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. 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 pulling the pins. 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 they are 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 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.

and so there's sort of a monkey that republicans have to get off their back where they've been losing the close races. some of it is brand damage. bit of it is technology. we can talk about that later if you like. the republicans have -- you know if the republicans get their act together, they ought to be able bunch of seats in this election. now, as of today, the epublicans need a net gain of five seats to get a majority in the senate. the real number is six. they borrowed a seat in new jersey that they're going to lose in october in that special election that they're hardly contesting. so the big number is going to be republicans that will need. and surely there are six opportunities out there. are three democratic open seats that look more likely than not to go to republican hands. but it's the fourth, fifth, sixth seats that republicans to really worry about.

mark bag get in arkansas, rk pryor in mary landrieu in louisiana, to laeszer extent, kay hagen in the carolina would be seventh that they would be looking at. can they tip over? can republicans tip those over in addition to, you know, in south dakota and in west virginia and what's other one i'm thinking of? republican -- >> montana. montana, yes, where bachus is retiring. and brian sweitzer not running. so you have three republican -- democratic-held seats that looks like it's probably going to go to republican side. the key is fourth, fifth, and sixth and that's assuming on to e republicans hang all of the wrong seats. seat's only one republican

up in a democratic -- not counting new jersey, in a democratic leaning state. susan collins in maine. for s she doesn't run re-election or bumped off in a primary, i don't think those are going to happen. fine. the only one we're looking at is saxby chambliss is retiring. that's where later the daughter is running. five or six republicans are side.g on the other the question is whether nun is unning, whether nun's candidacy, it really sort of republicans if nominate how to i say this? an exotic or potentially problematic nominee. that's the term i used with my not trying to convince me to use the word "whacko" anymore. if they nominate a sort of

chromosamal alignment they hold on to the seat. little in shifting a the south. virginia has become a state.iably mid atlantic it's not behaving like a southern state anymore. classic swing state. north carolina is sort of working its way through the transition. it's not as far along as is.inia but it is getting less and less every day.rn state georgia's way back. but it's sort of moving the same the rest rection and of the deep south just isn't moving at all. georgia is sort of not there yet. actually texas is its own world. talking about texas or florida. yet.orgia is not there but if republicans nominate someone who can't reach out to suburbs but do well with moderate suburban voters, particularly the voters that are parts of the country that have moved in to georgia in

thatast 30, 40 years, then would be one that they could potentially lose as well. that's really the only republican seat that i pay attention to at all. that's sort of where we are right now. it's sort of we're raising lots not coming one a lot of answers. but it's certainly in the cycle. that's what keeps this thing -- keeps this thing interesting is of the different permentations of what can happen. o why don't we sort of open it up now to questions, comments, accusationings. microphones here, here, and over there. just raise your hand in a nonthreatening way and a its way to ill make you. there's one right here. do you have one there? okay. start off here and we'll come over here next. thanks very much.

pacific gas & electric. you just went through the races watching and you didn't mention kentucky at all. o given there's a lot of swirl on that, a lot of speculation. ust curious why you're not mentioning it at all. >> a, it's early in the morning nd my 5-hour energy hasn't completely kicked in. i should have -- i should have mentioned that. i apologize. a hink -- you come up with legitimate decent democratic candidate against mitch kentucky and you get 47%. 47%, 48%. you get that. is do you get on 3%? next 2% or and that's a very, very hard 2% or 3%. it is that mcconnell ecause mcconnell is a very polarizing figure, he probably generic orms a republican because he's got such

sharp elbows. and what -- what democrats are is that primes can reach in and grab some of those moderate, moderately in the tive women louisville suburbs in the around ti suburbs lexington can reach in and sort of go after some of these voters uncomfortableey're a little bit with guns. little bit e a uncomfortable with abortion -- whatever the issues are. they can kind of peel some off, just a couple of percentages off mcconnell and beat him. and so i think this is going to race but it's one that if i were grimes, i would low to keep a relatively profile early on, get my lined up, nal ducks raise my money, get fully up to

