changed in four decades. talking about doing alternate weeks in session, these are radical changes that republicans are >> he signaled that he is willing to fire part of the capitol staff which is not something that will be easy to do. he is also signaling that he wants to do things that are good for democrats and republicans to make the institution run better. spending cuts to save money in the capital, which invariably means someone is not going to be happy with what is going on. he is stuck with an institution that is long set in its ways and a lot of things that could save money and will definitely face resistance. >> that you very much for being on newsmakers this week. >> thank you. >> this weekend, more than 97 to be members of the house began

arriving in washington d.c.. tomorrow, there will get lessons of congressional ethics and details on furnishing their offices during orientation. tuesday is the class photo for new members and a meeting with the house parliamentarian who will go over house rules and get new members acquainted with the layout of the voting system and they are also expected to get their house blackberries 3 on wednesday and thursday, members will schedule further meetings with their caucus and conference and on wednesday evening, new members and their spouses will attend a welcome reception. finally, on friday, the soon-to- be members will participate in an all day office lottery. >> the c-span networks provides politics, and network affairs, and american history. it is all available on television, radio, online and on social media networking sites. find content any time to the c-

span video library. we take c-span on the road with our digital bus and local content vehicle, bringing our resources to your community. it is washington your way. the c-span network, now available in millions of homes provided by a public service. >> our congressional coverage continues with a discussion on the 2010 midterm election results. we will talk with whit ayres and stan greenberg. also, ed gillespie. this is about one hour. >> good morning, everybody. good morning. thank you for your attention to it in michael bernstein, i am a professor of economics and the university provost europe tulane university. on behalf of scott callahan and the board of trustees of tulane university and all of the faculty, students and staff here

at tulane, i welcome you to this very exciting events put together by the bipartisan policy center. we have a marvelous day during which we will have an array of very interesting panels to talk about the state of political debate and policy discussion and analysis here in the united states. i have to say, when i reflect on how a member of congress shouted at the president of united states during the state of the union address, calling him a liar, making him seem like it was the house of commons in britain, not the united states congress. i reflect just last week an individual that lost a gubernatorial race, in this case in new york, showed up in his concession speech brandishing a baseball bat. i am struck by the need for paying some attention to the

nature of discourse and debate in the united states about present policy concerns. for those specific reasons and for more general reasons of which we are all acquainted, it is especially a pleasure for tulane university to welcome this distinguished panel and to join with the bipartisan policy center in having this day's events devoted to pursuit of inspired and sustained policy debate in contemporary american politics. here in new orleans and here at the university, we have spent five years and we will spend several more years focused on practical solutions for pressing problems. we make claims about ideological

convictions, but five years down from katrina, we are all about solutions. it is a great pleasure to welcome all of you and to welcome our kickoff panelists here to this very important set of events to discuss contemporary politics. i just want to close my remarks by expressing a very special thanks to two very special people. they have made this event possible. [applause] thank you very much. enjoy the panels today. welcome. >> nice room for 10:00 a.m. in the morning did i am the president of the bipartisan center and i want to add a few thoughts. of what to think michael

bernstein and the tulane committee for opening their doors and being our partners to put on this second event of what we hope will be a long tradition. the bipartisan policy center was founded in 2007 by four former senate majority leaders. they have the goal of assisting our national leaders in developing substantive and possible compromises to adjust our nation's problems. we do not seek to be non- partisan. we do not seek to find it comfortable middle and all issues. rather, we try to bring together principal democrats and republicans to see if we can compromise. it is really thrilling to bring together this group back to new orleans. this city, more than any other,

knows the value of politics. also, the critical opportunity an obligation to overcome politics to face real challenges and to work together as a community. many of those moments have been driven by crisis. it is argued that the nation is in a similar state of crisis. a less visible crisis, but one that is no less dire. the question that we are all asking ourselves is do we have a structure capable of confronting those problems. one issue we are most concerned about is our 14 trillion dollars national debt -- 4 $2 trillion national debt. -- $14 trillion national debt. we do this with the goal of bringing the adult a arithmetic to that challenge. we hope to have a percolation forming around that.

a couple of words about this event. we had no anticipation that we would have a detailed census since -- consensus. we bring together the kind of dialogue that will enable the country to deal with these problems. we are not my you about this. we will hear that the conditions out there are tough. but there are some creative ideas, one which i read about a few days ago which i think is quite interesting, which is a notion that president obama should take up smoking again. [laughter] because he and john maynard -- john boehner would share something. it is that kind of creative aspiration that i think that we all need. to follow up on provost

bernstein's comments. james and mary bring together and affection for challenges. i think that is more important than they know. the examples of that kind of icon by partisanship are few and far between. we're lucky to have them. i would like to welcome james and mary. thank them for their assistance and hear their words. [applause] >> the james got all dressed up for you this morning. [laughter] good morning. my job this morning is to say good morning and to thank you for coming. welcome home walter and bud. welcome back to those that were here last year and those that

are here for the first year, hopefully this will not be your last year. thank you, thank you, thank you. it is no secret that we are the bipartisan co-host's. there is nothing wrong -- we were talking about this last night -- about being a principal part of some. a proud principal partisan. we have all known each other for a combined 1000 years. i do not think that any of us ever came close to this. that does not count. the kind of emotion that lends itself to but partisan politics is because we love our country. there will be a some sniffing and snorting around, but it will get done because we all of this

country just like we all of this city. we got through an amazing and miraculous election cycle of with great civility and great compassion. they could be breaking the stalemate and getting a good start here today. this would be the first time ever that analysts, strategists, presidential advisers and the resurgent republicans get together for the first time. that is a good start to bipartisanship. i once said to james that the passion that undergirds these kinds of things, fighting is ok.

