one must phone call here on these new smoking labels. jack, your final thoughts. go ahead. caller: i am a first-time caller and i hate to repeat some things that other people have said, but you take anything related to alcohol and you have a beautiful scene on the side of spring water or anything that is attractive -- going back to mr. statistics, youstep

can twist statistics anyway you want. if someone in the hospital dies and you ask, were you a smoker? yes, i am. oh, my gosh, cigarettes killed him. host: that was jack, a republican in georgia. we will leave it there. that does it today for today's "washington journal" and lawmakers are back in town this week for the lame-duck session. and new members are in town for orientation. go to our website c-span.org to find out what we are covering. thanks for watching [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] . .

bit abbreviated. charlie rangel appeared without counsel all those he appeared u.s. not planning to present himself. -- although he did say he was not planning to represent himself. proceedings may or may not continue today. in any case, you will be able to see live coverage on our companion network, c-span3. while congress returns to

session today, it will be a lame-duck session. the gavel in at 2:00 eastern today. house will consider 10 bills. later this week a bill is possible on federal spending. you can see the senate on c- span2 and the house on c-span. leadership elections will also take place this week for the new congress, which starts in january. newly-elected members are in town for orientation and organizational meetings. in the house, republicans will vote wednesday. democrats will pck leadership on thursday. >> this week, a look at the future of smt phones. that is with qualcomm;'s ceo,

paul jacobs. see what people are watching on the c-span video library. it is right on our home page. you can also click our special 2010 election analysis tab. watch what you want, when you want. >> the u.s. house will have 93 new members when the congress convenes in january. 84 republicans. nine are democrats. martha roby is an attorney who will be one of those. she will represent the second district and alabama. also coming from alabama is a new democrat, terri sewell. as last week's election results are discussed at a conference of the bipartisan conference in new

orleans. republican strategist ed gillespie and democratic pollster brianne -- dan greenberg. this is just over an hour. >> good morning. at welcome new hopper to this very exciting event. -- i welcome you to this very exciting events. we have a marvelous day during which we will have a very interesting panel 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 the united states during a state of the union address, recently calling hia liar, making it seem as if it was the house of commons in great britain that the united states congress and the reflect that just last week an individual who had lost a governor's race in new york showed up at his concession speech brandishing a baseball bat, i am struck by the need for paying attention to the nature of discourse and debate in the end of the state's about pressing policy concerns. for those scific reasons and for the more general reasons, for which we all are appointed, it is especially a pleasure to welcome these distinguished panelists and desk throughout --

guest throughout the day devoted to the pursuit of inspired, informed, and sustained policy debate in contemporary american politics. here in new orleans in here at tulane we have spent the past five years and several more years focused on practical solutions to pressing problems. it iin this town right now we'rl about solutions. it is a great pleasure to welcome all of you and welcome our distinguished kickoff panelists here to this ver important event today to discuss a temporary -- contemporary politics.

i want to thank very special people, james madeleine and mary cargo of may today's event possible. thank you very much. [applause] enjoy the panels today. welcome. >> i want to thank the whole to lane community for really opening your doors and incredible resources and be in our partners and betting on the second events of what we hope will be a long tradition. the bipartisan policy center was founded in 2007 by tom-oh, bob dole, howard baker and george mitchell.

we do not seek to be non- partisan. we do not seem to find a comfortable middle on all issues, but we see seek to bring to the other principals democrats and republicans to see if we can revive the principal of compromised. it is really thrilling to bring this group to new orleans. this city knows the value of intense politics and also the critical opportunity and obligation to overcome those politics to face real challenges and work together as a community. many of those moments have been driven by crisis, a very visible and painful crises. it does argue that the nation is in a similar state of crisis. -- it isn't our view that the

nation is in a similar state of crisis. do we have a structure capable of confronting those problems? one of the issues we're most concerned about is are forging trillion dollars national debt. next week the bipartisan policy center will roll out a set of specifics proposals with the goal of bringing adulteress markadults are arithmetic to the challenge. we practice with no expectation that we would have a detailed consensus on a top policy issue. the goal was to try to bring together the kind of dialogue that will enable the country to confront these problems. we are not naive about this. the conditions out there are tough, but there are some

creative ideas. when i read about a few days ago which is described interesting. it is the notion that president obama should take up smoking again. because he and then banneoehner would be addicted to the same issue. it is that kind of creative aspirations that we all need. this to follow up on the last budgcomments, this event would t be possible without james and mary. it brings a humor and affection to these challenges, often hundreds of thousands of people. critics often in front of hundreds of thousands of people. -- hall and in front of thousands of people. i would like to welcome james

and mary and thank them for their assistance and hear their words. [applause] >> james got all dressed up for you this morning. i would like to say thank you for coming. welcome home. welcome back those of you that were here last year and those of you that this is your first year, this will not be your last year. james and i are the bipartisan cohost since we are so not. there is nothing wrong, all of us were talking about this last night, about being a principal partisan.

everyone that as on all of these panels, we have known each other for a combined 1000 years. i did not think any of us ever came close to each other with a baseball bats, did we? a excluding james. that is not count. -- does not count. there will be some startling and sniffling and supporting a round, but it will get done because we all love this country, just was we all love this city. we got through a miraculous election cycle with great civility and great compassion. we're moving forward. students, you are in for a real treat pur. for the first time ever to

grawe will have great analyst another. i once said to james the passion that undergirds the kinds of fights, we would not fight as bad as we do it by done not love you so much. fighting is ok, just ended civilly. [applause] >> thank you.

custer really well, all of you here. -- just to really well, all of you here. what a delight it is to have you in the city. this is to promote louisiana seafood, the safest sea world in the country. in it is all triple tested. just a word about our city. and every other city in america people speak of the quality of life. they take the amount of space by the number of libraries by opera and symphony and the number of days it rains and take it -- it is a quality of life and death. -- index. here we never speak of quality of life, we speak of the way of life.

when you're down here, please enjoy our way of life. it is our food, architecture, literature, even our funerals are different. you are in a different place. we are very comfortable and power. -- proud. we want you to enjoy our city as much as we enjoy our city. that is our goal while you are here. we appreciate it. this is going to be one of the really great traditions. this thing is started in new orleans and i sent it will continue here. it is a wonderful time of year to have everyone. with this first panel, it is probably the most distinguished panel that has been put together.

they have assisted and the descendant of the republican party. it has been around for a long time -- if there ever was up political consultant hall of fame, the skies would be in it. we welcome you to new orleans. really appreciate your participation. ed gillespie called me in october and a partner with the idea of research republic, doing a poll on demoacy. me being the eternal huckster said sure if we have it in new orleans. how i was with carl on saturday and said you got a copy before i did.