because federal issues she's got a -- she's got to know equivalent of the a presidential campaign on the other side. misstep, real or imagined, they're going to pounce on and just beat the daylights out of her. so i think she's got to do this in a very measured way. so i'm not expecting to hear some out of this race for a while to go. but it's certainly -- we fully expect it to be a top tier race. for not using get i leave a t all that race out. yes, sir? i'm in the american physical society, i'm a physicist. i look at misstep, real or imagined, they're going to pounce on and just beat the daylights out of her. so i think she's got to do this numbers.

>> you and i have a lot in common. >> my grade in basic physics in college. >> you should have taken one of my courses. about the issue of turnout. the polling doesn't reflect some the issues of the trayvon martin trial -- or i should say zimmerman trial. i wonder whether in fact we're oing to see a mobilization on minorities who are very upset with this. same issues of the as women on restrictions of abortion. ut it's not going affect the house, it could affect a number of senate races. have any views on that? occurredk if this case in september or october of next possibility ofhe that really ratcheting up minority turnout would be numb very, very high. but issues tend to have shelf lives. and energy and focus tend to have shelf lived. nd in politics, 15 months is a really, really long period of

time. and so obviously i think you're going to have groups on the democratic side that are going try to kind of bottle capture that energy and keep it going. a very, very, very hard thing to do. and, you know, think about -- the scene inrse of jurassic park where you're getting chased by the dinosaur in the rear-view mirror and it says, you know, bjects may be closer than they appear. it's kind of the opposite of that. that the longer -- the longer election is, the further away it is, the less likely to be relevant. the more likely something else will be relevant. so that's why i'm a little -- i there's a tendency that we all naturally have to look at happening to us right into d project that well the future. and so i would say is what's in

the news in september? october?n the news in what's in the news the first november, thatof would be more relevant. learly -- clearly that -- an event like that can really -- can really change thingings. the other thing i might change, though, is that the -- when we talk about the difference and en midterm election presidential election turnout, among --aren't as wide between say african-americans, between midterm and election term. its's not quite as wide as some groups. that's one of the reasons why greenberg and women's voices, groups are ng focusing on unmarried women. it's enormous. these are people a lot of these politics ot follow avidly. it's a good group

it's an rats in that efficient group if they can move the numbers quickly if they could volt. a group voting in easonably high numbers and african-american turnout doesn't trail white turnout by that much harder to s's a lot move these numbers forward. and i'm sure you know of some technical term if i don't. so it's certainly the case. >> good morning. patty ritchie with target. discuss the trauma becoming the wyoming race? sorry? >> yeah. i think i'm going to stop answering questions from this right over here. you know, there are a lot of why incumbents draw challenges. sometimes somebody is old and touch with the state. sometimes they've gotten either

liberal rvative or too or too moderate in i'd logically their state.ith sometimes they might have that.als, something like i can't really find any of those enzi.mike and it would be uncharitable to this is just about personal ambition. to be mind is open persuaded that that's not the case. sometimes silence is golden, you know? who's next? i guess over here is next. charlie richard hall from amway. i had the pressure to go back to day. port the other >> uh-oh. >> i tried to engage everyone i

landrieu about mary and no one wanted to talk politics at all. thosere you hearing about races down there? >> part of the issue. he reference to the hometown, by the way. is that he problem shreveport about what it is. not known particularly in shreveport. all.race isn't engaged at so louisiana hasn't turned the corner and focused i think on the senate race. this is going to be a race that big landrieu, you know, one side of going to be she's taking over the senate energy committee and, you know, lot of influence in a state that's historically had a lot. late hasn't had as much.