just silly -- just civilly. >> i told the audience that she looked beautiful. she was in an oscar de la renta and i was in that oscar de la rental. i'd like to thank all of you here in what a delight it is to be here. a lot of you look at my shirt did this is a crawfish. i wear this to promote louisiana seafood, the safest food in the world. [applause] just a word about our city. in every other city in america, people speak of the quality of life and they sort of take the

number of libraries and the symphony and the climb at and say that it is a quality of life index. hear, -- right here, we speak of a way of life. when you are down here, please enjoy our way of life. our way of life is about food, our music, and architecture, our literature, and even our funerals are different. [laughter] we are very comfortable and proud. we are just delighted to be apart to be a part of a tradition of hospitality. that is our goal all we are here. we appreciate it. this is the second year and this will be one of the really great

traditions that started here in new orleans. i think he will continue here. this is a wonderful time of year to have everybody. if anyone is familiar with political consultants, this is probably the most prestigious panel that has been put together. i am not exaggerating. the party has been run for a long time. if there has ever been a thing such as a political consultant, these would be the regional inductees. you're looking at the equivalent of babe ruth, ty cobb and thomas wagner. ed gillespie called me during

october and approached me with the idea. me being a huckster, i said sure if it is in your lungs. -- in new orleans. ed was the chief of staff for bush 20 -- was 43 -- bush 43. he is one of the top hams and political consulting and this area. my friend for the past 17 years, stan greenberg, i cannot

remember if he has a ph.d. from harvard or yale. i think it is a ph.d. from harvard and he taught at yale. he is another result and that the a political consultant holophane. they took a pull together. they cannot agree on the results. what i am born to do is start -- one in one to do is start with ed and have him tell us what he saw in this poll. i do not think this group meets a moderator. you guys can jump in and began to discuss and give everybody a chance to be heard. your want to hear some interesting data.

my first take was things that i expected to see and things i did not expect to see. ed, we will start with you. >> mary, james, thank you for sponsoring mr. it thank you to tulane. there should be a fascinating day stan and i worked together on a questionnaire and james, you might be surprised on how much we agree on. we agree on a lot that happened. we have our own perspectives on what happened. we only have time to touch on a few highlights and if you take away messages, but all of the numbers are online at research andrepublic.com. you will see a presentation based on the results.

all of the data is available for those of you that want to dig deeper than what we are and to have a chance to do. at republicurgenc .com. this is a survey we took of 1000 people. we had 114 who voted in 2008, but not 2010. we can kind of simulate what a broader electorate would look like with more minorities and more younger people heading into a 2012 election. i am going to say a few words about the political issues and stan will talk about more about what people are looking for going forward. we're going to give you a lot of

data. it is very easy, sometimes. i want to point out what the forest looks like so you have a few key points in your head when you walk out of this room today. the first key point comes from this graph of independent voter preferences going back to 1998. the red line are independents that voted for republican congressional candidates. the blue line are independent voters that voted for democratic congressional candidates. the wave last tuesday was driven by independence. republicans constituted 36% of the voters according to exit polls last tuesday. do you know what the constitution in 2006 when the democrats had their huge wave? 36% of the electorate. they have been exactly the same portion of the electorate in 2006.

and what changed was the independent vote. in 1998, republicans were three points ahead of the independence. in 2000, it was two points. in 2004, it was no surprise that we had a time of political stability because the independence split evenly. in 2006, there was a huge swing, like 57 to 39. it was driven by iraq and a lot of other concerns as well. a huge wave among independents. look what happened this year. the total mirror image of 2006 by 56% to 30%. -- 30%.

-- 38%. that is the first key point that i want you to take away from here. it was independence that drove far morendependencnts like republicans on a host of issues. attitudes towards the president, attitudes towards health care, towards tax cuts. they now look like republicans rather than like democrats. let me give you a few examples. democrats think things are fine. 55 percent of democrats think the company is going in the right direction. only one-third looks at the country going in the wrong direction. among republicans, it is nine out of 10. you have republicans and independents on one side

thinking the country is going on the wrong -- in the wrong direction. you have a democratic control of the house, the senate and the presidency, and out of tin independence think the country is going the wrong way. we started bringing this bill saying that the independents are looking at this and is exactly what happened. government should do more to solve problems. three-quarters of democrats think that government should be doing more. but six out of 10 independent voters that government is doing too much that should be left to businesses and individuals. this is another example.

