government keep us safe? we had all of these in place. we had all of these reforms supposed to keep us safe after september 11 and they did not. i think there's is probably reigned for how to find that mushy middle between what the executive branch has an terms of protection in what people who are justifiably concerned about privacy rights are calling for. we have not seen an answer to that. >> some people are harking back to 75. watch the pendulum has swung. we may be at a point now where there is a little correcting after 9/11. going into election year, what are the politics? >> this was a real demonstration. you had house republican and democratic leadership on the same side of the issue with the white house. then you had so many members voting to restrict this program. i think the fact that you solve the head of the house and senate intelligence committee consent publicly to examining how to possibly bring this and are put in more privacy protections as an example of what they are willing to do as a first step and if they can do that that they can get agreement on it and put that in place and maybe that will be enough to hold it off. it depends on what transpires and whether it continues to down political discourse. a lot depends on how quickly edward snowden situation where there in russia or back in the united states is settled. >> thank you for your questions. we appreciate it. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> now a preview of the 2014 elections with charlie cook. this is a little more than an hour and a half. >> since this is the first one of these for the season, i thought maybe we would just sort of step back and sort of think about maybe how we ought to look towards 2014, and i think one way of thinking about it is a sports analogy. you know, whether it's before a baseball or football or basketball or soccer or hockey season, you know, you kind of look forward to the season and you're not sure how each team is going to do, what the season's going to be like. you don't really know for sure. and somewhat painfully, we know that the washington nationals were, according to "sports illustrated," world series contenders this year and we?re, you know, struggling to get up to .500, we didn't -- you know, we overestimated a little bit how the season would be. that's the way it is right now, i think, midway through an odd numbered year in terms of the next election.

we don't really know what the next election is going to be about. we can have theories, but, you know, we don't really know, and what we have to do is sort of watch certain metrics to try to tell us, you know, is it going to be this kind of election, that kind of election, or something entirely different? and i think quite a few of you probably heard me tell the analogy -- i remember tip o'neill used to talk about all politics is local. and while i have an enormous amount of respect for speaker o'neill, you know, my variation of that or what i think he meant, is you know, a state, a district, what kind of people live there, what are the voting patterns there? what are the local issues and circumstances, the candidates, the campaigns, the money? you know, using that formulation, every house race, there are like 435 stove pipe household races or 33, 34 senate races. but my variation of that is, i think all politics is local except when it's not. i realize that's not terribly

profound, but the thing is that sometimes we have these weird years when all politics isn't local, and where there is like a mysterious hand, invisible hand that's pushing the candidates of one party forward and pulling down the candidates of the other party. i mean, you can't tell a republican in 200 or 2008 that all politics is local. you couldn't tell a democrat in 2010, with the kind of undertow that was out there for democrats, that all politics is local. and sometimes they are and sometimes they're not. and so that's the first, is it going to be a microelection, all politics is local, or is it going to be a macro, where there's that invisible hand pushing one direction or the other? and then you can say, ok, well, what do we think the dynamics are going to be in 2014? for me, i can come up with two different scenarios, not in any particular order. first one is the dynamics of

2012, the problems that republicans had in 2012, just simply pulled forward into 2014. the other one is that this is a typical, becomes somewhat of a typical second term, midterm election, where we know the presidents typically have sufficient times during their second terms, and that this is a typical second term, midterm elections, where democrats have real problems, or it can obviously be something entirely different. let's sort of look at those two things. we know that looking back in

2012, and it's sort of still at the top of a lot of our minds, the republicans had real problems with minority voters, with younger voters, with women voters, with self-described moderate voters. do they repair their damage? do they fix that in time for 2014, sort of yes or no. and obviously we're, you know, we're still sort of young into this, but, you know, so far, we're not seeing a lot of improvement in republican party numbers as of late july. we haven't seen that quite yet. and so we're sort of watching to see, do those problems just sort of carry forward? now, one thing i have to say is

that usually the dynamics of one election don't really carry forward into the next. usually it's about something different. but we have had times when it's repeated and, you know, you could almost look at 2006, which was a great democratic year, and 2008, which was a great democratic year. they flowed into one another. but that's really, really, really unusual. i think you probably have to go back, with 32, 34, 36, to find another time where the flow just sort of continued on from one election to the next, but obviously it could happen. but the other one is that this

is a traditional second term, midterm election. you know, we know historically that bad things typically happen to presidencies in their second term. you know, in some ways, it's the freshness, the newness, the novelty of a brand-new president that's worn off, new ideas not so much, the energy, the focus, it just sort of starts unraveling. sometimes the a-team has left the field, the team that actually elected that president. they've moved on to make money, and now the b or c team is sort of in there. but for a wide variety of reasons, they just tend to run out of gas when they get into their second term, doesn't matter whether their democrat or republican, but we've seen that historically over the last -- or in the post-world war ii era. the second thing that typically happens is stuff goes wrong. and you can have economic down turns, like eisenhower had in 1958. you could have scandals like watergate in the nixon-ford administration, and iran-contra in the reagan misdemeanors, but that actually broke on election day. monica lewinsky, obviously, is another. you can have unpopular wars, like vietnam for the kennedy- johnson administration, or the iraq war for george w. bush. so you could have economic down turns, you could have scandals, you could have unpopular wars,