senator e other hand, landrieu has been the beneficiary of having really opponents or really, really good years for democrats. so she's never had a tough opponent in a tough year. going to really, really test her. think this -- this is, i believe, the toughest opponent had. and at worst, for republicans it be a level playing field in louisiana, at worst. i think this is going to be the toughest had yet.she's i mean certainly it's tougher woody jenkins. daught darrow.an suzy as as tough a year republicans as 2008 was.

it was.ad a year as but you get the general idea. know the outcome of just three states, that would be one of the three i would want to do. along with alaska and arkansas. i go to four, i'd go to kentucky, maybe next. but it would be a good race. she's going have to run i think has ter campaign than she in the past because she has a tougher opponent. but louisiana is a tough -- a for a federal candidate to win statewide now. it really, it really is. had a wondering why you race with the governor election or the senate, north carolina --ng >> i think i specifically mentioned it, but i don't put it right at the -- i sort of put it

at three democratic seats that leaning republican. and then there are three more, alaska, arkansas, louisiana, that i think are top tier. back a little bit find and find -- and north carolina. tom, the speaker, i ran into him know, this is the first time to kind of run on the big stage. and sometimes state house speakers, state senate presidents, sometimes they really good statewide candidates and sometimes not so good. know, we have to sort of let that race develop. but, you know, he's not in -- know, what does the legislature. what is the image of the legislature going to be like. so i think that race simply hasn't developed yet. we know that the first three are hotly o be very contested. may now, north carolina very well get there.

it's sort of not there yet. clearly one , it's i am watching. but, you know, you have to kind can't prior titz all of them as top races. you have to make some delineationings. so i put three -- three ahead of that in terms of the really hot races. certainly one that we're going be watching. know, i don't think hagen is terribly well defined in the state. true.k that's i guess it's good news and bad news for her. he good news is she's not defined in a pejorative way. she's not define in a positive way. she's not well defined. something that she's got to do before tillus ahead of momentum. >> mika hanson with hrp. louisiana, you had

mentioned this would be the first time that mary landrieu and have a tough opponent tough year. considering how the legislature bobby jindal ly has been faring in the state, do you think that could help lift case?n this >> i -- not really. numbers are al's not particularly good right now. i think that's absolutely true. think i saw some that they were around same as president obama's in the state or maybe a touch lower. i don't think that the -- inor or the legislature mean, i mentioned the legislature in connection with north carolina because tom is the speaker of the north carolina house. i just don't think that the senate race will be the other byway or the governor of the state legislature. it's a federal race.

it's going to be more sort of washington oriented. be a ow, there may epublican congress versus a democratic president or a republican house versus a democratic senate. just don't think that that's going to be connected in any way. so if landrieu gets re-elected, be n't think it's going to because of the governor or the legislature. i don't think they're that connected. they could be. morning, scottie greenwood. thank you for all of this. thank you for the hospitality and hosting it. back to georgia, maybe a quick could.if you i think your analysis is that relevant is nunn is somebody op nominated "exotic" and i wanted to ask if

you consider michelle nunn, that she's a generational change, not a politician. she's been ceo of the largest ervice organization in the world, iconic family name, etc. layer in that the democrats have not won in for the last couple of cycles, they try to get the unregisterled african-american women and allried hat, do you think nunn's candidacy can be relevant or is it all about the crazies on the other side. >> i don't think georgia is yet really oint where a strong democrat could make the difference. virginia is there, north is maybe there. look at the numbers in georgia, for example. where in the blue jersey is there a liability in georgia still. not as much as it used to be a while back, but it still is

a liability. and i think this being a fresh face, a new person, all that. think that changes the color. think what you have to have for her, again, 6, 8, 10, 12 may well --ow, this very well be different. but right now, i think she does need to have a -- an opponent who, you know, a fairly middle of the road person independent, just kind of looks at it and says, i can't go there. so i don't think we're quite there yet. ll those things that may well help her, the republicans, if more ate is still a lot republican than not, i don't think that alone really gets her there.