the same thing goes for the president's job approval. you know what the president's job approval is among democrats that voted last tuesday? 84%. 84% to 12%. 91% of republicans disapprove. independent voters, but a two- one margin, independent voters disapprove of the job that obama is doing. again, we see independent voters looking like republicans. how about the presidential election? by 50% to 40%, in the broader electorate, those people that voted in 2008 but not 2010, the generic republicans still lost it was 40% to 40%.

virtually, all republicans support the republicans, but among independent voters with a generic republican against barack obama, 56% of independent voters to 28% as an exact two- one margin in favor of a generic republican. the interesting point, here, is that it is not just the 2010 electorate, but the 2008 electorate that has the same pattern. in the same way on issues. tax cuts are the big ones coming up. stan wrote one part of the tax- cut argument and i wrote the other side of the tax-cut argument cutting taxes permit before the middle class is necessary to protect social security. we should extend the tax cuts for every one, raising taxes on

anyone in a weak economy is a bad idea and it will hit businesses especially hard. it is exactly the wrong medicine for a struggling economy. it would not surprise you that democrats, like the first statement, 69% to 26%. a majority of independents want to extend the tax cuts for every one. how about obamacare? 81% of democrats support the president's health care law. 93% of republicans oppose the health care law a majority -- the health-care law. it will not surprise you if you ask a repealed and replaced question on obamacare, 80% of

democrats do not want to be left -- want to repeal it. independence support repeal and replaced. -- independent voters support repeal and replaced. this tells you white independent voters and republicans are so negative. and despite all of the debate, overwhelming majorities of americans believe that the obama health care law will increase their health care costs. the american people have told us repeatedly over the last four years that controlling health- care costs is their number-one priority. they get the fact that the number one priority of the democrats in congress is expanding coverage, not to control costs. you have this huge debate, doing exactly the opposite of what americans wanted which is to control health-care costs. you have overwhelming majorities of americans who believe that

obama is health care law will increase taxes, increase the deficit and hurt the quality of their health care. let me tell you, this is a stunning legislative achievement to come up with a piece of legislation where overwhelming majorities believe it will increase their costs, taxes, and the deficit and improve the quality of care. that is an amazing achievement. finally, on party trust, 2010 boaters and independent voters now trust the republican party more than the democratic party on the key fiscal and economic issues that so dominated this election. by a margin of 221, -- of 21, -- 2 to 1, is an amazing shift two

years ago. it is amazing that this climate exists as we go to the next congress. democrats have an advantage on education and health care, but republicans have an advantage only on education. so, here are the three key things i wanted to take away from this. this is what the forest looks like. independent voters are closer to republicans and democratic voters on a host of political issues. independents now trust republicans more than democrats on economic and fiscal issues. i will pass the baton to stand and you'll probably get a little

different perspective. >> thank you, very much. thank you for the opportunity for this poll. crafting the poll was not a bitter battle. we were able to arrive at a survey instrument that we shared. we agree on probably 75% of what is in the poll. we do bring interpretation and you can use that. you may think that i am using it to spin, but i am trying to use the historical experience to look at this data. resurgent republic created this idea and tooling provided the platform, so it was greatly appreciated.

this election one of the things we were able to do in this survey to begin with, it was to repeat the question -- i was in the white house in 1994, so we had not had this kind of election on the democratic side since november 8, 1994. upon clinton at the time, we did a post-election poll at that time, sponsored by the democratic leadership council, but we also do that monthly throughout the year, and i would just note in terms -- i know this is a high-tech place, and new orleans has its own way of life.

this won out over powerpoint. the graphs are on our website. i should say in an effort of bipartisanship, we have more, and there are both memos, so we want people to read the interpretations on both sides of this. in 1994, it was a difficult election. when you look at the grass, op- ed -- look at the graphs, there is the favorability ratings, president obama, president clinton. we asked the question whether president clinton is taking the country in the right direction or not, and we also tracked monthly. in 1994, the numbers tractor right through the election campaign -- tracked right

through the election campaign. we also know what happened after 1994. when we went from a landslide election to the republicans, an electoral college pill landslide for president clinton, -- an electoral college landslide for president clinton, and we survived upset -- survived that, but it was a platform full of risk for republicans, as we know, and i actually want to spend some time on those risks going forward. using real numbers, i do want to underscore at in this election, the voters had a very

big message for president obama. they were very angry and conscious that, and we ask questions about this, who was in control of congress, and they were very conscious of what they were doing. it wanted to take away democratic control of congress. ms. was about the obama agenda, and it was a very. this was about the obama agenda, and it was very centered on puerto rican -- it was centered on unemployment and people being unhappy with the lack of progress, failing to get the job numbers down, the health-care debate more than anything.

the health-care about a was diverting attention from the economy. -- the health care issue was diverting attention away from the economy. they were angry about the partisan fights, battles, gridlock that carried on and the division that carried on, and they were sending a very big message in this that the democrats need to hear, a lot of focus on jobs. there was the laws particularly of working-class men who pulled away in this. we're back to the reagan

democrats, and there are the loss of those voters there. people were voting against democrats, and they had plenty to say, but i want to, with plenty of humility, say we should be a little careful, because it is not the same thing messagethat the voters' is the same thing to republicans as to what they should be doing now. the state of the republican party in this poll what no higher than the standing of the republican party in 2008 or 2006.

