we can move forward with something new. and when the president got into office, havi run a bold ah dashese campaign, he began to

play in the public perception, at least if you were here we argued this he began to play it safe, got a reputation for playing a little soft. an example. inead of saying to congress, i want a big stimulus, and if the republicans resisted i'm taking it to the people. in the case of health care. rather than let congress write thhealth care legislation, i'm going to lay out some parameters of what i want and i'm going to fight for it. now, again, justifiably or unjustifiably, he developed very quick and said -- the young man's question is what happened. what happened is that the perception got out that president obama was not willing to really stand up and fight in harry truman fashion, if you will. thate might be trying to do a bit of more bill clinton, triangulate a little bit. and again, rightly or wrongly, this helped lead to the, well, what does he stand for?

what is he willing to stand up anfight? is he willing to take on directly? >> again, there's one element that i ask be added. and that is that congress, the democratic leaders in congress were waiting to see what the white house would do. instead -- you wouldn't know it but we're a co equal branch of government. >> well. >> and you wouldn't know it because we're waiting to see what the white house would do. the white house testimony prizing, we done tetch a program. so the american people have every right to be upset that neither the executive or the legislative branch produced the results they were demanding. . >> when congress adjourned, went out around the country. the summer before, on these health care town meetings it was very clear what the agenda was. it was to disrupt. and people behaved in vandal bully like fashion and violence

actually ensued in a number of instances. what was really troubling i think to those of us who wanted to see health care reform was that there was no pushback in a real sense. so that we had a briefing at the white house toward the end of the summer about health care. and still were not sure at the endf an hour and a half discussion what the white hse really wanted in that bill. and then there were those endless meetings in the senate trying to win over one vote in the republican side. didn't happen and the bill got compromised down and down and down and down. still didn't get is the vote. so i think that the democrats were inclusive to a fault. and i think that republicans were obstructionistso a fault. but republicans were able to spin their obstructionism better and democrats, until this day, i think don't know what happened to th last year. and didn't rlize even after they passed health care and the bill was passed that they had the job to do to explain that

bill to the american people, which frankly most people still don't understand. "new york times" did a better job of trying to explain it than congress did or that the party did. and the result is that the guys who we playing the game won and the guys who were sitting the sideline lost. >> much wisdom in what y're saying. there's a lot of talk about the power of the presidency. one of the major powers of the presidency is the power po to persuade. that's what leadership is about. pick whatever fight you want, health care reform, stimulus bill, whatever. at some point the president is expected to and he wants to do welln future elections to lead and to take on -- this is what you say if there's no push. what president oma in at least the public perception is he doesn't really have the stomach for the cut and thrust

when it ces down to it's either going to be this or that. as for congress waiting object white house, what youe described is what's known in baseball is alfon gas stone act. the bawl falls somewhere in between -- ball falls somewhere in between. >> i remember who is on first too. >> i want to move, a couple of our distinguished folks have to get on trains and planes and automobiles. but i want to go this to this gentleman and then that gentleman tre. and we'll keep the answers briefly. >> i'm a senior in the business school literally here in this building. just first before i ask my question to return to this issue as a young person in this election. i vote because er day there are men and women overseasaking sure that i can vote. but my quetion today is i

think the most intriguing thi to come out of this election is it seems like the republican party exists in name only. and it's sort of reserved down. we have the southern, the northeastern entrepreneurials from the george bush area. my question is it seems there's no national republican figure who can come out and take the nomination for the 2012 presidency. mike pence, jim demint, they're all great in the republican party. can they come out and take a sweep in the primaries in the states that they need? additionally, what would the selection of that candidate mean, particularly talking about mike bloomberg who i think in his public comnts has made it seem that he would be consideng the run. >> good question. harold. >> republican party hasn't

nominated who wasn't already nationally famous since 1940. so for them to nominate somebody who can walk into a diner and get blank stairs if you mention their names is probably not going to happen. >> sara palin. >> well, sara palin would get very nonblank stairs, particularly if it was full of men. there would be four people who would fit that test. mitch -- mitt romney, huckabee, sara palin and going rich. so i think one of them wins and then the question is which ever one comesn top, the question would be how does the tea party feel about that person? i think if huckabee or palin came on top, the tea party would be very happy but the establishment wouldn't necessarily be happy. so not the elite but voters, to

an establishment style bloomberg candidate. i think if romney were to win in the wrong way that many tea party would be unhappy. we won't know for about a year. >> one quick question and then we're going to lose two of my distinguished friends here. and if the other folks would like to stay for a few more minutes, we n do that if that's all right with the powers that be. >> we will take this question, and then i will lose my two friends here and then we will continue for a few more minutes. >> thank you. >> who are you and who are you with? ? >> i'm sam stine and with the "washington post." harold, you can't pass on this question. it was announced about 3 minutes ago that speaker pelosi will be making a run as and i'm wondering if this is a good thing for the democratic party

considering they just lost however many. >> it's all yours. >> i missed the name. no that she's going to what? so your question is? well, i think she's been an extraordinarily effective leader. there are those who say that there would not be a health care bill. you can debate the merits of the health care bill but there are those who say there is not a lot of opinion in washington there would not have been a health care bill without mrs. pelosi. so i think she has been an extraordinarily effective leader. my view is that she has a real hold on the democratic calks. it's a much more liberal caucus than it will be in january than it was before the election because of the loss of the blue dogs. my view is that if she wants to continue as leader, she should

continue as leader. and i don't think it will hurt the democratic party. i take issue i think with henry on the themic that he struck that this is a vote against policy. i don't think this is vote -- really is against policy. i suspect if you ask mos people what policy did they vote against, they might come back and say too much government. there's a lot of talk about the health care bill is not very popular. but accding to some exit polls at least, 50% of the country want the health care bill. they don't even know -- that's 50% that doesn't know what's in the bill because the administration has not done a good job of saying what the good things are in health care. there's some bad things. the answer is ye are they going to be corrected over time? the swer is probably yes. but there's a lot of good that came out of the health care bill that benefit a lot of

people. we democrats have not done a good job of selling that. by contrast, if you were to ask virtually anybody who voted wh the republican program is, other than shrinking government and cutting expenditures in a time where even martin if he will stine, imnemt economist of bush one, thinks that there ought to be more stimulus. even when somebody like that is saying there ought to be more stimulus, i would defy anybody to articulate what the republican program is going forward. and so i do take some issue with you on whether they were voting against policy or against the fact that they are pissed off, they are frightened, and they think the government hasn't done thing.

