a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> with most election results final, use the c-span video library to see with the winners said on the campaign trail and see the 140 degrees c-span covered. search, what, and share any time. it is all free. >> next, a review of midterm election results and what that means for congress. some of the speakers include michael barone and norman orenstein. >> good afternoon. good afternoon, everyone.

my name is carlin bowman. i would like to welcome all of you to the final session of aeia 2010 election program. or this could be the beginning 2012 election program. even though we are not in the prediction business, they did give us some ideas about what they thought would happen on election day. they'll predicted substantial gains for the republicans in the house and the governor and state legislative races. i want to tip my hat to carry olson, that there would be a pickup of 64 republican seats in the house. congratulations, henry. [laughter] [applause]

we have a number of handouts for you. there will be available on the website right after this session. we have taken a very comprehensive look at the 2012 gubernatorial and senate contests. we have included many basic facts, largely compiled by -- we have also looked at how george w. bush is being viewed .oday w just to mention one, in a recent cnn corp. poll, 47% say that, overall, barack obama has been a better president than george w. bush. we have a chart looks at how lucky voters have voted since

1980. this is something you will not find anywhere in washington. it will be in double for those of you who really want to dig down and see how particular groups have moved during that time. as those of you who have been attended, you know i usually moderate the sessions. today, i will talk a little bit about some of the most interesting exit poll results to set the stage for the rest of the discussion. first, i will discuss the changes in the composition of the electorate that were striking in a number of ways. they inspired the shellacking that president obama felt he received. then i will go through the most interesting findings come in terms of what the voters told the exit pollsters on tuesday. the partisan makeup of the

electorate hardly changed on election day. this is the third election in a row where independents voted out the party in power, this time by 55% to 39%. in 2006, they voted for the democrats by roughly the same margin. speaking of independence, but in florida, they supported marco rubio and not charlie crist, the independent candidate. the ideological composition of the electorate changed very substantially. self identify conservatives on tuesday they voted massively for republican candidates. the shared liberals in the electorate remained the same. women were more than half of the electorate. we had a gender gap once again with women dividing their votes this time between democrats and republicans and men voting for

republicans by a very substantial margins. but what is of its debt -- what is significant about this is that republicans did better with women than they have done in any house contests since 1980. despite the fact that there may be some losses in congress for women overall, women win just as often as men at every level of our politics. in a pattern that we have seen in the past, women tend to vote for democratic, not republican women. in connecticut, california and lever foromen older lover fo democratic households. their support for democratic candidates were the same for the same period. the problem for democrats was that neither young people north

african americans turned out as they had in 1980. the percentage of young voters dropped by half from 2008. failed efforts to rally nationwide. although, in nevada, it appears to have been successful. we have a bell-shaped education curve. people with less than a high- school education, a very small share of the electorate, 3%. as did those with a post- graduate education. all of the education groups in between voted for republicans. the three groups that i watched most closely because they have an almost-perfect record for voting for winners delivered form once again. independence, i already mentioned, white catholics, and people with some college education voted for some -- but it's substantial for the gop. in 1988, -- voted substantially

for the gop. in 2006 and 2008, people at a high income level split their vote. on tuesday, they voted massively for republicans by almost the same margin that they had in 1988. republicans -- they had their best showing in union households since 1994. this look at some of the attitudes. neither the gop nor the democrats were regarded favorably on election day. 43% rated the democratic party favorably, 41% the republican. in 1994 and 2006, voters had a net positive view of the incoming party. that was not the case on tuesday. the is it pollsters ask people to choschoose issues most import to them. not surprisingly, the economy

was the top issue. what is significant was that, if you add up all the other issues and take them all together, still, almost twice as many voters said that the economy and not health care, immigration, or afghanistan combined. just 14% of voters said their family's financial situation was better than it had been two years ago. although that question is not always asked, it appears to be the most pessimistic reading on it since 1984. three in 10 voters said that someone in their household had lost a job in the past two years. when asked their opinions on government, 30% said that government should do more to solve the government's bid to solve the country's problems. -- should do more to solve the country's problems. connecticut, delaware, and hawaii and new york were the only ones who said government

should do more. two-thirds of arizona voters favote. but they did not want to punish illegal immigrants already here. 55% said that most illegal immigrants should be offered legal status. 37 percent said most should be deported. 16% says to the health care law the way it is an 48% said to repeal it. in the 26 states for which we have data, majorities in seven states supported repeal. finally, getting back to the president, 45% approved of his job and 54% disapprove. more worrying for the white house, 43% said that, in the long run, obama's policies would help the country, but 52% said that it would hurt.