this is about democrats, democrats coming down to the same level. it is remarkable that you have an eight-point defeat, and of the same people talking to the exit poll questioners, coming out even. people are making a very discerning message. they are sending a message. this is not about the washington agenda or the republican party. they are very discerning in how

they are interpreting their message. there are some things that you cannot expect to continue. this was a seniors' election. it was a seven-point rise. young voters also dropped out, almost half of the numbers they had in the last election. it is no doubt that this is self-care related, very specific to this election. do not assume them the other elections will of this kind of composition. young voters are going to be back, i promise you.

it is not known that the medicare issue will play out the same way. it is republicans putting medicare cuts on the table going forward. do not assume this was a future. -- it is for the future. by the way, the exact same thing happened in 1994. but first two years of the clinton era, the newt gingrich revolution coming out of it. they turned against us, and the electorate changed.

80% of republicans korea conservatives voted for republicans. -- a 80% of conservatives voted for republicans in this election. as we know historically, that can play out in different ways as we go forward. making the argument firs that many of the things that produced this landslide will change. age patterns will change.

the scale dropping back to normal levels or seniors dropping to normal levels is a dramatic change. the young numbers will be coming back again. married women. if you want to understand the democratic majority that emerged in 2006 and 2008, the democratic party coalition is more diverse, ethnically and racially but included unmarried women who were very supportive of a larger role of government, very impacted by the economy. they dropped more than any other group as a part of the democratic base. these are voters who are coming back in future elections, particularly after the

republicans. there are two big problems going forward. the first test to do with deficits and austerity. to say the democrats spend into a much in ran up the deficit is not the same thing as saying that the first priority of this country ought to be austere measures. the reason they are angry at democrats is not the same thing. you will see the best in this survey a whole lot of questions. if i want to look at the results that surprised me, do you want more government or less government, more government than less? in this environment, i would have thought we would have been slaughtered.

i never liked that choice, because i was a bill clinton democrats, but nevertheless, i stuck with it. i want to give the exact wording of this right. also give me a chance to read it. i want somebody in washington that will fight big corporate interests. by the way, i constructed this question on both sides. remember, we're asking this choice.

the framing of the election choice. i want somebody in washington the will fight big corporations, or a once someone who will rein in spending and deficits. regent or i want somebody who will rein in spending and deficits -- or i want somebody who will. i will give another. cutting the debt and making growth producing investments in industry and small business and make us stronger and more procol -- competitive. note that we need to make cuing the deficit a higher priority than making us more competitive. more people chose the first office -- option.

people want to address growth. the republicans are in a spiral mount -- now. they do that as their mandate. that is not the mandate of the country. they are angry about spending and deficits. people want a bigger vision for the country. the first is, do not get this wrong, it has to do with cooperation between parties. there is no stronger results in year, and we asked about 10 questions on the subject about whether we should be working with the other party and if we should stand up for principle or work to get things done. the message, every single question is work together, get

things done. people were angry about partisan gridlock. i will not go through the data on it, but the challenge is on virtually every question, regarding the republicans, they say do not compromise, try to the president obama fail, because he is going to harm the country. the day year says this creates a platform in which republicans had freedom of movement. the last thing has to deal with health care.

and when asked about health care, -- on whether or not you favor or oppose, it was only a few points. we also played out the debate. we cannot even on this debate. if republicans become obsessed with health care and are fighting on health care every time there is a debt limit, if health care is their obsession rather than jobs, that can play

out in ways. the health-care issue was on a yearlong process with special deals, not being focused on the economy. yes, there are some specifics in the budget. it is the process. the bottom line, in 1994, president clinton was to a variety of things, oklahoma city, when he began to speak to the country, to protect medicare and education and the environment, the newt gingrich congress, and then reaching out and agreeing on some big issues.

history is different. the challenge for the republicans will be how to deal with this reality, which will be very different. >> we will give you the last word. >> we will also have a short q&a, too. >> the great news for republicans, as discussed here by both, is that the majority of independents are with republicans on the most pressing issues of the day, and in the house, they have just gained control. extending the bush tax cuts, the majority independence voted with republicans in curtailing public spending note -- the majority of independents voted republicans in archaic -- in curtailing public spending.