>> please keep in mind this is a jezzwit institution. >> i'm sorry. >> and only here could weet him get away with that. anwe're going to lose dab rather and dennis kucinich. [applause] >> let me just say that in a far less articulate way my opening comments were trying to make the same points as harold did. there is the way people interpret this election on top and then there was the reality underneath of a royal public really frightened, very anxious, and voting their fear and anxiousne. and i think that that was pretty much what happened.

on the question -- i just also want to say speaker pelosi should stay leader pelosi. it was a great two congresses. you cannot look at the legislative record in particular the last two years and not feel proud of what a -- the first woman speaker in history accomplished. and i think it was shameful and to some degree blatantly sexist the way she was characterized. it was wrong. and she should not pay the price for the sins of those who tried to target her in a very disgraceful way. >> i think what happened he

is between the increase in debt, between the health care bill which according to t exit poll it is about 50/50. but among 48% saying they want to appeal it. 48 saying they want to expand it. i think what happened people did not want the rapid sudden extensive movement that was bein proposed. and know many people in this audience and many people in this panel think it wasn't rapid enough. and there's a lot of americans who shared that view. i don't think the elections showed that. it's very consistent. this has happened a number of times in history, american political history that when there's a rapid expansion of federal policy in good economic times or bad, that the american middle class tends to react by voting for the republicans. >> my only response to that would be i'm amazing given the license that the republicans

had to bad mouth and characterizehe health care ll as big government raising your taxes, et cetera, in contrast to what i consider not a very vigorous or effective selling by the administration and democratic leaders. i'm surprised that 50% approve. >> well, ok. >> we could take a new question. >> why don't we take a new question. >> i'd like to make one point. what is the strategy now. i'm not rally very clear on what the democratic strategy is. >> the question along those lines. yes. the first person right there.

>> my question is about the tea party. whether or not they think that if miraculously the, within the next two years we see big economic growth, is there a future for the tea party? or is it an outgrowth? >> you want to jump on that. >> there is no tea party with a capital t and a capital p. no head quarters. it is a movement. d it is a movement that gravitated and became a win-go in this election for the republican party. and it may be absorbed in it, it may not be. the republicans fused their candidates with movements in local areas, in ts 2010 election. one of the things that existed in 1996 was something called ross perot and his followoers

and there's no per ot movement that exists any more. it left. people went someplace else. usually yooften call people who come and go in the eltorate and aren't identified with a particular party, they're called independents or swing voters. here, we had people who for all purposes seemed like independent republican voters just going up to a lotf local splinters and the tea phenomenon will, i'm banking on, will not become more structurally head quartrd any place than it is now because that's not what the people in this movement seem to want. >> yes. another question. >> yes. the gentleman right in the middle. >> my name is gaven. i'm a freshman here in the school foreign service at georgetown. and i want to touch on the subject that mr. rather

addressed before he left, and that's the subject of campaign finance. just for a little bit more an elab ration. and since a lot of figures in the democratic party and indeed president obama himself have criticized the citizen united case as really a travesty for our democracy, we've seen probably an equal amount of pushback from the right saying that, no, corporations actually do have these rights. my question is, is this really a threat to our democracy? does this really threaten our legitimatesy of our democratic syem to have all of this money flooded into an election even if it's just a mid-term election cycle where less than 50% of the people actually get to vote? is this taking power actually away from the pple who aren't getting out to vote anyway and giving toyota the corporations? . .

it is a constitutional decision. in order to overturn that, it would require a constitutional amendment. all would hope you know more about that than me. i do not think anyone will convene a constitutional convention to deal with this issue. someone tried to put a bill through that would require more disclosure.

full disclosure about who gave what to whom. that bill did not go anywhere. i do not think it will go anywhere in a republican congress. i do not know what the remedy is. >> we have time for one more question. it has to be really, really good. who would like to be on the hot spot for the last question? you cannot go twice. well? adam, would you like to ask a question? >> no. >> the president came out the other night. he did not totally happy. no matter what your politics are, we sell a wounded man. he said he feels bad. the question was, was it the

democratic party and this white house that was not able to sell good policy, or did the american people not understand the policy, or did they reject the policy? it is about the message, it is about policy, it is about politics. we did not really get an answer to this question. i would like each of us to give final thoughts. that is what this particular seminar, roundtable is about. >> i think it was a matter of policy, although it is hard to divorce a message from substance. republicans made a massive gains in congress after the great depression. it was in reaction to large, rapid expansions to federal power. the party was saying, "let's stop this." i do not think it was

coincidence. i think there was something about the working class and who does not want rapid, said an expansion of federal powers. >> let's go across the pond and ask atom. >> all i would say is what struck me for the contributions wherever americans are on the physical -- on the fiscal spectrum is the common level of disappointment in the obama presidency. >> i think the message was jobs and there were some statistical modelling in the community that is all a big republican gains very early in the year. that was before obama's popularity started dropping as low as it did. i think the message in this election drives the economy more

than anything else. >> i think -- a lot of different people but in this election. if you did a random sample, you would find different people getting different answers as to why they actually voted. my sense, however, is that there is enormous disappointment to put it mildly in these results. you can characterize that as being about policy. many people are saying they expected more. they are really hurting. "if we are sending a message to all sides, tea party people, republicans, and democrats -- something has to be done to change our circumstances and if it does not, we do not know how we will vote in the future." >> i want to thank all of you and our wonderful panel. at some point we may do this again. thank you all. thank the dean.

thank you jeff anderson. thank you all so much. goodbye. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> next, a look at who benefited from tuesday's elections. after that, comments from ralph

reed on the elections. after that, president obama and rubio oflect mark to ruco florida. >> of washington journal, we will hear from gail russell chaddock and susan page. at endicott 30, we will hear from scott keeter. at 9:15, we will hear from stuart rotherberg. >> it is harmless if one is making a start out of britney spears or cher. americans, after a while, get

lies at the stars, the wizards, the dream teams may not be what they are cracked up to be. chaos and mayhem come to rein. just a few of the foreign-policy leaders critiqued by author derek leebaert. that this sunday on "q &a." >> this panel focuses on who is up and who is down. from the ronald reagan building in washington, d.c., this is 85 minutes. -- this is a 55 minutes.