it's -- it's -- just take a look presidential and it's kind of a -- it's a pretty good big sample poll of sort of country is -- neither side really competed hard in it. a reflectionort of of where was the state right then. and then it's on the blue, ioning from red to it's still very much on the red side and would take a while to get to blue. texas.nd of like texas just isn't there yet. >> good morning. the american surety growers. skipped over social media. you mentioned it earlier. into that going to come play? and how has that tracked all of the tweets and the twitters and i think only birds do because i'm old. how does that track and how does

that come into play? >> you're asking someone who 60 later this year. you're asking the wrong person. and i was looking at that hinking, god, i hope that it's #mjcharliecook is a twit. probably is now. person.i'm the wrong there's probably people who could speak more eloquently and expertly than i. that's out there. innovation isn't new. can remember back when before, the old of you remember kind of fax machines that you put it under a piece of paper, a lip, that it would spin around. things , all of these have revolutionized politics in different ways. social media is the same way. but -- and so all of these are

enovations that are really, really important. but i don't think it changes -- i don't think social media changes anybody's values. i don't think it changes their olitical orientation in any way. what it does is just speed up processing of information getting information out to eople who maybe in some cases they don't read news. they don't listen to -- they news. watch cable they don't read -- they don't watch television news. it's getting information to kind of crevasses that sometimes normally news doesn't go to. think mething i republicans, you know, the expand it from social media to technology. need to ns really do kind of catch up. terms of the whole idea for

technology and software and social media is a part of it. but if you think about it, the 2004 re-election bush campaign was absolutely state of the art it was data that ining, microtargeting, to the extent that in 2004, republicans with right there at the cutting edge. ut for all intents and purposes, the next eight years ere pretty much lost on the party.ican and during that time, remember n 2004, you know, the -- the republicans didn't have it alone. you had the dean campaign and the kerry campaign. they were also doing technology and social media and these sorts of things. but they kept developing them obama and intoth 2012. so i'd say on the broader technology side, this is republicans need really, really work on.

contributing editor of the report wrote a piece recently where she was pointing on the democratic side, a while the obama campaign developed a lot, these people have gone out to the sector. you've got private sector initiatives going on, developing datang edge technology and ases while she was drawing the republican side. almost like the five-year stalin lan where it sort of centralized and not in the private sector and maybe not as as it needs to be whereas democrats are and that epublicans might be well advised to sort of revisit a little how they're approaching not having it in something that's sort of a one-off of the rnc.

dominion.mckay with the case because it's not constructive of the future. o you expect it to be the case this time or do the candidates involved kind of throw that theory out? >> no, i think that the -- i new jersey governor's race will be of absolutely no telling of anything. at all. governor's race is i think unusually -- i think it -- it is going to be an interesting test. mean, let's just start off a h say, okay, virginia's swing state. nd we know that virginia has a history of voting of electing party rs of the opposite from that -- from whoever's -- whichever side is in the white house. a tendency.t's you know, it's obviously not in concrete. but we know that's out there. its's an interesting test that's out there. what you have is two

candidates that are of, by, and their respective bases. in a swing state where independent and moderate voters getting more and more fielded , neither side a candidate that was sort of made-to-order to go after swing voters. so, to me, the voters between two 40 yardlines, they are absolutely up for grabs. you're republican and you wanted to go after between the i'm not ine voters, sure you would have nominated cuccinelli. if you were a democrat and you go for the voters between the two 40s, i'm not a formerwould nominate democratic national chairman. so i think in a -- in a really way, this is a great

jump ball situation where side has a natural claim on the other. just sort of how people feel about national the two in about parties may steer -- may steer ome of those moderate independents one direction or the other. keep in mind that four years obama had just -- ad just taken office, just taken office. nominee the democratic just won the nomination. and within a month -- and there was a pole or two that showed him ahead of cdonald -- of bob mcdonald. a poll or two. suddenly, deeds started just dropping. picking up.rted deeds must have been -- did i say something