jobs, the economy, taxes, and spending with independent voters. we need to keep that, and i think the most pressing issue for voters remains jobs, and as we talk about health care, there needs to be a debate about a job killing mandate, and this is so employers can hire again. this drove up the cost of premiums for employers, making it more expensive to hire again. if this tax increase takes effect in january 2011, it will affect small business owners and investors and job creators, so everything republicans do has to tie back to jobs. we have to finish the sentence. one of the best people in our party is bob mcdonnell, in virginia, when he said we need

to know where taxes, because then employers will be able to hire more. we need to have offshore drilling off the coast of virginia. that will create jobs. with the independencts, as important as this debate goes all right on health care, on taxes, on the debts, we take it to the next iteration, which is the effect will have on the economy and jobs, and that will keep the independent voters with us. the last thing that we touched on was the perception of the republican party, the democratic party, and the tea party. a significant gap between the leaders to view of the tea party voters on the coast, new york city, washington, d.c., los angeles, and among voters across the country, who have a pretty

and i think theot, tea-party voters -- >> they do not like pollsters, either. >> it ahead of the democratic party, i think, in perception. the fact is, there is a real state party there. i think it is a good thing for republicans and congress, and i hope that over time these efforts to marginalize tea party voters which i do not think it is the interest of the democratic party, and maybe the media will understand who these voters are and stop characterizing them and tried to marginalize them. i do not think it serves them. so, james, with that, i will cut it a little short. >> i am going to suspend the

first amendment. there is no right to give a speech and not have questions, so if anyone has any questions, please step up to the mike, and please be sure, because we have another panel, but remember the first amendment is suspended. >> why do i get a sense you are not kidding when you said that? you are not going to like me then. my name is mike. i am a political cartoonist. i am apolitical. you gentlemen are so schooled -- >> i am sorry. you have to ask a question. what is your question? >> if you guys have been in charge of your blues and your

reds and your purples, i want to remember that if you are independent, and you vote for a d or an r, it does not make it independent. it makes you one of the corrupt parties. >> thank you. let the next edelman, . -- the next gentleman, . -- come up. >> i went to hear you all talk about who did not vote, and you did not comment on the minority vote. myself, i am an independent. i consider myself -- >> ask a question. we are having a difficult time getting a question.

ask a question. >> it is not true. all voters dropped out in the off years. it was high for african-american voters in the presidential year. they maintain their level, and everyone expected them to drop. the southwest, and impacted races in california and nevada. if you look at the drop in democratic support, latinos and african-americans have a significant impact. >> latinos voted in just about the same proportion to democrats as they did in 2008, about two-

one for democrats, and it is a huge challenge for republicans but there is enormous promise. the first, arclight from florida, -- our candidate from florida, marco rubio, and others, we have now two conservative republican governors in new mexico and nevada pet in a very -- and nevada, and a very, very powerful politician from florida. marco won 65% of the vote in florida. >> thank you. >> i would like you to tell me wh is going on. the presidential agenda has not changed. he ran on this agenda, and he

was elected overwhelmingly by the electorate. what is happening among independent voters approve of the schizophrenic? are they upset about the economy? what is really driving this vote? [laughter] [applause] >> no, i think independent voters are largely driven note intently on either side. there was a lot more on the republican side in this election, as there was in 2006 on the democratic side. i think that resonated with a lot of voters. they share some of the intensity. they thought they were voting to change washington in 2008. what they're seeing now is an effort to change the fundamental underpinnings, to move away from

a free enterprise system, and that is not what they were looking for. in health care reform, they were looking for health care reform that would bring down the cost of insurance to make it more acceptable. they were not looking for a bill that actually increases insurance premiums, it increases government spending, and makes it very likely within the next five years, the notion that if you like your insurance, you can keep it, nonsense. it turns out it is nonsense. that is not what they bargained for. this will give republicans a chance, and the tea party voters, believe me, it is the right problem to have. 4 million more voters in the republican party in the primaries than the democrat party. >> some of this is real.

president obama's was elected on the economy. they focused on jobs like a laser and move to the numbers. this is about performance of the economy. -- and moved to the numbers -- moved the numbers. for some, it is not real. young voters are more independent. there was a conservative surge in this election. this is about polling. when you see a poll, after a democratic convention -- when you see a poll come out after a democratic convention, you say, "boy, voters are fed " --

fickle." the same thing is true here, but it also affects the vote, ok? there was a lot of excitement. that will change. it will affect the competition so it is different. ed has to catch a plane, and it was a terrific idea. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] thank you. we will take a couple of questions. we will go to a couple of questions here. >> my name is vincent. i want to congratulate you.

i really would also like inclusion. what i would like to see is an african-erican republican, an independent, and a democrat tell our side of the story. ok. thank you. .

so a lot of these independence who flipped thought they were going to get a bipartisan, bring us together, no red state, blue state, but the united states of america, and they perceived that they got a big spending, big government, g taxing agenda instead. that's not what they expected.