>> we are delighted to have the top congressional reporter from the new york times. can strickland is a senate producer for nbc. we have an esteemed group here. hopefully we will share some insight as to how -- as to what we can expect going forward after tuesday's results. i am going to let these guys had the floor. i would like to start out by giving their take away from tuesday party elections and what they think we can expect both in the short term from congress and

next year in the next congress and whether or not all of this talk of compromise is a lot of talk or if we will actually see these two sides come together. carl, your thoughts? >> who is up and who's down may seem pretty obvious. i think, in some ways, we already knew the answer to that. democrats had a very tough night in the house and it is still going. our couches 63 losses, i think, as of this afternoon. there are two more to come. that is a monumental change in the house. if you even watched what happened yesterday and what has happened so far today, senator mcconnell gave a speech -- i am sure you all watched it from the heritage foundation -- he talked

about wanting a vote to repeal the health-care law. if you cannot get that, to repeatedly tried to have a vote to repeal the health care law. i think that gives you an indication of what we are in for. i think it will be very tough. i think the republicans feel very empowered it will push very hard against the white house. if they can get some bills over there and make the president veto it, so be it. if they consorted jammed the senate, but will try to do that. i think they have eight strategy. they came in writing this tea party wave. i think that will create some problems for them, but i think they will also have to respond to it. one little interesting fact that i have seen is that of the losses by the democrats in the house, all but seven or eight

were in districts 1 by president bush in 2004, which was the last " -a wave -- which was the last "non-wave" election. i am sure that my colleagues would agree that for congress, the next two years will be pretty interesting and very entertaining. it will be fascinating to watch, i think. >> to you had a similar take, or do you think we may actually see some compromise? >> i think that the republicans and democrats who have come out and said, "the voters want bipartisanship. they want us to work together." i think they are right. i think that is what the voters

probably do what. the voters just voted against gridlock. you cannot expect to get a lot done. just listening to the rhetoric over the last few days from it -- from democrats and republicans, the republicans are saying they are dedicated. mitch mcconnell says he appreciates -- he thinks america appreciates what they have been saying. harry reid had a conference call with his caucus yesterday. he and the leadership were basically saying, "we had the presidency and we had the senate majority." to meet that just tells not a lot of change. at the same time, the president has now invited members of congress to come to the white house on november 18. he is inviting the governors on december 2. he gave a big speech today and yesterday about, "we took it on

the chin. it did not feel good. it actually felt bad." at the same time, mcconnell today said that obama needs to be a one-term president. which is it? >> i think it will be interesting to watch the dynamics between the white house and congress. how is the administration going to urge things now? >> think about the last few years. think about the biggest pieces of legislation that have passed. democrats have such an overwhelming majority that they never really had to negotiate with republicans. there were points in ties were they did, but healthcare, stimulus, financial regulatory reform? if you add up all the republicans who supported those bills, you would probably have less than 10, house and senate. the democrats do not have the option anymore of dealing away

one or two or three republicans. you have to assume now that anything done in the senate will have to include some true bipartisanship. another thing that will be fascinating to watch over the next couple of years is the relationship between republican leaders in congress, the tea party backed candidates, and the tea party itself. if you listen to the people who represent the tea party, they felt the people they voted in the office or beholden to them. they are on probation, one person said. they will be like any other organization like the nra, or pro-choice or pro-life groups. but will make a note of that. just think about the whole scott brown phenomenon when he came in. the tea party was very excited about him.

it seemed to fade away. there was everything from disappointment to embarrassment as far as the tea party was concerned. >> on that note, what happens? does john boehner have to immediately try to do something to get these new tea party inspired freshman vested or do they kind of goal old school? what happens? >> in the republicans will come out immediately and push for spending cuts. that will be the easiest issue for them to deal with. that would be responsive to the tea party people. they do have one really big problem coming up. they will have to increase the debt limit. republicans have led democrats do that in the past few times, not giving them any votes at all and then hearing them for that.

now the republicans, in some ways, will be responsible for that or for not letting that happen. that will be a great story to watch. i think they will push for spending. that is the easiest way to do it. i think they will have a hard time fulfilling all of the desires of these groups that people put them in for rapid change or a 40% or 50% cut in the budget. double be hard to happen. >> republicans were able to stick together effectively over the last two years and oppose the democratic agenda. to you foresee, emily, a divided republican conference? >> i definitely think the senate conference will have some serious thinking to do, especially some of the old souls there. the appropriators, for example,

who think they were earmarked and have defended themselves. i think the debt limit will be a big issue, too. i am of two minds on the spending issue. on one hand, i feel like this is where democrats and republicans said the most opportunity to compromise because you have already seen a lot of moderate democrats over the last couple of years saying, "that is it. we are not core to vote for any more of this." of course, republicans are trying to take back the mantle of fiscal conservatism. i heard dick durbin on the night of the elections saying, "we will have to cut spending more than we already tried to even in the lame-duck." there needs to be some compromise there. at the same time, depending on how fervent some of the new republicans are about cutting

new things, you could have a government shutdown. it cannot get these people who ran against raising the debt limit may have to vote for it. >> eric cantor will be the no. 2 republican in the house. he has said they would not have a shot down. whether or not you can make that ironclad, i think what happens -- what happened after 1994 -- there is a scenario where you can have no approach to those of past, but an agreement that you are under a permanent, continuing resolution. a government shutdown may not seem like a big deal because they cannot increase the debt limit. that is something pretty international. >> we are in a constant state of continuing resolution to keep

the government operating? >> one thing that is different from the 1994 takeover is that republicans did not get the senate. >> more to that point, whenever the house slips, the senate slips, too. >> that then, the republicans on capitol hill were still responsible for delivering things. now it is this divided government. it may empower republicans in the house because the senate what to do with it. >> one of the things i think -- i was very concerned before the election about the tea party backed candidates coming in. i wanted to find out how the republicans, especially in the

senate, would deal with this. they had to move quickly to try to assimilate them in there. mcconnell and his team would have to really try to channel all that energy and all of those ideas in constructive ways and not destructive ways. the message has to be to the tea party backers that this is have time in a much longer game as for the presidential election is concerned. we have won the house. we are thus far from the senate. the president will have to -- will have his back against the wall. we do not want to do anything that divides republicans and unites democrats. the question is how did they do that? the tea party may be described as part policy and part personality. the tea party candidates that had the biggest personalities will not be joining them in january. sharron angle will not be there.