wrong? did i not shower this morning? just happened? i just started dropping like a stone. the reason was president obama's numbers had started dropping at that point. party had just -- just almost overnight lost the omentum they had in 2008, a state that had gone democratic in 2008. nd suddenly it started transitioning right out from under deeds and you saw that ational dynamic really, really kick in there. i'd love to think now who's going win the race, not because it will tell us where the country is going in 2014, but its's probably the indicator we have this year of -- you know, its's sort of that's gest sample poll going to be out there this year way ing voters and which

they're really going. great.k it's going to be did i tell you who i thought was going to win? no. think a lot of voters in virginia still don't know a whole lot about either candidate. it's going to be particularly northern virginia voters. think it's going to be maybe the last month or so when this thing engages. there's a good chance we won't all the way up. grant moreham of thornton. good to see you, charlie. you spoke about technology and races.act on the can you address the changes that ollsters are having to deal with with making sure their accurate and how that evolution could impact the predictability of races as we move to this next election. that's another terrific question.

give an answer hat's like pre-2012 answer and then let me give an affected-by answer. because of the rise of telemarketing through the -- and the last 0s voicemail -- voicemail, caller i.d., all these things. i'm not even including at phones.int cell the effectiveness of market polling and political has gone down. and the response rates -- how make alls do you have to before you get one completion? nd at one point, it was up in the 30s and now, you know, it's in the 10% range where you have make, you know, 10 calls to get one fully completed cases.ew in a lot of and so what we had happening.

nd, again, this is before cell phones get into the mix. what we already had happening very, very best pollsters in the business. democrat, republican, independent. the best pollsters could not do themselvesob as they were able to do 10, 20, 30 years ago. hard they er how tried, it wasn't -- it wasn't as it used to be. and then you introduce cell phones. the better pollsters were taking that into account phones and g cell their samples, i noticed that were reenberg poll we talking about yesterday. 50% of the sample was made up of their cell ed on phones, which, by the way, is expensive to do. and so they're having to do that ecause increasingly, how many people in this room do not have a landline?

raise your hand? pretty good-sized number. so certain technologies like calling, not allowed to call cell phones. so you kind of get into that. so then you got into 2012. i mean so all of these were 2012.ems going into and then in 2012, you had sort of a unique problem. that one of the hings that happens as the esponse rate goes down that pollsters have to weight the umbers, adjust the numbers statistically to make sure they sample.representative we know that the electorate is female, for52%, 53% example. there's certain things that you can pretty much count on thingings. some race but there are things that you can count on. you have to wait to make up for because the response rates

are so low. a growing provision in the 2012 what is electorate going to look like. speaking ou generally ad was you had republican pollsters say 2008, when you had inority turnout jumped up so much, when you had young people jump up so much, you had some dynamics.al turnout but that was the result of first minority nominee for the u.s. presidency, excitement, the energy that was around barack obama, all of that. and so you had republican assuming thatwere 2008 was a one-shot deal. 2012 turnout dynamic closer to aomething normal presidential turnout. on the other hand, democratic

pollsters were saying no, we have a new normal. the country is changing. it is becoming more diverse. young people really are energized and they're going to turn out yet again. and this and this and that. so what we started seeing in the 2012 between the two gap between rowing were epublican pollsters getting and believed and what emocratic pollsters were getting and believed. so part of what i was doing was ort of e-mailing and talking back and forth to pollsters on both sides, just sort of off of the record, what are you seeing? kind of margins were you seeing? that sort of thing. n a lot of these cases, these are people i've known for 20, 30 years. and i knew -- they may be right, wrong, but i know they're not lying to me. which is not always the case with pollsters. in some cases -- you know,