>> ma'am, i don't mean to be rude but we are short on time and the people are lined up for questions. we need some kind of mechanism. >> i answer with more respect than mark twain for the voter. the voters thought they were voting for change on the style of politics and on addressing the economy and jobs. they think, and i think it's a fair perception, that the economic policies were not big enough to address the problems, the visiothat the president articulated was not big enough to ge people a sense of where -- for people to understand what the policies were about and where they were

going and i think voters are right to say, to express their anger about that. i respect the voters on the judgment they made, and they did make a big judgment on both the manner of politics and economic government. >> this is the last question of the panel and there's a media panel immediately following this and they'll address the question of bias or whatever you have. this is a polling panel. >> my name is linda hawkins. my question is about the polling. when i look at the numbers here and this is a basic question. it looks like there was 1,000 people in the sample. where is the sample coming from? is it across the country? i'm concerned about, when we do these polls, the numbers are not large enough to come out with the results. >> let me jump in, because these two guise are pollsters, i'm

not. i think they would agree. polling had a pretty good election. i always like the story where the experts were stumd, actually, almost to the number. go ahead, sam. >> we may want to address that. there were polls that were not losing -- live interviewers were not using cell phones, were not polling over multiple days. those polls were systematically wrong. the major newspaper polls are right, but a lot of polls were very wrong. you can do a sample of 1,000 and get an accurate read, a reasonable number. >> it continues to amaze me how if you pick randomly and set up your sample right, how close you can come to the actual result. and i've been doing this a long

time. >> i just got to say, everybody loves the story of them getting it wrong. i think, in our democracy, the last seven, we have not, in presidential elections, unweighted numbers have 97 -- never been even a point off. of the public, i would pay more attention to nbc-"wall street journal," nbc -- abc-"washington post." there's a lot of bad polls out there. this poll they did was not a cheap poll. but we're going to have to move to the next panel. let's give these guys a round of applause. [applause] >> the fact that there were people shorting the mortgage market would have sent a signal

to people saying, oh, there's all these smart investors who think this will crash and burn. but because of the way these instruments work, you were not getting unreal mortgages, but invenning on the casino version of a mortgage. >> this week, she'll talk about the current financial crisis and future of the american economy in "all the devils are here" tonight at 8:00 eastern. >> this weekend, more than 90 soon-to-be members of the house began arriving in washington, d.c. tomorrow, the members-elect will get details on congressional ethics on orientation. tuesday, a class photo and meeting with the house parliamentarian, who will go

over house rules. they're also expected to get their official house blackberries. on wednesday and thursday, members-elect will schedule further meetings with their caucus and conference. on wednesday evening, new members and their spouses will attend a welcome reception. finally, on friday, the soon-to-be members will participate in an all-day office lottery. our live congressional coverage resumes when the senate returns monday for general speeches. then democrats and republicans will hold off the floor roll calls. possible votes include bills on wage discrimination and food safety. also on monday, a house ethics subcommittee hearing on the case

of charles rangel, accused of 13 violations, including failing to disclose assets and income in a series of financial disclosure reports to congress. that's live at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. from this morning's "washington journal," a roundtable discussion of politics and policy of the 112th congress. this portion is about 20 minutes. >> our roundtable with michael boxian, democratic pollster and strategist, and kevin madden, long-time strategist. the outlook section of the "washington post," getting attention over the last 48 hours. doug shone and pat caddell, one-and-done, president obama must decide how to governor -- govern. in recent days he's offered visions of how to approach the t

country's problems and spoke of a mid course correction. the essence is, if he wants to be a great president, he shoulde not seek re-election. >> he can probably accomplish quite a few goals moving the economy forward and still seek re-election. the other story in the post indicates that the president is looking to see common ground with the republicans and move the economy forward. the premise of the peace which is that the president has a conflicting reactions to the electoral judgment you that he got last tuesday, but, i think there is a major flaw in the reasoning of being a one-term president. these sorts of conversations used to be relegated to a three martini lunch and in washington, but now they find their way onto opinion page buif you were to decide if you become a one-term president, you would lose all leverage you would need with capitol hill, the senate, and the house.

so i fd it hard to believe that the president would ever take seriously this type of advice, even though, as provocative as it is. host: there are a coue political stories and "the new york times". a photograph of him from "the new york times". below that, >> this came yesterday, kevines madden, where congressman jim climan agreeing to a new e leadership position. so we have a new congress, new members, 60-plus democrats leaving this congress. >> a lot of republicans are cheering this from thef sidelines. many are doing it and making sure their cheers are heard and others are privately pattingre each other on the back. you have what we believe is a -- republicans would look at nancy pelosi's leadership team and saa beforehand they were partisand

and liberal and now they're a reduced caucus and more partisan and more liberal. i think republicans on capitol hill are relishing the fact that they will have two years to contrast our agenda with that of nancy pelosi, jim clybourn, harry reid on president obama. >> this piece says "nancy pelosi willha be exemplary house minory leader, may she live long and prossper in the job. >> i think the reality is that the same people with very easile show a rather different leadership style, and i think pelosi accomplished a tremendous amount and used as a political tool by the republicans

incredibly effectively. i think we've seen after past midterm some things, like incl 1994, that president clinton was able to reach out to republicans and achieve a great deal. one of the big questions this year is do republicans like that. usually i reject the idea ofgu raising the profile of someone who is the leader of the house in the minority. collectively, the public usually doesn't have a good sense of who that person isca or understand their profile. what's interesting here and has created an advantage for republicans, you have a minority leader with 100% name i.d. nationwide and that name has been poisoned over the last two years as a very partisan figure. it's a much easier foil than it woulduc be -- that's why i did t agree with the idea of elevating john boehner because the public didn't know who he was. b but i think john boehner has a

better chance of managing his profile than speaker pelosi did. >>gu there's two times in histoy that speaker of the house has played a major role in politica- campaigns, nancy pelosi and neut gingrich and both used by the opponent's party but i think in two years things can change tremendously. i think the republicans lookem like an almost extinct party as "time magazine" said 20 months ago and times have changed. i think the same thing can happen with the leadership. >> kevin madden, republican strategist.cr looking at 2012, nbc news announcing the next presidential debate will happen next spring in california. in the "philadelphia inquirer," the 2012 g.o.p. field is quite i crowd. f expect to see a grass-roots person like sarah palin.