christine o'donnell will not be there. they are an expansion of what they already have. the republican caucus is broken up into little factions. there is the conservative, jim demint. there is a very small moderate faction. it is going to be curious to see what people like ron johnson from wisconsin will vote considering he is from a very democratic state. will he join the moderate faction? the bulk of the republican caucus is a traditional republican -- follows mcconnell caucus. if you look at the new republican conference, the proportions or the same. there is just more of everybody. the same issues they had before will persist. one objection in the senate is a different than 10 objections.

they still have to run the same trap. they will have to run it exponentially for each person. it will be a challenge because they are 100 independent contractors. i think there will be a time when you'll see how fights fall on the floor versus the final budget. 185% of the issues, republicans are all the same. the purse a big vote they will take in the senate and the house, they will all be on the same page. at the end of the day, they will vote with mccall on tax cuts. on health care, but will vote part of their strategy they would say is, take that energy, let them go earned their stripes. they will find out what it is like. see if you can give me support for your ideas. maybe you dramatically reduce

some of the spending. it might attract some moderate democrats. it is trying to channel that energy and giving them a platform. >> what happens in the immediate term? we come back into session november 15. we have a lot of lame ducks in the house. everyone is throwing things out, what will happen? obama said we need to do start. the bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year. we have a resolution to deal with. we have the medicare reimbursement. what is going to get done? will we find people are more or less inclined to do anything? >> i think the most likely scenario, though it is not a sure thing, is they kick the can down the road. they do that on the tax cuts, they do that on spending, though

there has been some talk of trying to do an omnibus. the question in my mind is for how long. do they kick the can on government spending until february, or do they do a year- long continuing resolution? i don't know. how long would that tax cuts be extended? i don't think there's a lot of appetite to compromise on the republican side on either of those issues. the best the democrats can help in terms of spending is probably a year-long cr. they probably cannot get that at this point. we have talked a lot about the republicans. >> i am sure we will find out what happens with the tax cuts. if those tax cuts expire, whenever i get their check on january 14, they will see less money. the republicans turn around, as they started to be for the

reelection come and go, the democrats went out of town without putting this on the table. it is an easy argument to make. republicans can say, we're about to adjourn, and on genera 14, every american will see less paycheck in -- less in their paycheck in a recession. >> lame ducks are notoriously opera situations. people are coming back undefeated. you have some of the most popular and senior members of the house coming back to clean out their office. three chairman, very popular members, so you will have this week or two where people are cleaning out their desks. i don't know if there will be a lot of appetite for a big legislative fight. a lot of these people would probably prefer to come in and have they're going away party, and literally go away. >> the staff would get their

resume is cleaned up. >> what do we think nancy pelosi will do? >> i have been told confidently today by people who know she is leaving and that she is staying. [laughter] >> and you guys wanted answers. >> i have been told the opposite. she is staying, then leaving. >> i think the speaker is taking a lot of time talking to her allies, talking to people, and trying to make a decision, what she is going to do. i talked to people who were with the democrats for election night. they said she was stoic, but she was worried about her members. in some cases, she talked into them -- she talked them into running again. i think there loss was a

personal loss to her. i don't think she wants to make a decision quickly. i'm sure there are members who feel both ways. they talked to members who think that they might need a fresh start. others think she should stay. i know nancy pelosi -- we have all had this experience -- she is not someone who walks away from a fight. if she thinks it will be perceived that way, she will stay. the election strategy rick -- evolves and there's a quotation in "the new york times" from a republican saying this is about getting nancy pelosi fired. if she sees that, she will say, i am not going to be fired. i honestly think she is still making a decision. >> how long does she have? the election was tuesday. it is thursday.

she is in her office. she is not really saying anything, except to diane sawyer. how long is too long? when does she have to say one way or the other what she will do? >> at some papaw, -- gets some point, the longer she waits, the longer it is out of her control. some people will rally around her or say she needs to go. they will start talking to us and saying, this is ridiculous. we need a plan. we don't have anything. the senate democrats have the luxury of having retained their leader in this election. harry reid had a conference call with senate democrats to give them a pep rally talk. the democrats have not have that yet. they have not regrouped. who knows when that magic moment happens, the tipping point?

>> as far as senate democratic leadership, harry reid, chuck schumer, bob menendez were all here they went through opening statement. there was some scuttle about whether or not someone would try to toss harry reid out. a reporter asked the question. this is ford dick durbin and chuck schumer. do you support terry reed as the majority leader? they both said that the exact same time, absolutely. the reporter was not sure who said it. she said, which one of you said that? at the same time, they said, we both did. >> the person who really get the job is never the person who makes the first move. i think if they end up with 53 seats, they feel pretty good about that, the senate

democrats. they feel good about that. senator reid won his race more comfortably than we imagined. michael bennett, that is probably one of the most amazing results of the election cycle in colorado. in this environment, to win reelection, they feel they were able to make their argument pretty well. they contrast that with the house. they over performed in the house. at some point, there has to be accounting for that. >> who controls the agenda? is it still obama? is it john painter -- john boehner? >> nobody asked, are you still relevant, but you know they were thinking about that from the last time. what do you think?

>> to some degree, house republicans did. they control -- that is one thing they always said about harry reid. we don't control the schedule or the calendar. in the house, and john boehner will. he and his leadership will decide what comes up for votes. in that regard, no longer can they sit on the sidelines and throw grenades over the fence. they have to write legislation and send it to the congressional budget office, and go through that waiting period of wondering if it will cut the deficit for not. they will have to put that out there. the president is the president. he controls the bully pulpit. he will have to work with harry reid to do things to counter whatever the house republicans decide to do. they both have skin in the game. >> that is why i said that i think the voters voted for

gridlock. it is difficult to of different parties with two different sets of priorities setting different agendas and then sending them to each other. the senate sends this to the house and the house sends this to the senate. i think it will get monday in terms of that -- muddy in terms of that. the president cannot drive a message of any sort, which is part of why he is probably in this predicament he is in. you have a president who was great on message and cannot control the message as the president. you're going to have two guys battling it out in the house and the senate. >> i thought we control the agenda. >> we have not talked about