and there was an honest-to-god of opinion between the two sides. and you had to kind of reconcile be right and to who was going to be wrong here. you had e same time, independent pollsters who had had screening questions, to tions that were designed ascertain who is and who isn't likely to vote. example, historically, asking people how much interest o you have in the upcoming election? historically, that's been a good question to determine who is and isn't likely to vote. ell, apparently in 2012, it didn't work. a lot of the traditional uestions that had usually worked didn't work in 2012. of so you had this sort philosophical difference of what the electorate was going to look to , that was going affectweighting and quotas and hand, you had legitimate people who didn't

have the thumb on the scale in direction that were relied traditionally reliable yardsticks that just weren't right. you have some results that were, all over the map. and we're now beginning to see a nontraditionalof polling. both the obama and the romney campaigns. yes, they were doing a certain amount of live interview polling. but they were also going into and dropping 10,000 robo alls into ohio and waiting and saying, okay, i know they're not getting cell phones. know, you know. but we can weight around that and correct for that. when they were coming up with based onlytical models something that was based on omething other than live traditional telephone interviewing. what is polling today is changing. ts's live interviews, its's robo polling, and increasingly,

polling which i've always been very dismissive of because i never thought you a real representative sample on-line, but there's some new things that are getting going in and ple, giving people who agreed to be -- in a in a -- in a ample, a -- give them a computer. in exchange for them responding for 5,000 to his 6,000 people around the country so they can draw on those kinds of interviews. all kinds of things are happening but it's happening the old traditional working polling isn't as well as it used to. so polling has always been an based on a science. nd now it's beginning to be event and f a mixed

less scientifically rigorous because sed to be you're sealing sort of multiple being of polling basically kind of thrown in a cuisinart and blended together numbers which, a lot of subjectivity goes into that. its's tough. so we're in sort of a new world. a a previous life i worked as pollster. it doesn't look like it did back in 1980. over here? charlie, thank you. wondered if you could lay out plan of the next presidential race. sorry. >> i want to write off the whole side over here.

there should be a disclaimer the rack si rate for prognostications three years in advance is zero. okay? pretend that my view is anymore likely to be accurate than anyone else's. i -- you know, maybe it's a easier to look at both sides -- each side separately. it's a group of questions. lets's think about it. do a little to decision tree. hillary clinton? yes or no? you know,onvention -- then hillarythe -- clinton, if yes, ma'am, then likely to be no. hillary clinton if no, then biden is more likely to be yes. absolutely. but there. then you get into all of these others. in the conventional wisdom in washington seems to be hat she is absolutely going to run. and that politics -- its's a

and the decision politics say she should run. i don't know if she's going to run or not. with the i would agree conventional wisdom that if this decision, olitical the odds are probably very, very high that she'd run. i think it's going to be a personal and political decision. nd the personal side is does she feel like running? does she feel up to it? personally think she feels a terrific secretary of state. knows, i would travel 38 times around the world if she the four years and miles and 118, 119 days on the road and all that. but that job really did take its toll on her. the last couple of months that secretary of state, those were fitzically healthwise. those appear to be very, very months. does she feel up to it?

yes or no? know, does she look around and, again, i can't -- i have no inside information whatsoever. know, i -- she's probably -- maybe she's sitting thinking, you know, she lost her mom a couple of years you nd i think people when lose your remaining parent, you ave a greater sense of mortality than you used to. she had a couple of people she the senate that have had devastating strokes. and distressingly early ages. oes she -- you know, does that impact on sort of the health consequences? you know? nd, boy, you know, when's chelsea going to have a kid, come on, come on. all of these thingings, i mean i a nk it's going to be political and personal decision. i would put it closer to 50/50. maybe it's 60/40. maybe its's 40/60. neighborhood of whether she runs or not.

but i would argue the personal really a -- does she want to do this? yes or no. politics would argue strongly for her to do it. biden biden, i think desperately wants to run. think realistically, if hillary was running, my guess is odds are he wouldn't. you never know. but, you know, once the has made a arty shift from the baby boom generation to the -- what is that, generation x? millennial? thank you, millennial is after that. x is right. what's immediately after baby boom? it's "x," right? has moved ectorate with obama -- or the democratic moved with obama to generation x, maybe they might hillary, but would they go back for joe?