>> we will have a low powerpoint presentation. i will make four large points, first to address the size of the republican gains and the size of the way in a number of different ways. the simple answer is that it was a very big way. the second point is that it actually lapsed over many swing districts. there are no very democratic districts in the house that are held by republicans, only a few that were slightly democratic. finally, we have a look at what has changed since 2004. is it back to the future? have we transported ourselves back in time to after the 2004 election? in some ways, the numbers will not be so different. it is a little bit more for republicans and a little bit less in the senate. but there's more polarization.

let's start with the size of the wave. how big was this election? you can look at these numbers and i will focus on the house. after the 2004 election, republicans had 232 seats. they are likely to have a little bit more than what you see up there, two hundred 39 seats, because there are 11 undecided. we rank the last 100 years of midterm elections. none of our panelists were born in 1922. i will not check your birth certificates. but 2010 ranks very high. it is the largest gain for an out party for seats in the house. that number action depends a little bet on some of these races. it is much higher than anything we have seen in the last couple

of generations. the senate elections, here's where republicans did quite well, but not as well as we would have anticipated. if there is one thing or one silver lining for democrats in what was generally a dark cloud, were keeping republican gains. eight out of 26 -- governors, again, there were some outstanding races. it was bigger by a large madder than 2006. here is a stunning result in the state legislative elections. this number is likely to go up. there are still some outstanding seats that have not been counted and republicans gained over 650 or close to 700 seats in state legislatures across the country. that is substantially larger

than the republican gains in 1994 and more than twice as many as democrats gained in 2006. republicans are likely to be at their high water mark since before fdr. they have gained significantly in this area. we took all four of those factors and put them in a relatively simple way. it tied with 1994 with the third largest midterm election in the last 100 years. for a senate race or even one of those close governor's races, which could go the other way, it would be second. let's go back and remind ourselves about where we were in 2004.

in 2006-2008 and in the special elections that we have had, these are the territories that changed hands since the two dozen for election, but before tuesday night. uc democrats with a few pickups. now let's look at where we stand after the election. 36 of those democratic seats have gone back to republican hands.

there are some projections that the number is slightly smaller. but you get the idea. the partisan changes. in some ways, other is a small number, 65 out of bathem. you see some republican seats in the northeast and if you out in iowa and the west. because of the big democratic waves of 2006 and 2008, almost

all of the republicans were lost. democrats picked up those numbers. they gained a number of republican-leading seats they had not had before, so the map for democrats before a couple nights ago, democrats were holding some substantial republican territories. let's see what happened after the election. that number has gone down dramatically. you see going from 85 districts bush had won to only 26 district, and if you look again, lots of the plains and western states, and i will note some of the west coast districts -- two of them are speculative.

they are still being recounted. they might go the other way, so it might be even fewer, so you're looking at less than 40 seats that are out of place, less than 40 seats where republicans hold democratic- leaning seats. finally, to illustrate the point even further, these are seats before tuesday night's election the democrats held were george bush had won by 60% or more, so very republican seats, and democrats held quite a few of them in the south in taxes. what happened? where did that republican wave hit? what happened after the tuesday night results? one seat left. there still are a couple of

seats that are pretty republican -- collin petersons district, but those are not quite as republican. this wave washed over republican seats. the edge of that wave essentially is if you want to get the most democratic seats, there are four seats john kerry won. jim oberstar's seat in minnesota that is the edge of the waves. those are the most democratic seats that republicans hold. if you look at what john kerry

won, they are all held by democrats. >> thank you for a much for that. it segued into the commentary i want to make which is why what could have been a mild wave turn into a historic tsunami. i discussed the intellectual forces at work in a piece i wrote online that appeared a day before the election, so i would encourage you to take a look at that. i want to focus more on the nuts and bolts. there are two types of seats that swung back. there are the seats picked up by democrats. many of them slipped back into the republican pattern this time, but the others are seats

dominated by the group i have been talking about, and that is the white working class. i want to focus on that and see what happened. according to the polls, the white working-class voted for republicans by 69%. this was much stronger than any other group. republicans carried whites with college degrees by 18 points, but that becomes even more striking when you compare that to the 2008 poll. republicans carried whites by six points, but they only carried whites with working- class degrees by 10 points, so a 12-point shift on the margin between whites with a college degree but a 19-point shift in the white working class.

let's take a look and how they voted for the presidential election, and you will release see what is going on. whites with a college degree only voted for john mccain by four points. the white working class voted for john mccain by 18 points. we see the whites are much more likely to support of the legislative level. what happened on election night is that two groups have split their ballots for various reasons and all decided to vote republican, and the first group is southerners and others in rural southern districts. these places traditionally voted republican at the top.

it persisted until last night. key examples are virginia 9, mississippi for, missouri for reaching mississippi 4, missouri 4. in 1832, the heart of the democratic party was white, rural southerners. even in 1980, the majority were held by white southerners. today there is more of a majority in new england and new york. that would only ascribe for part of the game.

you would have the republicans and seats surging back. you would have ruled southerner's no longer splitting their tickets. you also saw perhaps one of the few times in history that northern democratic white working-class voters were voting republican. you could see that in places like minnesota 8, a seat that has not been carried by republicans. michael was alive. >> in 1944, the republicans lost. >> pa. 11, illinois 17. wisconsin seven, and there are other places where bush narrowly carried that are essentially working-class democrats seats.