2012. we have a president running for reelection. that will be his priority. november 3, it became his priority. republicans want to win the white house and take the senate in 2012. what does that mean? >> it is a conflict between the president's priority and mitch mcconnell's priority. mitch mcconnell said, i think having the president -- historically, a second third -- a second term, does not run for reelection. the true test will be the economy. two years as like 50 lifetimes in politics. there is so much that can happen. what will happen in afghanistan, in pakistan? what will the economy look like? where will jobs be? is there some other unknown thing we have not considered that is sitting in the wings? having the president on the ticket

when nbc went through a research sensusss how things would look if all the people would have ted in the 2008 presidential election and voted in the midterms, the result might be different and be dead-even, but now it is what it is because the turnout was low because it was a midterm. i think it remains to be seen, but one of the big factors is the economy. >> what does that mean for the agenda? if the president runs for reelection and senate republicans who sa it's a two-cycle strategy and didn't expect to take the senate in 2010, but in 2012, how does that affect what actually gets done or doesn't get done? >> well, i think you described a prescription for gridlock in some respects. there's obviously, you know, we talk about the permanent campaign, but now it's like the really superpermanent campaign. the day after the midterms, people are now talking about the

presidential race. it will color what's going on. a lot of things will happen that's not serious legislative efforts, but about making a point. however, and i think senator mcconnell, lder boehner too. you find this in congress, you have to do something. mething has to happen. both sides need accomplishment to campaign. you can't, especially with republicans in power, you can't just say we stopped this. we have that. you have to produce something. they do try to find areas where there is agreement. i think spending cuts are going to continue to be something that's talked about. democrats argue that they have en obviously much more fiscally responsible than republicans. they think they are the pay as you go party. there's room there. i think energy is an area to get something done. president obama is a supporter

of nuclear power. it is a being -- >> as long as cap-and-trade is not in the discussion; right? >> exactly. i think there's things to be done on energy. it's a popular issue, an issue that breaks more geographically and on partisan lines because it depends what part of the country you represent. i think energy is something. i think there's a little bit riding on this deficit debt commission. you know, if they could, this commission is supposed to produce something by the end of the year, am i right? >> december 1. >> if they produce something with some ideas in structure, that might be something that both sides can get behind. i just fear on any spending issue at this point now, the republicans have to outcut no matter what democrats might support. i think they have to find some areas where they can sayurn around and say we did

something. if they can point to it -- >> that goes for both sides? >> right, both sides. if they -- if an -- it's even better in creating jobs. >> i think they're going to try to look for ways, i think whether they succeed or not is another question, but i think both sides are looking for ways to address the economy as ken was so of eluding to. that's the other message i think that people and politicians take from the elections is the economy has not recovered and people feel they are hurting and the politicians are just fiddling while rome is burning. >> on the energy fund, mitch mcconnell laid out try things to be compromise on. i don't think -- there's not a lot of qawrl about battery powered cars. clean coal mr. mcconnell talks about and find pockets in the country where coal producing

states have a little push back there. nuclear wer is another one so i think there's low-hanging fruit. people shouldn't forget in congress they passed an energy bill with bipartisan support, and when they were talking about doing an energy bill, you know, they said go back to that. it had things with agreements. they can go back, find those things, and move forward on that to create jobs, jobs, or jobs which is what we'll hear over and over and over again. >> that's lisa spelled out; right? >> yeah >> to that point, the tea party obviously has been great for the republican base. the republican strategists and the people at the top also know that this election was about up dependence, where independence went. they want independence, and they say you can't win independence

by not doing anything. you have to produce something, and i don't think it's going to particularly pretty. >> what about the message? what are we going to hear over the next two years or coming weeks from obama, obviously, compromise, how is he going to try to get in a winning position? i'm not talking voting-wise, but getting the public behind him and do what clinton did? obviously there's the issue of try an giew late and the republicans, how will they get on offense and control the message? what do you think both sides will be saying? how will they sell themselves and get on top? >> i think the republicansre going to say we're listening to the american people because mr. bohner said that yesterday. >> what if -- >> we're still listening. >> i think that's what mitch mcconnell said yesterday.

the white house has got to change. the democrats have to change, and if not, maybe there's more change in 2012, ie, we'll take everything. >> what does obama say? what is obama's counter? >> i thi if you look at it in the simple form, it's a huge conflict as there's supposed to be. on one hand they need to work together, and on the other hand you don't win by sayingook what my democratic friends and i have done together. they are the bad guys, we're the bad guys. you find some, you know, a balance which i assume they'll do and low hanging fruit to show compromise, maybe it's emergency or spending. it will be an interesting thing on who can prove they can cut the most, but then at the end they have to find some separation too, and what's that

issue going to be on? republicans now that they control the house, they have t opportunity to pass bills. i mean, they can basically pass a bill, get it scored by the cbo and shows tremendous amount of savings. here's what we have, we sent it to the senate and they sat on it. what do senate democrats do? at the same time will they pass the same bill to show it's a little different? it's going to be a constant conflict. i'm curious what the first compromise will be. it's probably spending because the president has to run and they need money for that to happen. >> i think it will be interesting toee how the republicans act. if the republicans continue to resist overtures or like at the meeting that they're going to have later this month, then they're going to say, see, they never have wanted to work with us. they've never wanted to do that. i think already this morning that the speaker in leader

reed's office when they heard of senator mcconnell's idea of repealing health care, okay, do you want to repeal health care with people with preexisting conditions? that's what they will do. they will push back along those lines and they want to take away things for the american public basically. >> i think the obama white house has two options. i mean, they are already kind of positioned and try to position themselves with we want bipartisanship. this is what we campaigned on and the republicans didn't work with us as carlas talking about. if things don't happen and the economy doesn't get better, they have a villain to blame. it's the house republicans and because of then we couldn't get this done. if they do have compromises whether it's low hanging fruit or bigger stuff like clinton and welfare worm or something like that, then they will say, look,

we promised we'd do it, and we did. they have options here to frame the message i think. >> do you think that obama followed the clinton model though? do you think that he -- i mean, is it really even possible? can we even talk about getting something as big as well form -- welfare done? >> i think anything bigger than a bred basket at this -- bread basket at this point is vital. if you're the president you have 18 months to get anything big done, and now we know why. that's what they did. they went after health care, the science regulatory reform bill, and the stimulus. the notion of getting anything massive, you know, i think one republican told me that the notion of anything comprehensive is dead on arrival. anything exroansive, you know, sweeping energy, sweepg education -- >> immigration? >> you know, sweeping, it's like

al cart things. no wholesale shopping this year. [laughter] maybe you'r a costco person, i apologize. [laughter] >> i think the fact the senate didn't flip changes the situation from when president clinton was in though; right? then he had the entire republican congress as a foil, and he was allowed to try an giew late the democrats because they were not in power i io place. i think it makes it a lot different for president obama and i think it makes the discussion of using congress as a foil for him to win a second term had it not changed over is a little diminished in some ways because the contrast is not as clear because harry reed is still the majority leader. it's a little different situation. about the white house i would, my colleague peter baker brought