but those have a tendency to happen in the second term. the third thing is that you could also have sort of chickens coming home to roost, decisions, decisions that were made, dynamics that sort of were created in the first term, sometimes they kind of come back on a president and bite him on the rear end during that second term. and one of the things we're obviously going to be watching very carefully is the affordable care act, a.k.a., obamacare. we know that in 2009 and 2010, president obama's first two years in office when the affordable care act was pushed through, it became enormously polarizing, controversial, and was one of the, say, two leading reasons why democrats lost control of congress back in 2010, the house in 2010, that it was -- it was affordable care act and, you know, not a little bit of the economy sort of thrown in for good measure. then in 2011 and 2012, to be honest, i don't think that many

people changed their minds on the affordable care act during that two-year period of time. the people that were going to hate it had already decided they hated it. the people that liked it still liked it. and roughly a quarter of american people that were undecided were still undecided. now, the next question is, as we go into 2013 and 2014 and more parts of the law, realize that part of it's been pushed back to january 2014, but as it starts to become implemented, do we see it become controversial again, yes or no? and that's something where, you know, what you ought to do maybe is, you know, do your own research and look at any impact on your own healthcare policies and, you know, have rates gone up or down or stayed the same and what's happened in terms of the co-pays, that sort of thing, and ask your friends and relatives and neighbors, and just sort of get a sense anecdotally of what people are saying about it, and you'll have kind of a fair idea maybe of what starts happening there. so what i've done is started watching -- and we've got it on

our website -- is sort of a little guide to looking at the political environment in terms of trying to look for some cues about, is this going to be a republican problem to continue, or is this going to be a second- term problem occur yet again for another president or something entirely different? and what i would suggest you do is sort of watch some of the polling data. you know, number one, you watch the president's approval rating, because midterm elections do typically, they are, to a certain extent, a referendum on the incumbent president. right now, the president is at a equilibrium point, where more or less his approval and disapproval numbers are about the same, in the mid to high 40's, so he's not an asset for democrats, but he's not a liability either, but watch

those numbers. he's been dropping since, say, mid-january about, a point every three or four weeks, and does that level off at some point or keep going, whatever? you know, watch the overall job approval rating. the second thing is watch public attitudes towards the economy. one thing that happens is that when things are -- when the economy is perceived to be good or improving, people are a lot more forgiving than if they think it's not doing so well or getting worse. and one of the things that really helped president clinton back in his second term through the whole monica affair -- today is her 40th birthday -- is that but who's counting? i completely lost my train of thought. [laughter]

guess i'm wearing a blue shirt. but anyway, what -- why did i say that? the economy was doing really, really well, and as a result, i think people are a little bit more tolerant than if the economy was getting worse. and i noticed in my home state of louisiana that voters in louisiana were always more forgiving when oil prices were up and the state economy was good, and that when the oil prices were down, the state's economy was down, they were less forgiving, and sometimes bought some of their politicians were not quite as funny when the state economy wasn't doing so well. so watch consumer confidence, conference board, university of michigan numbers, and they're roughly right now basically at or very close to a six-year high. does it stay that high or improve? again, public a little bit more forgiving given the tough times that we went through.

on the other hand, if consumer confidence starts coming down, you know, it's pretty clear what you ought to -- what conclusion you ought to draw from that. the third thing is the affordable care act, and one of the things i'm watching, and we have this little political environment guide, is watching the keyser family foundation tracking -- it's almost monthly, where they ask questions on the affordable care act and favorable and unfavorable attitudes. and most recently, these are off the top of my head, but something like 37%, 38% favorable and roughly 45% unfavorable, with about 23% undecided, something like that. watch those numbers and see if they start changing. the favorability numbers, do they go up or down? just sort of watch for any major changes there, and that can give you a hint about where things may be going. the next thing is the favorable or unfavorable ratings of the two parties. i confess, i look at a lot of polling data and have for many,

many years, this is not something i've particularly paid a lot of attention to in the past, but i'm really starting to.

because for republicans to take advantage of democratic problems, they really need to get their numbers -- get their favorable party numbers up, and the numbers are down, and that simply hasn't happened. there's the brand damage that you've heard so much about over the last couple of years. it is still very, very real, and republicans need to do something to address those problems with minority women, younger and self-described moderate voters. so far that hasn't happened yet. at the same time, if the same problems that typically happen, if they start reoccurring, then you can expect the democratic party's favorable numbers to start coming down and unfavorable numbers coming up. you know, a good characterization right now is the republicans, the american people are not real happy with democrats. in fact, democrats have fairly lousy numbers. it's just that the republican party has worse numbers. and so watch those. and then finally, watch the generic congressional ballot test, where they ask if they were held today, would you vote for the democratic candidate for congress or some pollsters will ask, which party would you rather see control? it doesn't make any difference.

one thing you need to know about that question is that it typically has, for some bizarre reason, and i've never heard a good explanation for it, but it typically has about a two or three-point tilt in favor of democrats when you compare what it ends up being with the national popular vote for the house of representatives. don't know why, but it sort of does. now, for that reason, a lot of people, a lot of analysts don't like to look at the generic ballot test. for me, you know, i could use my louisiana public school arithmetic and subtract two or three from almost any number. so for me, i can do that and kind of figure out where it is. now, the generic doesn't tell you how many seats one party is going to gain or lose or anything like that, but it does tell you sort of roughly which way the wind is blowing, and this is lightly, or is it moderately or is it heavily, which way is it going? so it's a useful indicator there.