i said you can have mine if you wanted. ed was chief of staff for president bush. it was the chairman of the republican national committee. brunn's one of the most prominent consultant firms in washington, d.c. -- he runs one of the most prominent consultant firms in washington, d.c. my partners in democracy corps and friend for the last 17 years, stan greenberg. he has talkeught at yale. ph.d. from harvard.

but they took the pole to the othegether, and cannot agree one results. what i will do is i will start with ed and ask him to tell us what he saw in the poll and what is interesting about it. then i will open up. you guys jump in and begin the discussion and give everyone a chance to be heard. you will pierce some interesting data. -- hear some interesting data. >> thank you very much. hossein duper sponsoring this. thank you to tulane university. -- thank you porsche far during this perioor sponsoring this.

we agree on what on what happens. we do have our own perspective on what happens. we only have time this morning to touch on a view of the highlights and key takeaway messages, but all of the numbers, the research at the republic part is, at resurgent republic.com. you'll see the memo and presentation based on the results. all of the data is available for those of you that want to dig deeper than what we will have a chance to do. it is resurgentrepublic.com. this is a survey we took the night of the elections and on

wednesday of 1000 people, 886 voted in the 2010 election. we also had 114 who voted in 2008 and not 2010. we can simulate what a broader electorate would look like heading into a 2012 election. carl will say a few words about political climate issues -- i will say a few words about political climate issues and how we will govern going forward. we will give a lot of data, and it is very easy sometimes to miss the forest for the trees. i want to point out what the forest looks like so you have a few key points in your head when you are out of this run to dead. -- when you walk out of this room today. independents who voted for republican candidates, the blue

lines are independent voters who voted for democratic candidates. what you will see quickly is the wave last tuesday was driven by independence. republicans constitute 36% of the voters according to exit polls. do you know what it constituted in 2006 when the democrats had their way? 36% of the electorate. exactly the same proportion of the electorate. what changed was the independent vote. in 98, republicans were three points ahead of independence. it is no surprise we had a basic time of political stability during those years, because the

independent split basically evenly. in 2006 it was a huge swing. independents voted for democrats. and 2008 it was a little closer at 52, 54. the that what happened this year. a total of mirror image of 2006. it was up 36. turnaround from 2006. that is what drove the waiver. that is the current first keep point i want you to take away from here. and ha ha -- that is the key point i want to take away from here. the second key point is that independents now look far more like republicans than they do like democrats.

on a host of issue, the political climate, attitudes toward sex the president, towards health care, independents now look like republicans. -- attitudes toward sex the presides the presdiensident. eight at a tent think the country is going the wrong direction. -- out of 10 think the country is going the wrong direction. democrats stand apart and think everything is fine. when you have democratic control of the house, in presidency and eight out of 10 independence in the country is going the wrong direction, you need to prepare to take a bass and the election. in april of 2009 we started ringing the bells ring

independents are looking a lot more like republicans now, unlike 2006 and 2008, and that is exactly what happened. on the role of government we get a couple of options. three-quarters of democrats think government should be doing more. 6 sadr 10 independents and three-quarters of republicans in an government is doing too mu ch. another example of where independence look more like republicans. -- 6 out of 10 independents and three-quarters of republicans think bragh the government is

doing too much. however 2012 presidential election? -- how about the 2012 presidential toll collection? it is interesting, in the broader electorate that includes the people that voted in 2008 but not 2010, a generic republican still won. it was 48, 42. of course the virtually all democrats support the president and reelection. virtually all of republican support the republican, but among independents, 56% of independents prefer the generic republican. 28% preferred president obama. an exact two to one ratio.

interesting point is that it is not just the 2010 electorate, but the 2008 elector has basically the same pattern. tax cuts are the big ones coming up. stan roeder to one side of the tax-cut argument, and i wrote the other argument. stan's site is to extend them for everyone including the wealthy. or we should extend the tax cuts for everyone, raising taxes on everyone is a bad idea. it will not surprise you that democrats like the first statement. 69% to 26. republicans like the second statement. independents want to extend the

tax cut for everyone by 51 to 40%. how about obama care? support or oppose the health care law? of 81% of democrats support the president's health care law. republicans 93% to 3% oppose the health care law. a majority of independents, 51 percent to 39% oppose it. 80% of democrats do not want to repeal it. 87% of republicans do. 57 to 31, independent support repeal and replaced. i will tell you that some of the other: we have done tells you why independents and republicans are so negative on it. despite all of the debate,

overwhelming majority of americans believe that the obama health care law is going to increase their health-care costs. american people have told us repeatedly over the last four years that controlling health- care costs is the number one priority. the number one priority was expanding coverage, not controlling costs. you have this huge debate doing exactly opposite of what most americans wanted, which was controlling health-care costs. you have overwhelming majority of americans to believe the health care law will increase their health-care costs, increased health insurance premiums, increase their taxes, increase the deficit, and hurt the quality of their health. it is a stunning legislative achievement to come up with a piece of legislation were overwhelming majority believes it will increase their costs, premium canned hurts the quality

of care. that is an amazing achievement. the independence reflected that view in their voting last tuesday. 2010 voters and especially independence not trust the republican party more than the democratic party on the key fiscal and economic issues that dominated this election by a margin of two to one. it is amazing shift over two years ago, and it is an amazingly different climate as we go into this next period and congress. democrats have the advantage on health care and education but independents have the advantage

only on education. here are the three key things i want you to take away from us. this is what the forest looks like the first is independence repel the republican victories in 2010. independents are now closer to republicans and democratic voters on a host of political issues. the third is independent stress republicans more than democrats on a school in petrifiscal and . >> thank you for this opportunity to do the pull together. -- poll together. we were able to ride on a survey instrument that we share. we do agree on 75% of what is in the poll.

you may think i am using this to spend, but i'm and trying to use the historical experience to look at this data and look ahead, where this takes us. this election is in 1994 change in the wake election. one of the things we were able to do in this survey that i decided to begin with is to repeat the question. i was in the white house in 1994 so we have not had this type of election on the democratic side

since november 8, 1994. i was pulling for president clinton at the time. -- polling for president clinton at the time. when you see the data, and i should note that we do not have power points. the accord won out over power point. -- the decor pimm one out over power points. the graphs are on the website. we want people to read the interpretations on both sides of this.

in 1994 we went to a very difficult election. when you put the perhaps he will be stunned by not just the identical numbers -- when you look at the polls, you'll be stunned not just by being identical numbers but we also tracked monthly through 1994. the numbers track right through the election campaign. these were identical election in terms of what this country was saying. i began with 1994, because we also know what happened after 1994. we went from a landslide election for republicans into an electoral college landslide for president clinton. bob dole got 41% in the puzzle election that year. new gingrich survived if that,

but ultimately left. it was a platform full of risks for republicans, as we know. i want to spend time on those risks going forward. i want to bring a partisan interpretation to this by using real numbers. this was a big election. voters had a very big mess is for democrats -- a very big message for democrats and president obama. we ask questions on who was going to control congress? there wereery conscious of what they were doing. they wanted to take control -- democratic control of the congress. this was a very big message in this election.