this up at the white house yesterday when asking or someone did that when, you know, the president met with the republicans the first time after the election and eric cantor was having a discussion with him and said well, we w the election, eric, we get to do what we want to do. i guess those roles will be rersed in that first meeting coming up. >> one thing i'm curious to see what happens in the course of the new congress is something that byron described to me is the bleachers. there's a new phenomena of talk radio and 24 hour cable and these amazing amount of outside groups and their influence. you know, it's really a small percentage of people that engage in that, but that's the same percentage that vote every election, so what is the reaction going to be to that? i wonder if the tea party how

accountable they will hold the people that got elected too on some of the first votes on things. >> they are already threatening too. >> yeah. some people take a we will not compromise staps which is a direct conflict with the founding fathers thought the senate should work. it's supposed to be a compromise. that also will be something i look forward to seeing how that unfolds as weem try to -- people negotiate on things. >> do you think the senate becoming more or less relevant? >> you know, maybe i'm a senate snob, but i think the senate is alwayso some degree the most relevant because that's where the -- that's where things get tied up. the house routinely, we heard pelosi talking and we passed 4 million bills because the senate is where things have to get done and bills have to be cut. >> will it still play the same role then? >> look, it plays that role even

when both chambers are the same party. look at health care, the biggest bills to be passed, where did they get held up? the senate. they had to jump through hoops to pass health care. same team. stimulus, harry reed had to peel away one or two or three republican ves to get that done and same with financial reform. the majority can steam roll the other party. when it's in the senate, that's where it gets gummed up. no matter what the machination is, it's the senate that stops it. >> that's where the bipartisanship emerges if there is in or the gridlock. >> obviously, we are playing this boehner versus obama dynamic. i think that's where the tension will be. >> yeah, it is relevant and all 100 members will tell you that. i think the house is the story

right now. >> right. >> and that's going to be the focus, but of course, they got the ability to make things happen in a little different way, but, you know, there's going to be a much more attention on the house at least at the start of the congress i think. but some members of the senate themselves will get a lot of attention i think. >> yeah, i think that is where the narrative is. i think at the end of the day, you know, to some degree some journalism is about story telling. you is john boehner raising to power a one of 500 children, i mean, 11. [laughter] and the president obama -- >> taking his call. [laughter] >> i was off a few numbers. i think that's the narrative and that may be the easiest place to draw the contrast. when you running for reelection, ifou're trying to win against your o ponts, you have to -- opponents, you have to figure out who the good or bad guy is.

i think thas an obvious place people will look. >> who are the members you're watching outside of the leadership? who else are you keeping an eye on or blocks of members that you think are either going to be re relevant than they had been in the past or just people you think will will be worth keeping any on? >> in the senate we were talking about that before hand, but actually if you look at the senate and who -- there's a huge republican class coming in, and i think it's at 13 right now, so probably 8 or 9 of those are establishment republicans. they are not tea party republicans, but at the same time, they may be feeling some loyalty or a need to be mre tea party esque once they come in to hold to the standards to the people whoucked the establishment and what no.

i think those are the interesting people. what does rob portland do? does he attach far to the right? he's note a conservative fire brand but more of a deal maker. will he serve that role in the senate or won't he? you know what i mean,? mark kirk and some other guys who aren't as -- >> a senator from illinois -- >> yeah, how are these guys going to operate? are they going to be themselves? will they be someone different because of the message that they believed they received from this election? >> i think that, you know, the senate -- it's -- there's so many great and interesting personalities and stories. rob portman and roy blunt, they come into the senate immediately as players. they are really skilled legislatures. he was the number two guy in the

house. >> you can probably flush the story out, but a colleague of mine was reminding me if things were different k roy blunt could be the speaker now. >> right, john boehner just beat him. you have those folks, and one group i'll watch in the senate is the moderate republicans because they were key -- >> like olympia snowe? >> i won't name names because i don't want to label them. [laughter] >> as soon as it comes out there's going to be a primary. >> right. now that senator snowe is up for election, she's going to be running in a new environment. i'm not sure if the republican won the governor race in maine? >> yes. >> okay. i think that's the first time in sense maybe the 70s that there was a republican governor in maine. that's a new environment. does that affectow the people who were the keys really to making the agenda happen in the

last two years, does that affect how they act? the house is just going to be -- you know, you want to watch paul ryan, t new budget chairman a whiz at this stuff, and what's he going to do? dave camp, chairman of ways and means i presume. >> darrell -- >> yeah, you won't have to look far to watch him. >> you can take that. >> he's going to be very aggressive in pursuing oversight, so there's, there's plenty to keep on eye on i think. >> someone mentioned earlier there's basically inuding independents, 23 democrats in cycle as of today, and they obviously are worth watchin some of the names on that list include jim webb. >> ben nelson. >> jim nelson. >> nike luger. >> how would you like to be senator herb cole of wisconsin

who watched russ feingold get taken down by a guy who was virtually not even a national figure or a state figure until he ran for reelection. i think the word that will permeate people's minds in congress is the word spooked. i think people are going to be so spooked by what happened, it's unpredictable, votes about the deficit, spending, votes about their colleagues. i think that's going to be interesting to see if that manifests itself in any way as far asotes are concerned. >> another group i'll watch is the members of the appropriations committee because, you know, it was the best committee and most powerful committee, and now it's more like a liability. you used to get on there, send the money home, and it's the ticket to reelection, and now it's a negative. it will be fun to watch to see

if there's a change in culture at the appropriations committee. mr. john boehner said he wants to change the whole appropriations process. that will be interesting. >> and don't forget jim demint. >> and his colleagues aren't. >> yes, he put out a lot of money to support the tea party backed candidates. it there an allegiance forming naturally or in an unnatural way around him and tom coper, they were tea party before tea party was cool. [laughter] that's how i lookat it. >> is there anything that mcconnell has to do to do with jim demint? obviously they are not personally close. demint that has proven to be difficult. >> i think they have to quickly co-op with a hand full of tea partyers he's going to have, and