and so i would suggest you sort of watch those kind of metrics to get an idea as we get into this fall and as we get into the the election year officially starts, watch those things to kind of figure out for yourself, is it scenario a or b or is it something completely different? and i don't want to dismiss one other possibility. what if it's kind of all the above? what if voters are growing, the

novelty has worn off of president obama's freshness, and, you know, they're not really -- you know, kind of hit the mute button, not listening to him that much anymore, but at the same time, what if republicans haven't fixed their problem? you just sort of have a muddle of both scenarios. and right now, if i had to actually pick one, i think that's actually the one that i would pick right now. now, in terms of the house of representatives, let's just talk about the end game, in terms of the house of representatives, it's pretty, pretty, patriot unlikely, and i think most people in this room would agree, pretty unlike that will republicans will lose their majority in the house.

the democrats need a 17-seat net gain, which isn't a huge number, but when you sort of look at where the congressional district boundaries are drawn and sort of the landscape, it's hard to see how either party could pick up double digits, particularly 17 seats. 93% of all republicans in the house of representatives are sitting in districts that mitt romney carried. 96% of all districts that democrats hold are in districts that president obama carried. and so, to a large extent, the house has kind of sorted it out, and republicans were very fortunate that they had that terrific 2010 election, the election preceding the

congressional district boundaries, and so they were able to, in a lot of states with governors and legislatures, draw boundaries that were better than they've seen in a very, very long time. and not to be partisan about it, but democrats had done that plenty of times in previous decades, and this time where they had a chance to, for example, illinois. but the thing about it is, because of where these lines are drawn, it's really, really, really hard for either party to get a major switch, and particularly for democrats to do it. another factor to keep in mind and this is actually in my office to the races national journal daily column from this morning -- keep in mind, midterm election turnout dynamics typically are a little different from presidential election years, and particularly when you look at the groups where democrats have done so, so well in recent years in presidential elections like young people, like women, like particularly unmarried women, the minority voters have a tendency to overperform some in presidential years, but then underperform in midterm election years. and yesterday, stan greenberg, democratic pollster, works with the democracy corps, and paige gardner, whose women's voices, women vote, they released some surveys that showed exactly that, that among all voters, democrats were ahead by one point on the generic ballot test, but among likely voters, as i remember, they were down two points. and looked at specifically unmarried women. that's a key group that

democrats are focusing on enormously, because the gap between democrats and republicans on unmarried women, you know, it's close to like 30 points or something. it's an enormous gap, and that's where democrats really have their work cut out for them in terms of boosting up turnout with some of these groups that helped them so much in 2008 and 2010, or 2008 and 2012, and obviously didn't help them in 2010. some of you may be wondering, well, the previous midterm elections, democrats did very well in 2006, which is absolutely true, but that was really more of an election. it wasn't about turnout dynamics changing so much as independent voters, because of the war in iraq, swinging very strongly away from president bush in favor of democrats. that really wasn't a turnout dynamic situation. the senate is obviously where the action is going to be, where democrats are, everybody here knows, overexposed. you know, if you just looked at the numbers, out say, wow, this is not just -- this is not a question of whether democrats are going to lose senate seats, but how many are they going to lose. now, there's one problem with making that statement, and that is that most of us made that statement two years ago. and that, you know, through most of the 2012 election cycle, it really did look like republicans would pick up two, three, four u.s. senate seats in that election. there is one problem with making that statement, and that is that most of us made that statement two years ago.

and through most of the 2012 election cycle it really did look like republicans would pick up two, three, four u.s. senate seats and that election. we have to have two mindsets. the cards are dealt by the previous election. in the senate, because of his six-year terms, we have to look back to say what happened six years earlier? in 2012 we were operating off a base of 2006, a terrific year for democrats with the war and president bush's midterm election and all the arguments we ever talked about. so they had a great election in 2006. there were overexposed in 2012. they probably should have lost seats. a couple of people decided it would be really good idea to swallow hand grenades after swallowing the pins. other brad -- bad breaks here and there.

we went from a situation where everyone thought republicans would pick up three-four seats to a net loss. that is why i am a little reticent about saying even though the dynamics are very similar, 2008 was a great year for democrats, therefore 2014 there overexposed. by all rights democrats are enormously over exposed.

a lot of this will be contingent upon can republicans fix their problems, both in terms of macro free and problems on the one side, and as well as problems like are they getting good people to run? are those people winning their primaries? and what kind of campaigns they run, that sort of thing. republicans have been snake bit in the senate for the past two elections. even though 2010 was a terrific year for the republican party free and problems on the one side, and as well as problems like are they getting good people to run? are those people winning their primaries? and what kind of campaigns they run, that sort of thing. republicans have been snake bit in the senate for the past two elections. even though 2010 was a terrific year for the republican party and they did pick up a good number of senate races in 2006, of the seven senate races that were tossups going into election day into a dozen 10, republicans lost five out of seven. in 2012 they lost eight out of 10. there is a monkey you republicans have to get off their back where they have been losing the close -- close races. some of this is brand image and a little bit technology. if republicans get their act together, they ought to be able to pick up a bunch of seeds in this election. as of today, they need five seats to get a majority in the senate. the real number is 6. they have far of his seat in new jersey they will lose in october. and so the big number is going to be a sixth seat that republicans will need. certainly there are opportunities out there. it is those fourth, but, six seats -- fifth, six they have to worry about.