you can vote democratic on the top of ticket and democrats at the top of the ticket voted republican at the bottom, largely because of anger over where president obama is taking them. is this unique? it seems unique because of the size, but this is the fifth time since the great depression that we have seen a massive republican game, and each time it is seen among the white working-class. michael knows 1946 better than anyone. in 1946 rural southerners voted for democrats regardless. each time you saw a massive swing in white working-class areas towards republicans,

largely because of anger over the same sorts of issues we see today, and anger and concern over massive expansion of governmental power, so does 2010 imply republicans now have the majority? not quite, because if we take a look at what republicans did in previous examples, we can see this is not necessarily a sure thing. 1946 republicans passed many things that policy-wise were a success, but politically, it was a disaster. the northern seas were primarily dominated by union members that took umbrage by the act and swung massively by two democrats, and that prompted dwight eisenhower, who ran on a platform of modern

republicanism, which is no more expansion but no more repeal, which led to the modern conservative units, so we can make the argument of this political decision in 1946 set of the modern politics we have today in some direct cents. 1966, republicans did take power in a number of state legislatures across the country, including in my home state in california, but they did not know what to do with it. they did not think they could repeal a lot of the things they had run against, but they did not have an alternative, and one sees quickly there is no legislative confirmation of nixon's victories, and we moved back to the 1970's 1 working-

class voters returned home. 1994 we saw with a government shutdown that a move to quickly move towards more based republican concerns fizzled out. republicans lost seats, and you quickly saw an eisenhower-like response. george bush ran as newt gingrich and not clinton, and the legislature majority move toward it earmark culture that would not govern with a clear philosophy. they are stuck between repeal and the welfare state. the only successful iteration of this was in 1980, when ronald reagan took the course of principal reform. many conservatives criticized him. couldn't we repeal the welfare

state faster? why we still have big government and the end of the reagan era? but he was wise in the way that many of his allies were not. he understood that his task was to plant near liberty in the garden of roosevelt, and he succeeded. he succeeded on the right end on the left for 30 years people have debated about how to react to the reagan legacy. that sort of principle reform solidified conservatism and republican support much stronger than either of the old- line responses that have otherwise characterized republican response. i think some conservatives might claim this policy is still selling out. i want to quote a wise man who

wrote in the almanac of american politics in 1982 that politics of the national level in america is always a matter of personality. for 40 years the ideas associated with liberal have prevailed. the federal government had a responsibility to maintain a strong economy and provide substance for those who cannot find it for themselves. sustenance for those who could not provide it themselves. by 1980, much to -- most do. most believe that franklin delano roosevelt was a good president. 30 years ago, most americans did not believe in fiber capitalism.

today, i think that most americans would. one of reagan was able to use principal pragmatic reform to change the attitudes of americans over time in the same way that franklin roosevelt was able to do 1930's. my summation of what happened and where we are going, there is an apocryphal story about the american constitutional when ben franklin left and an american came up and ask what sort of government he had given them a pretty set a republic, if you can keep it. this is a chance for a majority and the question is, can they keep it? >> thank you, very much. you. >> it is a little daunting to begin a presentation after having had my >> it is daunting to began a>>

approvingly. i would argue that the 94 republican surge resulted in some much more policy success that you suggested. but thank you for bringing back -- if you simply omitted the name of the author, of course i would not have recognized did it all. where did he get that garbage? [laughter] i am here to talk about state governments, but not really of focus of much national attention this campaign. the result in the races for governor and for state legislature, to which john alluded, could be hugely important both politically and in terms of public policy. governor could turn out to be hugely important. as in last year's elections in new jersey and virginia, which have given us a very large national figure in governor chris christi, the issues in

these contests were roughly congruent with issues in congressional races, raising the questions of the size and scope of government, and perhaps more so, the unexpected gains in state legislatures demonstrates the strength of voter rejection of big government policies of the obama administration and the democratic congressional leadership. at the senate level, democrats by negative campaigns against companies -- against opponents were able to limit new republican gains to less than they had hoped to, but they show the strength of the anti-big government trend here. overall numbers are that there were 37 governorships up going

into the election. republicans held 13 of the 18 governorships and won 12 of those currently held by democrats, so assuming candidates currently in the lead will hold onto that lead, we are ending with the republicans having 31 governorships and the democrats 19. that is not quite a historical record, but it is a considerable preponderance for republicans. there is good news in several of our largest states. sherri brown one in california as he did in 1974 and in 1978 -- jerry brown won in california as he did in 1974 and in 1978. the redistricting produces less than 1% of changes in

congressional states senate and assembly districts in the course of this decade, and in new york, andrew cuomo won by a wide margin against the republican who can charitably be described as eccentric. i am not going to be using the term straitjacket here. goorod blagojevich's successor seems to have held on. he leaves in a state where county clerks seem to have violated the military voting act and declined to send out ballots to military members, even though they didn't send them to inmates of the county jail. otherwise, the news is very good for republicans. they now hold the majority in six of the 10 largest states. they won democratic

governorships in pennsylvania, ohio, michigan, and wisconsin. in addition, they gained control of the legislatures in minnesota, man talk -- montana, and one house in iowa. altogether, the figures i got from the national conference of state legislature show them gaining 125 seats in state senates, and 543 seats in the state houses. there is still some accounting to do. while we recently had an election on sunday in brazil and they counted the votes in five hours reaching california takes five weeks. there is something wrong with this picture, but they have not got the final tally. they have one more state legislative seats than any election since 1928.

they won more than the local political experts have predicted. republicans need five seats. they won 15. they needed for seats in the house and got 13 in ohio. they needed 13 and ended up getting 20. they needed 12 in the minnesota senate, 21 in the house and got 16 and 5, and i understand republicans have never had a majority and the minnesota senate -- in the minnesota senate prior to this. the republicans gained 22 seats in the main house and 122 in new hampshire. new hampshire has the nation's largest state legislature.

this will have important consequences in politics and could have important consequences in public policy. this means the republicans will have the largest advantage they have ever had in the redistricting of congressional seats, and there was no reapportionment of seats among the states in the 1920's, said there was little redistricting done. the referendum means that california and florida will join by what in states where drawing congressional boundaries is the responsible of non- partisan commissions rather than legislatures, but in most states this is the prerogative of the governor. .