and it was an election centered on the economy. i am happy about the lack of progress. they were angry about the democrats seeming inattention to the economy. the health-care debate it looks like people focused on an issue other than jobs for a year. this diverted attention from the economy. they were unhappy about the lack of vision, message about the economy that would give an explanation for why the policies were being pursued, including spending and debt. they are angry of belt the partisan -- about the partisan

fights and battles that got carried on in divisions that carried on for the year. they workewerewere by sending ag message in this election that democrats needed to hear. we lost working-class voters, one of the most important parts of this. we lost working-class men who pulled away from this election. we're after having reagan democrats. this was an over explained election why people were voting against democrats. there was plenty of to say. i want to suggest we should be a little careful in how we read

what happened, because it is not the same thing to say that the voters' message to democrats and what they got wrong is the same thing as a message for republicans as to what they should be doing now. this is a lot of democrats. -- this is about democrats. the republican party in this poll was no higher than the standing points in 2008. this is about democrats. it is about democrats crashing and coming down to the same level of republicans. it is pretty remarkable that you had an eight. defeat for democrats and the selection, but in terms of the party id, the same people

talking to the exit poll questioners are coming out even on party identification. in the previous election a similar thing on which ran a landslide in the other way. people were making a very discerning discriminating choice. they're upset with democratic governance. this is not about people liking the agenda or a bithe republican party. they are very discerning and hoin how they are interpreting e message. this was a senior selection. seniors participated in the extraordinary level and this election. they constituted a 7 point rise in the proportion of senior spirit and thi.

denver voters almost drop out. -- younger voters almost dropped out. medicare, the charges about medicare cuts, very specific to this election. do not assume that future elections will have this kind of composition either on just the proportions. young voters will be back. i would not assume that the medicare issue will play out in the same way. if you look at all the republican plans for cutting the budget, medicare is center stage. it is republicans are putting medicare cuts on the table going forward. this was a is also a conservative ideological election. -- this was also a conservative ideological election.

by the way, this exact same thing happens in 1994. the first two years of the clinton presidency brought our reaction from president clinton that wawas reflected in the conservative search. the country looked at that and that model in the next two years and turned against it. the conservative members dropped. the eumenides up conservative starting for republicans went down. -- tehe unanimity of conservatives and voting for republicans went down. the tea party is a big part of the turnout, a big part of the republicans are coming out of this.

the as we know historically, the play out in very different ways as we go forward. the mandate is the most important piece here. i am making that argument first that many of the things that produce this landslide are almost immediately in question. the composition of the electorate will change. age patterns will change. these are not small defectl eff. it is a dramatic change parts of the democratic base, unmarried women. this is not just normal swings. there has been a change in the country. the democratic party coalition

is more diverse. it is younger. it includes unmarried women. unmarried women who are very supportive of government roles, though larger role of government. very impacted by the economy. they draw more than any other group in this election as part of the democratic base. -- and they dropped more than any other group in this election as part of the democratic base. the challenge for republicans in this data are two big problems going forward. the first has to do with the problem of deficits and austerity. to say that democrats spent too much and ran up the debt is not the same thing as saying the first priority of this country ought to be austerity and that

this reduction. the reason they are angry at democrats is not the same thing -- did not be liberal in terms of what they want to have an hour. -- do not be liberaltteral in ts of what they want to have happen. in this environment i would have thought we would get slaughtered on the question here yet it came out about even. if you look of the voters coming into the electorate in 2012, they are voters that one more demey want more democrat. governments.

we ask a question on whether you want -- i will get the exact wording on this question. give me a chance to read it. ok. i want somebody in washington that will fight big corporate special interests and work for the middle class american jobs. i constructed this question on both sides to reflect how we go into this election. we are asking this choice to the people on the night of the election and the day after. we're asking them to the framing of the election choice. i want somebody in washington that will quite big corporate special interest and played for corporate america. -- and fight for american jobs. 54% said they want someone that will fight special interests. it is not just one question.

every single question reposed on this -- we posed on this. since we cannot both cut the deficit and continued high-level spending, we need to make cutting the deficit a higher priority to make the u.s. economy stronger and more competitive. 67 to 28 people choose the first option. government should do more -- all the questions are essentially at the same level. people want to address the deficit and growth and they want to divordo both. they view that as their mandate. that is not the mandate of the country.

it does that mean going forward all they want is austerity. people want a bigger vision for the country. the first is to not get this wrong. the second has to do with cooperation between the parties. there is no stronger results and no question that i will ask, and we at will ask about 10 questions on the subject on whether you should work with the other party and compromise and whether use of stand up for principle and work to get things done. the message for democrats, republicans, every single question is work together to get things done. and people were angry about partisan gridlock. the problem that' -- the challenge for the republicans is that on virtually every question of the large majority of republicans say stand up for principle and fight, do not compromise, try to make president obama faile.

the energy of the republican side was to stop president obama from succeeding. the data says that creates a platform very much like what happened after 1994 in which republicans have less freedom of movement to deal with these various issues. the last one had to do with health care and taxes. i will take 30 seconds. we debated when asked about health care whether they favor or oppose it. on the question of whether you favor or oppose, it was only a few points. we are not dealing with an issue that' played out in a large way. we also played out the debate on health care.

the democrats saying this means the insurance companies will have the ability to drop you again. we cannot almost even. -- came out almost even. if republicans become of us with health care and are fighting out health care every time there is a budget and debt limit, do not assume this does not have the ability to play out. the health-care issue was not the only specific. it was on a year-long process not been focused on the economy. it is the process that drove its. there is every opportunity for the process to drive how voters viewed the parties. bottom line, in 1994 esident

clinton was able through a variety of things, rising above the congressional battle, and algoma city where he began to speak for the country, his battle to protect medicare and education and environmental against congress, and then his reaching out and agreeing on some big issues come up welfare reform, a balanced budget and a range of things. history is different, different issues, but all of those things are available to the president. the challenge for the republicans will be, even though they had a great day, how they deal with this reality which will look very different as they go forward. >> i will open notup for a short q&a.

