for state or local, what ever the appropriate level is. and it gets proliferated to the government. it's a way to bridge the gap between the different levels of government. it's a way to provided template and there's no more important that it can be supported to then human trafficking. >> you talked a little bit about making sure our boots on the ground, people you describe as having the best instincts to recognize these cases, and one of the things we talked about in new jersey was to better prepare our law-enforcement personnel. they have great instincts, they have great commitment, but i thought what i had not done a good enough job on was explaining to them that it is ok to take a longer look, it is ok to drill down a little bit further. can you tell us your thoughts on

that echoed you think it is a worthwhile way for our law enforcement community to be trying to eradicate his crime? >> absolutely. is tremendous pressure on local law enforcement to solve the crime that exists today. that discourages the longer look. raising awareness that there is a longer look to take is critical on dealing with state and local law enforcement. unless they know there is a bigger problem, as we found with what turned into the undercover investigation of the east european trafficking in bars and massage parlors, started as just a prostitution case, and then it grew. ,nce they are alerted to that better investigations will follow. >> thank you. --the son of a required retired schoolteacher, i cannot diminish mys not respect for what you are doing. i have talked with students about this issue and their level

of comprehension astounds me. you talked about some of the cultural things that you are seeing. candidlyto us very about the way those things are talked about in the classroom, not just by the leaders who are involved in the programs you're pursuing better so terrific, but maybe some of the kids who would be more apt to find themselves in the situation because it don't have either a familial support network or they don't feel part of the group at the school. you hear these conversations every day in the hallway and classrooms. talk a little more about that and how you think that is a sign that we have become desensitized to the things that could lead us to the spot we find where people are enslaved. forget my second year of teaching. i had a girl come in to the classroom and she had a black gueye. a few weeks later i notice she was not in my classroom. she was not there for a few days . a few days turned into a week or

two. one of her friends told me she ran away because she could not take her dad hitting her any longer. she was in eighth grade, and she ran away to pennsylvania. is systemic in every school throughout the country. the one thing i have seen is the ability for young people to reach out to other young people within schools who are hurting, like a girl like that. >> that is the thing i like you to give us a little more information on. your students are now going out to other schools and educating other students. i think that is a great thing to be doing. can you tell us about some of the reactions you are having from both the students and teachers at the other schools you're going to, when they talk about human trafficking e >> from teachers, there is a lot of skepticism. the students are coming back and students who have

initiated conversations with parents and family members. they say what are you talking about, this is not true. it seems as if the students are really on the front lines of even trying to convince adult communities, as mr. farmer mentioned. we did an awareness night in our school back in january. we had two police officers from our town come and afterwards they came up and said we had no idea this even existed. we didn't know anything about this until we came here tonight. i think the reaction is pretty shocking. the main reaction, which is the reaction of success, is the ability for a young person to communicate to another young person. the most important step in education is not what we learn, but what we do with what we learn. if our young people are able to educate their peers and teach them that it is not just enough to know, but it is more than that. it's about doing something with what you know him a starting a

campaign, starting a twitter account, starting a facebook account, and really getting the word out, that is the biggest key every >> thank you very much. >> you all are just excellent, and you have just done such great work in this area, and you really have put a human face on this problem. i think the last panel was all about the bureaucratic responses, assuming everyone knew. but you are at that level where you're dealing every day with victims and dealing everyday with this problem and looking at it from a systemic, long-term view. this isn't going to change overnight. this is a problem that has been with us since the beginning of humanity. that i think we thought we eradicated, kind of like eradicating smallpox or polio, and then all of a sudden it comes back, because we loose focus and we lose attention, and we think it is ok, because it is not us.

because it is their kids, not our kids. because it is those people and not all of us. and so we are all in this together, and just from every one of you, i just feel a lot more optimistic than i did before i got here, knowing you are out there thinking about it and how you're going to look at jurisdictional challenges, how to educate kids and not let them be victims, and then thinking about the special needs of very vulnerable populations. dean farmer, it if you think jurisdiction is complicated between you and new york city, indian figure it out in country in a large land-based indian center. i want to raise another symptom of this problem, especially in indian country. i would like both of you to respond to an observation that i have, which is, as we look at the high rate of suicide, young teenage suicide on the

reservations and really off the reservations within our native people population, how much of that do you think is related to abuse, neglect trafficking? >> i don't have any good data, but i think there is a very strong correlation. see extraordinarily high rates of child abuse in many of historic,es, multigenerational trauma that so many families experience has not really been unpacked. until we understand how to heal whole families, we are going to continue to struggle with this. i think the suicide rate is absolutely ranked with alcohol and drug use and those are an offshoot of sexual trauma that has not been dealt with in the child has not had a chance to heal. so there is a strong correlation. with suzanne. i would say the majority of suicides of our children is due to violence, due to child abuse,

due to the drugs and alcohol. just last year, we had a 14- year-old girl hang herself because she was raped. a month later, we had another 14-year- old hang himself with a shoestring on a bathroom door. we had a 19-year-old girl found hanging three days from a tree who is 12 weeks pregnant. the level of suicide is just at epidemic levels, and we really do need to look at the level of violence being perpetuated, which our children are trying to navigate. could give the united states government effort of grade in this area, i guess my question is, what grade would you give us? i will start with you, dean farmer. is used to this. >> i am an easy grader. i would say a b plus.

i would say the level of awareness has risen. the effort is there. the quarter nation could be better. is this a grade in indian country? maybe.uld say c minus, i am encouraged. i'm seeing progress, but there are still a lot of work to be done. >> just for some of the folks who are not as familiar with indian jurisdiction, the federal government has a unique relationship, whether it is a trust and treaty relationship or primacy ands jurisdiction. we could use five fbi agents in fort burke told right now. we have 3000 pending criminal , a vast tribunal court majority of those cases are drug related. we know we've got these ongoing problems. just so we know that what we are

grading here is a different jurisdictional challenge. lisa? >> i would have to say on a national level, a c, just because it was only a few years ago that suzanne and i were talking with the human trafficking division, where the funding that was available was not available to address domestic, it was only international. so to see the change occurring is good. for indian country, i give it a d, simply because of the jurisdictional issues. of lack of funding, the lack education and awareness in training for law enforcement, and building those collaborative relationships that are necessary between tribal, state, and federal agencies to have a united front to address this issue. thank you. >> from my perspective, i would say a d. i think that even what we are

doing here today, the fact that president obama has made speeches about it and so on, there has been such a greater attention brought him even over the last three years, from the federal government as i have followed it. however, you really believe very strongly that there needs to be far more outreach into the school systems in order to prevent and educate young people of the risk factors and warning signs, especially from department that federal and state level as well. >> i just have a few minutes and i just want to make a comment about victimization and about the work that we have done over the years dealing with victims. it is not easy for victims to come forward. it is not easy for victims to talk about their victimization. it is not easy because there is a lot of shame, especially in indian country, with young girls who may have used drugs and alcohol and ended up in a very bad situation.

moreo we need to be concerned about how we deal with victims, so that they know that there is justice for them, regardless of what their behaviors were. i think there is a lot of blaming that goes on, and we need to step back and spend some time talking about how we are going to deal with this problem from a holistic standpoint. i just thank you all for putting a very human face on this, and some great expertise. i think you gave us some great ideas. >> amen. the two of you came up with this idea, and i really didn't know fully what to expect. this has been terrific for me. they are rate witnesses. -- great witnesses. thank you for recommending several people to testify. you really provided great leadership on this point.

i gave the first panel chance to make a brief closing statement. i'll ask you to make a brief closing statement. then we will wrap it up. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is hard to believe we are talking about people in 2013, but we are. it is encouraging that, thanks to the chairman's leadership, we are able to talk about it at the highest levels of government so that would bring attention to it. in our schools, in our communities, everywhere that we can. i really appreciate the passion that all of you brought to this issue today. i appreciate the chance to talk about this issue today, and i hope we will continue to talk about it and that everybody who is sitting in our chairs will continue to listen, so we can make sure that people understand it is out there. we are using every resource we can. i come from a prosecutor's

mentality, but from a victims perspective as well. all these perspectives are really important so that we get to a solution that addresses all deterringdicating, it, and returning some quality of life. thank you. story of ainded of a gentleman i used to work with a north dakota. the juvenile justice system in north dakota and he did a series of meetings across the state. everywhere he went, he got a lot of suggestions, and a lot of times he was told what he could not do. they would say you cannot do this, and you cannot do that. at the end of why these meetings, an elder on the reservation came up to him and dod you know what you cannot ? he thought, one more. he -- he said come you cannot give up. you cannot give up on these victims. we are better than that as a country, as a people, and in our humanity. we will lose ground if we loose

focus. human slavery has never been ok. it will not be ok on our watch. i want to thank the great senator from new jersey and the senator from delaware for allowing me to be part of this important hearing. thank you all again for putting a very human face on this problem. again, i want to thank our witnesses, just a wonderful panel. thank you for your heart and thank you for your conviction and for your steadfast determination to make sure we don't ignore these problems, that we say something constructive and keep saying it to deal even more effectively with this problem. we would not be here but for your encouragement. my colleagues in line, every wednesday there is a prayer breakfast for senators. imagine this, democrat and republican senators gathered at a prayer breakfast.

we read scripture together, we pray together and sing a hymn. gosually don't get to because i'm on a train trying to get here. last wednesday, one of the things i mentioned was how should our faith guide us and what we do? the golden rule rings loud and clear for me and probably for you as well. ?hat is the role of government i often rely on the words of abraham lincoln, who said a lot of memorable things. theaid the rule of gut -- role of government is to do for people what they cannot do for themselves. homeland security and government affairs, before there was homeland security there was government affairs. those not just in a

gotcha kind of mode, but to see how can we foster collaboration, how can we realize what is the role of government? what is the role of all our families? this is an all hands on deck moment. , certainlyaged reminding us we all have a problem here. there are a lot of things that are working. with that having been said, to all of our witnesses, thank you so much. record will remain open for 15 days, until october 8, my sister's birthday, at 5 p.m., for the submission of statements and questions for the record. with that, this hearing is

adjourned. thank you so much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> i want to mention more live coverage coming up later this week. congressional budget office director douglas elmendorf will appear for a hearing on the long-term budget outlook. that will be a 10 a.m. eastern on thursday over on our companion network, c-span3. the senate is focused this week on a house passed continuing resolution and temporarily funds the government passed september 30. the measure, which passed the

house friday, along mostly party lines, also strips all funding for the health care law. just after the senate gaveled in today, the geordie leider harry reid used his leadership time to react to the current federal budget negotiations. he spoke for just under 10 minutes. >> is to president, inside the house republican level, tens of -- outside americans the house republican bubble, the reaction is altogether different. tyrannical tea party plan to , pastown the government on friday has been called the dumbest idea ever by one republican senator. it has been called a box canyon from which the public will not escape unscathed by a second republican senator. has been called dishonest by one republican senator and a suicide

memo by another republican center. the reviews are in, and they are universal. the plan is unworkable and unrealistic. president obama has been clear, and i have been clear. defines obama and the health care plan is dead on arrival in the senate. the affordable care act has been the law of the land for four years. democrats are willing to work with republicans to improve this law, but we will now understand that there is an anarchy movement that is a foot. in the new york times wednesday of last week said that, but we are not going to bow to tea party anarchist who deny the mere fact that obama care is the law. we will not bow to tea party anarchist who refuse to accept the supreme court ruled that obama care is constitutional. we will not bow to tea party