>> democrats' advantage maintaining his current narrow lead. in massachusetts and connecticut, democrats hold all the seeds and massachusetts will lose one in reapportionments. there will be a game of musical chairs with democratic

congressman giving a large contribution to the democratic state legislatures. marilyn, it has a strong democrat advantage -- maryland -- it has a strong democratic advantage. republicans have controlled in texas with 36 districts. these are the projected numbers in december. all high with 16, georgia with 14, north carolina with 13, arizona and tennessee with nin . all of those states are areas where having control of redistricting can be significant and increasing your partisan balance and the house of representatives and its delegation. i think that republicans are in

a good position to consolidate and build on the gains. they gained seats in every one of those elections on tuesday. redistricting does not guarantee an enduring advantage. we heard earlier that the redistricting done in 2001 or 2002 or in texas and georgia in 2005 lock in the redistricting party for the decade. those predictions have not survive the 2006, 2008, and 2010 elections. pennsylvania was supposed to have a 12-7 republican delegation. it became 12-7 democrat in 2008. not because of redistricting, but because the change in the balance of public opinion. it is also well to reflect governors convey contributions

on public policy. in wisconsin other states, led mostly by republicans like tommy thompson, and also some democrats as well. significant changes on welfare policy. congress came in late to the game on the welfare reform act of 1996. it was built on changes in policies that have been demonstrated to work in the states. in addition, states can be laboratories of reform on other issues. we see this on education with the federal government has caught up with some of the things going on in some of the more adventuresome states. we have also the potential of the severe pin -- fiscal crunch in some states. california, new york, illinois, all states where democrats remain in control though we do not know whether republicans will gain the majority in the state senate that they held in

1965-2008 in new york. those are three states with huge financial problems. they faced enormous pension obligations, public employee unions pushing and dominating public policies in the states for many years. they have been receiving federal aid as well from 2009 stimulus packages, from various forms of bond subsidies that they have enjoyed from the federal government. they face the potential of a severe crunch, and it looks like the house of representatives that will be in no mood to bail them out. i think that is an issue that may arise, something similar to the bankruptcy in new york in 1976. it may happen in the next two years.

>> thank you. we can start with a little clarification on workdays. michael was born in 1946 in kenya, before he moved to indonesia and was smuggled into michigan. [laughter] for all the c-span viewers, i am canny -- i am kidding. one comment on what henry said. it is important to realize that after the 1982 midterm elections, the commentary agreed on one thing. the era of reagan is dead. reagan is a dead duck. there was a severe backlash in the midterm for the republicans lost 26 of the 33 seats that they gained in the house, and those predictions as so many were wrong. i would not attribute much in what happened tuesday to any

projection linear or otherwise about 2012. i think henry's cautionary notes are appropriate. the elections are not over at this point. many of us have our eyes turned toward alaska as we wait for the write-ins. i am talking about the critical vote of the mayor of casella -- wasilla. can lead by johnston -- can levi johnston into the double digits? [laughter] this is a story that takes place in the first year anatomy class of medical school or the professor says the question of the day is, what a human organ,

one of properly stimulated, rose to eight times its normal size? ms. richards refuse to answer. the other side, the people of the human eye when it enters a darkened room. the professor says that is right. you didn't do your homework, you have a dirty mind, and to read, if you're doomed to live a life of unfulfilled expectations. [laughter] that was as true for liberals in 2006 and 2008 as it is for many tea party members of congress coming in now. it is a reflection of the difficulty of governing or turning your gains in the something that approach is what you want and hope will happen. the most interesting cases i have came from the incoming

speaker john boehner. while our new majority will serve in the people's house, we must remember it is the president to set the agenda for our government. we can use one or two interpretations for that. the first is that the level of civic education and constitutional studies among our members -- members of congress is more dismal than it is in our high school. the second is that it was part and parcel of what has become a concerted effort by many in the republican establishment from john boehner to jeb bush and others to dampen expectations and try and keep many of their more fervent members from going off whatever reservation they can create. that is why it virtually all have said this was not about us. it had nothing to do with us. it was all about rejection of the president's policies. they do not want to create any expectation that there is a mandate or agenda ahead.