>> the great news for republicans is that the majority of independents are with the majority of republicans on the most pressing issues of the day, and that is very helpful as they moved an agenda in the congress through the house where they're just gained control. extending the bush tax cuts, the majority of republicans. -- the majority of independents with republicans. the thing for republicans to keep in mind is what is in this data that is clear to me is we enjoy this advantage on jobs, the economy, taxes, and spending with independent voters. we need to keep that. the most pressing issue remains jobs. as we talk about health care, it needs to be a debate about the job-killing mandates in health care bill, repealing that so that employers can hire again.

it is making it harder for them to expand their work force and higher again. if the bush tax cuts did not get an extended and the tax increase takes effect, it will punish small business owners and investors and job creators. we have to extend it so we can create jobs in the economy. it has to tie back to jobs. one of the best people in our party is of mcdonald's when he ran he always finish the sentence. he said we need to lower taxes because that employers will be able to hire more. we need to have offshore drilling because that will create jobs in hampton roads. we have to finish the sentence. it is very important as this th debate goes forward that not

only make a philosophical debate we believe then, but we ticket to the next affected will have on the economy and jobs and that will help us keep independent voters with us. lastly, perceptions of the republican party and democratic party. significant gaps between the elitist view of the parttea pary voters do you have a pretty favorable view of the tea party. i think they have -- >> they have a high standard. >> my point is they took the head of the democratic party and perception. at behind the republican party. there is real same party there.

i think they will remain in the process. i think it is a good thing for republicans in congress. i hope these efforts to demonize and marginalizee tea party votes will stop. maybe the media will understand who they are and stop trying to characterize them. i didn't think it helps the perception of media very well either. i will cut it a little short. >> i am going to suspend the first amendment. there is a right to ask a question. we have a few minutes at anyone has some questions. -- if anyone has some questions. there right of freedom of speech is suspended. >> why do i think you are not

kidding when you say that? you are not blind to like me. unhip -- you are not going to like me. i am a political cartoonist. the question is, if you guys had been in charge of the perception so long with all of your dog, blues, purples and reds, i want to remind these people if you are an independent, you vote for a d or an art, that does not make you an independent. it makes you one of the to corrupt parties -- one of the two corrupt parties.

>> dr. robert bucshon. -- dotson. i want to say to you all, you all talk about it did not vote in terms of independents voting as republicans. you did not comment on the minority vote. i am an independent. i consider myself being ignored by the republican party. >> to ask a question. >> why do think minorities enough votes in the selection of? -- do you think minorities did not vote in the selection? >> that is not true. there was a normal level of

african-americans. what is interesting is a latino voters. they maintain their level. a particularly important role in the southwest. there are stories in this election, but if you look at the democratic support for promotion, minorities are not one of them. h>> latinos also voted in the same proportions for democrats as they did in 2008. 2 to 1 for democrats. that is a huge challenge for republicans going forward. >> our client from florida who is as talented as any politician i've ever worked with and 30 years, the sec is susanna martina's -- the second is susanna martina. now we have to latino governors

in the mexicnew mexico and neva. and a very powerful republican in florida. he won 55 percent of the hispanic vote in florida. >> i would like you to tell me what is going on. and the president's agenda has not changed. he ran on this agenda and was elected overwhelmingly by the electorate. what is happening among independent voters. are they schizophrenic? are they upset about the economy? what is driving the spoke? >> good, a question. and [laughter] [applause] >> i think independent voters are largely driven with the key

of intensity on either side. there was a lot more intensity on the republican side in this election. i think that resonated with a lot of independent voters in the middle. they picked up on that and they shared some of the intensity that republicans had. on a bigger level, i think a lot of voters who voted for president obama into thousand eight thought they were voting to change washington. they did not been eroded to change america. what they are seeing is an effort to change the fundamental underpinnings of the country. they reject that. that is not what they're looking for. in health care reform they're looking for health-care reform that would bring down the cost of insurance and make it more accessible. there were not looking for a bill that increases insurance premiums. increases government spending and makes it very likely within the next five years to notion that if you like your insurance

you can keep it, nonsense. people will be moved out of the private insurance plan into a government system. that is not what they bargained for. . .

>> young voters did not participate. young voters are more independent. many did not vote in this election. .t was a conservative surge di you think that the voters are fickle because they keep changing their mind. this is about who answers polls. when democrats are excited, the answer. -- they answer. as is true on the republican side. there was a lot of energy and audit -- and enthusiasm. this is not static. >> ed has to catch a plane.

professor carville will give you a pass. this was a terrific idea. let's give him a sendoff. [applause] we're going to take a couple of short questions. stan can hold it down on anything. >> i want to congratulate you on your bipartisanship. i would also like to see an african-american republican, an independent, and a democrat tell our side of the story. >> thank you. yes, ma'am? >> i desire for you to comment on the reason -- what you think

the reason for this massive change. also, in that regard, the effect of what the mainstream media -- the big divide -- i just have to comment that, as i looked over the material that was handed out, i could not help but think -- i think it was mark twain who said that, commenting on democracy in one of his more cynical moments, that democracy is a wolf and lamb voting on what to have for lunch. [applause] >> to address the question on why this happened -- the electorate that elected barack obama and democratic majorities in 2008 was a center-right electorate.

42% more conservative and only 24% were liberal. they did what the electorate did in 2010. they were rejecting, at that time, republican government, not endorsing a big-government agenda. a lot of the independents who flipped thought they were going to get a bipartisan, bring us together, no red state, no plastic, but the united states of america -- and they proceed that they got a big-spending, big-government, big-taxing agenda. that is not what they expected. >> i want to know [inaudible] they did not provide accurate information. [inaudible] bema'am, i do not mean to rude, but we're really short on time and people are lined up for questions. i am sorry, but we have to have

some kind of mechanism. go ahead. >> i answer with more respect than mark twain for the voter. the voter thought they were voting for change on the style of politics and on addressing the economy and jobs. they think -- and i think it is a fair perception -- that the economic policies were not big enough to address the problems with the vision that the present articulate it was not enough to give people -- for people to understand what the policies were about and where they were going. i think voters are right to express their anger about that. i respect the borders and the judgment they made. they made a big judgment -- i respect the voters and the judgment they made. they made a big judgment. >> this will be the last question for this panel. there is a media cannot immediately following this.

we'll get them to address the problem of bias did this is a polling panel. go-ahead. >> my name is linda. i have a question about the polling. when i look at the numbers -- it is a basic question. it looks like there is 1000 people in the sample. where does the sample, from? -- come from? the numbers are not large enough to really come out with some of these results. >> let me jump in. these two guys are pollsters. i am not. i think that the polling had a pretty good election. we always like a story where the experts are stumped. actually, on most of the numbers -- co ahead. -- go ahead. whit, stan? >> there were polls not using

multiple days, cell phones, etc. these were systematically wrong. the real polls were getting it right. there were a lot of polls that were very wrong. we got the methodology very clear. you can do a sample of 1000 and get an accurate reading. >> it continues to amaze me how, if you picked randomly and set up your sample right, how close you can come to the actual result. i have been doing this a long time. >> i just have to say, everybody loves the story of them getting it wrong. in our democracy, we have not, in presidential elections, are on with a number has never been even one point off -- our unweighted number has never

been even one point off. there's a lot of bad statewide polling. the professional people -- five timess cost as much. we have to move to the next panel. let's give these guys a round of applause. [applause] >> on page 74 -- >> the house ethics committee has started its hearing into alleged ethics violations by house ways and means committee chaired charles rangel. the're looking at whether new york democrat violated house rules. he is accused of filing taxes late and financial and fund- raising improprieties. you can see live coverage on c- span3 and online at [unintelligible] c-span.org -- online at c-

span.org. >> congress gavels in at 2:00 p.m. eastern. they will consider 10 bills, including a possible vote on federal tell work policies -- telework policies. see the house here on c-span. >> this week -- a look at the future of smart phones, the demand on spectrum, and policy with paul jacobs, ceo of qualcomm. that is tonight on "the communicators." >> this year's studentcam competition is in full swing. the theme is washington, d.c. -- through my lens. your documentary should include more than one point of view, along with c-span programming. upload your video by january 20, for your chance to win.