anarchists in the house or in the senate who ignore the fact that president obama was overwhelmingly reelected a few months ago. fanatics .2 disapproval for obama care as justification for taking the federal government and our economy hostage to their demands. what they fail to mention to the american people and to the senate and to the house is that 59% of americans either support the law and was you was even more far-reaching and transformative, according to a cnn poll. the vast majority of americans, including those who disapprove of of health care law, want congress to work to improve it, not to tear it down. cmbc poll,o a new americans overwhelmingly oppose defunding obamacare specially could mean shutting down the government to do so. mr. president, the facts are that the vast the georgi of

emergent people are satisfied with obamacare. the simple fact remains, obamacare is the law of the land and will remain aloft the land as long as barack obama is president of the united states, and so long as i am senate majority leader. the latest camel by republicans made with the backing of their radical allies in the senate only postpones the inevitable. this week, the u.s. senate will act as quickly as tea party republicans will allow. once the senate has acted, house republicans will face a choice, whether to pass a clean, continuing resolution or to shut down the federal government. so the question, are are extremist republicans really ready to shut down the government? time will only tell. the world looks to america for leadership. is his lack of respect of the world's law, is a truly the example we want to set for others? campaign that they are willing to inflict severe

damage to our economy in the process. america will know exactly who to blame, republicans, fanatics in the house and senate. that is why i urge those republicans to listen to the more reasonable republicans in the senate. their read some of commentary on what is contemplated now. i repeat, one republican senator said it is the dumbest idea he ever heard. two dozen senate republicans have spoken out against this foolhardy plan to drive the economy off a cliff. two dozen. if democrats don't bow to every demand they have, they want to go right over the cliff. we're not going to go with them. i'm glad to see more and more of my moderate republican , speaking stepping up

cents to an extremist element of their own party. onm the new york times saturday, "beaker boehner trapped under the thumb of tea party anarchists all friday's vote to defund obamacare and invite a government shutdown a victory for common sense. a triumph of like nonsense, not common sense." so a few reasonable republicans are wise enough to know that missing the nations economic recovery would be another step toward a decibel for the republican party. mr. president, every one of these senators that i read their ,omments to everyone listening plus the 20 or so others that i they arention, conservative people, conservative republicans. they are just not radical. so mr. president, i say the

house and senate republicans will continue to deny reality and risk america's economy. listen all around you. listen to what they are saying. you're conservative senate colleagues have urged you off this reckless course. the nation's largest business group, the chamber of commerce, has urged you off this reckless course. are aware oflies these foolish partisan fights, and they urge you off this reckless course. on behalf of democrats who long for the days when we legislated to cooperation, we did it instead of hostage taking. i personally urge you off this reckless course. what remains to be seen is whether my republican colleagues on both sides of the capital are wise enough to listen. president, we have a number of people we are trying to get

.pproved to confirm nominations they have been approved by everyone, as far as i know. again, unless my friend from texas objects to these people , doesg the confirmations --friend objects >> reserving the right to object. i'm happy to discuss it with the majority leader. we will talk about it. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to consider the .ollowing nominations reconsider will be laid on the table. no further missions will be in order on any of the nominations

and president obama will be immediately notified. >> is there objection? >> i object. >> as you saw, senator ted cruz also on the floor. the texas republican has threatened to filibuster any temporary funding measure that does not include defunding the health care law. still no news yet on how majority leader reid plans to proceed with the measure to fund the government passed september 30. in new york city, president obama kicking off his united nations general assembly trip with a bilateral meeting today with nigeria's president, before hosting a roundtable discussion this afternoon on ways to bolster civil society around the world. on tuesday, president obama will address the u.n. in a speech in which he is expected to talk about it ran, suri, and the middle east peace process. we will have live coverage tomorrow morning at 10:10, right

here on c-span. the associated press also reporting that secretary of state john kerry and his iranian counterpart will meet thursday during a gathering of the six permanent un security council members. the meeting is scheduled after the iranian president's arrest -- address tomorrow in which he is expected to talk about his countries nuclear program. >> we were in prospect garden you're in new jersey. ellens a garden that wilson designed when she was at prospect house. brings the white house gardener back here to this garden at prospect house and says to the white house gardener, let's re-create the rose section of this garden at the white house. of course, this becomes the famous rose garden at the white house. allen tragically doesn't live to see the rose garden completed, however. she is dying in the summer of 1914. she is wheeled out into the space outside in her wheelchair.

she watches as the gardener works, but she doesn't live to see the completion of this vision she had for the roses blooming at the white house. >> be the first and second wife of president woodrow wilson, tonight, live on c-span and c- span3. >> as we look ahead, we see arab members business is a broadband businesse. internet services. most of our members areas, they say the speed and capacity and demand for broadband is doubling every two years. >> issues facing independent

cable operators tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. a american university posted discussion on the geographic shift in voter demographics with a panel of experts. if -- bille and and michael bloomfield. this event is just under 19 minutes. >> i am the assistant director of the washington institute for public affairs research. we are one of the groups sponsoring this event today. it is the gateway between the research faculty and the outside world. we help fund research projects. we help faculty to work on their

ideas, and we like to share the fruit of their ideas with the public. this is an example of that. john gould, the director of my program, is director here today. i also have the pleasure today of having the cosponsorship of presidentialr studies, and one of my panelists is affiliated with them. we are delighted to cosponsor this event for you. now, but overall, i get the best way to describe what we are trying to do today -- this is a big public briefing in this fine room -- is about the role of public affairs. both of our units are here. any of the faculty members are from this school. this will be the first in a series of what we think will be entertaining and enlightening discussions for your involvement, and involving

research that we do here, and there is no one more important to tell you about the story than the person who has encouraged this from the get-go. she i met the new dean, continues to talk about how proud she is of the high impact research done at this school. there is no one better to introduce this session than the dean of the school of public affairs, a scholar in her own barbara. barbara? >> thank you, john, and i want andomplement john gould others and though work of the group as well as the sponsorship of the center for congressional and presidential studies. their brute -- their group rings a great deal of knowledge and expertise to this.

strings -- these things for us. these briefings are important for the school of public affairs, as they are an toortunity to bring experts campus, but also a chance to showcase our faculty and the research that is being done on campus about important issues of the day. we will talk about fragmentation of political discourse, about shifting suburbs and where the voting emphasis tends to be these days. all of this is important for us to understand current politics. the current politics have become -- you just meet at the morning -- you just need to look at the morning newspaper -- it has become increasingly fragmented. we are facing just in the next few weeks important challenges over whether the government will

continue to operate after october 1, facing an issue of a crisis about whether we will have approval for extending the debt ceiling. both of those can affect significantly the perception of how effective the united states is, how effective the government is, what kind of health we have as a political community. the underlying dynamics of those kinds of contentious baits are going to be explained to us today. it is rooted in our politics. we will find out what that is, will find out what we can do about it. it is related to some complicated shifting the graphics, some complicated economics, and some geographic shifts we are having. i ask you to join me please in welcoming the panel, and welcoming our distinguished guests and also welcoming the c- span viewers out there. thank you. [applause]

thank you again, barbara. this is the fruits of the work that you and the faculty have come for this past year in identifying key directions for the school to move into. we're delighted bring this panel to you. let me briefly introduce them. of thee before you two best pollsters around from the best organizations around. mike bloomfield from the mellman roup, a left-leaning political organization -- a democrat -- i'm being kinder or more softer. ,, we are delighted -- mike we're delighted you are here. i met aside, we have bill mci ntuff, who works with the republican -- oriented candidates who will look at the data we have today.

in between them is elizabeth williamson, a writer at "the wall street journal," with our project director, dante chinni. joining them will be antoine collnaka, who is a eague of mine. on congressional redistricting, and he will share his insight into the data that has unfolded. on of the first faculty members i met was the gentleman to my immediate left, a rather unusual member of the faculty since he is not a social scientist. almost all of the school's faculty are social scientists, and a few lawyers. , an act a journalist

of, and he is an inventor. the thing that makes don tate anteue is he has -- don is he has the heart of a journalist. he is good at math. for journalists, unusual, and he has played around with numbers. years ago he invented something called patchwork nation, and instead of looking at states, he began to look at counties as the units that are most interesting about perhaps the most fundamental in understanding the way the country is moving, not just politically, but in a whole realm of things. e hase delighted that dant evolved that project into something now called the dual american communities project a steer at the school of public affairs at american university. in talking to him about this early on, many of us thought there is some interesting stuff in here. we should get into it.

he should share it. the development of this panel and the development of what dante chinni will now tell us about the american communities project. dante? >[applause] thank you, john, and thank you, dean, and thank you for coming today. it may have been hard to get up after finding that the redskins are 0 -- three, but life goes on, so we are all here. what i want to do here is offer a brief overview of what the acp is and how it works. then i want to swing a talk about the suburbs. my acp was born out of red and blueith america. i think red and blue america are fine for understanding scorekeeping. we essentially have two teams.

we have to see who wins. the problem with those maps is they become shorthand definitions for the country, and they miss the point. you have the 2004 kerry- evolved and what it into for a lot of people in the united states. again we have to have a way of keeping score, but that map mrs. nuance. misses nuance. it misses the difference between red states and blue states. there is a difference between world the brass cap and xserve in minneapolis. hugedoes that a disservice. the other way we like to talk about politics is demographics.

i locked -- i like talking about immigrants, men, women, african- americans, and i write about the data often. my problem is that it takes these people and disassociates them from place to much so that this woman who is 20 something and lives in new york and likes to go to the clubs i like to go to looks the same as this woman who lives in rural kansas and has four kids and lives a different kind of life. in response to these ways of looking at america, a solely demographic system and a system units of geography and whether they are democratic or republican, we came up with the american communities project. demographices of data sets and we looked at them across every county in the country and used a clustering technique to identify different

kinds of communities in america. you will see some are very regional. you see some along the south, you see the southeast, in the southwest, a big chunk around utah, the purple areas through there. some of them are not so much about regions as they are about suburban culture, and you see those faces pop up around pink and orange, detroit, chicago, minneapolis, a bit of it in denver, and along the east coast. these places -- this is a different kind of place in america that is not about a region as it is about a mindset, and that is what we will talk about today. when you take this map and you look at it in terms of the sheer data, this is what the numbers look like. 15 different types of communities in america, and these are the number of counties for each and the population for each.

and ie will do today -- will use the laser pointer -- we will talk about these exe ubts, the big cities, and the server's -- the suburbs. the big cities summit counties, the 50 largest cities in america. mostly situburbs immediately next to those big cities. are based in the rust belt and in the midwest. suburban places that are fundamentally different, slightly older, less educated, s, the next ring out after looking at an urban area. what does this tell us? so what? what does this mean? it gives you a different way of looking at data. any data that is geo-tagged , whereou know the person

they come from, about culture, you can use this to filter the numbers and look at it in a different way. what we will look at is look at what it means for the 2012 election because it is instructive at looking at the results of 2012. if we can do that. the ricoh. ok. these are the 2012 exit polls. this is what happened. there is a massive exit polls taken the night of election, and when they break them down this is what looks like, for 2012, anyway. wins huge in urban areas. that the united states is more complicated than just having cities, suburbs, and rural areas. when you use the american communities project to break down the data it looks like this.

obama still wins huge in the big cities, obviously. urbany wins huge in the ex areas. middle suburbs, romney eeks out a victory. what is telling is these urban suburbs. these are places -- suburban america, depending on your definition, but when you divide it this week, a 16-point win is a pretty big win, but it is more telling at what you see since what is happening since 2000. ok, this here on the top you are looking at the big cities. these are the votes in the urban burbs. xurbs. suburbs and the e bush nearlyrge w. lost the popular vote by less than a million votes. n areas by 19exurba percentage forespoint.