i don't know. and if hillary clinton doesn't i refused to believe that e're ever going to see an open contest for a presidential nomination with an all-male field. o if hillary doesn't run, you know, do you see kristen hillenbrand. you see amy cloveture. litz beth warren. who else might you see out there. and then i think there will be a in both g argument parties for someone who's not in washington for a governor. and so you might say martin a alley and andrew cuomo, john hickenlooper out there or a sweitzer from montana. you know, you can see someone that says i've never worked in washington. not a part of that cesspool

in washington. you see that out there. of permentations of where it may go. of questions kinds up front. then of the republican party, it's a question of sort of how can you cut up the right-to-right? in the sense that, you know, i one would exactly measure this. ted cruz, rand paul, rick marco scott walker, christie.u know, chris while i think chris christie would be a very, very formidable i'm al election candidate, not sure how a chris christie nomination.lican anymore than -- let's say on the

democratic side, could a mark democratic nomination? i think that would be very hard. christie would have a hard time winning a republican nomination. maybe he'll decide to do it. who i think will be a very strong candidate but i personally don't thin he's going to run. he'd like to run, but i don't think he'll run for personal decisions. enter into all of these things, you know, so that's a very, very long way of saying the hell knows? fun to ill be a lot of watch. who have i left out? like i've left out a whole bunch of people. i don't have my cheat sheet in front of me. >>. [ inaudible ] harkin? i think harkin is retiring. you know, john -- you know, john thune? what was the story his wife read change" and said no, you're not running.

i have no idea if that's true or not. but that's actually kind of funny. the old adage that senators nominations, you know? up until 2008, the last time or elections the al last u.s. senator to win the presidency was john kennedy. you got to 2008 and, you know, you had two u.s. senators. that changed? so if i were a party, and just of not controlling for anything else, i would rather a e a governor, i think, as nominee. someone who's not perceived to e a part of washington and not a part of congress. now, you know, does that mean that any governor could win? obviously not. questions?sted all oh, wait, there's some twitter questions. hopefully you pulled out all of the pejorative ones.

michelle -- are we supposed to read names? to.f you'd like asked, gop diggles still in trouble with young white e female and voters. would it matter in a midterm election? >> the answer to that is -- it depends -- i mean, first of all, t's not that in a midterm election, all voters are old, conservative nd were liberal. you're obviously going to have are younger, moderate.emale and but how many are there going to be. keep in mind in the house, how to be in here going the let's call it four, five a ate states that make difference in terms of the u.s. senate. happen?at so i don't think, you know, yes, republicans to the extent that problems in 2004, those

problems just because the nature turnout might be somewhat diminished by a different level -- a different turnout makeup of 2014. but that doesn't mean that those at any stretch. midterm elections of amber thomas? emember midterm elections are referendum -- referenda on incumbent presidents. will obama hurt democrats in 2014? look at the polls for, you know? as i pointed out earlier, right he's at an equilibrium point with approval rating and in sort of ratings range., 47% so, you you know, we don't know yet. f i had to bet or will his approval numbers be higher or lower than say 47%? they might be -- i think

i'd pick the lower side than the upper side. but one thing you have to keep ismind about president obama if use he has such -- president obama were a stock at the stock market. would have a you high floor and a low ceiling that he's got a bedrock base of that are going to approve of the job he's doing no matter what. same time, you have an equally strong level of -- level of opposition. o his numbers don't typically fluctuate -- don't typically break out of the certain trading range that's out there. numbers have not been george w. as say bush's were during tough times. they didn't go to the high point where is bush was in tough times or for previous presidents.