st from talking with people before the election, i think that was, that was the plan, you know what i mean? mcconnell and demint have no love for each other at all, and even though co. burn and demint have the same leadership, but if any, mcconnell would say to the tea partyers here's tom, let me introduce you. >> i don't think it' any secret that senator demint has not endeared hself to his colleagues in the republican conference, and i think there's even more unrest about him, and there's already stories written about this today because of what happened in the election. i mean, the senator mcconnell obviously feel if they might not have had such conservative gym

demint endorsed candidates in colorado and nevada, you would be looking at the house seats. one thing to watch with senator demint is of course who can handle himself well is instead of ken buck, and christine o'donnell, he has dan costz and roy blunt and some other activity. he's being joined in the conference by people he opposed in the primary. that may cause him some hart burn at some point. >> at the end of the day, it is still very much a very coledge yal body. if you go to work and your

lleague is throwi you under the bus, it's hard to get beyond that. maybe it's not obvious, but at the end of the day winng, anybody has to deal with coalition, who is joining you and standing with you on legislation. that makes it tough. >> i want to bring it close with a lightening round. >> i'm not good at that. >> one, i want you to predict whether nancy pelosi stays or goes and two, predict if harry reed fills out his entire six years of his term. carl? >> i'm banned by new new "new york times" policy from making predictions like that. you can say it both ways. either way i have to deal with it, so -- [laughter] i'm not sure about harry reed. i can definitely see him not doing six years. >> i can see him not doing six

years as leader. >> i don't knoif that's what you're talking about. >> both. the full six years and -- >> i think he fought too hard for this, this win from two days ago. >> i meant as leader. >> i'm not sing it's happening any time soon and i have no conclusions that it would, but -- indications that it would, but i envision four years from now he has a transition of some sort because i don't think he runs again for sure. as for pelosi, i wish i knew and i could get inside her head and know what she's thinking. i think and maybe i'll get in trouble for this, but normally it's been any time in the senate so maybe i won't get too many calls, but i think if the democrats in the house are smart, they'll allow her to leave gracefully becaus they probably need some new blood. >> that's why i didn't want to answer that question.

[laughter] >> i'm a dead woman now. [laughter] >> i can say with absolute confidence that i have no idea. as far as the nancy pelosi part goes it's just, it's just not my strong suit as far as the house is concerned. i think even to give an honest assessmenti don't know enough has transpired yet. one of the amazing things about working on the hill is even if you don't report something, you think you have a good of idea of what will happen, and somebody mentioned that nancy pelosi has to talk to her caucus. i can remember standing in the hallway that this will happen, and they talk, and it doesn't happen. i think the key things she needs to factor in whether she stays or goes needs to play out. .

.. it is not easy work. it is not fun work trying to rein in everybody. i can see a scenario where it is a great opportunity to allow a transition to somebody else in six years. within that six years, there will be a presidential election. that can be a determining factor as well. >> thank you for joining us. thank you for listening. guys for joining us. thank you for listening. i guess we just applaud the group. >> thank you. [applause] [applause] >> i'm supposed to let everyone know where they are supposed to go for the breakout sessions. the economy breakout session i going to be in the amphitheater, the defense breakout session will be in the oceanic room. i don't pretend to know where

that is. but i know it's not far. >> next, remarks by ralph reed. then, radio speeches with president obama and senator liked marco rubio. then, a georgetown university forum on the midterm election. president obama is in asia for meetings with leaders in india, indonesia, south korea, and japan. he arrived in mumbai today, where he met with business leaders. tomorrow he travels to new delhi to meet with indian government officials. he will address the parliament monday. tuesday, he goes to indonesia, where he will give a speech. he is in seoul, south korea, on wednesday. the g-20 summit continues later that day and continues into

friday, when he will hold a news conference. president obama travels to japan, where he will attend the asia-pacific economic cooperation meeting. he returned to washington on sunday. we have continuing coverage of his trip on the c-span networks. >> changes need to occur in congress. it will only occur if the people of our country really began to get involved in the political system and begin to run to -- run for congress to make the changes necessary. >> john boehner on a new members roundtable in 1990. you can learn more about the speaker of the house through his own words so in over 800 appearances on line at the c- span video library. it is washington your way. >> now, ralph reed, chairman of the faith and freedom coalition, offers perspective on tuesday's election results. this is 45 minutes.

we will do it over here. do we need the microphone? >> good morning, everybody. my name is ralph reed, the chairman of the faith and freedom coalition, a conservative organization with 400,000 members and chapters in 24 states. we were founded in the summer of 2009 with the express and explicit purpose of ensuring that conservative people of faith and their conservative allies, particularly evangelical christians and frequently mass-

attending catholics were mobilized, were registered, worse typically engaged, and returning out to the polls. i would say that this morning, we can say mission accomplished. our director really ran the operation. are you ready now? it was the most ambitious, the most comprehensive, and the most effective vote for contact and get-out-the-vote effort aimed at the conservative faith community in modern american political history, or at least as long as i have been doing it, which is 30 years. 16 million voter guides, 8 million pieces of mail, three pieces of mail to every social conservative household in certain areas. they received an average of three phone calls. many of them received a knock on

the door. half a million door knocks, particularly along the i-4 corridor in orlando. especially in pennsylvania, in nevada, in california, in ohio, particularly in cincinnati. all of that to say, all in a total of 58.8 million voter contacts directed that frequently mass-attending catholics and evangelical christians. i am going to leave the full day to glenn, who is the expert, and who did the poll, and promised me i would get the top wines by friday am, but i did not get them until 7:00. 32% of the entire electorate so

identified as a member of the christian conservative movement. 32% of the electorate felt identified as a member of the christian conservative movement. 29% of the electorate consisted of white evangelical christians. both of those numbers are the largest numbers ever recorded in a modern midterm election, meaning since that kind of data start to be kept with the rise of the religious right in the 1970's. that is an increase of seven. in the aggregate as a percentage of the electorate over they voted 78-21% republican. they were more heavily republican than these constituents in 1994. i conducted almost than exactly similar survey.

another interesting thing thatglen will go into in further detail is the great untold story of the elections, which is that not only a are thetea party and -- not only are the tea party and evangelical movements not at odds, but as the data makes it clear, and there has been other data to support this, these movements are inextricably intertwined. there is an enormous amount of overlap. 52% of all the voters who said they were part of the tea party movement also said they were part of the christian conservative vote. a majority of the people who were voting yesterday as t party voters or have gone to a tea parties event or identified with the movement are evangelicals and pro-family roman catholics. i don't know if we have this cross-check corn not.