there are $50,000 in total prize money. the competition is open the middle and high school students from grades 6 through 12. for all rules, go online to stentcam.org. >> the new congress begins in january. new the elected members will be on capitol hill to elect leadership for the 112th congress. it will also be orientation week for new members. senate democrats and republicans will meet separately tomorrow to elect new leaders. and the house, both parties will vote on wednesday. there are 93 new members in the 112 congress, 84 republican, nine democrats. in louisiana, cedric richmond will take the place of the incumbent. in the louisiana district covering the southern new orleans metro area, along with southeast and south central louisiana, jeff landrieu will

take the seat of charlie melancon. he owns an oil and gas contamination cleanup company. the affects of last week's elections are discussed at a conference on the bipartisan policy center event in new orleans. democratic and risk that -- and republican strategist and pollster talk about whether cooperation between president obama and republicans in congress is possible. from tulane university, this is about one hour, 15 minutes. repor>> we're wanted talk aboute thing that everybody loves to hate, the media. i will start by introducing our moderator. he is the father of lee hall wood, who will be an incoming freshman here at tulane university this fall. we're particularly delighted to have john here. when you talk about people in journalism, john has done

everything that you would think. he started with the washington star, graduated magna cum laude. i graduated thank the lord. he was at cnbc, meethe press -- everything that you think of when you think of a big, giant guy as part of the media establishment. i do not know if it is a good thing to be part of, but you are. let's bring the real war, new orleans welcome to one of the real intellectual people -- real warm, new orleans welcome to one of the real intellectual people here. john harwood. and -- you'll get a waiver on tuititioon for being here.

[applause] >> thank you for that nice introduction. if the -- if what he said is not enough to make you dislike me, i will say one more thing. i am a duke guy ended duke basketball -- and a duke basketball fan. i know duke is pretty popular universally, so bring it on. [laughter]

>> can you guys hear me? can you hear me now? ok.

ok, guys. we have a fantastic panel. everybody is in the room. i will introduce each one. i will have a question for each one, just to start us off. it is want to be relatively short answers so that we can get into the broad subject of the panel. is there any prospect for bipartisan project on the country's problems in the next two years? first, i will introduce matthew dowd who works for abc news as a political contributor. he is probably best known as lead strategist for president bush in his two campaigns in 2000 and 2004. he told karl rove what to do. [laughter] >> but do not tell karl rove. >> that was highly successful. >> the has also worked for arnold schwarzenegger in his winning campaigns for governor.

he is co-author of the new york times best-seller "apple bees america." steve mcmahon is a democratic strategist. raise your hand. he is co-founder of purple strategies, and artisans strategy advertising and public affairs firm. he started working for ted kennedy. he has worked for dozens of senate congressional -- senate, congressional, and gubernatorial campaigns across the country, including four howard dean and barack obama. todd harris has just emerged from a spectacularly successful 2010 campaign, working for marco rubio. we will find out over the course of the panel who made the strategic key decisions for the campaign. todd worked against matthew in

two different operations -- iterations. he worked for john kasich and for john mccain. he was running for president quite early in the cycle. it did not last for long. kasich did not disappear. he is now the incoming governor of 4 ohio. finally, kate zernike, a colleague at the new york times, a national correspondent u.s. worked at the paper for 10 years. she is the author of "boiling mad -- inside tea party america." she knows more about tea party than anyone else on the platform. she was a member of the team that shared the 2010 pulitzer prize for reporting about the al qaeda and september 11 attacks. she also covered the of the great scandal and hurricane katrina -- abu graib scandal and

hurricane katrina. welcome to all of you. matthew, i thought your keen insight into the 2004 reelection campaign the president bush was that the number of swing voters was for its small. the electorate had been polarized pretty dramatically on both sides. the reason the numbers did not move for some of the year was that it was just a tiny number of people who were capable of being persuaded. since that election, we have seen three different change elections where the independents at moved quite a bit. i want to get your updated take on the existence of a middle and how big it is in the current content. -- current context. >> thank you. it is great be here. i'm just going to give a quick, short history. it has been misinterpreted. there is a big metal.

i think people are put in the position where they have to make a choice between both political parties. when they make the choice, they have a tendency to line up and up and down the ballot. if somebody decides they are republican for president or governor or senate race, by and large, they make that decision pretty up and down. they go all the way down to state representative. the reason why republicans did quite well on state representatives is that they picked up 700 seats because there was a republican wave. people did not like what was going on in washington and they voted up and down the ballot. i think, in 2004, that still took place. this does not mean there are not a group of folks in the middle. it is the majority of the country who are not pure, ideological on either side. i gave a memo that helped move the strategy for the campaign in 2004. there were two pages to the

memo. the first page was a loss of the middle over time. in 2004, we had a president that was very polarizing who added to that. democrats hated him. republicans loved him. very few people were in the middle ground. on the back of it -- i put this together after 2000 to say what we would need to think about after 2000 -- because somebody says they are republican does not mean they are socially conservative, they are for smaller government, and they necessarily always want lower taxes. if you just look at people who said those three things, that represents about 26% of the country, people who say our republican, socially conservative, always for smaller government and lower taxes. if you govern that way or the opposite way -- bigger government, higher taxes, socially liberal -- you represent only a minority share of the public. i think that -- i will go back to reflect on president bush and the aftermath. while it was successful in the

campaign, in the end, he got positioned in a place where he represented only a minority of the country in anti-government. we are still a country -- in how he governed. we're still a country -- we have to make choices. in most national elections, most elections are nationalized. when they are nationalized, people have a tendency to vote and not necessarily straight ticket, but they go straight ticket invalid. -- in the ballot. i do not like barack obama. i do not like so and so. this is what we have these major swings affecting the top to bottom. >> kate, i want to get to talking about the tea party. a lot of the argument over the interpretation of the election has been about what the tea party really is and what it represents. i heard the previous panel.