kind of job at approval ratings that president obama had in october, november year, that would give us a clue. but you have to remember, where arethe key -- the key races more senate than house. arethe key -- the ones that most relevant are alaska, louisiana, north those are entucky, the ones that matter. the are ones not on sunnier side for obama but the shadier side. he lower side of whatever the national approval rating is. we have to keep that in mind as well. one more question. one more burning question? right here. microphone person? hang on one more second. a i'm danny ritchie, i'm college student, actually. my question is as far as i know,

still pending. florida ting cases in and texas remaking the system. if one of the maps was to get overturned plarply in florida, would you suspect that has any effect on the rates of the house? > i -- i wish i had david wassermann, our house editor here to throw a lifeline to. i not sure -- first of all, don't know. -- i don't know which way it would go. think i remembered david saying that there are only a couple of places that it would probably likely change. i don't really know. things,he big scheme of 17-seat difference.

and, you know, that's not going materially changed much by courts overturning maps and in in texas or anywhere else. so i would say it would not ikely have a significant national impact. and i kind of doubt if it would have that much more than a seat or two either. ut when i started the newsletter in 1984, one of the things i realized very quickly i'm not a lawyer. i'm very careful on redistricting and all sorts of lawsuits. that's not where my area of -- expertise goes. lane. to stay in my i don't think it would make that much. i wanted to thank united marty ogies and greg and and all of the terrific people at united technologies for get-together and national journal. covering this. we'll have several more of these

through this year and next year. thank you all for coming. we've got an exciting year -- whoa, hang on a second. i'm told -- oh -- when in doubt, the directionings -- as a reminder, we would love to hear your thoughts and feedback on the event. encourage you to fill out the event surveys that were placed on your seat. completed e your surveys to any member of the "in aingsal journal" team, thank you again. we go. thank you. [ applause ] >> on wednesday, orrin hatch of inh up bake the 11th senator u.s. history to cast 13,000 vote unless the senate. the list is robert byrd of west virginia with more than 18,600. strom thurmond of south carolina with over 16,300. active senator with more votes than senator hatch is

vermont.leahy of on reaching the milestone, senate leaders took a moment to mark the occasion. now, mr. president, on calling orrin hatch. orrinxt vote cast will be vote.s 13,000th 13,000 a tremendous accomplishment. the state of utah, the constituents and the united country.nator in our he's this most senior member now his seventh term in the united states senate. before running for the senate, enator hatch received a brigham 's degree from young university, and was in private practice for a number of years. he's a ranking member in the

finance committee today as we he made a great reputation or himself and chair of the judiciary committee. and we worked together with him as relatives for many years. he served on the health committee, the joint committee on taxation. eally had a significant impact on the united states senate. he's the member of the board of directors. he's done amazing thingings his whole career. number one accomplishment for me, mr. president, is not how times or terms he's served his e senate, but accomplishment for his wonderful family. his wife, elaine, has been a helpmate for him for these many decades. grandchildren, six children, and now 10 great grandchildren. although we disagree on he's a person i have great respect for. i'm so grateful to him over the

for always expressing concern about me personally. and his kindness and concern for my family. congratulations. [ applause ] >> mr. president. senior senator for utah will quantity of for the his votes, but for the quality of his work. a man of extraordinary character we're happy to have this intermission here to another ate him on yet accomplishment. and a long and outstanding career in the united states senate. [ applause ]

>> taking a look at capitol returns tuesday at noon eastern. on the agenda, a bill to fund transportation and housing year, and a ipartisan bill to discuss the doubling of student loan interest rates. the latest version of that bill last proved by the senate wednesday by a vote of 81-18. the senate returns monday at resume work on their version of the bill to fund department of ransportation and housing and urban development. hey'll start with the nomination of james comy of the fbi. also on tap for the week, three national o the nominations board. you can watch the house on c-span, the senate on c-span 2.

> jack doyle, what is the pop history dig? >> well, this is a website. t's really -- it's the history of pop eurolar culture. its's a collection of stories, hther, on the