that expectation will almost inevitably be dashed. it suggests some of the difficulties ahead, not just one to be focused on one party pitted against another as the polar opposite of the spectrums. it will be an intense internal struggle between both political parties. for barack obama, one of the great problems will be discontent and moment in his liberal base. -- foment and his liberal base. one statement came from russ find gold who spoke to his crowd and said, it's on to 2012. that could mean many things. one of them is a potential challenge to barack obama for renomination, and we know that presidents do not succeed in

winning a second term facing that kind of a challenge from the wrong party base. we also note that as effort were made to find areas of common ground, some of those, like trade, where we could easily imagine barack obama, who has indicated his support for the free-trade agreements with colombia and south korea, many of them getting through this congress. it would get more republican votes than democratic votes. and labor, talk about unfulfilled expectations, with the labor reform act, they will not be happy campers if obama immediately turns to republicans and a small number of democrats for trade agreements. that will be true as well if we

look at some fiscal package that might include changes in social security. and of course, within republican ranks, we are going to see some very substantial tug of war between the pragmatists, whose goal is to win elections before anything else, and here i will have other quotes, if mitch mcconnell saying that the top goal for his party was to make barack obama a one-term presidents, which should have been preceded by an making good public policy for the country. but regardless, it is a reflection of reality. they want to win election. the other was jim demint, who has been for mitch mcconnell a kind of neighbor -- a bit like having freddie kreuger living on

your block. and you have his family's moving on to the street. he said something to the incoming class that i have never heard a member say before. you will get on committees, but never mind those. they want to make policy and cooperate with the one along with what they agreed to. forget about that. you want to block things and throw your grenades on the floor. you will see a lot of that and a lot of tensions emerge as you get people coming in who believe that even if this were not about them it was a massive enough repudiation of the agenda that they have every reason to move to take a meat ax to that agenda. one of the cautionary notes as well, while it is true that we see a substantial increase in

the number of people who sell identified as conservatives, and there's no question that this was a backlash against government, there was a fascinating question asked in a cnn poll i saw yesterday were people were s, what you want to be the top priority for congress when it comes back? leading the pack by a large margin was a new stimulus package. you can square that circle any way you like. the way i do, americans are not ideological. they're pragmatic. they want what works. when government does not work, throw out the bums who won a bigger government. when the private sector is not working, let government stepped in to help us out. right now they want to get the economy moving. they would be happy to take a government package that works, if it can work. and whether that will come with a lot of comment -- a lot of people coming in, and expectations that this will mean

not just a change in policy but an economy moving again, it will be interesting. a few other comments. we're looking for a nasty and brutish politics and policy making ahead. but the key questions for this new 112 congress convening on january 3 with all of its new members, we will not have a -- we will have a lame duck session and it will be particularly interesting to see whether pragmatic republicans with the democratic congress are able to move some of the sticky issues of the table for now in a lame duck -- that would be much more difficult to resolve the new congress and not hitting the ground with bickering and stumbling. top of the list is the tax cuts which expired at the end of the year. whether they can reach an

agreement, a compromise that would basically put for a year -- punt for year, it is a critical question. if they cannot reach an agreement, then we will see all taxes they have been cut go up on january 1, including an estate tax moving to a draconian level. that will not be viewed very favorably by voters. there is no assurance that if they come in on january 1, they can reach a good deal. it might go on for awhile. the second is the budget itself. we have not had a appropriations bill enacted into law. we have a short-term continuing resolution in place. can we get that moving along, or will we have potentially a --tdown in the government's

sanctions with iran become a much tougher issue to get 67 votes when the membership from 59 democrats to 53 or perhaps fewer. and then keep in mind that we have something else on the agenda of in the weeks ahead -- to ethics trials and the house of representatives. it was one of the few places showing clothes bipartisan cooperation in the last congress. not necessarily being better. part of it was the bipartisan agreement to see no evil and hear no evil. it also broke down under the heat of pressures in the final bids. there was no chance that they

would be a trial leading up to the election. many members of the ethics committee were in tough reelection battle. but the republicans on the committee took the broadside shot at the democrats and joe bonner who worked very closely with the ranking member has a substantial call between the two. will those files result in partisan bickering or will they reach an overall agreement and with that, create more trouble for barack obama with his own left? many saw this is an unwarranted focus on african american members, where others have done similar things and so on. where could we see agreement? we could see it on trade, difficult as it is. there is a very real potential

for a renewal of the education act with the revised no doubt left behind which would not only have the support of arne duncan and john boehner and a substantial number of members on both sides of the aisle. on energy, not focusing on cap and trade but on expanding alternatives including nuclear. one of the most interesting areas for potential cooperation is infrastructure. we know a substantial share of the business community, which poured a lot of money into electing republicans, once an infrastructure package. the vast majority of the republican freshmen coming in would you that as business as usual, big government spending money again. we may see interesting tensions developed there.