mary plan grew in louisiana. to a lesser extent, taken in north carolina would be the seventh. can those tip over republicans tip those over in addition to the open seats in south dakota and west virginia -- what is the other one i am thinking about? fontana, yes. where democrats have the blow with brian's whites are not running. -- brian sweitzer not running. the key is the fourth, fifth, sixth. there is only one republican seats in a democratic-leaning states, and that is susan collins in maine. unless she does not run for reelection are gets bumped off in the primary, she is fine. the only other one we're really

looking at is in georgia. that is where later today the daughter of san done is rise -- is running. the question there, whether his candidacy, it really matters only if republicans nominate -- how do i say this, and exotic or potentially problematic nominee. that is the term i use with my wife trying to convince me that to use the term whacko anymore. if republicans nominate a normal republican, they held out a seat. georgette is shifting a little bit. in the south, virginia has become a mid-atlantic states. it is really not behaving like a southern state anymore. it is a classic swing state. north carolina is working its way through the transition. not as far along as virginia it is, but giving less and less of a southern state every day. georgette is way back, but

moving the same general direction. the rest of the deep south not moving at all. texas is its own world. so georgia is not there yet, but if republicans nominate someone that cannot reach out and do well and those that are moving to georgia over the past 30-40 years, that would be one they could potentially lose. that is really the only republican seats i'm paying much attention to at all. that is where we are right now. we are raising a lot of questions. it is early in the cycle. that is what keeps the stabbing, keeps it interesting is all the different permutations of what can happen. why don't we open it up now to

questions or comments or accusations? there are microphones here, here, and over there. so just raise your hand and a non-threatening way and a microphone will make its way to

you. there is one right here. we will come over here next. >> a quick question. he went through the races you are watching, and you did not mention kentucky at all. just curious why you're not mentioning it at all. >> it is are we in the morning, and my five our energy has not kick in. i should have mentioned that, i apologize. you come up with a legitimate, decent democratic candidates against mitch mcconnell intended in kentucky and you get 47%. the next question is, did you get the next 2-3 percent? that is a very hard to-3%. part of it is because mcconnell

is a very generic republican -- what democrats are hoping for is that he could reach in and grab some of the moderately- conservative women and a little and the lewisville's suburbs and lexington suburbs and go after the voters where maybe they are uncomfortable little bit with guns -- what are the issues are. that she can appeal some of just a couple percent off of mcconnell and it beats him. i think it will be a premier race, but it is one that if i

were grimes, i would want to keep a relatively low profile early on, get my organizational ducks lined up, raise my money, carefully up to speed on federal issues. she has to know the have the equivalent of a presidential campaign on the other side. any misstep, real or imagined, there will pounce on and beat the daylights out of her. i think she has to do this in a very measured way. i am not expecting to hear all lot of this race for a while to go. we fully expected to be a top tier race. this is what i get for not using any notes of all that i leave their race out. right here. >> i am a physicist. i look at numbers. >> you and i have a lot in common.

>> i want to turn to the issue of turnout, which you referenced earlier. i think the polling probably does not reflect some of the issues surrounding the trayvone martin trial. i am wondering whether we will see mobilization on minorities who are very upset with this. you see some of the same issues with women on restrictions on abortion. obviously this will not affect the house, but it could affect a number of senate races. >> i think if this case occurred in september or october of next year, i think the possibility of that really ratcheting up minority turnout would be very high.

energy and focus tend to have shelf lives. and politics 15 months is a really long amount of time. obviously we will have groups on the democratic side that are trying to bottle capture that energy and keep it going, but that is a very hard thing to do. it is the reverse of the scene in jurassic park where they are getting chased by the dinosaur and look in the rearview mirror and it said objects may be closer than they appear. it is kind of the opposite of that. the longer the election is, the further away it is, the less likely to be relevant. more likely something else will be relevant.

i've been there is a tendency we all naturally have to look at what has happened to us right now and project that well into the future. i would say, what is in the news in september? what is in the news in october? the first couple of days of november but that would be more relevant. clearly an event like that can really change things. the other thing i might say is when we talk about the difference between mid term election and presidential election turnout, the gaps are not as wide between african americans and midterm elections. i think that is one of the reasons why greenberg and women's bonuses -- voices groups are focusing on women. these are people, a lot of these

folks do not follow politics avidly, and as a result, -- it is a good group in the sense that it is a very efficient group. they can move a bunch of numbers pretty quickly if they can get them to vote. when you have a group that is already voting in pretty high numbers, and african americans did not trail white voters that much anymore. it is certainly the case. >> can you discuss the drama that is becoming the wyoming senate race? >> i think i'm going to stop answering questions from this corner right over here. there are a lot of reasons why

incumbents draw primary challenges. sometimes somebody is old and grown out of touch with the state. sometimes they have gotten too conservative or too liberal or to moderate and -- too moderate into and out of sync for scandals and something like that. i cannot really find anything like that with him. it would be uncharitable to say this is about personal ambition [laughter] my mind is open to be persuaded that is not the case. [laughter] sometimes silence is golden.