romney won these areas. happened in the big cities, and these urban suburbs are very interesting because what happened is our won bye the -- al gore 11 points in 2000, but barack obama won by 16 points in 2012, and that is a year where people were unhappy with the direction of the country, and this suggests that something is going on. needrban suburbs, obama romney by 5 million votes, which is what he won the election by. there are all sorts of other things going on in different kinds of communities, but that gap is very significant. what is going on in these places? how are the suburbs different?

i think they are different than we imagined them to be. they become different in the past 10 years or so. this is looking at income and poverty's in america, using types, and the interesting thing is the urban suburbs are the wealthiest. a hold the most wealthy people. incomes, $200,000 and above than any other type. you see the number right behind them, the big city areas, the bigbs are close, but the cities and urban suburbs are not as far apart in this area as you might think they are. and a lot of people might assume the suburbs are more likely exurbs, in terms of the guelph, they are more like the cities. editing that is interesting is when you look at poverty. the big cities have the highest poverty, and that is we know we hat urban poverty is like.

what is interesting is the urban suburbs are not -- they are five points back, or 17% worse is 12%, but they are higher than the exurbs. you have high poverty and high wealth at the same time. that is interesting thing, when you look at the meeting household income, the urban suburbs are the wealthiest. barack obama, out of all the thes i looked at, not just wealthiest of these four types, they are the wealthiest in the country. barack obama won these wealthiest or the highest median household income counties in the country by 16 percentage points, and that is counter introduced for a lot of people. -- counterintuitive for a lot of people. one thing that has been going on demographic shifts. when you look at these numbers here, what you will see is the white population -- numbers from 2000 and 2011 -- the white

population in the urban suburbs has dropped by four percent. it has dropped everywhere, but the interesting thing is it is now below 70%. it is 69%. there is now only a nine percentage point divide in terms of the percentage of white ablation in the big city counties and the urban burbs. there was a 14 percentage point difference in 2000. that is because the big cities, through gentrification, have grown wider in some ways. everything that is interesting is that his panic population. the hispanic population for the urban burbs has risen, but in hispanic urban population was roughly equal to the u.s. number, call .5 % -- 12.5%. in the last 10 years from the urban burbs accelerated. the country has grown more hispanic, urban burbs have grown

more hispanic. when i look at- it with numbers, because we see there is a big hispanic divide, and you see pulling daddy that is -- data that is pro- democratic. i want to talk about one more shift and i will turn it over to antoine. i like -- consumer culture is undervalued as a measure of what is going on in the country. experian consumer services. they have 10,000 surveys in the field every month. they asked people everything from political preference to the soap they buy to the coffee they drink. with that data they create -- they can tell you places that overrepresented for liberals and underrepresent for conservatives. when you look at star backs, --

starbucks, if you'd have an average four, it would be 100 for each. cks is heavily for liberals. when you look at the starbucks in these communities, they are most in the the cities, surprise, but there are far more in the milburn -- in the urban suburbs. there's a nice stay or effect. -- stair effect. in the big cities it is 5.5 starbucks per every 100,000 people. it is about 3.4 starbucks per every 100,000 people. you can see the increases in the number of stores between 2008 have013, the urban burbs seen far more. it means the consumer culture, it, ite may make fun of

is culture in that it defines what it places about, and these places, when you look at kinds of stores that are in them, the kinds of retail accurate as people have, each shape their view of reality, they are trending more and more democratic. the long run that all these numbers mean over time, when you , these playsg are more and more democratic and it will be more of her problem to republicans if they cannot reach these people. they need to find a way to reach these people. they are shifting democratic, and republicans need to reach them again. line used to be between the cities that were democratic and the exurbs that were republican and the suburbs that are battlegrounds. they have increasingly shifted democratic and over the long term that is a problem for the gop. with that, i will turn it over to and on -- to antoine.

thanks. [applause] >> all right. i name is antoine yoshinaka. i'm the token professor on the panel today. i will keep my comments brief, but before i get into it, i want to touch upon three eight themes that i will talk about today. the first one is this country has been growing quite a hit lately. the growth is not equal everywhere. there are areas that are growing at a much faster rate than others. what i want to show you is that the areas that are providing the most gross in this countries are -- most growth are areas that democrats are doing increasingly well. where democrats have been doing not so well in the last 10 year s are areas that are not growing fast or not at all. republicans in the room, some

thing that you really want to understand to see where the democratic -- demographic shifts are occurring and political shifts are occurring. ember two, coming up on -- number two, building upon what some said, this masks very important heterogeneity and urbanurgbs suburbs. the third point is to show you data that's just some of this bifurcation between urban suburbs and the rest is a recent phenomenon. we are talking about the last 10 years. the data i will show you today and discuss will speak to those three themes. first of all this is the first graph looking at the breakdown by county types -- 15 cap the types -- where barack obama in 2012 did better than outdoor -- al gore.

these are the big cities. won thewhere al gore big cities by 20 points. obama won the cities by 30 points. he did considerably better than they are. he did better in the college towns, hispanic centers, and he did poorly relative to gore in the evangelical areas of the country, the working-class areas of the country. this matters -- looking at this graph, what we do not know is how much gross these various areas -- growth these various areas have sustained in the last decade or so. those are areas that provide the most growtjh in this country. coming from big cities, urban suburbs, and

exurbs, and those are three areas where barack did better than al gore, especially the cities by 10 percentage points, and the urban suburbs by six percentage points, and he actually did better than al gore did in exurbs. he still lost them by a big margin, but it is trending a tiny bit toward the critics -- toward the democratic party. you see this. here that is about their -- those are the middle they havereas where not growing as much as the other areas, and where obama and gore did equally the same. those are the areas that you could look, compared to the 2000 election and 2012, and you see barack obama did worse than al gore did, but those are areas that did not grow a lot, that are not from fighting --

that are not providing much of the growth in this country. much of the growth is not coming from those areas. didck obama lost these and poorly in those, but this is not where the country is growing. the three areas on the right, the big cities, urban suburbs, exurbs, those areas represent about 175 million americans in those three areas alone. whereas, evangelical hubs are about 12 million, working-class is 8 million, and lds are a million or so. those are about 25 million americans living in those, whereas those three blue dots at the upper right, 100 and 75 million americans living there. happened, at what has

looking at one issue. we picked one issue. there are obviously many issues that are important in the electorate in any given election, but we will stick to this one, global warming. usually ation there's question on surveys that ask voters if they think that global warming is in this case a very serious problem, somewhat serious problem, there's also the not so very serious problem, or not a problem at all. if we combine these very serious and somewhat serious problems, you can see a clear divide between folks who live in the big cities and the urban suburbs, where 70% think that global warming is serious or somewhat serious problem. and you move on to the middle suburbs and the exurgbs, where it is around 55% of the americans who inc. that global warming is a big problem. it is about a 15 point cap. ago, sevenack years

years ago, 2006, on the left there, the same question about global warming, and you see the breakdown between the four categories. not so much of it fighting, at seven years ago, folks who lived in the big cities, the suburbs, middle suburbs, exurbs they thought global warming was a problem at to5% rate, and fast-forward 2012, that the fight is clearly present the between on the one hand big cities and urban suburbs and middle suburbs and exurbs. those are the trends that we think are partly explaining why urban suburbs are areas where democrats are doing increasingly better and they are resembling cities more and more. for those of you familiar with the ec, we're talking about montgomery county. that would be an urban suburbs, and how people in montgomery

county are probably much more like folks who live in d.c. rather than folks who live further out outside of the d.c. area. before i turn it over, i want to leave you with two questions that this raises, that this research raises that we did not have an answer yet. one is we do not know yet whether this is an obama effect or a party effect. 2016, onced in barack obama is off the ballot, will these trends continue or will they revert back to a pre- obama era? that is something we cannot answer right now. the second one, if it is true that urban suburbs are changing, and natural west jin that emerges from that is whether it is changing because new people are moving in and bringing with them a different set of ideological preferences and

issue preferences, etc., or are those shifts occurring because people who have lived in those areas for a while are changing their minds, or they are looking at the political landscape, looking at politics at the national level in congress, and they are changing their mind when it comes to issues such as global warming, when it comes to issues such as gay marriage and abortion. i will leave you with those questions and turn the micropho ne over to elizabeth. >> i suggest that maybe we sort of throwing open -- >> what we will do now is let the panel take a look, the three of you, and, elizabeth, you could start this, to look at what your reactions are to this, and then anybody else on the panel to look at it. i will start with elizabeth because we talked about loud and county. i -- yesterday i went out to the

rural parts of loudoun county, newmont. this is as far west as you could go. it used to be course country and pickup trucks -- it used to be horse country. arts festival was there, and when looking at the parking lot, there were far more beemers and pickups. a lot of the people from their company the eastern part of loudoun county, like yours truly, but it was a symbol of what has happened there, and what has happened in the past 10 years. that is your kickoff. >> yes. loudoun county -- and i'm not sure how many folks in the room are from the d.c. region or if you're from elsewhere in the united states -- but loudoun county is the wealthiest county according to the last census in the nation. has eight of the

10 richest counties in the country, and loudoun is at the top of that heap. what you are seeing is a place that used to be just a green napanse of rural america o turning into one of these urban suburbs that don tate and antoine are describing. it is interesting to see how this lays out on the ground, because in cities like leesburg, which is the capital of loudoun, is a colonial town, it grew up founded, and it first started to scroll out into x storesns and big-bo and malls and shopping centers, office parks, and what is happening now is that whole landscape is changing because there is just a glide path of 7rains and money coming down 26

from the city and also from the dulles technology corridor or him and those people want to live in loudoun. but their characteristics are a lot different than the people who were living there when this whole process got underway about 15 years ago, and that is that they are younger, more highly educated, more affluent, and they do not just come from d.c. or some other subject -- some other area in the ece region, they come from the nation, because they are drawn to the government, the universities. what they want is not a picket fence on a third acre lot. what they want to live over retail. they want to walk to transit. they want to live the way they lived in the college center they came from or the urban city they came from. this is really changed. as these guys are describing, it

has changed the politics, too. they tend to be more democratic voters. loudoun was an entirely republican bastion 15 years ago. you see dual pressures. d.c. the democratic -- you see the demographic pressure and you see the influx of the different type of individual and the pressure that places on the tax base, on development, on the retail mix, on housing. that is what is really fascinating, that it is not exclusive to loudoun. it happens all over the region. and that is what is driving this sort of slow shift that is happening in the urban suburbs, the fastest-growing communities in the country. bill?hael? >> yeah, push the mic over. thank you for being here.