>> i got my first call about the 2012 race at 10:45 on november 3. >> a.m. or p.m.? >> a.m. i hadn't had my coffee yet. i think pullman, a great observer of politics and great observer of politics in a very important swing state in 2012, i think he makes a good point, that there will be different levers working in the 2012 feed. there are a lot of folks that are anti-establishment and don't want to fall the normal course of how any party would pick a nominee, especially in the republican party, where, in history has shown, we've beenhe prone to pick the person who is perceived to be next in line. but i think if you look at this particular political dynamic l that we're in right now, there really is no next in line. you could make a lot of case for different candidates, whether

sarah palin, mike huckabee, governor romney who gave senator mccain his toughest run on the early primaries. there are three sort of arguments you could make that that's the person next in line, but then there's a great numbern of governors looking at the racr and candidates who have a lot of appeal because they are t part of the perceived status quo or establishment that can very easily break through in a crowded race. >> i would say, i tnk one thing we learned from the primaries in 2010 is that the republican partyoesn't have a lot of control over its primaries right now. so, i'm thrilled that you got a call that early, because as the democratic strategist, i would say the earlier the primary starts for a president, theta better. >> i'm sure democrats got calls, too. >> i think we all have. but thing will be the greatestra show in town, the republican primary, whoan run furthest to p the tea party. >>is denying the book is a

stepping stone for his candidacy. how serious is his potentialnt candidacy? >> i take him at his word and i think anyone you talk to who's close to governor jindal, he's not looking at building the national network you need should you decide to run, so i take him at his word. but he has an incredibly attractive profile for republican primary voters and the folks who are professional observers of the race in washington, d.c., someone whodo doesn't look like every other republican is attractive, a conservative government with a record of reform, all of those make him an attractive candidate. you can be sure he'll be playing anmportant role in anyan v.p.-selection process or future presidential races >> you can only answer this next question, in, out or maybe. mitch daniels. >> maybe. >> haley barbour?

>>el maybe. >> mitt romney. >> still a maybe. >> sarah palin? >> sarah palin is a maybe. that's the question i get the most, by any republican talking about these things trying to figure out who's in, who's out. governor palin doesn't operate, you know, along the usual playbook that many candidates do and that's to her credit and her advantage. but depending on monday, if the question is asked on monday and the question is asked on friday, i think many people who have observed these before would give you a different answer because it's very hard -- she's hard to read as a candidate. >> john thune? >> another maybe. it's too early to tell right now. i would answer those questions yes if you knew there was a very aggressive push on staff, if there's a very aggressive push on organization, an aggressive push on building the network of donors you need. i just haven't seen public news

about many of those. >> except for governor tim pawlenty. >> he'll be a formidable candidate. >> the pullman piece, "the republican organization is terrified that sarah palin's cultish personality could saddle with an unelectable candidate. ". >> i think there will be a number of candidates running in the tea party and whether they coalesce under governor palin or senator demint is not clear but the challenge for the candidate that may be seen as more establishment, is do they have w the opportunity to be seen as mainstream candidates -- mitch daniels, for example -- while appealing to the excited conservative base right now.ul i think you could take senator thune and governor daniels, and

they're conservative, but do they have that factor that says, no, i'm not part of the establishment. >> the roundtable looking at politics and the next congress coming in in january. kevin madden and michael boxian. you can join the conversationit online.wi our twitter page is twitter.com/cspanwj. "washington post" this morning, the coalition challenges on g.o.p. earmarks. one of the issues that will come up this week and the next congress. phillip rucker writes, "g.o.p. senators are planning an internal vote on a moratorium posed by senator demint that would ban republicans from steering earmarks to pet. projects in their home state. they've become seen by lawmakerr as political liabilities.

congressman boehner and president obama calling on the president to pan earmarks. mitch mcdonnell says "every politician would love to have a blank check to do what he would choose to do." it's definitely a new day for this debate in washington. we've seen it in the past but it's particularly -- particularly raw debate right now. it's very interesting for me to have observed, because when i first started working up on capitol hill, i worked -- i actually worked with someone who was an appropriaterator and a big part of what you believed was congressional duty, was to make the case to your constituents that you were bringing back federal dollars to build infrastructure in your state and we would call them appropriations achievements for the district.