--re going to say a larger even if we get agreement and some of these areas, significant but marginal, we will of congress that passes a lot of sweeping legislation to one that will pass very little. much of the action moves to the executive branch, and we will see a substantial tug-of-war between the branches. not only in the form of subpoenas and requests for demands to test my, -- to testify, but real challenges to the exertion of executive power. i will predict confidently that the "wall street journal" editorial-page will discover that there is an article in the constitution that has been placed in the attic and many of these battles will turn to the courts. we will focus on the court adjudicating them. we are also likely to see

shutdowns, more than one, of the government as we go along, despite the cautionary note republican leaders to remember 1995 and 1996. look to it happening earlier this time, not just over continuing resolutions but with the debt ceiling ltd. in march, april, or may. it is hard for me to imagine either party voting to increase the debt limit and hard to imagine it being done with one party alone on the rim, given the larger public mood. that leads me to something very difficult. i want to end on an upbeat note, imagining an optimistic scenario here. i can actually imagine all larger agreement on budgeting and economic stimulus. it would include an infrastructure package, maybe an infrastructure bank with

public/private partnership, combined with tax cuts that would include possibly up payroll tax holiday and some of the other breaks for businesses that would be accepted as a stimulus and might get bipartisan support. along with very possibly the promise of sweeping tax reform further down the road. we know the incoming chairman of the house ways and means committee and a democrat who is the chair of the budget committee have actually engaged in conversation over tax reform. just as we had a very unusual situation rarely major policy made in a second term, but reagan working with dan rostenkowski and dick gephardt the exception to that, sweeping tax reform, it could broaden the base and lower the rate or might move to a very different form of taxation, away from payroll and

income taxes to either a consumption tax or something else -- it could be on the cards. that is not out of the question. but the prospects remain quite slim and it will be nasty and brutish for a couple of years, much greater. >> i'm sure you will have questions. i will last one and then we will turn to the audience. john boehner gave a speech where he talked about reorganizing the house and a different way. talk about what he said in your reactions for that. >> it was a very good at an impressive speech. it was not the kind of speech in my expects in the weeks leading up to an election. it was one that said, hey, we did not run things well. we were in charge. i am determined to make it better. we will open it up to have many more amendments on the floor, to

have sunshine in the spotlights, insisting that they would not bring up any bill that did not have 72 hours advance notice, no matter how difficult it would be. he also noted he did not know that his colleagues would be amenable to those things. he has looked at some significant connecticut -- committee reform, long overdue. it was not just some tactical maneuver utterly sincere. it is important to note that when he got to the question and answers, one of the first questions was about the health care issue. he pledged to bring to the for something that would repeal the $550 billion in medicare cuts that are part of the health care package. that is moving into dangerous territory. if you get broad agreement on the fiscal disaster ahead, you are basically taking medicare off the table. it is also saying, i'm a fiscal

conservative. we will protect every dollar of medicare spending in perpetuity. that is not a good way to start a discussion about this for responsibility. >> we will now turn your questions. if you could wait for the microphone and identify yourself. >> i am a georgetown university. i think henry or john, maybe henry could answer this. let's suppose the economy turned out the way that obama and by then thought it might, 7% unemployment and there had been a net gain of jobs. i know that is implausible but that is what they put forward. suppose that had happened. with all of the ships and mood in opinion and the white working-class moving the other way, would that have happened?

is this election really all about the state of the economy and all the factors you have been talking about with respect to public opinion and public mood, a result of the current state of the economy and not something -- the application it going away in two years of the economy does recover? >> i am not sure it would have been a 54 seat gain, but it would have been a substantial gain. we had examples before where large centralization, the implementation -- even a growing the economy, like in the 1960's or recovering quite rapidly in the early 1990's, and the white working-class reacted in the same way, even those those results were not implemented in the background of dramatic recession.

i am sure the economy had something to do it but there's something else going on here. >> i am with henry and this, but there three components. one is the natural tendency to go against the president in power. i think the economy was the biggest component. i agree with henry that the third component is the ideological one, or about debt, deficits, larger government, the obama administration moving too far and too fast. but those concerns might have been lessened with a better economy. i think it would have been a move in the republican direction, not of tiny move, but the economy was the larger part of it. norm's. from 1982 to 1984 was a long time. conditions can change. if they do not change, barack

obama is in big trouble. if they change for the better, he is a lot better position. >> i would say that the government component is the larger component. public opinion was turning against obama in of all -- in office 2009. we saw the protest in the recess and the first polling showing republicans ahead in the generic ballot question, which candidates do you favor the house of representatives? i think the expectations were that the recovery -- the economy would recover more than it turned out to do. and it shows up in the statistics first for the second quarter of 2010 and for the third quarter, that played some role. but people were turning against obamacare when their expectations for the economy or

higher and more positive than they turned out to be since the middle of this year. >> i just want to add one node. after the 2008 elections, right after, when we were saying 2010 would be a good republican year, the pendulum had swung widely twice in a row. we had seen a gain of 20 seats to elections a role in it was only natural that it would swing back. the question was whether it would swing back the way it did with reagan, moving many of the seats that they picked up in those two elections, or whether it would be more like clinton. it turned out to be clinton. i am not sure that the attitudes toward the health care bill would have been the same if people were more optimistic about the course of the nation, driven more by the economy than anything else.