i have worked with a lot of different folks here for many years. terrific programs. in 2004, george bush. growinghe 100 fastest- counties. after the 2004 election, that -- the debatebout was about the problem facing the democratic party, because the fastest-growing parts of the country -- 98 out of a hundred is beyond the margin of error. of course it had a great recession since then, and those recessions have changed the counties, and that is something the partners have done a lot of work on. tale, andutionary over my long career i keep asking at different times to look at long term party change, meaning whether or not there is alignment. i have been asked to do this ever times in my career, and predicted there is a

realignment, i keep saying, there are too many independents. those are conflicting views that restrict long-term realignment. but this work is very important. the other thing about data, and this is what is so powerful about the data set being created, is you can add test flightith the test hypothesis. for example, this is why the exit polls are such a powerful database, it would be possible within sight the exit poll to look at whites and just whites in these kind of urban counties. my speculation would be the white vote did not shift that much, and that is what is happening in the urban counties is to answer the two questions posed, is we are watching what is the most important story in this country politically, which is the growth of the latino population of the footage percentage. what you're seeing in the chart

is that the urban counties to the low 70% white, and in today 's political terms, when you white,low 70% republicans lose. it speaks to republicans in my mind, either have to be competitive with latino votes, or they start getting this kind of pressure and it will happen in other counties. is less ofis is this a shift of the white vote and more of a shift in the changing demographics, of the latino population. one of the reasons it is important is the latino appellation is like grass -- which is you have a lot of places where the latino population is like 25% of all population, it is 21% of adults because they have so many kids, and of the 20th one percent of adults, it is 18% of registered voters and 60 seen percent of

the turnout. -- and 16% of the turnout. what we will see is latino nearingwill start insulate, the percentage of the registration. when that happens is republicans one becausethree to there are no votes (republicans one the vote -- what you are watching here is a database that provides power to look at an answer those kinds of questions, a powerful tool. the last point is it is a tool that can be hard to use in it is low fore national survey, and it tells us to use a lot of merged data to apply this to real quick or

analytical terms to a poll. >> [indiscernible] i will make a couple points. in thes what we see data, and there are two things we're looking out. speaking to political demography, is this a shift in population or is it a battle or change in hearts and minds? , and fromntioned this a practical political perspective, some doing what i do and what bill does, trying to elect candidates. what does this data tell us? what is the challenge in looking at it? as we have heard over and over, obviously these deferred suburbs

are growing, growing in a way that is good for democrats, increase in minority percentages there, followed by probably connected to increase in poverty , and generally seeing more democrats there. at the same time, the question is, as we look at the battle for hearts and minds, and idea of what the issues shift is, is just because democrats are moving from the urban areas, moving from other areas, and making this more democratic, or is there something happening there, and i would pose and i hope is the case that there is. the climate change difference is what has become a big split in society about, and i do not mean to sound partisan, democrats saying we have to trust in science, republicans having a different view of that, and climate change is a bellwether of that. you mentioned evolution, but climate change is something were we are still in the middle, even

in the suburbs, not i high issue. i will admit that, even though people are agreeing with the need to act. a do not put it at the top of the agenda. moved across has the country, but in the suburbs, it is a leading indicator. democratsi do not -- have an edge in the suburbs, or is it actually a more fertile ground for us to go out and change minds that are not open to our arguments. the other thing i want to raise here, speaking to someone who wants to elect candidates, how we can use this to elect democrats, and one of the things that is interesting about politics compared to this very detailed view is that despite all you hear about all the different types of communications, there are two basic ways we communicate and campaigns are all about medications.

first message, figuring out what to say, but the next is how do we get that message out, how do we communicate with people, and we want to find out. even the obama campaign had limited resources. they are trying to do it efficiently. media markets. not only are we talking about bigger than suburbs, but if you look around, we are talking about down to prince william county, alexandria, arlington, p.g.un, then montgomery, county, and many counties that are very different. how can we go to that broad swath? cable and other things give us opportunities to go more granular late, but still it is a different way of looking at things, almost opposite of what we would like to do, which is give us the individual hit. trend into other indications, micro-targeting or

modeling, and there we are doing something that cuts across all these counties. we are not saying we want to look at montgomery county or orange county in california them about what we are saying is we are modeling a voter profile or micro-targeting for full beta, and if there's five people in a rural county and fit our model of who we need to persuade, we will have mail go to them. il still works. it is not inure the zip code, and there are other ways to communicate that puts us on in some way beyond , but and i say not the on better, in that we are dealing different in these counties. then the question is then, what is the value here? we need political demography, and it ends up being we do it well in every campaign, even

though there are limitations, the art of putting people into boxes they do not want to be in, and we know that the person in ale tractor county, rur republicans in a tractor county, -- proud of it,e are but they do not like being called the tractor crowd. people do not like being called vote in montgomery county even though it may be true. if helps us explained -- it helps us explain what is happening, and it is the best way to examine what is happening. >> reactions? saide first thing is bill

about the exit polls, i'm trying to get that data. it needs to be geo-tagged. it is broken out by the only tag by urban, suburban, rural, it is not terribly useful. if we can get it broken down by that aswonder about well, because i think the white moved a bit since 2004. >> i know on the exit file they of the precinct that collected the exit poll. collecting that would not be that hard. that is a geographic tag may not be -- it would take a conversion, but it is not that hard. there is a little it of issue about 2012 in terms of getting the raw data.

apparently there has been some anyway, that will get cleared up. when it does, i think it is a solvable problem because they you know exactly where this precinct was where the data was collected. we focus on loudoun for a second, because that is a place where this is playing out, this change is playing out in sharp relief. the whole state of virginia is a really cool example of this test right now with the governor's race there, the only competitive race in the nation this year. it is a battleground, a purple state, with parties want it, and they are try to test out what is in play here, why has for junior gone from tens -- why has virginia gone from conservative to leaning democrat? is it the composition of the

people? i talked to tom davis, who was district, which includes fairfax, and that is a county where this whole process is largely complete. he managed to win seven terms. he even won by six percent in 2006, which was a democratic just byar in congress, focusing on local concerns. what he was explaining to me was o is what you have to be to be a republican and when in these urbanized areas. you have to focus on local concerns. bill was mentioning the hispanic isigrant population, which large and fairfax, so he focused on things that were important to his salvatori and constituents, but heconstituents,

focused on throwing his congressional weight high and local projects, to the point where he was criticized for some of the things that the earmarks and directed spending that he did while a congressman. he points out is the national party has lost its way in a state like virginia as they are for missing on divisive social issues, abortion, same-sex marriage, educational vouchers, things like that were people on the ground in counties like fairfax are saying that is not my interest. i have to drive an hour and a half to get to work every day. what are you going to do about the world's -- about the roads? are we going to get the silver line in virginia, or are you block it?lock i just on the silver line you can see this divide because you have cucinellinow only --

who is opposed to the silver line, and you have mcauliffe backing it. maybe one reason would be for mcauliffe those are his peeps, the people who want to be the silver line and want to use it elli,t in him and cucin this is something for the people who are out there, voting reliably for the republican party, are those people who do not want to live near public transport and do not use it as much. said, and a michael lot of people have said this. the idea that getting beyond counties and getting to the zip code level, as a journalist, there are 50,000 of them, extremely difficult to do. counties, there are 3100 of them. weichert targeting, hitting down to the individual ash micro- targeting, and getting down to the individual level. they do not matter that much

not thethat decides race for presidency. it is not that big a deal. geography matters because it is true that if you are micro- targeting people, you will are in-linee that with your point of view. the thing is what is happening is the way the country is split up people tend to more live around people who are like them, so when you are targeting, i want to target these 100 people in montgomery county, i need near they will all live each other. my answer to this is that the most liberal person in america may live in the middle of world nebraska. it does not really matter. seen,e thing i have

community matters in that you live around people like you, but you live around people when they are like you, you tend to talk and you tend to see the world more through their eyes, more persuaded by their arguments, and one of the reasons you chose to live you there if you have money and can afford to live there, you wanted to live there because you'd like the same kinds of things. what is driving change? it is impossible to measure that. some people leave the persuadable's and stay behind and fall in line with the dominant culture. the people that matter the most to us, republican or democrat, are the students read here. i would like you to queue up and line up for questions because i know some of you have classes coming up. please start standing up right there and we will go to questions right after the professor has a chance to make

some remarks. respond quickly, i agree with bill when you said that we have to be careful to characterize this as a realignment. if you will notice, i never mentioned realignment, and part of the reason is realignment is an interesting phenomenon where in political science, scientists are't coming -- scientists thumbing their nose. it is like a recession. we will know a year from now if we are in a recession today. we would've 30 years from now if this is a realignment time or not. you look at the election results theonwide the last decade, margins are very tiny. close. gore was very de electiondsli

of 2008 was not really a landslide. and we are dealing with small boat changes from one election to the next, small changes at the community level tend to be magnified. at one -- a one-point difference nationwide in big cities or in urban suburbs is magnified when we are dealing with a nation baronnechael talked about a 49-49 nation. getting one or two or send gaining one or two percentage points across the nation a could be a big thing. >> i have a question that relates to voter turnout in these suburban-urban areas, given the- but growing population, are we seeing an increase in voter

turnout or is it staying level, it are changing the way they vote? >> we have not looked at turnout. i have looked at it, and hearing it, and looking at the wrong numbers over time. i have not compared turnout. the one thing about turnout is election to much election. i would be very careful with any comment i would make about. >> dante was involved with an earlier system that had fewer county breaks, and we use that working with dante. one of my interests was to look at whether or not those counties helped explain any shift in what happened in 2012 in terms of composition of the electorate. we looked at those counties at a percent of the total vote, and it is consistent the between 2004, 2008, and 2012. you can see obama increaser, in , andnse to these counties

we went out to two decimal points. about nomost talking change in the composition of electorate from 2008 2 2012. that is one of the major findings to me, how stable 2012 compared to to 2008 2004. correctng at that data, that the composition of the electorate has not changed, although if you look at different subgroups, like youth and 2008,tween 2004 it went up by a significant margin, but it is usually quite country.pared to the it does not change the makeup of the electorate. in recent years what you have seen is greater mobilization

among racial minorities. that might be an obama effect. in the last election, the first election when african-american turnout was higher than white turnout, if i'm not mistaken. persistent ins the future, i am not sure. i suspect it may not be, even that obama will not be on the ticket. that is something we have seen in the last two elections. >> question on the side. >> i'm assistant professor at university. i want to congratulate you on your work. i have a comment. i think both of you wished or individual data. there is the national suburban poll conducted by the national center for server been studies at hofstra every other year. they have conducted this poll three or four times now. i would be happy to talk with you after this. thank you. >> we will talk. >> my name is jose.

the first one to him in the data that was inferring the increase of hispanic people in suburban areas, that vote was going to the democratic party alone. is that the case, because i was under the impression that the latino vote, because of religious police, that they often voted with the republican party, or is it because republicans stand against immigration? who are they voting for? if it is true the democratic party really gets the minority , it is unfortunate for the for mr.an party, so tuff,field and mr. mcin what advice could you give the republican party to help them rebrand themselves so they can start getting young, black women

to vote for them, for example. >> mike is not going to offer any help. it is unfortunate, but i do not think there is a republican message to the african-american community. there is an historic split that occurred over time, and if you look at african-american attitudes on a number of issues about the role of government nurses republicans, there is not a match. margins their stuff you can do, but i do not think -- in a political context, when you run campaigns freight living, it is a difficult vote. my recollection is the latino romney was down to 27%. an unsustainable margin for a political party.

if the latino vote dress the way of the african-american vote, whites have dropped two percent andy election since 1988, -- can speakat is immigration, but if -- there are other splits between latinos based on the country of origin, how long they have been in the country, whether they speak spanish or not, their level of acclamation, and as a party, here's this fundamental sort of umbrella. do you seem to be welcome in that party? and you can have a policy debate and a way that makes people feel welcome, and you can have a debate that makes people feel excluded. doesn't matter whether where else you agree.

they don't feel like they've been particularly welcomed. we worked -- i did not do the work, but governor purdue at georgia, we tested a bunch of commercials after the first round of immigration to test republican commercials on the topic of immigration. so we looked at some stuff that was running republican primaries and how that was tested, and we looked at governor purdue's stuff. he did a commercial where he said, hey, you've got to obey the law. but if you're illegal, this state wants to offer you an open hand and a welcoming hello, and here's what we can do for people who are here. and the difference between that ommercial and that line versus the way it was presented by a different republican candidate was massive in terms of how people reacted to that spot. and as a party, i'm just saying that that has to be the challenge. it also means as a rrp, by the

way, having worked on this, you have to build up state, legislative and a lot of other folks who are part of your party and culture, and you have to have candidates to learn to speak spanish. and the last thing is, and this is the trouble, we've had two cycles, the democrats are the primary, but you're desperately trying to win the primary and you wake up and you say, let's talk to latinos. there's five months late. it's too late. you cannot start that effort with five months left in the campaign. it has to be an ongoing part of what you do, or it's not successful. >> i spent time talking to people there. and there is a divide. it's not just something you're seeing at the top the republican party.