>> i had the pleasure of going back to shreveport's the other day. i tried to engage everyone i talk to about mary leandro and no one wanted to talk politics at all. what are you hearing down there? >> part of the issue, and this is a reference to my home town, part of the problem is in shreveport no one knows who built cassidy is pier yen -- bill cassidy is. i think the race has not really engaged at all. louisiana has not turned a corner and focused on the senate race. i think this is going to be a very big race. one side of the equation she will take over the senate energy

committee. gathering a lot of influence in a state that has historically had a lot but as of late has not had as much. on the other hand, the senator has been the beneficiary of having either really weak opponents, or really good years for democrats. so she has never had a tough opponent in the tough year. that will really test her. this is, i believe, the toughest opponent she has had, and at worst for republicans it will be a level playing field in louisiana. i think this is going to be the toughest election she has had yet. certainly it is tougher than

woody jenkins, susie beryl. not as bad a year for republicans as 2008 was, although 2008 and louisiana was not that -- you get the general idea. if i could know the outcome of three states, that would be one of the three i would want to do. i would go to kentucky may be next. it will be a good race. she will have to run, i think, a better campaigner than she has in the past because she has a tougher opponent. we stand as a tough place to win statewide now. >> i wonder why you write off kay hagen.

>> i mentioned it, but there are three democratic seats that are at least leaning republican. there are three more alaska, arkansas, louisiana, that a bigger top tier, and then go back a little bit and find north carolina. the speaker, i ran into him last week. this is the first time to run in the big state. sometimes they become good stay white candidates -- statewide candidates, and sometimes not so good. we have to let the race to develop. what does the legislature -- what is the image going to be like? i think that race simply has not

developed yet. we know the first three are going to be very hotly- contested. north carolina may very well get there, but it is not there yet. it is clearly one that i am watching. you cannot prioritize them all as top races. so i put three ahead of that in terms of the really hot races, but certainly one that we will be watching. i guess it is good news and bad news for her. the good news is she is not defined and, but toward a boy. -- in a perjorative way. that is something she has to do before getting ahead of momentum.

>> mika hanson. you mentioned this would probably be the first time mary landrieu would have a tough race, considering the governor, the thing that could help with her in this case? >> not really. the governor's numbers are not particularly good right now. i think i saw some that they were around the same as president obama's, or maybe a touch lower. i do not think the governor or legislature -- i mentioned the legislature in connection with north carolina because tom to the list is the speaker of the north carolina house. -- tom tillis is the speaker of the north carolina house.

it is a federal race. more of washington oriented. there may be a republican congress vs. democrat senator, i just do not think that will be connected in any way. so if she gets reelected, i do not think it will be because of the governor or legislature. so i just do not think there that connected. obviously they could be. >> good morning. scottie. thank you for this.

thank you for the hospitality in hosting it. i think the analysis was the only way none israel was event nunn is relevant was if the gop nominates someone radical. if you consider her, she is not a politician, ceo of the largest service organization in the world, all of the i can act -- iconic family names, etc., and layer in the democrats have not tried to win in georgia in a couple of cycles. they try to get the unmarried women and all of that -- do you think she can be relevant? >> i do not think georgia as to the point where are really strong democrats can make the difference. virginia is there. north carolina is there, but look at the presidential numbers

and georgia. wearing a blue jersey is there of reliability still. it still is a liability. i think just being a fresh face, a new person, all of that, i do not think that changes the color. what you have to have for her, and six, 10 years from now this may be different, right now i think she really does need to have an opponent who is barely middle of the road person, independent who looks at this and says i cannot go there. i do not think we're quite there yet. all of these things that barry well may help her. the state is still a lot more

republican than not. i do not think that alone really gets her there. take a look at last year's presidential. it is a pretty good example poll of were the country is. neither side really competed hard in it. it is a reflection of where is the state right then. it is on the transitioning from red to blue. still very much on the red side. it will take awhile to get to blue. it is kind of like texas, it is just not there yet. >> good morning. you skipped over social media. how is that going to come into play? how is that tracked?

how does that track and come into play? >> you are asking someone who turns 60 later this year. you are asking the wrong person. i was looking at that and thinking charlie cook is a twit. probably already exist. again, i'm the wrong person. they're people that can speak far more eloquently. it is something that is out there. innovation is not new. i could remember before there was a regular -- how many of you remember the old fax machines where you put the people under lip and it would spin around?

all of these things have revolutionized products in different ways. social media is the same way. so all of these are innovations that are really important. i do not think it changes -- i don't think social media changes anyone's values. what it does is speed up the process of information and getting information out to people who in maybe some cases they do not read it newspapers, do not watch television news. getting information into crevices that sometimes political news does not normally go to. it is something that republicans let me expand it from social media to technology --

republicans really do need to catch up in terms of the whole idea of campaign technology and social media is a part of it. in 2004 the reelection campaign was state of the art. to the extent there was data mining, micro targeting. republicans were right there on the cutting edge. for all intensive purposes, the next eight years were lost on the republican party. republicans did not have it alone. you have the dean campaign and kerry campaign, but they kept developing through 2008 and into 2012.

on the broader technology side, this is something republicans need to work on. a contributing editor at the report wrote a piece recently where she was pointing out on the democratic side, a lot of this while the campaign developed a lot, these people have gone out into the private sector, and you have private sector initiatives going on, developing cutting edge technology and data bases where she was drawing a republican side. almost like a five-year stall in plans where it centralized and maybe not as innovative as it needs to be or as democrats are.