>> i do not know if you know this. there are three or four senate seats that exceeded prior to december -- prior to january. >> they get seated immediately. to get ahead in illinois, -- >> florida and colorado are not. as of now. you get one shift, basically. in illinois. >> we hardly knew you. >> it does not make much difference. it could have if all those seats had switched to the republican side. then the numbers would have been 55-45 instead of what will now be 58-42.

you do not have enough of your own to overcome a filibuster. after an election of the sort, it is not like they're going to do stuff in that fashion anyhow. it ends up not mean much except we see in two different faces. whether your predictions for the lame duck? will they get anything done? >> logic suggests that you do the tax issue both for practical reasons and for policy reasons. in a fragile economy, even for a few weeks to have taxes go up dramatically, and have a significant number of people died in january and february, i don't know if you saw the extraordinary statement of the congresswoman from wyoming last week saying that some of her constituents have said that they would pull their own blood before january -- plug before

january. [laughter] it will get your attention, let's put it that way. but logic in this case does not necessarily work, given the larger political dynamic. there compromises you could reach that could kick the can down the road. i think it is more likely than not that they do it. some of the money depends on whether the outside forces that we are building in september and october to completely delegitimize the lame duck session, saying that these are people that are hijacking the policy process after the voters have voted. if you get that grumpy, it gets tougher to cut a deal. only if that gets to get down to we see that happen. >> i am looking for a lame lame duck session. the one exception might be the start treaty, although we might not finish it up. that is one area that might

carry over in the lame duck for the next congress. the tax cut would be responsible to deal with them before they expire. if they expire, there will be some problems with how we protect tables, but we can put the genie in the bottle again and put them back where they were retroactively. the a temporary extension for a year or maybe two years, putting it just past the election, probably the most likely outcome. the president may say a temporary extension for the higher and a permanent for the lower incomes. it will probably go out to the next congress. >> any questions in the back? please wait for the microphone. >> i am with the american

conservative magazine. what happened to the anti-war movement? it was so big in the last election and a totally disappeared. was barack obama pre-empted by the washington establishment? no commentary made it all about where it went. it still exists. >> i think it exists and it is mostly on the democratic side of the aisle. i recall listening to the exit poll question on where -- what you think about the war in afghanistan. my recollection, checking the numbers, is that a majority of democratic voters are basically against the war, the current policy in afghanistan, and a majority of republicans are favoring it. i can envision the possibility of the coalition he imagined on trade, the obama administration

with republicans and some democrats could prevail, and also the suggestion that we could see -- could we have a challenge to barack obama in the democratic nominating process in 2012? i thought of that as a daunting thing for anybody to contemplate taking on the first african- american president. when you haven't series of democratic contest in which the average african-american percentage in the american primary is around 25%, those are numbers that would tend to deter a clinton challenge, which i consider wholly unlikely. but we have had challenges from the anti-war movement, and a couple of payment to people who are conceivable. howard dean after his record as democratic chairman, and the senator who will soon be ex- senator russ feingold.

>> 54% disapprove. a 61% majority disapproved. that was the only foreign policy question in the poll. >> i saw an article claiming that 9% of the voters focusing on the yemeni bomb plot. did you see anything on that and whether it had any impact on the election? >> i do not recall seeing that question. michael, do you recall the question? >> what is your vote influenced by a the terrorist thing? >> i did not see that. >> is right at the end.

something like 60% said that they were. those who were tended to be more republican than those who said they were not. i am not sure i take that question -- the responses to that question very seriously. you get as people were they affected by the weather on monday and tuesday. you know. i would not indulge in much interpretation on the basis of that question. >> two questions. michael, if you mentioned 13 states where the republican power structures might be important in redistricting. i understand seven seats will be shifted in the house in the next election from the essentially democratic states to republican states. could you put up quantify on how

that my work? you are talking about the kruger family moving in. are there any in cummings senators that you would consider in that family did you want us -- that you want to sit down? >> my estimate is depending on whether new york loses two seats or one and florida gains one or two, one -- current projections, basically the obama 2008 will lose either six or seven house seats and mccain 2008 states will gain 67. interestingly, texas is projected to gain four seats. texas has been the economic leader of united states in this decade. california is projected to gain zero seats. that is the first time since it was admitted to the union in

1850 that it does not gain seats off of the senses. that shows the economic doldrums that california isn't despite substantial immigration. it has population increasing no faster than the national average. those are the projections. essentially there are elections -- those of you they remember 10 years ago -- six electoral votes can make a difference. whether 2012 will be one of those, we do not know. >> we are the factoid that may describe the shift that we have seen the shift in our policies. we have a new father-son team in congressteamrand and ron paul. that may reflect the shift in our politics. the younger one is in the senate, interesting. if you put rand paul and mike

leigh together, if you have a couple of people that might decide that jim demint is their role model. i am more skeptical of marco rubio, who i suspect is more pragmatic. a dynamic that may affect policy making in the senate in the next two years. there are 10 republicans up in the class of 2012. they include people like orrin hatch and scott brown and olympia snowe and bob corker. they watched closely what happened to bob bennet and lisa murkowski. and they do not have right in provisions in their states. they will be cognizant of the fact that this was a couple of years where they cooperated. that may spell real trouble for them.