when you go to places that are much more conservative, there is anxiety about immigration. i went to southern -- the community in the southwestern part of missouri, which is a big evangelical enclave. the assembly of god church is there. and they brought up to me -- i said let's talk about your community. several people brought up immigration to me. i did not raise the issue to them. it came up, and the issue was, why are those labels at the store? i don't like that the stores are printed in spanish as well. what's up with that? so there's a problem that runs deep through the party at not just -- the establishment is something they're going to have to deal with down further within the ranks of the party. >> another question here. >> i'm a graduate student at george washington university. my question was for dante. i'm interested in the starbucks theory. thomas friedman presents the

golden arches theory. that's two assassinations that have simultaneously had mcdonald's and never engaged in a war against one another. that suggests a resolve economically, that a consumer is more interested in a certain service, rather than purchase puge conflict. so does the starbucks theory per 100,000 occupants or inhabitants, does that suggest something about political consumer preferences as well? i wonder if you could expound upon that. >> this is an area that's of great interest to me, and i have access to all the experian data now, which i'm trying to figure out what to do with. it's a massive catalog of stuff of the to me, what's happened with the consumer preferences is, what it's done is created communities that are more and more like terrariums because of niche marketing. the guy shoo opens a store on your corner because he's trying to make some money or whatever,

if starbucks or chick-fil-a or whole foods -- my god, if you look at the data on whole foods, it's really clear what's going on. they trend like the index for whole foods, it's 186 for liberals and like 80-something for conservatives. so, you know, what's happened is niche marketing has become very adept at saying i need to maximize my profits. i know the people that shop at my store. they live there. i'm putting this store there. and other stores that are like that that cater to the same people cluster around it and you end up creating an effect that is something like a little terrarium. i live in upper northwest. it's one of these places. upper northwest d.c. is full of a certain kind of person, and i'm one of them, who want a certain kind of thing, and we live where we live because that's what we want. you know something? that's great as a consumer, it's terrific as a consumer. because my life -- my consumer life is so full. [laughter]

but all the places that target me because i live there, and that's wonderful, but what it also means -- maybe it's a little different for me, because my job is to try to look at the country outside of where i live. for other people, what it means is it creates blinders. this consumer culture and the niche marketing is helping to create blinders that really makes it more and more difficult to see people that don't live like you. and just quickly, because this is something i'm doing a lot of work on. ultimately that has become detrimental for the functioning of american democracy when we all have to come together when we increasingly live in a consumer world and it's becoming more and more problematic. >> i have a fun example from whole foods from my reporting when i was at the "washington post." i was covering the environment for a time, and i wrote about how rot fish in the chesapeake had developed a disease that was killing them. now, all the experts said we have no evidence to show that this affects the quality of the fish, how edible it is, whether

it's toxic or whatever. the next day the governor -- then governor of maryland, bob ehrlich , a republican, held a rockfish-eating lunch in the governor's manor to show, yum, i love this. the watermen were up in arms and people were upset. whole foods went the other way. they took all the rockfish out of the store. they put up signs letting everyone know. and you could argue, is this a reaction to the quality of the food, or is it a reaction to the politics of the consumer who shops at whole foods? i thought it was such a fascinating example, because in the sort of republican swath of maryland among the watermen and the fishermen and the people in the industry, they were furious, and they just demonstrated that they wanted to eat this fish. and on the other side you had whole foods in the upper northwest side saying we're on it, we're on it.

>> we have another question. >> i'm a graduate student at f.p.a. one of interesting parts of this panel for me was talking about trying to predict voter share in terms of, i guess, both demographic vareability, such as the increase in the latino population. but you mentioned the obama effect, which i would assume represents the change on the political side of who your representative is, right? and so, but do you refer to the obama effect in trying to predict what -- i guess in terms of trying to predict what the own effect is, do you think that's going to go down as in some aberration, or what i've seen in the political news now is hillary is starting to put her name out, rubio, other candidates who might have their own obama effect in some sort of way, if that makes sense. you sically sum up, how do think the vareability, how

important is it? >> it is hard to transfer popularity to any other candidate of either party. what his legacy vote is worth is even harder to figure out because you're talking about what's going to happen over the next year or so. he was an extraordinarily strong candidate in 2008 and then ran a strong race, did well in 2012. a lot of that, though, as we've been hearing, is that the democratic party has been stronger in those two presidential elections. going back to bill's points, hard to say you're going to have a re-alignment when in the off year between those goes the exact opposite direction. so there's always the case when you're looking at all the data, that there is to some extent, while you're trying to find

outliers, but where trends are exaggerated, but in general -- and i looked at eight or nine random suburban counties, bill clinton was here, bush, who was here -- and we're talking about for democrats -- and kept it here, and then when obama wins, he puts it up here again. so there is a little bit of an effect of following the national popularity. and it's hard to predict that right now. >> question on this side. >> go ahead. >> i think it's an important story. part of what i look at when you look at the composition of electors, the percent that the electorate represents, they present the representative of the vote. we've had two cycles where african-americans were above census in terms of their level of census in terms of turnout. that may be and probably is a consequence of the president and it might also be due to white democrats. but it's a point.

we're talking about points that matter, but it's a point. the point i would say to my party, which can be somewhat resistant is there are longer-term trends. 18, 20-year-olds are a bigger part of the electorate, latinos are a bigger part of the electorate. you're kidding yourselves if you think this is a function of barack obama. this is underlying dynamics and demographics in the country and this is going to continue. and the second thing is, and this is also for people to kind of get, is most of the political science is based on a certain kind of presidential race based on a certain amount of money. and all of this mechanical stuff was based on this sort of big presidential race. the last presidential race was $2 trillion to $4 trillion. how do we measure that? nbc "wall street journal," we asked you, if you lived in a swing state, have you been contacted by a presidential race. it was 32%. 2004 it was like considered, oh my god, it was exceptional. that was the hugest race ever.

2008 it was like 50%. this year in mid october, 73%. so if you were living in a swing state, three out of four people said, yeah, i've been contacted personally. the money went to $2 billion. so my other point is, what we think about in terms of composition of the electorate is going to be radically changed when running $2 billion citizen united elections. so underlying demographic changes are what drives composition now, not interest in the electorate, the candidate. with $2 billion, you get them to vote and that's how big the vote is and it will not stop because obama is not the nominee. >> dante? >> just to point out quickly on money and turnout, if you look at the turnout in states that are not battlegrounds, turnout is low. texas is a big state. their turnout is very low, and that's because they don't really consider -- they don't

think their votes matter and people don't spend money there. i think the turnout numbers that you see and the demographics that you see, these numbers will change if a state starts to become in play because of a demographic shift, there could be a quick change in what the vote looks like because of turnout changes, because of ad spending. that's one thing. the other thing really quick, i'll talk about re-alignments. i don't believe in that, and i'm glad that he said there was voodoo in that. i don't believe in it either. what i think the numbers show is it requires a change in tack to reach some of these places if you're the democratic party. >> go ahead and ask your question. >> i'm an undergraduate student in the school of public affairs. i just wanted to ask about how the focus on social conservatism in the republican party has definitely alienated

voters. i'm wondering if you think that the republican party has been shifting more libertarian, where is it shifting? and if it does shift in the future, where will those ultra conservatives -- socially conservative voters go? >> those are great questions. they're not the topic of the panel. so i'm going to skip answering it, because i don't think it's what the panel is dealing with here in terms of the topic. >> antoine, you had something to say to the previous question request, if i'm not mistaken. >> regarding tournout, that's one area -- i mean, if you were to stack every political science study on turnout. you probably could go to the moon and back a couple of times. we know quite a bit about turnout. some of the recent studies on turnout show that it's an habitual behavior. so it's hard to get people to vote sometimes. but once you get them to vote, especially at an early age, in their 20's, that behavior then

tends to perpetuate itself. so if it's true that obama was able to mobilize -- we know it's true. we've seen the data. he was able to mobilize sort of college-aged and young adults at a higher rate than previous candidates and if it's correct that turnout is habitual, then one would expect future elections to still reflect some of that, and some of that mobilization among population that is traditionally have not voted at such a high rate. >> i have a remark on, again, going back to virginia, which is really my jones lately, the ad spending there is just unbelievable because it's seen as a sort of national test of who is going to carry the message in 2016, who has an edge. but the ad spending there is really remarkable for this gubernatorial race because you have mcauliffe, he's brought in

$19 million. of those numbers only about 1/4 of that for mcauliffe and 1/3 f that from the opposing candidate, it's all national money, superpack money and it's people who see virginia as a microcosm of the united states and they're trying to see which way they can poll a race that will be decided by turnout. >> i don't like to leave a question hanging that the panel can't answer. we didn't talk about the makeups of the parties or tactics. but to the lady who asked the question about where social conservatives go, here's one way of looking at it, just as a citizen looking at it. it comes from that great politician, pope francis, who all of a sudden decided -- and it's not so all of a sudden if you look at his background -- decided it just might be healthy for the church to begin thinking about social justice and poverty, the things that bring the flock together, as

opposed to some of the other things that seems to be moving the flock apart. it seems to me social conservatives have a lot to share with other people in the electorate when they move away from some of the hot-button issues. and for republicans, there may be a lesson in that. that's just an opinion. >> any other questions we have? paul, you got one? >> sure, here. >> my name is john, i'm an ex-suburban voter. >> recovering. what erms of geography, about factors aside from ssaging, factors such as gerrymandering districts and, as dante said about likes living together, does that make it easier to, in essence, restructure voting so that you could have what happened in 2012, where more voters, i think, voted democratic for the

house, but the house is overwhelmingly republican? can that be a forward-going function? and on the other side, does that also make it easier in terms of voter suppression tactics, where you can use structural factors to affect the election? i think the focus on messaging is interesting. but sometimes you get the republicans associated, knowing how to play the structure, and the democrats, in essence, playing football on a baseball field and leaving that open, so you end up with more voters voting for one party, yet the other party getting elected. >> well, obviously some of this is not strategy, or maybe a lack of strategy. but it's just the idea that democrats, unfortunately, have lost the elections that lead up to redistricting. we've had bad years, just like we had a bad 2010. we had the same thing happen the decade before, and that

gives us the districts which we don't like and the republicans put together. and yes, what they do is -- one of the key things to you who asked about the idea of reaching out to the minority vote, one of the things that happens, which bill can talk about it more, but why republicans are always reaching out naturally is because they have packed all the black voters and minority voters in general into a district to say that the democrats can have that one district and try to win off all the others. so, yes, there's probably a change in messaging for them. for us, it puts us much more tside the urban areas, suburban and ex-suburban area. like montgomery county. when that county or the top county in georgia is not like looking at montgomery, or alexanderia. these are different areas. i'd say they're both suburban.