and not having a one-off. >> the virginias governor's race is not instructed on what is in the future.to expect that to be the case or with the candidates, with april that theory out? will the candidates throw that every out? >> i think it will be of no utility in telling of anything. at all. the virginias governor's race -- i think it is born to be an interesting test. let's start off with rigid is a swing state. we know at virginia has a history of picking whoever is in the white house. -- voting on this side of

whoever is in the white house. this is an interesting test that is up there. in a swing state where independent and moderate voters are getting more and more important, neither side fielded candidates that was made to order to go after swing voters. to me, the voters are absolutely up for grabs. if you are republican and one to go between the 40-yard line voters, i am not sure you would have nominated ken cucilleni. i am not sure you would recruit

a former democrat national chairman. i think in a really interesting way this -- this is a great jump ball situation where neither side has a claim on the other. this may steer some of the moderate independents one direction or another. keep in mind president obama had just taken office, and that the democratic nominee had just won the nomination. there was a poll or to the showed him ahead of bob macdonald.

i am sure -- did i say something wrong, did i not shower this morning? the reason was president obama's numbers had started really dropping at that point. the democratic party had lost the momentum they had in 2008. a state that had gone democratic in 2008. suddenly it started transitioning, and use all the national dynamic really kick in there. i would love to know who won the governor's race -- i would love to know who will win the

governor's race, probably the best indicator we have this year. sort of the biggest sample poll that will be out there this year. did i tell you who was going to win? no. i think it is going to be particularly northern virginia voters. maybe we will have a hint. there is a good chance we will not all the way up. >> grant thornton. you spoke about. technology and the impact on the racist. on the races.

can you address the changes that pollsters are having to deal with making sure polls are accurate. >> that is another terrific questions. let me give an answer that is pre-2012 answer. let me give an effective 2012 answer. because of the rise of telemarketing through the 1990's and the last decade and a voice mail, calller id and all these things, and i am not including cell phones, the effectiveness of market research in political polling has gone down. how many phoneate.

calls to you get before you have a completion? at one point it was up the 30's. now it is in the 10% reach -- range. in this is before cell phones are in the mix. the best pollsters could not do as good a job as they themselves --re able to do 10, 2030 years 20, 30 years ago. no matter how hard they tried, it was not as reliable as it used to be. then you introduce cell phones. they were including that in their samples. and in the poll we were talking

about yesterday, 50 percent of the sample, was made up of people on their cell phones, which is made -- which is extraordinarily expensive to do. how many people in this room do not have a land line? raise your hand. a pretty good size number. certain technologies like robot calling, not allowed to do that. 2012, you had a unique problem. one of the things that happens as the response rate goes down, pollsters have to adjust the numbers to make sure if they have a pretty representative sample. we know the electorate will be 52 percent female for example. you can count on things

happening. they have to wait to make up for it because the response rates are so low. you had a growing provision in 2012 about what is the 2012 electorate and to look like. what you generally speaking had is republican pollsters say in 2008 when minority turn out to end up so much, very unusual dynamics. that was the first nominee for the presidency. so you have republican pollsters that were assuming 2008 was a 2012 dynamics.

would look closer to a usual turnout. on the other hand, democratic pollsters say we have another new normal.the country is changing. it is becoming more diverse. these young people are energized. what we started seeing in the fall of 2012 between the sides was a growing gap between what republican pollsters were getting and believed were giving i was e-mailing and talking to folks, pollsters on both sides. we're looking at what kind of

margins, and a lot of these cases these are people i have known for 20-30 years. i knew they may be right, wrong, thatthey're not lying to me. is not always the case. there was an honest to god difference of opinion between the sides and you had to reconcile who was going to be right in it was going to be wrong. at the same time independent pollsters who had screening questions, questions designed to ascertain who is likely to vote and not vote. historically asking people how much interest to you have an upcoming election? historically that has been a pretty good question to determine who is and is not likely to vote.

historically, it did not work. you had a philosophical difference that was going to of fact quotas. you have legitimate people who did not have a home on the scale. they were relying on traditional that was not right. you had results that were all over the map. we are now beginning to see a lot more non-traditional pulling. both the obama and mitt romney campaigns. yes, they did a certain amount of live interview pulling, but also going to ohio and dropping 10,000 robo calls into ohio and waiting to say i know they are not getting cell phones. where they were coming up with these analytical models based on something other than traditional

interviewing. what is polling today is changing. it is live interviews, and increasingly on line polling, which i have our roots -- always been dismissive of because i never that you could get a real representative take online. give them a computer. so they could draw on them for online interview. all kinds of things are happening. the old traditional model not working as well as it used to. so polling has always been an art based on a science.

now, it is getting to be even more of a mix. and less scientifically rigorous that used to be -- less scientifically rigorous because i think you are seeing multiple methods of polling being thrown in a cuisinart and blended together, which is a lot of subjectivity goes into that. we're in a new world. in a previous life i worked as a pollster. it does not look much like it did back in 1980. >> hi, charlie.

there has been buzz on twitter about 2016. i was wondering if you could lay out the law of the land on the presidential race. >> i'm going to lay off as the entire side. first of all, there should be a disclaimer that the accuracy rate for procrastination -- in advance is the rope. maybe it is a little bit easier to look of both sides, each side separately. it is a group of questions. let's think about it. hillary clinton, yes or no? if yes, then the biden is more likely to be no.