orrin hatch already has a very likely challenger, and jason take this region -- jason chaffatz. it will be like fritz hollings, nobody getting on my right this time around. it makes it more difficult to understand how you can make policy. >> in the back, and then we will take this one and then we will have the panel answer. >> henry olsen mentioned provincial conservatism which will be a big push to repeal obamacare. would you recommend that? second question would be, this is a divided government now,

much like the u.k. and a number of other countries. do you ascribed any importance to that question margin and then we will take this question and then anyone on the panel can answer. >> other than the housing market, the trade deficits, public deficit, there's a decision as to whether other countries continue to route treat the dollar as its reserve currency, all factors in the potential hyperinflation that we have never experienced. the most critical factor would be the behavior of the federal reserve and the promiscuous printing of money. is there an awareness a month -- of this among the public? how you bring in the behavior of the federal reserve? >> with respect to clark's question, the base is demanding

a rowboat -- a vote to repeal obamacare. you have half the public behind you. i think that is not something that on its face will cause problems in the short term. the more interesting question is can they developed a pragmatic conservative plan to deal with health care? republicans in the congress have tried to shy away from that. the result that health care reform bill that was passed. a serious conservatism cannot avoid that question anymore. they will be the litmus test as to whether or not we see a pragmatic conservatism that tries to take advantage of this. your second question was? yes. [inaudible] i describe importance. a lot of things going around world wide, an interesting column in salon, the decline

among parties worldwide is a result of the working class pays deserting them. it takes different forms in europe than it does here but you can see that in every developed country. the sea rises in virtually every developed countries of sentiment on what we would call the progress of let's hear. there is the rise of the green party. here is a rise of fascism in the american party -- in the democratic party. will we see worldwide is a demand for reform but not repeal of the welfare state, people recognizing that we cannot continue to promise things that we do not produce. at the same time there is not a strong constituency in this country for a return to the pre- new deal economy.

>> the one that take a whack at the federal reserve question? for americans thought the federal reserve was up fine kentucky bourbon than thought was the monetary institute. [laughter] >> we are in the city was and where pragmatism and prudence -- a situation where pragmatism and prudence may solve what may seem to be radical measures. one looks at what britain is doing right now, 25% budget cuts to many departments, and reduction of 490,000 public sector jobs. i think that california, illinois, and new york will be based in areas where that is the only credential thing although it does not sound very moderate. not middle of the road or what you would immediately think as the best thing to do. surly not a continuation of the status quo. it is for the federal was

served. the incoming republicans aware of the concerns about hyperinflation? my guess is that most of them watched the fox news channel. if you love watch fox news channel lately, you will notice there is a lot of ads for gold. [laughter] 8 used to be ditech and get your house refinanced. now what is called. i need at remote that automatically pushes the mute button for gold advertisements. incomingliar to republican members of congress. >> we will take a few more questions here. there are a couple on the back. will take three questions and then the panel can answer them, starting here. and then to in the back.

>> yuval spoken about the importance of the big government issue. wondering about the same risk to the republican majority. if you look at the house republicans' pledge to america, they say the biggest goal is to reduce spending and the deficit. but if you look carefully at how they say they're going to do that, there is really not much specific other than defense and entitlements are off the table. if the republicans do not achieve much in the way of actually reducing the deficit, how big a risk will bid -- will this be to their new majority? >> questions back here and there. >> my question is, obviously the influence of the tea party

candidates in the new congress and the house? what you think about candidates like michelle bachman running for the republican conference chairman? she wants to be a voice of the constitutional conservatives. >> that question back there. >> the think -- do you think there's any chance that the republican house would consider investment in science and research, differently than other funding? well investment funding be considered like other spending? >> let me take a crack at some of those. i am a skeptic about a substantial cutback in funding

in a general way. part of that is because every time you try to pan anyone except paul ryan down on specifics, they dance completely away from it. they do a better job of moving out of the corner than mohammad ali ever could have in his prime. the focus here is on to things. earmarks -- eliminate the mall, and you could save the equivalent of three drops in the ocean. and a freeze on all discretionary spending back to 2008 levels, which if it ever too cold with last only until the next hurricane or oil spill or other disaster. and i think you'll see a public backlash in the house. a lot of people are thinking that you could cut out the waste, fraud, and abuse and none of us would ever notice of thing and deficits would melt away. when you get the specifics, it

does not quite work that way. if you start by saying you're going to eliminate the cutbacks in medicare, it does not take very far. you have to be a skeptic about that. a word on the tea party -- as we speculate, we may be setting things up for what could make the most interesting republican presidential contest in our lifetime in 2012. i can see a number of people stepping forward, starting with sarah palin and others. the channel the anger that has propelled many of those candidates into office about democrats in washington, reflecting instead on the mealy mouthed, lily liver, weakest

find republican establishment figures who kept them from getting all of those goals that they should have achieved and that the public had given to them over the course of these next two years. in the private world, they are not. happened. that might be enough unless there is a radical change in the republican nomination progress to propel someone without wide public support ahead. that struggle will be a particularly interesting one. you have a lot of members of congress who attain great fame and fortune, michelle kaufman among them, to watch this program in its entirety, lots on to c-span.org. tonight derek leebaert talks

about foreign-policy in his latest book, "magic and mayhem." david cameron response to recent terrorist threats and budget cuts. after that, look at how the new congress will work with president obama. >> this week, georgetown university foreign-policy professor derek leebaert talks about his new book, "magic and mayhem -- delusions of american foreign policy from korea to afghanistan." >> derek leebaert, author of "magic and mayhem," where did you get that title? >> because i approached the problem, the delusions of american foreign policy, with pe