it's harder and harder to win, but it pushes us have to a message that's a little bit farther reaching. >> quickly, just on the difference between republican and house, just the makeups of the constituents, because we looked at this actually in the journal. in the 113th congress, and this is looking at the hispanic vote in terms of immigration, the hispanic population of republican districts is about 12.5%. that's the constituenty in republican districts, 12.5%. in democratic, it's 22.5%. there's a lot of things that make a place what it is, but that hispanic population mirrors circa 1 4. and the democratic hispanic, that's what america is supposed to look like in about 2025. to they really are -- they're representing very different constituencies. i think both sides play the

game about trying to get as much as they can. but the republicans are in the position to draw the districts they want and they've done a good job of it. >> that's an exciting contrast, to the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's. so i wrote an article in the last election using that line from the baseball movie, there's noing crying in redistricting. we had two generations where republicans would get 48%, 49% of the vote and 44% of the seats. like in 1980, during the reagan sweep, republicans essentially had 49% of the vote, 44% of the districts. so there was about a five-point gap between the votes cast and the districts. that's what happened to democrats this time. balls of the 2010 redistricting, we had so many republicans. this crosses parties, meaning we had all those decades where we had democrats do the same thing, this is where incumbents share an interest, which is to

give me the most partisan district possible. if someone has worked in redistricting for a large part of my career, the trouble is that if you go to the average member of congress, you can have a safer partisan seat for you, or you can be a good sold jer for the party. they say thanks for my bipartisan seat. what it also means -- people ask me, how do we stop the partisanship in correct me if i'm wrong, we have no competitive house seats to speak of by any historic standard. right now we have 26 seats where a person got elected that's different how they voted for president. when i started during the reagan years we had literally 130 seats like that. we've gone fwrs 30 seats to 26 seats -- 130 seats to 26 seats where you cross party. this happens on both sides. the average member of congress is acting rationally, which is, how do i not lose a primary? if you had court-drawn seats, we can draw seats incredibly

precisely. it was done by knute tral political criteria. -- neutral political criteria. a member of congress would be looking for how to survive a general election. both this is something parties share in terms of wanting to keep what they have, but it has had extraordinary public policy consequence, and we're getting the public policy consequence of rational acting, which is don't lose a primary on both sides. those seats elect very, very liberal democrats who -- and by the way, here's my other point. when people say, gee, you know, your party doesn't represent this, this, and this, you should look at the districts they represent. they're very, very effective suppose people for what the district believes, so are the democratic members. but lots of them are majority-minority seats and

they're passionate for what their constituents want. my former wife was the grandmother of romanian democracy. she helped write the constitution, and republicans and democrats that go, we train all these people. so the romanians were very excited at their first election. they had their first year the parliamentary system. the american delegation flew back and said how is it going? they said they were very excited. we only have one question for you american experts. are we supposed to vote for what we think is right or what the people who elected us wants? and the american delegation broke out laughing and said, ok, that will be the next chapter. good luck. but that's the point i'm saying, is if it looks like we have paralysis, we have very effective members of congress who are representing their districts. we've just drawn them to be very partisan. >> antoine, if i may, i mean, the statistic that shows they

got more house votes than house seats in terms of percentage, it's often mentioned as sort of a sign that the system is unfair. ou know, i have this -- it's kind of a pet peeve of mine, but that number is more or less meaningless. we have 435 individual elections. so the aggregation of votes at the local level, to say that democrats got fewer votes -- or got more votes and fewer seats, part of that is simply a function of the fact that if you were to erase seats from most competitive to least competitive, most of the lopsided seats are democratic seats. i mean, the seats that are won with literally 80% to 90% to sometimes 100% of the votes, they tend to be democratic seats because those tend to be urban seats, seats where republicans don't feel the candidate. so you get this lopsided distribution where democrats can rack up millions and

millions of votes in those districts that have no competition and then the few districts that are competitive, some of them are red, some of them are blue, so once you aggregate those, democrats get more votes. but that's simply a function of the fact that a lot of the non-competitive seats happen to be democratic seats. so i would not use the national vote as an indication of sort of the national mood of the country if only because, you know, what you really have are 435 local elections. >> we are almost out of time. and before we have closing statement here, was there anybody who wanted to say something that has not had a chance to? is there a final question from anyone? you know, we started out asking questions about the electorate and how it's changing, and we've gotten into at least one answer to the question of why the government may shut down. because we have partisan-drawn districts in which members are voting the way their districts want them to vote, and if they

don't agree, it's because that's what their constituents want. it seems to me that's a very interesting question to probe at another time, perhaps on redistricting and partisanship. nevertheless, i would like to thank bill mcintuff, michael bloomfield, elizabeth, and the rest of the panel for this presentation about suburbia. thank you all. [applause] and everybody can go to class!

>> broadband is the service for not only our members, but when you look at the cable industry in general, the cable industry has done such a tremendous job of deploying broadband all over, urban areas, small markets, rural areas, where our members live and work. and it really has made a difference. as we look ahead, we see that our members' businesses, and their future reilly is a broadband business when you look at the services that they provide. today we provide voice, video, internet services as well. but more broadband is really the key. in most of our members' areas, they say that the speed and the capacity and the demand for broadband in their markets is doubling every two years. >> the head of the american cable association, matthew polka, on issues facing independent cable operators tonight on "the communicators" at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> we're at prospect garden

here in princeton, new jersey. this is a garden that ellen wilson originally designed when she was residents of prospect house, when ellen wilson is in the white house. she brings the white house gardner back here to this garden at prospect house and she says to the white house gardner, let's re-create the rose section of this garden at the white house. of course, this becomes the famous rose garden at the white house. ellen tragically doesn't live to see the rose garden completed, however. she's dying in the summer of 1914. she's wheeled out into the space outside in her wheelchair and she watches as the gardener works but she doesn't live to see the completion of this vision she had for roses blooming at the white house. >> meet the first and second wife of president woodrow wilson tonight live at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c-span3, also on c-span radio and c-responsible.org. >> on the next washington

journl, a look at legislation to keep the government from shutting down at the end of the month and republican efforts to use the bill to take funding away from the federal health care law. our guests are republican senator ron johnson of wisconsin and democratic congressman jim more ann of virginia. and a look at how the government of health care battles could affect next year's house and senate races. we'll talk with the editor of "the hot line." washington squournl is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. obamalier, president spoke to a roundtable. he spoke for about 15 minutes. >> thank you very much, everybody, for joining us here today.

and i want to offer a few brief remarks in terms of the purpose of this meeting. we've got a wonderful panel here and some extraordinary representatives -- both heads of states, members of civil society, people who have been working on these issues for a very long time. the focus today is on civil society, because it's my strong belief that the strength and success of all countries and all regions depends in part on protecting and supporting civil society. i want to thank deputy secretary general eliasson. i want to thank my good friend president elbegdorj of mongolia, representing the community of democracies. i want to thank alejandro gonzalez arreola of mexico, representing civil society members of the open government partnership. and i want to thank all of you for joining us here today.

the human progress has always been propelled at some level by what happens in civil society -- citizens coming together to insist that a better life is possible, pushing their leaders to protect the rights and the dignities of all people. and that's why the universal declaration of human rights states that "everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association." this is not a western value. this is a universal right. and civil society led the fight to end apartheid in south africa. it led the fight to bring freedom to eastern europe. it helped to heal places divided by conflict, whether in cambodia or colombia. here, in the united states, civil society has been the catalyst for virtually every

major advance that we've made, from the abolition of slavery to women's rights, civil rights, the protections of workers and the protections of the environment. and yet, still today, in every region, we see that the fight goes on. we have citizens who are leading the charge to expand opportunity, to correct injustices, to shape their countries' futures. and it's my belief that strong nations recognize the values of active citizens. they support and empower their citizens rather than stand in their way, even when it's inconvenient -- or perhaps especially when it's inconvenient -- for government leaders. strong civil societies help uphold human rights. they promote good governance by making governments more effective and holding leaders like me to account. and they're critical to economic development, because in our global economy, trade and investment flows to countries that give citizens the freedom to create and develop new ideas and that are protected by rule of law.

so, many countries, including those in this room, are working in partnership with civil societies. from mongolia to mexico, tunisia, tanzania, governments and citizens are working together to improve the rule of law, reduce wasteful spending, organize public campaigns to strengthen health and education. unfortunately, though, what we're also seeing is a growing number of countries that are passing laws designed specifically to stifle civil society. they're forcing groups to register with governments, eroding human rights protections, restricting ngo's from accessing foreign funding, cracking down on communications technologies that connect civil society groups around the globe. in more extreme cases, activists and journalists have been arrested on false charges, and some have been killed. we're also seeing new and fragile democracies cracking down on civil society, which i

believe sets them back and sends a dangerous signal to other countries. so, in recent years, the international community has stepped up our support. two years ago, some of you recall, we came together to launch the open government partnership to promote transparent, effective, and accountable institutions in partnership with civil society. sixty countries and a broad coalition of civil society and private sector partners have joined. the community of democracies is working to take aim at restrictive laws. the human rights council established the first special rapporteur on the rights of peaceful assembly and association. and several governments and foundations, including many in this room, contribute to a lifeline fund for emergency aid to civil society groups under threat. so i've made a point to meet with civil society worldwide. virtually, every foreign trip that i take i carve out time to meet with citizens who are active on a whole range of issues.

and in part, it's to lift up the good work they're doing and affirm that the united states stands behind their efforts. nevertheless, we have to recognize that the crackdown continues and we urgently need to do more to increase global attention and spur global action. so that's why we're here. i'm challenging all of us to use the next 12 months to make progress in three key areas. first, we have to identify specific steps that countries, including the united states, can take to make it easier for civil society to do its job and to encourage governments to embrace civil society groups as partners. number two, we need to do more to stand against restrictions on civil society and better coordinate our diplomacy when the government tries to stifle civil society. i think it's critical that the international community should be working together to ensure that there are actual consequences. and number three, we have to

find new and better ways to support civil society in difficult circumstances. governments that restrict civil society are sharing their worst practices. we've got to make sure that we're sharing our best practices and doing all we can to help civil society succeed. many of you know that i didn't begin my career in elective politics. i began working in low-income communities in chicago. i was elected as president through the active participation of citizens. and so i know what active citizens can do. and the united states, as one of i think our most precious gifts, has been trying to set an example of how active citizens can make a country stronger, that makes us deeply committed to protecting the rights of all people who are contributing to our nation's progress or their nation's progress.

and as other countries crack down, i believe we've got to step up together -- those of us in this room, but a whole lot of people outside this room as well. so i'm going to be looking for specific actions, specific follow-up steps. and with that, what i'd like to do is turn it over to the deputy secretary general for his remarks, and then we'll make sure that this outstanding panel all has an opportunity to make their contributions. thank you very much, mr. president. panelists, guests, thank you, mr. president, for taking this initiative to support civil society. we know about your personal engagement with the relationship community society and life, which is the basis of vitality for democracy. this initiative touches upon so much of the work that brings all

the leaders to new york this week. and the message that i am delivering is on the half of the moon.tary-general ban ki- message is the following. we are living in turbulent times. the relationship between leaders and those they govern is changing. there are new demands, new expert haitians, new technologies. approach, one human phenomena and has to be at the heart of this relationship. and that is listening, listening. leaders did not listen to their people, they will hear from them in the streets, in the squares, or as we have seen far too often, on the battlefield. ears and that'll what -- there is a better way. moreparticipation,

democracy, more openness. this means maximum space for civil society. civilnd independent society is the foundation for healthy, or sponsored governments. civil society is crucial for human right by raising awareness and raising the alarm about authoritarianism. civil society is central to it means in the work of the united nations against our whole agenda, for peace and security as well as for development. i would say that civil society has never been more in the than itnd more needed is today. that is why the growing pressures and restrictions facing civil society in country after country are so's the starving. -- are so disturbing. targets civilten

society organizations, making it impossible for them to operate. we have seen a rise of laws that have restricted human rights offenders. reaching inetimes national security legislation, relating to public morals, laws requiring registration and funding of associations, and new rules restricting intimate access. the assault on human rights defenders in civil society groups is sometimes matched with outright attacks in different forms. smear campaigns, travel balance, harassment and intimidation, illegal detentions, sometimes torture and death. against people who operate with the united nations is unacceptable. not only because they help us as what i have seen myself all over the world to do the work that we

are mandated to do by the un's charter and by the universal declaration of human rights, but because this also discourages and scares others from working with us for us. we must take actions at every level to strengthen the voices of democracy. i would hope leaders and others in positions of influence publicly and systematically condemned acts of reprisal and intimidation. i welcome ongoing discussions to ensure a strong system and response to reprisals. there should be investigations to bring perpetrators to justice and remedies for victims. and we must reinforce the indispensable role of the united teurs,s special repor and we are monitoring that aspect of the human rights machinery.

mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, in closing, people of civil society groups often risk their lives to improve the lives of others. they speak out when they know they could be silenced forever. they highlight problems that others ignore and might not even think exist. they seek and they connect with like-minded people across the world, but we all know that far too often they are left at times to feel all alone. nevert never, we must desert or forget them. they protect our rights. they deserve our rights. all of us have a responsibility to respect fundamental human rights and protect those who advocate for them. when that does not happen, all of us have an obligation to stand up and speak out. you have provided with this opportunity for us to do that. >> tomorrow we will hear more

from obama as he addresses the 68 session of the united nations general assembly. will specifically talk about syria and iran's nuclear program. 10:10 eastern on c-span. then a discussion on state andrance exchanges enrollment models. states have one week to go before the exchanges are open. perts from maryland, massachusetts, and oregon will take art in the conversation, and it starts live at 11: 30 eastern on c-span. later, the senate budget committee holds a job -- holds a hearing on jobs and the economy. see that hearing live at 2:30 p.m. eastern.