i agree that, in the main, the tea party was a substantial asset for republicans in the campaign, even though many people focused on the tea party as a problem. on the airplane down here, i was reading a piece that a liberal historian had written about the tea party. he took some of the rhetoric and some of the strains of argument that prominent tea party figures have been using and essentially said, these are the heirs to the john birch society in the 1950's and 1960's. this marked republicans and conservatives, during that time, bill buckley as a leading example, recognized that the more exposure that group of conservatives got, the worse it would be for republicans and conservatives, and tried to keep it down. the conclusion of the piece was that the guard rails are off. i want to know, do you think

that the tea party is fundamentally an ideological force, or is it a group of people, maybe a lot, who are in the middle who are upset and moving in the same direction, but not motivated by the same things? >> first, in terms of being in the middle, that is somewhat of a question. poll after poll -- it shows that tea party years tend to be republican. they are not -- there was some talk that they were independents who voted for obama. that was not the case. they define themselves as very conservative and as republican. within the tea party, i think there is a split that is going to be possibly problematic moving forward. start out with people who were very ideological. most libertarians in ron paul's

corner is -- are in that strain. as the tea party swelled, people just came with more sheer frustration. they did not come because of ideology. the ideological bent -- they believe in things like investments accounts instead of social security, privatizing medicare, things like that. a lot of the older voters, in particular, who have come to the tea party -- they all share those goals. when we talk about spending cuts -- i am not sure many of the people who may have said they were tea party supporters -- i am not sure they would go along for start spending cuts that some of the more ideological tea party members would. >> you have been on both sides of this wave in the campaign purity work for senator kay bailey hutchison -- in the

campaign. you worked for senator kay bailey hutchison and 4 marco rubio. what is your assessment -- and a four -- for marco rubio. what is your assessment of how successful the tea party will be in working with president obama and democrats? >> in texas, the exact same way that marco rubio road successfully to the senate is the same one that crashed kay bailey hutchison, largely out of anger over spending, earmarks, the bailouts. i have a slightly counterintuitive take on the tea party and bipartisanship. it to define counterintuitive in the world of political panels

means that i am about to make something up. [laughter] i think that the establishment in washington views the tea party movement almost like a doberman pinscher, something that you're like -- something that you're glad to have around but you're also slightly terrified of. it would be true for our leadership, the republican leadership in washington -- behoove our leadership, the republican leadership in washington, to let some of the anger and tension out of the tea party balloon. the way you do that is to give them some of what they want. that actually augers or suggests some amount of bipartisanship in washington, whether it is on spending -- even some of the giant issues, entitlement reforms. marco rubio won florida by 19 points. he was one of the only

candidates anywhere in the country who said, if you elect me, i'm going to support changing social security. we need to talk about raising the retirement age. we need to talk about means testing for benefits. all of these things that you're never supposed to mention. he talked about those. it was, -- it was in florida of all places. in terms of what the tea party means going forward for the republican party -- i think that if our leadership, the republican leadership, does not do something to give them some of what they want and do it quickly, that anger is only going to intensify and it is going to spill over in the 2012 primary elections. we, as republicans, are going to end up with a nominee who has just absolutely no chance whatsoever of winning. >> just to understand where you're coming from, when you say give them some of what they

want, do you mean -- like in the early-moves to organize congress or substantive things down the line? would it be smart for them to say, ok, michele bachmann, you're going to get that job in the leadership, not jeb hensarling of texas. >> no. i am talking about -- there are very few members of the tea party who are waking up every morning mad as about what committee assignments michele bachmann gets, but they are mad as hellabout spending -- mad as hell about spending. the younger tea party members may not know what they voted for. we have a moment and a possibility now for some real bipartisanship in an environment where you would never have expected it. republican leadership -- unless we want the doberman to come after arrest in two years, we

have to do something -- after us in two years, we have to do something to decrease the attention. >> i will come back to that. nancy pelosi says she wants to remain the democratic leader. is that a good or bad thing? >> i think that is a great thing. [laughter] fantastic. it is a complicated thing. >> it is. [laughter] >> the fact is that the speaker has been, i think, the most effective speaker and maybe 100 years. she basically got every single thing that the president wanted passed passed. and she did it sometimes in an ugly way. she understood what it took to get members of congress to take a very difficult votes. now, obviously, in the recent election, democrats did not do

so well. so there are a lot of people will blame nancy pelosi. she was demonized by the republican party, i think unfairly. and her numbers reflect that. does she deserve to be the leader, absolutely. should she be the leader? i think that question is a little more nuanced. her numbers are such that the symbolism of leaving her there creates some problems for democrats. >> if you heard that she was running again -- when you heard that she was running again, were you disappointed? >> i was not surprised. she is a very tough cookie. she did a great job. people who do a great job getting the work of the house rises did don deserved to be able to go out on their own terms. i think that -- a lot of work of the house of representatives done deserve to be about to go out on their own terms. i think that i understand why republicans said that it will be great for nancy pelosi, who was numbers that are not

attractive in terms of favorable-unfavorable ratio -- it creates a target for republicans. but i think that she deserves to be reelected and i am perfectly happy with nancy pelosi as the leader of the house. >> let me ask you a leadership question about your party. one and the issues that was sometimes discussed over the last 10 or 15 years about republicans was that the party and its spokes people, its leading figures, were to wait it -- or to weighted toward the south, the most conservative part of the country. the fact that you now have a conservative there -- is it good for republicans? >> can i say something about nancy pelosi first? [laughter] i think it is a good thing. the upper midwest was an enormous boost for republicans this last election. having a speaker from the midwest, from the heartland, is

a very good thing. no longer can people fairly paint the republican party as a regional or sectional party. it is quite clearly now a national party. this was a national victory for republicans. >> you have been around when the president got what in the midterms. we talked about 1994. -- got waxed in the midterms. what you expect and what you think should happen as to whether or not president obama should fundamentally change something either substantively or in terms of communications, or whether, as james told me, as we were talking before the panel, maybe the best thing for obama would be to sit tight for a while and let republicans make the first move? >> first of all, have you -- having been there -- this has many acts that have not played out. this is the first reaction. it is a very pained reaction.