according to my analysis of that, about 2/3 of religious conservatives felt they identified as members of the tea movement. they considered themselves to be socially conservative. glen had an enormous amount of data to what we know from yesterday's one of the largest single voting blocs in the electorate is conservative people of faith that turned out in the largest numbers we have seen in midterm elections since these numbers have been capped. they voted more overwhelmingly republican than they ever had in midterms. these voters cannot be ignored. they are in majority of a tea party movement. if either party ignores them or

opposes them at the ballot box -- it is not in any way coincidental that if you look at the geographical distribution of these voters, which is heavily in the south and the midwest, that is where the bulk of the congressional gains took place, not all of them, by any means, but this socially conservative vote, the faith-based boat, was the fuel in the engine that drove one of the biggest midterm victories in the history of our country. i will turn it over to glen bolger. >> good morning. >> talking to the microphone. >> i know you asked for copies of this. as soon as this is over, i will

have been posted to our blog. it is available through our website. it is at the top. you will see it. it could not be simpler to get to. i will e-mail my team and have them put it on. we did a survey last night about people who voted in yesterday's election or early pochard. -- voted. the best thing to do is to do any election night survey because it is random. you're not picking the locations. people are not reacting to what they have already heard in terms of the post-election analysis. we do the call starting at 5:00 eastern and work our way across the country. we will talk about the broader findings and get into the specifics of. first, a profile of the 29% of the voters who self-described

as evangelicals. or, born-again. 70% of them voted republican on the generic ballot. 21% preferred the democrat. they tend to be republicans, but only 53% are. 13% -- 21% are democrats. ralph touched on the geographic difference. the northeast, where republicans picked up 13 seats, 14% are white evangelicals. 25% live in the midwest, where the picked up 20 seats. 17% are in the west, where they picked up seven so far. there are still some undecided races out there. none of those could be takeaways from republicans. republicans have lost what they could lose.

2/3 of the pickups come in the regions where 69% of evangelicals live. 56% of them are women. they are split the 1 tween8-54 -- split between 18-54-year- olds. 71% of them are married. 34% have children under 18. the president's approval rating is only 18% with this group. sure. 34% overall have children. i would have to do the math. 34% of 71% -- that would not be right. 71% are married. 34% also have children.

18% approve the president. 79% disapprove. 39% of white evangelicals are supporters of the tea party. as ralph touched on, there is not -- these are not totally disparate groups. there is an overlap. getting into the data, the difficult economy helped create the highest right direction, wrong track, going back to 1994. look at the three change elections we have had a limit terms. 1994, 54% said the country was on the wrong track. now it is up to 67%. no wonder those elections, when you talk about 58% up to 67%, no wonder they were significant change elections. president approval rating, on among people who voted -- among

people who voted yesterday, in yesterday's elections, the approval rating looks stunningly similar to what the president had in 2006, president bush. bush, 42 percent approval. 55% disapproved. %.esident obama is 43 when you look at the major party vote, major party boat pretty much match is the number of seats won. that shows you that since 2000, it is very competitive. there are clues to what the major party vote is, how many seats the party that wins is going to take home. turning to issues, not surprisingly, we asked people

the top issue. jobs in the economy were number one. health care was number two. among those who said illegal immigration was the top issue, that was 10%. they voted republican 81-18. or, by 63 points. federal spending and the deficit, voted republican by 63 points. moral values voted republican by 51. 73-23. taxes voted republican. health care voted republican. economy and jobs by three points. the issues the democrats won were those who said social security and medicare, iraq and afghanistan, and education were the top issues. on how people voted, you see the base republicans, 98-1.

i am old-school. republican was always blue until 2000. the republican color is conservative. until 2000, when the press thought it was unfair to the democrats, they thought they would switch it every few years. when you see this, understand that -- and i will change this before we put in tombablog -- put it on the blog. african americans, white democrats voted at the same level. as republicans -- base republicans -- independence this

time were the difference-makers in terms how much the republican won by. turnout, a key groups, christian conservative voters. tea party movement voters, 92%- 6%. those who self-described as white evangelical christians, 78%-21%. other white voters, 51/45. the rest of the electorate voted 19% republican. right to life of voters, that issue is important, 77-20. pro-choice voters, 35% from each group. for those who said the issue did not make a difference to them, they voted republican. looking at a few other socio- economic ways of breaking the data, those who were married

voted republican 58/38. those who were not married voted democrat by three. . married men were heavily republican. married women voted republican 53/44. those who were not married voted in -- women voted heavily democrat. i have the figure. i will have to pull it out. those with children were more with -- more republican. republican2 to 1. when you look of the turnout, more people who voted told us they voted for john mccain then voted for barack obama. they did have a turnout problem. there were more obama voters. 14% compared to 7% of mccain voters.

where you get your information from my thought was interesting. republicans won among those who get it from the tv your internet. democrats won by five among those who get it from the newspaper. when you get it from multiple sources -- on the internet, we asked what kind of a website they got the information from. social networks about campaigns, only 2%. they voted republican by three points. for mainstream media website, 56/41. we have been asking this question consistently. was your vote a message to support or oppose president obama? 40% said it was to oppose the president. 23% said to support it, the same margin as in 2006 for bush. more people said it was a vote about the president.

63% compared to 55% in 2006. look at clinton in 1994. was a-4 f -- it was a -4 for clinton. even in 1998 when the impeachment factor was seen as a big deal, people said it was not as much as a factor as it became after the 2000 election. among christian conservatives, 65% said their vote was a message -- was a boat -- was a message opposing the president and his policies and programs. 13% said the vote was a message supporting it. 21% said it was not a message. 81% said it was a message opposing the president a monthtea party -- among tea party voters.

we also asked voters reject the thing about congress members and other political leaders, would you say they are ignoring our religious heritage? 57%. i don't know if you wanted to add some comments on that after represent these data. we also asked republican voters which is more important in getting america back on the right track, cutting taxes, 16%, reducing spending, 40%, or restoring moral values, 32%. spending and moral values are relatively close. among these republicans, those who say they are strong republican, it is even, 36/34. among stop republicans, the gap is wider. they placed more emphasis on reducing spending.

among christian conservatives, 44% say we need to restore moral values to get the country on the right track. 27% say spending. tea party voters are evenly split between spending and restore moral values. 64% said they got most of their information from tv news. 40 of% said newspapers. people could give multiple responses. internet, 33%, radio news 21%. in the past we have asked this. i did not have time to pull up all but data. all but data.