>> c-span are lined archives will redefine social studies education in america. the c-span video library is a great resource for you to view and share content. and go toc-span.org the video library to watch the newest video. what you want to watch and click play. you can find a person by typing toa name, hit search, and go people. scroll down to their appearances. you can sure what you watch and make a clip. use this set buttons, add a title, and then click share and send it by e-mail, facebook, twitter, or google-plus. tv industryhe cable

and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. a discussion on how the health care law affects employees, including full-time, our time, and temporary jo workers. this is 45 minutes. host: we are talking about the affordable health care act with jay hancock today, a senior correspondent with kaiser health news, to talk about how the law directly and indirectly affects full-time, part-time, and temporary employees. we have already seen some companies making changes to their employee health plans, blaming it on the affordable health care act. what do employees need to be watching for as the implementation of this law moves forward?

guest: they should watch for changes in their company- sponsored plans. open enrollment for the public health exchanges, a key aspect of obamacare. simultaneous to this, this, the traditional open enrollment season for employment-based benefits for the next year also takes place in the fall. so, if you work for a company that has health insurance, you have probably received packets from your human resources department showing all the moving parts. this year more than ever you need to dig into the details and look for changes in terms of differences from what it was before. one example, deductibles are going up. employees that might have been used to a $500 deductible before the insurance starts working, those are going up in some cases. if you anticipate going to the doctor next year, maybe the

option that you were signed up before is not the right option, so look at the details. host: we are splitting up the phone lines differently this morning. those who are full-time employees, they can call -- jay hancock, talk about part- time employees and what they should be looking out for. guest: part-time employees have always been on the bubble, on the edge of coverage and have typically not had robust offerings from employers.

having any kind of health coverage for part-timers is more the exception than the rule. because of this, they are more among the groups being affected by the affordable care act more so than full-time employees. the health law requires coverage from employers of more than 30 hours per week. what is going on is employers are looking at their workforces and trying to figure out what their costs are going to be and in some cases are reportedly cutting back hours. other employers are shifting around how they cover the part-

timers. host: what are some examples you have seen? guest: trader joe's a few weeks ago, a boutique grocery chain, shifting their part-time employees into what are called private health exchanges. they are providing a stipend to employees, but instead of getting coverage through the company the employees are going to go into private exchanges that we should point out, this is not obamacare. one misunderstanding out there about some of the shifting that companies are doing, the public exchanges eligible for tax subsidies that open on october 1 that are online marketplaces, these are the obamacare exchanges.

what is going on with employer- sponsored insurance is they are changing the structure of how employees shop for health insurance. typically, you would be in an open enrollment season as an employer and you might be offered a few different plans with different amounts coming out of your paycheck depending on what the plan was. it might've been hmo, ppo, blue cross. you will see the same kinds of choices, but the platform is going to be an exchange run by an outside human resources benefits company and it will kind of look like the obamacare exchanges that are supposed to open next week. host: statistics on companies offering health benefits to their employees, small firms, those with 3 to 199 workers, 57%

offering it. larger firms with over 200 employees, 99% offer health benefits. we already have questions coming in for you. this is an e-mail from biloxi, mississippi, on the subject of part-time employees. guest: the change is that employers are shifting even more workers to part-time. in the job figures this year that come out at the beginning of every month, the labor department measures employment growth and a lot of those jobs that have been created are part- time jobs. critics of the health law are saying that it is hindering the creation of full-time jobs and point to these part-time

statistics that show a large amount of part-time jobs as the evidence of that. it is unclear as to whether this is cause and effect. there are certainly a lot of part-time jobs being created right now. host: how much of this is to blame on the changes of the affordable care act, and how much of this is businesses using it as an opportune time to make changes? guest: it is hard to tease it out. the united parcel service, ups, big brown, last month, they told employees that it was going to be removing spouses of ups

employees who had access on working spouses who had access to coverage at their other employers. they will not be eligible to be on the ups plan next year. this attracted a lot of attention, because they kind of went out of their way to blame the affordable care act. there was a lot of discussion about how much to blame it really was. the aca does have an effect on large employers, like ups. there are some taxes involved that they say are raising their costs. there is a limit on out-of- pocket spending for employees that goes into effect for large employers in 2015 that they say are raising their costs. it is what is called the cadillac tax on high-benefit plans. ups said that this was partly caused by the affordable care act, but also said that it was caused by their continuing rising costs for medical care in general. this has been an issue for

employers for 25 years now. a lot of people say that these are just the latest tactics to try to deal with rising costs, to try to get this under control and it is not hugely related to the affordable care act. host: here is how it came out on the front page of the wednesday issue of "the wall street journal," last week. host: we want to hear what is happening with you at your

company. we have lines set up for full- time, part-time, and temporary employees. timothy is up first. you are on with jay hancock of kaiser health news. caller: i work for a large employer and i think i have what is called the cadillac plan. my question is, will i have to pay taxes on the amount of my plan for whatever it would be worth? guest: the simple answer is no, the employer is liable for the tax on the cadillac plan. we should point out that it does not kick in until 2018 and there is some debate as to what degree it will apply to generous employer-based plans. the thresholds are fairly high,

fairly much higher than the value of plans now. some of the predictions that people made about how effective the plans would the were predicated on health care costs rising at the traditional historical rate. they have actually slowed down an appreciable amount and there is some doubt about how soon it will hit the cadillac tax threshold. in any event, the employee is not liable. host: this question comes through on twitter -- what was the news about walgreens last week? guest: walgreens are shifting their active, full-time employees to the private exchanges that we discussed earlier. let me try to make a point here. we should not exaggerate how big of a change this is. walgreens is still contributing

enormous amounts of money to its employees' health coverage. we do not know if it is declining or how much it is declining, but there are still employers-sponsored health coverage is at walgreens, the drugstore chain. what is changing is how employees are choosing the coverage, which is going to a private online marketplace similar to the obamacare marketplace, but in many ways is also very different. the obamacare marketplace is financed by your money, you, the consumer, with very generous tax subsidies. the private marketplaces are financed to a very large degree by the employers that have always offered company-based health coverage. that is going to be going on. what is changing here is how you choose the coverage, not large changes in who pays for it. >> we are talking about changes for employees under the affordable care act.

we want to hear your stories. how is this affecting you? al is next from ohio. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. good morning, jay. i have a quick statement. i wish that mr. obama was upfront and told us that it would be attacks a tax on the american people instead of the mandate. the question is, december 1 is when we have to sign up? the health care does not start until 2014. my employer says i have to get signed up, so there are three months there that i will not have health care. i am not sure what to do. should i wait for three months and hope i do not get hurt? all right?

thank you. guest: let me ask you a question, stay on a second. you have coverage with your employer now? why is it ending? caller: the first it will end. guest: that is kind of weird. caller: home depot, you have heard of them. guest: what are they doing echo caller: you do not -- doing? caller: you do not get health insurance or you quit. guest: part-timers? caller: yes. guest: cliff that is what is happening, you do have the option to go out and buy a short-term policy. depending on what kind of policy you have, you may be covered under the cobra provision, where you can extend your coverage that you have now.

i would go find a registered insurance agent and talk to them about your options and see what your options are. that would be my recommendation. host: richard is on next for our line with all others. caller: hello, there. really enjoying your program. i appreciate you. [heavy breathing] host: go ahead with your comment. caller: i really appreciate your program. i am a senior citizen with a degree in statistics. looking at the obama health care being misused, not being properly coded, the majority of

the american people are being told that 16% of those want single-payer. they are really not against health care change, which is being used by the republicans and those people, businesses and news people who are being paid by the corporations that believe in republican health care, republican people. the supreme court has said that we are a government for the corporations. guest: you make a point that has often been made that is kind of a double standard, a disconnect in the polls. numerous pollsters have shown that if you call it a obamacare and say that this is the affordable care act, are you for it or against it, the majority

of americans are not for it, but if you break it down and you talk about the individual parts of the law, if you say -- ok, argue in favor of insurance companies not being able to deny you if you have a pre-existing condition? argue in favor of putting a cap on the out-of-pocket costs that consumers have to pay? in favor of keeping adult children on their insurance plan for their parents? people are in favor of that. there is a bit of a debate out there over what the american people actually want, but it is clear that as they understand it, the affordable care act is not hugely popular. host: this would be a good time to note that kaiser health news has been helping us to break down this law for many weeks now, a nonprofit editorial news business that is separate from the kaiser family foundation.

they are not affiliated with kaiser permanente. they cover the health laws of hospitals, doctors, and insurance. jay hancock, your specialty echo your specialty echo guest: the news and business -- your specialty? guest: while we are doing some housekeeping, let me correct something i said earlier. we were talking about trader joe's and the part-time workers. i said they were shifting to the private exchanges, i believe i was wrong about that. the trader joe's folks are being sent into the public obamacare exchanges with, i believe, a $500 stipend from the company. in fact a lot of them will probably wind up being better off, because once they go into the public exchanges they will

be eligible for fairly generous subsidies, tax credits that they would not have if they stayed on another plan. guest: a question from ricky -- host: a question from ricky from e-mail -- guest: a great question, which people are only now starting to figure out. there were twl big aspects of obamacare that they had an option on. one was whether to expand the medicaid program for the poor, the other was whether or not to run their own online marketplace, these online exchanges we have been talking about. again, a big aspect of the affordable care act will begin next week when you can go online and shop for this subsidized coverage that we have been talking about, if you are under

certain income levels. so, a little more than half of the state is changing week to week, a little more than half the states have decided to expand their medicaid program. so, this will ensure coverage for folks who make -- if you are an individual, a low about $15,000 per year. >> for the states who are planning to expand and participate, this is from the wall street journal, a map that shows which states are planning to participate and which are planning to not expand. the gold color here are the states planning to participate and the red are states planning not to expand. the gray in their are those who are uncertain. go ahead. guest: they are still on the fence.