remember the meeting in the cabinet room in which the president talked about the people who were lost in the election. he felt great pain and guilt for what happened, but he took responsibility and it changed his presidency. i have no doubt that president obama will learn from this and make important moves. the most important is the one he already signaled -- the focus on the economy and his every action spun on that since then. peace we expected most for him, which was a kind of narrative -- the piece that we expected most from him, which was a kind of narrative, has not happened. he has a near -- she has to have a narrative to show people where we are going. -- he house do -- he has to

have a narrative to show people where we're going pits a timber 15, in the election, he was much more focused on a different style politics. but i think he will view these poll results and these new moments as of -- as an opportunity for bipartisanship. i do not think he can sit back. at think he should show he is ready to move in areas that people will find surprising. >> what about the people who work for him? one of the complaints that emerged -- whether you think it is valid or not -- too insular, a small amount of people advising him. after 1994, you had dick morris, leon panetta, mike -- is that something that is important,

either symbolically or actually? >> i do not want to speak to it, but i am sure every president has a change at this point. with this kind of election, there are changes. i do not know what they will be. there is a new chief of staff possibility. a whole range of things. >> mackey is itching to say something. >> the president is in a very different spot than president clinton was in 1994 and a much more problematic spot, which is his ability to control his destiny. bill clinton's destiny was much more in his hands. the 1994 reelection was not a disastrous economy pity economy was actually rising and beginning to do very well. he lost because the public thought he had gone off on the wrong track and mismanaged. he corrected a bunch of communication problems. he brought in people. he did the health care thing. when he corrected things, the

economy was on the rise and he got rewarded for that. barack obama could make a whole bunch of personal choices and make a london different speeches and say he is doing all kinds of stuff, but if the economy does not change, he is not going to get rewarded for and management adjustment or management change. >> alternatively, if the economy does get better, does that mean all of the critique about his policy agenda fades? >> there would have been no tea party if the economy have been doing well. he couldn't pass health care reform and he would have won the midterm elections. if the economy is doing well -- it is totally his destiny. interestingly, it is much more like ronald reagan. one of the huge differences between ronald reagan and barack obama is the ability for the government to improve the economy. we no longer have 70% marginal tax rates. the ability to change that dynamic of the economy -- it is

almost like he has bn -- he has to pray that the economy does better. if it does not, he is lost. >> if this is japan -- there is a whole new set of rules to the game. >> one of your colleagues in the republican polling fraternity told me a couple months ago, you know what? if the economy were in even slightly better shape, we would not be talking about the role of government, government takeover, all that stuff. the tone of the election is set by what matthew just said. do you agree? >> i think the bad economy explains a 30-seat loss in the house, not a 60-plus seat loss in the house. the additional explanatory power comes from the actions taken by

the democratic leadership in washington. it was a stimulus that people do not think worked. it was a $1.30 trillion deficit -- and of the bailout. >> the 30-seat loss it happens every midterm. >> certainly not. >> a consistent pattern. >> you can explain half of the democratic loss with the economy, not the wipeout. regret it is important for people, when they -- >> it is important for people, when they look back at this election, to understand that this election was about big things. a lot of elections are about very small things. this election was about really big ideas, big decisions, and you will hear, when we did the polling in florida, the swinging guest -- swingingest of all

swing states, when we did our polling, they really felt this vote was about fundamentally changing the direction of our entire nation. >> my kids will be better off than i am. >> i agree with matthew. and so, if you're looking for specific course directions -- we all remember after 1994. we were talking about school uniforms and things like that. staffing changes at the white house. that is just window dressing. in terms of what the election was about and therefore what the results moving forward are going to be. i have to defend the president for a second. these guys will sit here and talk like these were of choices that the president made, rather than things that were thrust upon him when he took office.

i watched barack obama pretty closely in the 2008 campaign. i never once heard them say, when i am president, i'm going to take over the united states automobile industry. when i am president, i want to bail out wall street and the big banks. he did not do these things because he wanted to. i will pass this $800 billion stimulus package because the economy is about to collapse. he did not say those things because they were not things that he chose to do. those were things that he had to do. [applause] now, i understand that there were people who have -- who are struggling. they don't have jobs. i understand there are people who felt like the stimulus package was not as effective as it should have been. in president obama would agree. there are people who feel the private sector is too involved -- private -- the public sector is too involved in the private.

the ones was that he made was health care reform, which was something -- the one choice that he made was health care reform, which was something that he promised during the campaign. i would argue that they could have done it differently and it would have been better off, but they got it done. it is the only choice that he made. everything else was something that your party left on his desk. [applause] the other thing that he never said once during the 2008 election is, if you elect me, i'm going to turn over control of all of my signature issues to nancy pelosi and harry reid and let them get them all up with every single set--- every single spending plan that democrats have been attempting to get done for the last eight years. i have always been baffled about why the white house he did control of the signature issues to people who did not

understand the reasons why the president got elected in the first place. >> i want to step back and ask the big question. i do not think that is what happened. when you talk to people at the white house, when they passed the stimulus bill, is that the stimulus bill that you wanted? 95% said yes. that is our bill. we want that bill. it has not helped us, but they got their bill. on health care, what they did was -- i want to achieve health care reform. i think the best strategy for doing it is to set out a certain set of principles and let them get it done. on the evidence, being the only person who has gotten it done in 70 years, it was a successful strategy. i want to back up a little bit and refer to a group by had at my house -- republican and democrats -- who work for members of the house and senate

before the elections. everybody knew it was going to be a big election for republicans. i ask them what they thought was possible to get done in the next couple years. the answer was, please, nothing. we are going to fight for two years. we'll pass -- to appropriations bills -- we will pass appropriations bills. it will be an extension of the 2010 campaign running into 2012. there's just no way around that. i want to start with steve and see if you agree that that is, in fact, what will happen. >> it will be interesting. republicans now have an obligation to try to get something done. >> i agree. >> i think it will be interesting. the tea party folks came in with a very specific agenda to say

no. mitch mcconnell has been rewarded for saying no for two years. when the tea party folks are asked to raise the debt ceiling for the united states government so that it can continue to function, i think they are all going the same no. i do not see any reason why they would compromise. we will schedule a whole bunch of votes to release some pressure. it will take a stand on things. it is just wishful thinking on our parts. >> you agree with the proposition that next to nothing will get done. >> i absolutely agree. >> do you agree? >> i think it is a matter of the odds. i think that is probably the most lely outcome. i also think the independents expect something to happen. they expect some kind of action to address the problems facing this country, particularly on the economy. you'll see in the our survey that the republican voters are more adamant than the democrats

that they ought to stick to their core principles. the good news is what ed gillespie mentioned. independent voters are now closer to that court republican voter -- the core republican voter. the independent will demand that something happened with brac -- >> if you turn it over to hundreds of millions of americans and say, what do you want? they will sit, we need to get stuff done because it is in the country's best interest. the question from the democratic leadership and the american leadership and the republican leadership is, are they going to pay attention to a very small minority's ideological set, some of whom represent the party people, but not necessarily the frustrated voters? are they do not -- are they going to pay attention and do nothing or are they going to

say, no, we could do this to help us in 2012 by appealing to the majority? to date have the capability of looking to many voices on heard on cable channels and in the halls of congress. i think that is the problem. if so -- if it wants a been done, they do not have the megaphone to talk in the year of boehner. it will be the loudest and most minor voices of the republican party. regret i accept that there is tension in the obama's -- >> i accept that there is tension between the substantive agenda which he outlined in his campaign and has a jew -- and has pursued and with the washington works. he definitely sidetracked to achieve the former. is there an equivalent tension