you get into all of these others. the conventional wisdom in washington seems to be that she is absolutely going to run and it is a political decision and politics say that she should run. i do not know if she's going to run or not. while i would agree with the conventional wisdom that this is the 100 percent political decision, the odds are probably very high she runs. i think it will be a personal and political decision. the personal side is does she feel like running? does she feel up to it? i personally think she was a terrific secretary of state. lord knows i have travelled 38 times around the world and was like 119 days on the road and

all that, but that job really did take its toll on her role -- on her. the last couple of months, those were physically -- they appeared to be very hard. does she feel up to it? yes or no. i have no inside information whatsoever. maybe she is thinking she lost her mom a couple of years ago. i think when you lose your remaining parent you have a greater sense of mortality than you used to. she had a couple of people she knew well in the senate that have had devastating strokes at early ages. does that impact the health consequences? when is chelsea going to have a kid? i think it is going to be a

political and personal decision. 50/50ld put it closer to. or 60/40. the issue really want to do this, yes or no? the politics would argue strongly for her to do it. joe biden, i think he desperately wants to run. i think realistically, my guess is the odds are he would not. you never know. once the democratic party has made a shift from the baby boom generation to generation x -- millennial -- millennial is after that. x is right.

once the electorate has moved with obama or the democratic party has moved with the obama to generation x maybe they might go back for hillary, but what they go back for joe? don't know. if hillary clinton does not run, i refuse to believe we are ever going to see an open contest for democratic contest nomination with an all male field. do you see kristin gillebrand, elizabeth warren? who else might you see? i think there will be a compelling argument for someone not in washington, a governor. martin o'malley, andrew cuomo.

or brian schweitzer from montana. someone who says i have never worked in washington, i am not part of the cesspool in washington. you see that out there. a lot of permutations of where it may go, but all built on the questions that have to be answered up front. the republican party is a question of how many times can you cut up the center right in the sense of -- i do not know how one what exactly measure this, but ted cruz, rand paul, rick perry, scott walker, marco rubio. chris christie?

i think he would be a formidable general election candidates. i am not sure how he wins the republican nomination. let's say on the democratic side, could mark warner when the democratic nomination? i think that would be very hard. then there is jeb bush. i think he would be a very strong candidate but do not think he will run. he would like to, but i do not think he will run for personal reasons. you enter into all these things. that is a very long way of saying who knows? it is going to be a lot of fun to watch. who have i left out? i do not have my cheat sheet in front of me. tom harkin?[laughter]

i think he is retiring. what is the story that was reported that his wife read game change and said you are not running. no idea whether that is true or not but that that was kind of funny. the old adage that senators when winnations.-- never nominations. up until 2008 the last u.s. senator to win the presidency was john kennedy. then you got to 2008 and had to u.s. senators. -- two u.s. senators. if i were a party, i would rather have a governor as a nominee, someone not perceived to be a part of washington. does that mean that any governor could win the? obviously not. we have exhausted all questions.

twitter questions. hopefully you have called all the perjorative ones. are we supposed to read names? michelle asks, 2014, gop still in trouble with yonder non-white female and on-partisan voters. will it matter in the mid-term election? i think the answer to that is it depends. it is not that in the mid-term election all voters are old, white, male and conservative or liberals. you will obviously have them that are younger, non-white female and moderate. how many are there going to be? keep in mind in the house, how

many are there going to be in the 4-5 senate states that make a difference in terms of the u.s. senate. yes, republicans, to the extent they had problems in 2004, those problems, just because of the nature of the turnout might be somewhat diminished by a different turn out to make up in 2014, but that does not mean those problems go away. mid-term elections. will obama hurt the democrats in 2014? that is what we look at polls for. right now he is at an equilibrium point with the approval and disapproval -- this approval rating in the 46-47% range from both.

we do not know yet. if i had to bet if his approval levels will be higher or lower than 47%, i think i would pick the lower side, but one thing you have to keep in mind about president obama is because he has had such -- if president obama were a stock in the stock market you would say he would have a high floor and low ceiling. that he has a bedrock base of support that will approve of the job he is doing no matter what, but at the same time you have an equally strong level of opposition. his numbers do not typically fluctuate -- do not typically break out of the certain trading range that is out there. so his numbers have not gone as low as george w. bush's were

during the tough times or not as high -- but they did not go as high. if we knew what kind of job approval rating president obama had in october-november of next year, that could give us a clue. we have to remember the key races are more senate and house. the ones that are most relevant are alaska, arkansas, louisiana, north carolina, kentucky -- those are the ones that matter. those are ones not on the sunnier side but on the sheer side. the lower side of whatever the national approval rating is. we have to keep that in mind as well. one more question. right here. hold one a microphone?

one more second. >> i am danny ritchie, a college student. as far as i know, there is still pending redistricting cases. currently the maps are pretty non-competitive but if one of them were to get overturned, would you expect that has an effect on the race for the house? >> i wish i had david wasserman here to throw a lifeline to. first of all, i do not know. i do not know which way it would go. i think i remember david saying there are only a couple of places it would likely change,

so i do not really know, but in the big scheme of things, there is a 17 seat difference. that is not going to be materially changed much by court's overturning maps in florida or anywhere else. so i would say it would not likely have a significant national impact in doubt if it would have that much more than a seat or two either. when i started my newsletter in 1984 when they i realize very quickly is i am not a lawyer. i am very careful on redistricting and all kinds of lawsuits, that that is not where my area of expertise goes, so i tried to stay in my lane. i do not think it would make that much. thank you very much. i want to thank united technologies and all the terrific people at united

technologies for sponsoring this get together. i want to thank c-span for covering this. we will have several more of these this year and next year. holdk you all for coming. on. when in doubt, read the directions. as a reminder, we would love to hear your thoughts and feedback on the event and would encourage you to fill out the event of surveys placed on your street -- steep pierre did you make of this to any member of the national journal team. thank you. president obama will be speaking in tennessee to talk