that's changed dramatically right now because what i found in 2008 as i went ound the country, just how aware people were of something that seemed like such an inside washington term, the term "earmarks." people knew what they were and that they hated them. it's an interesting debate, many between the old and the new. some will make the argument that the power of the purse belongs to congress. and then there are the new guard in washington, d.c., on capitol hill, who believes this is one of the reasons that we've had so many problems with ethics and corruption, because the earmark process hasn't been transparent enough or has driven lawmakers too much as part of their -- part of that they believed were their official duties in washington. i think we're going to have this debate fast and furious here at the beginning of the new term this is from john, i hate

earmarks, except ones in my community. let's go wash that new firetruck my congressman got for me. >> if i heard senator mcconnellt right, i think he's saying thata earmarks are a balance for presidential power. there's a reality that the earmark process has, in fact, become a major problem, not just in the public's view, but in reality. a lot of these earmarks are very parochial and not in the public's interest. at the same time, i think there that are great community projects, sure.co and the federal government may have an important role to play in making sure the firefighters have the funding they neemptd i think the reality is, this will be an interesting battle. i think many people have run on earmark reform a have run on ending wasteful spending in washington. i think those who sit in the

highest seats of power like senator mcconnell are deeply tied to the earmark process and rely a great deal on it. kentucky benefits tremendously from it. >> michael michael bocian is a l strategist. >> icu worked with four incumbes this election who were re-elected. i was involved in two senate races, alexi giannoulias who lost to mark kirk and i was involved from the democratic senate campaign committee side on the colorado senate race, as well that ended up re-electing or -- electing for the first time michael bennett. >> kevin madden, let me ask yout about john boehner taking over

as the speaker of the house in the next congress. what does he bring to the job? he's your former boss. >> yes.ss so i've done this for a living a before, talked about john boehner. but one thing you have to remember about john, it's drilled into you when you workor for him is that reform is at the heart of everything he does. when he first came togt washington, and he's been here since the late '80s, he told19 the people of his district that if they wanted to send somebody to washington to rob the federal treasury, they ought to vote for the other guy. when he first came here, he mad a name for himself as being part of the gang of seven that exposed the house banking scandal. at his core, he is a reformer. he has respect for the s institution but has always sought to make it work better for both parties and make it more transparent. i think that's something you'll see, particularly with the earmark ban. john worked very hard to institute the last earmark ban

we had in the house of representatives. i think you'll see more of that. he's also somebody who takes a team-oriented approach. i think it's been drilled in him since he's grown up because he had 12 brothers and sisters. you can't get along very well with other people and work verye well in a team-oriented way if f you don't find a way to get along. that's something that i think is always -- and i think one of the other things, too, he remembers that he was a small businessman, so he understands a lot of the pressures that people are feeling in this economy, whether because of regulation or taxation. he's particularly sensitive to that and keeps in the back ofns his head as he works on legislation on capitol hill. >> he got emotional last tuesday night when declaring victory but those of us who have seen him in this town, that's not unusual. not.'s he works on a charity for inner city schools here in washington,

d.c. and every year when we used to have the charity dinner to raise funds to help the inner city schools, there was one yean we made sure everybody hader tissues in case they were the one closest to john because he gets very emotional. but his emotion is directed toy things he cares about. when he talks about education, he helped push through earmark reform, when he talks about obviously helping children, helping disadvantaged, it's something that really -- really hits him in the heart. >> for kevin madden and mike bocian, on to your phone calls. silver springs, arkansas. good morning. we'll go to jim in fairfax, virginia. jim, you are on the air. >> good morning. i have one question and one o comment, please. that question is, as a strong supporter of israel, okay, congress would not condone any

illegal settlements in any other country except israel. why does congress condone illegal settlements in occupied territory, not only congress,he but the press, also. and one comment to the republican strategist. sir, when boehner is asked, will he compromise, i suggest that he says, i will cooperate with the president when it enhances the american people.an i will not cooperate with the president if it -- what's the word i'm looking for -- if it enhances the progressive liberae agenda. that's all he has to say and tht american people would be behind him. >> thank you, jim. >> on the first part of jim's question about israel, it's obvious that for a very long time, now, that israel is such s strong ally of the united states and has very active

contingencies within congressional districts in all 50 states. so it's an issue that many lawmakers pay great attention to, but they also believe it isb the most important footprint oft democracy in that region right now where there's much instability and a strong relationship with israel is important.er to the second question that jim had, i think it is emblematic of a lot of voters out there who f voted for republicans and believe that we need to stopd this growth of government, stop the spending in washington, stop the size, continuing to pile up deficits, and they really have very strong opinions about it and they believe that the leverage lies with a lot ofca republicans on capitol hill as we begin to contest some of these issues with theti administration and democrats on capitol hill. >> on israel, i would jump in w and say, i think it's one of the

hardest issues that presidents deal with and i think under the clinton administration wek were at the door step of peace. we were very, very close with yasser arafat and ehud barak anl didn't get there. i think bush and obama have struggled with it. i think president bush ignored it for seven years and was unable to ke progress in the end and president obama has had trouble in his own right wit signals getting mixed and not totally clear with prime minister netanyahu. >> coming up on c-span, q&a. .