between get stuff done, worked in the, stop fighting, and stand up for what you believe in, cut the out of the government -- cut the hell out of the governement? >> remember, the tea party is not a party, but the state of mind. there is no particular agenda they were elected to act upon. >> it is not only not a party, it fits in the republican party. >> i think it is true that tea party candidates came in having said, we're qantas in no. i do not think that is what tea party voters are saying. they do not want gridlock. some of them do, absolutely. they tend to be ideological. >> in other words, rand paul and sharron angle got a lot of votes from people who do not actually agree with what they would do. when rand paul says, i am not

voting to extend the debt limit, you think a lot of people voted for him who do not want that to happen. >> i think people voted for rand paul because, again, they are enormous the fresh air with washington and want change. kentucky is a republican state. that was not a change for kentucky. tea party voters are not necessarily saying go to washington and have gridlock. when i went to kentucky, audiences were cheering at rand paul, a gridlock, gridlock. they were excited about the eddied. you do not hear the same thing in the suburban philadelphia. people are tired. they do not like the process of health care. it did not the special deals for health care. -- they do not like the special deals for health care. they want to reform washington.

in search like, nev., harry reid's home town, one person said i do not want gridlock. i do not want more law. he brought up brac -- why can they do that anymore -- why cannot they do that anymore? why cannot we have more of that? within the tea party, there are a lot of differences. i do not think that the tea party voters want gridlock. >> is one to be incredibly difficult -- it is going to be incredibly difficult. 2/3 of republicans say that president obama is trying to do in your vocable harm to the country and they should not work with him. tea party -- is trying to do era vocable -- irrevocable harm to

the country and they should not work with him. the president will force them to address these issues. he will see this opportunity. it may not be good policy -- there are a set of policies on energy that virtually everybody supports. republicans and democrats will need to pass something to show that they can act for the country's interest. i think energy is one of the most likely. it will probably figure out something on the taxing -- they will probably figure out something on the tax thing. the president has opportunities. >> circumstances are going to force this, too, particularly on the debt limit. it is something we have to deal .ith peer republi

>> it will not shut the government down unless republicans want to commit suicide. rand paul will vote against it. it will get to vote to repeal health care. it will never get past the senate. these things will pass these boats -- they will cast the votes. there is enough -- there are enough adults will prevent this. >> the mainstream republican leaders -- do they think of themselves as the adults managing the unruly children? are they concerned that the kids will riot and wreck their car? is that the dynamic? [laughter] >> i have a lot more respect for

voters and a lot of people -- than a lot of people do. i think the tea party folks are fundamentally economically- oppressed middle class people who feel scared and frustrated. it is painful to do these focus groups. i have had people break down in tears. i just lost my job the company i have been with for 35 years. my husband thinks he is going to lose his job. we are in the arctic the boss. we do not know what we're going to do. -- we are in our 50's. we do not know what we're going to do. republicans and democrats are just not listening. [applause] they are giving their money to bail out wall street and they really do not care. this is a cry of frustration. they are not children.

>> they are not blind to the choices faced. but they are saying, we do not want the country to keep spending like it is spending and mortgagings our and' future -- future.ng our kids' they have to help those who are economically oppressed. >> with the voters and politicians who represent them -- to the have the incentive to -- do they have incentive to see to a government shutdown? >> they want government to work effectively to address the problems that they feel oppressed them. they are not interested in symbolic shutdowns of the government. >> there is so much written about marco rubio and the republican party.

it is important to listen to what he says. in his victory night speech, he said, and i am paraphrasing, he said, it would be if huge mistake -- a huge mistake for anyone to interpret the results of this election as an embrace of the republican party. it is not. it is, at best, a second chance for the republican party to do the things that we said we were going to do originally. and so, i think that there are leaders like him -- i am biased, obviously, but there are people who can put a foot in each camp. he has absolute credibility on the tea party side and he has credibility on the leadership side. he is willing to say, the republican party -- we deserve to get thrown out of office. we are not being put back into power because people are suddenly in love with the spirit >> speaking of that, a week

before the election, i interviewed jeb bush in miami. he sort of struck a similar profile. he said, basically, a, center- right country who does not like the way obama is going and wants to change the direction, and b, they need to get things done. figure out what to do together. do them to save your big fights for later. if you are not able to do that, you could be looking at dismemberment of these parties. do you agree? do you think that is actually a party -- a possibility? >> i think on the republican side there is enough and your -- anger with the grass roots of our party -- i do not think it would happen in the next two years, but it could marginalize the republican party and basically, slowly suffocating it. -- suffocate it.

people will stop turning out to vote. that is in the republican party leadership's best interest -- to get things done in a bipartisan fashion, even if it means giving the president will win and we get a win. we have to do something to take the error -- air out. >> do you think party break up is a clear and present prospect? >> is remarkable how low opinion is of both parties. we asked them to explore both. it was in determinate -- indeterminate. i think ross perot candidate would work well. i regret like bloomberg -- >> like bloomberg? >> there is a lot of space for

third-party voting, i think. >> the best thing possible for our system would be the emergence of a new party that -- the history of our country is that we have had two political parties. we've gone through similar things. one party changes and adapts. the democratic party, today, is not what the democratic party -- the parties today are not what they were 60 years ago today are very different -- 60 years ago. they are very different. our structural system -- a structural system that could allow a third party to compete is less likely, but the ability of one party to remake itself so that they are reflective of the majority is definitely a possibility and i think we would benefit from that. i think it is contingent on what

happens in 2012. barack obama's numbers continue to deteriorate and the republicans nominate a sharron angle type of candidate for the presidency, it makes the window -- i am not sayingny former alaska governor's particular name -- if that happens,the then not a bloomberg. if he wanted to have a party, he should have somebody else nominated than him. i do not think he fits. i cannot see him winning missouri. he has so many things he has done in alaska -- i mean, alaska -- so many things he has done in new york that do not get a majority of the country. >> de think it is likely that obama will not be reelected -- do you think it is likely that obama will not be reelected? >> that is an interesting question with a lot of factors.

if the economy creates 150,000 jobs per month for the next two years, he loses. somebody alluded to this earlier. are we in a fundamentally different place in the world and economically that it is not going to allow him to win re- election? our economy will not have to readjust itself -- have to -- our economy will have to readjust itself to a fundamentally different place. >> this goes to a broader problem. i trust 300 million americans much more than i trust 300 people in washington to make decisions in their best interest. people in washington often times do not follow what the voters want. we have lost faith and trust in every major institution in this country at the same time -- the federal gernmt, the financial institution, the media, the political parties, media, the political parties, many people