about the economy. he will go to capitol hill to speak with congressional democrats. his recent speeches began last week at knox college in illinois. over the next few minutes, you would hear a little what he said there followed i remarks from mitch mcconnell. >>so we've got to do something about college costs. families and taxpayers can't just keep paying more and more into an undisciplined system. we've got to get a better bang for our buck. [applause] so states have to do their part by prioritizing higher education in their budgets --[applause] because part of the reason tuition has been skyrocketing is colleges aren't state-funded colleges aren't getting as much funding, and so then tuition is going up on the backs of students and families. but we've also got to test new ways of funding based not just on how many students enroll, but

how well they do. and colleges have to do their part by keeping costs from going up. so here at central missouri, you are a laboratory for this kind of innovation. i had a great discussion with not only the president of this university but also the superintendent of schools here, the head of the community colleges. what's happened at ucm is you've partnered with the lee's summit school district, with the metropolitan community college, with local health care, engineering, energy, and infrastructure firms -- all industries that are going to drive job growth in the future and everybody is now working together to equip students with better skills, allow them to graduate faster with less debt, and with the certainty of being able to get a job at the other end. [applause] that's a recipe for success over

the long term. so we've got students at summit technology academy - [applause] there we go. those students, they're beginning to accrue credits towards an associate's degree while they're still in high school, which means they can come here to earn a bachelor's degree in two years and graduate debt free. [applause] debt free, on a fast track. [applause] and because the community colleges and industries are involved, students are making quicker decisions about the industries that are going to create jobs, and the businesses are helping to design the programs to make sure that they have the skills for those jobs so that not only are you graduating debt free, but you also know that you've got a job waiting for you on the other end. (applause.)

now, that is exactly the kind of innovation we need when it comes to college costs. that's what's happening right here in warrensburg. and i want the entire country to notice it, and i want other colleges to take a look at what's being done here. and i've asked my team to shake the trees all across the country for some of the best ideas out there for keeping college costs down, so that as students prepare to go back to school, i'm in a position to lay out what's going to be an aggressive strategy to shake up the system to make sure that middle-class students, working-class students, poor kids who have the drive and the wherewithal and want to get a good college education, they can get it without basically mortgaging their entire future. we can make this happen but this is an example of the kind of thing we've got to focus on instead of a bunch of distractions in washington. (applause.)

president, i appreciate good literary reference place on the proper context from some great writer or thinker can sum up a vision and inspire people. farewell.carthur bid "onlynous warning that the dead have seen the end of war." the biblical references in jfk's speech is another classic view of the well-placed quote. are stilleople scratching their heads about president obama's yesterday. had promised yesterday to bring america an ocean of tomorrow's. fansly, i do not think would get it. he? the wonder does

president himself said his speech probably will not change any minds. sayinge advisers are there would not be any there. no caps to the center. and finally start working collaboratively. they were right. really, you have to ask what was the point? the president is a terrific campaigner. he has a way with words. at some point, campaign season has to end. and working with other season has to begin. at some point, you have to start crochet -- promising an ocean of tomorrow's and started working with the representatives of the people. let's be perfectly clear. americans are not want about how many tomorrows are two,, they are worried about the tomorrows will bring.

mail.lls in tomorrow's the cuts in the paycheck. the affordability of healthcare costs. these are the things that cannot be undressed with reheated speeches or clever quotes. they require working with people including those you might not always agree with. for instance, telling people obamacare is working the way it is supposed to or it is fabulous or wonderful as some of our democratic friends have done. that does not really change reality. it is just words. it does not change the fact that recent surveys show only 13% of americans now believe the law will help them. believed -- have to believe it will make things worse for the middle class or actuaries are predicting cost increases of 30% or more in my

home state of kentucky. the president likes to point to the few places where premiums might actually drop under a. he is basically silent on the places where it is announced they will go up under obamacare. he will not say a word about all the people who lost jobs or who are seen their pay cut. the washington post profiled a part-time professor who like many in his situation will see as our slashed as a result of hours/as a his result of this law. agree not for the better. especially for the growing number of americans part -- forced into part-time hours as a result. as one part-time waitress interview said i cannot believe

i voted for this. this is not the change i wanted. it feels like there is no hope. if the president is ready to pivot from campaign mode, he can stop -- the start by dropping the misleading claims. a lot of americans are going to feel the pain was the ocean of tomorrow's crashed ashore. americans are worried and i do not blame them. i met with employers from around kentucky who expressed concern about the impact the law would have on their operations. they want the democrats to follow the house's lead and open way -- and delay obamacare. they know it makes sense to do so. i know that what the president to sign the bill. i agree he should. it would be a great first step thatlimited the delay

would give republicans and democrats a chance to start over and work together on a bipartisan step by of health reform of actually lower costs. we cannot get there until the president changes his mind set until he was the poetry down and turns the campaign switch off. would behe does, he surprised at how many republicans what to do exactly what we said all along. to work with him on solutions to get our economy moving, our jobs growing, and our healthcare more affordable. we are waiting. americans are waiting. i hope they will finally be ready soon. i yield. guesta few moments, our will be jack doyle. the founder and publisher of a website focusing on pop culture. a discussion about relations

between the united kingdom and the european union. a preview of the midterm elections with charlie cook, the publisher. , on today, jack doyle. stories he hase written and posted on contemporary pop culture. >> jack doyle, what is pophistorydig? >> it is the history of popular culture. it is a collection of or