pennsylvania is moving to expanding medicaid. south dakota is talking about it, but they do not know where they are. the other aspect, the online exchanges, states were presented with three options, they could set up the exchange and run it entirely themselves, about 16 states and the district of columbia are doing that. they are generally liberal states with a high degree of interest in implementing the aca. places like maryland, connecticut, vermont, california. host: we have a map of that as well that we are showing our viewers. the yellow is doing the federally run exchange, those are the state run exchanges on this map. the green states are doing the joint and federal exchanges. guest: there is a partnership. a lot of states are default into the department of health and human services in washington to

run their exchanges, which what that means is the feds are going to run the backbone, sort of the infrastructure of the online marketplace and the consumers will see little, if any difference. they will go to healthcare.gov to access their insurance choices in their state rather than the url for the state exchange. but the idea is the same. you will go on in your state and if you lack insurance now as a family member lacks insurance, you will go on these exchanges and punch in your income, your employment status, whether or not you want to keep your doctor, the computer will show you your options and what the cost to you would be after the subsidies. you plug in your income and the computer figures out the subsidies you are eligible for

and you will be able to see then that cost of these plans. -- you will be able to then see then that plans of these costs. host: this question comes to us our private exchanges comparable to private -- to a obamacare exchanges? guest: i do not see them stifling the success of obamacare. i see private exchanges as operating in parallel. it really is too early to say what sort of features and benefits they will have. they are brand-new. it is kind of breathtaking how quickly this subject of private exchange has come out of nowhere. there are large employer groups and benefits groups that sort of track what employers are doing

in offering health benefits. a year or twl ago they were not even asking questions about this and now companies like jan hewitt are setting up these exchanges, offering them to employers, and a good analogy that i like to use for the private exchanges is that the private exchange is to traditional health care as the 401(k) plan is to traditional pension. in one case the employer is responsibly covering the coverage. we will be doing more of a decision-making process in the hands of you, the employee, in terms of the cost-sharing as well. host: a comment from barbara

this morning -- no employer has ever hired full-time employees that they do not need. employers decide what coverage to offer with no input from the employees. we need to take the employer and insurance companies out of the matter. it is time for single-payer health coverage for all. guest: there is that sentiment out there. most other developed, rich nations like the united states have substantially different systems than we do. switzerland, the netherlands, it is sort of similar to obamacare, but there are still important differences. the argument for single-payer is -- look, let's expand single-payer for everyone and we will get rid of a lot of administrative costs represented by the insurance companies.

the fact is that single-payer is not going to happen in this country any time soon. if obamacare succeeds, we may never see single-payer. if the affordable care act is somehow repealed or does not succeed, single-payer may be back on the table again, which is what many cited as an interest that the insurance companies should have in ensuring that it is a success. single-payer is largely theoretical. host: we're talking to employees, full-time, part-time, and temporary, about how this is affecting them. we will go to wanda from california on our line set up for full-time employees. you are on with jay hancock. caller: hi, thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to say -- i hope you do not cut me off, but i just wanted to say that

republicans have spent billions of dollars since the passage of obamacare to misinform the american people. and when you hear propaganda 24/7, seven days a week, 24 hours a day, on what used to be considered the liberal media bias -- guest: can you give us an example of the propaganda? caller: yes, i can. the fact that their art death panels, that is one. -- the fact that there are death panels, that is one. the fact that people who are working full-time or working part-time, their coverage is going to go up. it is going to be higher.

they will not be up to see their same doctors anymore. guest: you are talking about arguments, publicity, assertions made against the affordable care act. caller: yes, sir. guest: you like the law and you are unhappy about the attacks being made on it. caller: it is not just about being unhappy. it is about the fact that the american people have been propagandized and they do not know what to think or believe. and because you hear a lie over and over -- i do not care if it is obamacare or anything else, the budget, the deficit. when you hear this stuff over and over and over again, you began to believe it. the fact is you begin to vote against your own best interests. guest: there is certainly a lot of discussion around the affordable care act, and you are going to hear a lot more evident it this week and next because

october 1 is the date that these online exchanges are supposed to open up. you are absolutely correct, there is -- there are assertions being made, not only by people who oppose the affordable care act, against the affordable care act, but there is some confusing information on the other side as well. we are trying to do our best at kaiser health news to cut through it. if i can do a little plug here, i would recommend our coverage just google kaiser health news. we are trying to cut through a lot of the blabbering and tell people what is really going on, but there is a lot of fog out there. you are right. host: let's go to oklahoma city, oklahoma on our line for part- time and temporary employees. caller: my understanding is there is a mandatory list of

required coverages that the insurance companies must offer, and if you have a religious objection, objection to any of these items and you are forced onto the exchange or you choose to go on to the affordable health care exchanges, what are you supposed to do? for example, prescription medicine is not an option for some. why do you need prescription medicine if you go to your backyard and get what you need? or you do not want artificial birth control or sterilization, you are not going to do it anyway -- are these things necessary to have on your plan? and if you choose not to have them on your plan for religious reasons, what happens to you? guest: you sort of are talking about two different issues here. one is urban of services -- one is preventative services that are required to be on the plans. the idea was that at the very

bottom, insurance companies should cover basic care to keep people healthy, and there is a list of preventative features that are supposed to be on the plans. i am not aware of religious objections to any of these. for example, having a colonoscopy or other preventative care. you do bring up birth control and abortion, that people might have objections to. in the case of abortion, under federal law, the exchanges are not allowed to use federal money to pay for abortions. that money is sequestered, and

that is the law. you ask about natural path that naturalpathic medicine. i cannot tell you anything about that. you will have to look at the plans, see for the cover, and see how they square with your beliefs. host: we showed a map of who is running exchanges from the "wall street journal." the blue ones are state run. federally run, the orange color. and the green states are the joint federal and state. a question on twitter -- what would be the inducement for a state run owned exchange? guest: to be in control. to have health policy play out the way the people of whatever particular state it is want it to run out. you higher your own contractors you hire your own contractors. you have your own board of directors running the exchange

board. it is just a lot more hands-on activity, rather than depending on washington to come in and resume for you. it has been an argument in conservative states as well. some conservatives say, well, why do we want washington coming in and running this for us? it will happen no matter what, so why don't we do it ourselves? the other side has predominately won the argument, which is to say we do not want to have anything to do with it. do your best, washington, we will see what happens. host: there have been changes are a big affordable care act. here is an article from reuters last week -- cleveland clinic announces job cuts to prepare for obamacare. it said it would cut jobs and cut its budget to prepare for

president barack obama's health reforms. the clinic is treated celebrities and world leaders, such as musician lou reed and gold-medal skater scott hamilton. a spokeswoman said that $330 million would be cut from its annual budget. that is a reuters story. we want to hear from our callers and those on twitter about what is happening to them. let's go to mary from maryland on our line for all others this morning. caller: i disagree with what you just said about the single-payer health care, that there will not be a big interest in it. everything i have heard makes a great case for a single-payer medicare for all, except maybe it would not have the employers determining what your health insurance would be and he would be dealing one responsible for it.

we would not have all of these arguments. i think obama care the health care act is a great way. it was time for somebody to step up to the plate and be the adult and change the broke, jacked up health care system in this country. it has been broken 30 years. i know. i have had cadillac insurance. right now i have no insurance. but i do have health care, i am not stupid. the republican party has done a great job, via fox cable news, telling lies about what is wrong with it, scaring people. i hope this is a strong law that will lead us into single-payer health care, because we need it. ups making an announcement right now that they're going to stop the family coverage, i believe. they were going to do that anyway. this is propaganda because somebody there is very right wing, up in the higher office. guest: they are not right-wing. they're just trying to control their health care costs. they are not ending family

coverage. they are ending coverage of working spouses who have coverage at there are other employer. you raise a good point. you are the second caller to talk about this connection, which has been the case in this country for 50 to 70 years, of having your health care benefits tied to your employer. there is no reason if you are starting the system from scratch why you would do that. one of the things that people who look at the affordable care act 10 years out, one of the possible changes that may happen is that your health care benefits will increasingly be

less and less tied to your employer. we are seeing some employers sift people into the health exchanges and we are seeing employers set up their own private exchanges, which is sort of nudging control of the health care benefits away from the employer. it is possible that we may see that tie between benefits and the employer sort of erode over the next 10 years. in the long run, that might not be a terrible thing. the problem with pre-obamacare was when he moved between employers or you lost your job, then who is your health care benefit? that is no longer going to be the case. the employer will not be such a critical part of the equation. that is not single-payer, but it is changing the dynamic that we have now for decades. host: we had a part-time employee from home depot call in earlier to talk about this situation. more information about what is happening at home depot, this from the "wall street journal," an article from last week or -- home depot plans to end health- care coverage for about 20,000

health care employees, instead doing government-sponsored insurance exchanges. the affordable care act -- the changes will affect nearly 20,000 people, which is about 5% of the company's workforce. the company will continue to offer part-time workers dental, vision, clinical illness, disability coverage. some information on this changes coming from home depot. back to the phones. a call from washington on our line for full-time employees. caller: my question is, my employer pays my health care. for me. i pay my family health care, which is about $900 a month. am i correct in assuming that i cannot get my family on the exchange where i would gain benefits from the subsidies?

and if so, my employer is basically deciding what kind of health care i will get. guest: you are smart to raise the question. the short answer is go onto the exchange when it opens next week. you have six months to sign up, so there is no hurry. plug in your information and see what comes up. under the employer mandate, which is employers have to offer coverage or be fined, and employers are not required to >> or go to a. insurance agent.

the something k complex situations you will need to figure out. we are on our line for part-time and temporary employees. good morning. hello i am a part-time employee. i'm am a husband some -- health insurance. i'm curious what that will cost us. people are very afraid of the irs running this. the irs, we all heard this, all of the democrats want to dismiss what they did. what they did was criminal. those teaafter all of party people. i'm not a tea party person or a democrat or a republican. fearful.us are very we do not want to go on to some run >> thing that they

they are not running the affordable care act. they are part of the process. requiresdable care act individuals to have health coverage and they a penalty if they do not. the penalty is assessed on your income tax. the other thing i heard, the irs enforcement powers and enforcement intentions are very, very limited. and there are so many loopholes to get out of the individual mandate that it is unlikely to be an oppressive process. and there is more to the tea party story that a lot of people read about in the newspapers. what people do not read after the process was that it was not such a nefarious process as it was first made out to be, and it kind of dropped off.

you asked about the cost under your husband's health plan. that is hard to say, but obamacare is not going to directly -- it is employer- sponsored health plan at his job, it will not be affected by what is happening next month. guest: if you want to keep up with jay hancock in kaiser health news, you can check them out at kaiserhealthnews.org or follow jay hancock on twitter. i appreciate you coming in to talk about the affordable care >> on the next washington journal, a look at legislation to keep the government from shutting down at the end of the month and republican efforts to take funding away from the federal health care law. our guests are ron johnson and jim moran of virginia. a look at how government funding and health care battles could affect next year's house and senate races.

washington journal is live on c- span every day at 7:00 a.m. >> we are at prospect garden and this is a guard that ellen wilson designed when she was running the house. when ellen wilson was in the white house, she would bring the white house garden back here to this prospect house. she said to the white house gardener that she wanted to re- create this garden at the white house. as becomes the famous rose garden at the white house. allen never got to live to see the rose garden completed. she died in 1914 and is wheeled out into the space outside in her wheelchair. she does not live to see the completion of this vision that she had four roses looming at the white house. >> meet the first and second

wife of woodrow wilson tonight. three.an and c-span debateng up, senators the house continuing resolution involving the health care law. president obama speaks on civil societies. >> harry reid opened today senate session by criticizing here are hiscans comments. >> inside the house republican bubble republican bubble, the reaction is altogether different. tyrannical tea party plan