when presidents get renominated, generally not competitive races. the two that with all that were competitive for 1976, 1980. he had not been nominated by his own party, he was appointed. both to the vice presidency and the presidency. you had the watergate scandal plus a wide-open donating process with the new rules that were implemented. carter is associated with the minority wing of the party the democratic party in the 1980s, 1970s was very divided. the conditions basically enable kennedy to have a more effective nomination challenge. aside from that, what we typically see our nominations that are much closer to a monopoly. there is no competition when the incumbent president runs. in open nominations, they're close to being what we call competitive. you can kind of see this in open

nominations -- i don't have my line in here but you only have a few that are not competitive. versus incumbent re-nominations that rarely are these things competitive. betweennd difference these indicators, democrats versus republicans. there is a distinct party difference for this timeframe. campaigns contents -- are bit more competitive overall. republican campaigns typically are not as competitive. intraparty trends. this is perhaps the most fascinating thing as far as looking ahead toward 2016 and beyond. haveratic nominations become somewhat less competitive over time. this is suggesting democratic -- a couple of things. one, the democratic party is a little more unified. it also could mean perspective candidates are little more

strategic about calculating their chances and not running, which is also a possibility. republican nominations in contrast, basically competitive in the 1970s. ray nagin -- reagan comes along and you have a great deal of unity in the party and that maybe fragmenting in the last -- in the post-george w. bush era. we can see those two patterns. this is the same slide as earlier. and i argue in this paper in a forthcoming book is these two different patterns and the variation we see emerges from two basic factors. one is creation and coalition unity. they were less unified in the 1970s. this reflects the growing polarization. internally, they become more unified. as that happens, we're seeing less competition, lest -- less

intraparty fighting over the nomination. what i argue is a more unified party should be able to figure out and coalesce earlier before the caucuses and primaries ever whicha more divided party is going to be a tough challenge. as the republican party, if they are unraveling in the wake of the george w. bush administration, they are going to see a much harder time coalescing behind candidates before the caucuses and primaries begin. i think we see that in 2008 and 2012, to lesser extent. and i think we will see it in 2016. the second source of variation really goes to candidate entry and exit decisions. who runs in presidential nominations matter a great deal. the simple reason is that some candidates are more appealing. it is more apparent to more different segments of the party membership that this is going to be a strong candidate. if you don't have one of the strong candidates running, a

become somewhat of an uncertainty -- a greater uncertainty situation in which different segments of the party are trying to figure out who is going to be viable. who can win, who is going to be a good candidate for us in the general election. in that scenario, what you see is a lot more division among the parties -- at least in the invisible primary. and what i note here, if we look at the democratic races come a great deal of their competitive races have occurred when the candidate is leading a national poll three years before the election. doesn't run. in kennedy in 1972 and again 1976. three years before those candidates -- the selections, he did not run. gary hart ran but dropped out in june or 1987. hillary clinton did not run in 2004. each of those democratic years

wound of the more competitive. we see a whole lot less agreement among party insiders. the endorsement data for these elections, there's a lot less consensus among democrats. they're dividing their support among different candidates. also importantly, much more the democratic party establishment sits out. they don't make an endorsement at all. i think we see that in the republican side of it in 2008 and 2012. the republicans in those years, mitt romney, for example, was one of the consensus pick of the establishment but very little of the establishment weighed in in that year. they buy large side out and primaries began. they decidede, but among the candidates who decide to run. party nominations, it is really an interactive part coalitionocess of building.

sometimes the coalescence happens before and sometimes during the primaries. that's it. >> thank you. now we will move onto reformations. our next paper is called scandal and resurgence. it is presented by jeff smith of the new school and david nair. >> that's me. thank you very much. we know in the study of american politics, there has been increasing literature developed around the politics of scandal. early on a lot of this literature first focused at the presidential level and centered on the media dynamics they created an environment rife for scandal. more recently, moving below the presidential level, we're seeing more and more research including as cases proliferate of a

quantitative nature that really thinks through what scandals matter the most determines having impact, what is a lingering effect of the scandals across time, and we know scandals matter most to candidate to try to stay in thate initially and then received across time. we also know increasingly with scandals have the biggest impact in terms of the electoral -- future of electoral of candidates. we look at a different question. this is a issue that is getting increasing attention and that is candidates who leave the electoral scene because of scandals but then try to come back at a later date. as is what we call the politics of recovery. we think this is something worth caring about because of its increasing commonality and i think because of some of the dynamics of the last year. we're going to see more and more these cases in the future. a scandalbecause when

or a candidate with a scandalous past comes back into politics, the media environment is dominated by the candidate and the dynamics around the scandal. that is the question that we look at in this paper. there we go. we hypothesize that three forces really matter the most in shaping the politics of recovery. that is whether a candidate who tries to come back and succeed or fail. these three c's include first and foremost, context. the electoral context in which that candidate seeks to recover. context takes on a lot of different dimensions. perhaps the most important is of thetisan composition district or environment in which the candidate tries to come back. obviously, we think the

candidate cannoli come back if he or she has the advantage of partisan wind at their backs. it is not just about party. it is also about ideology and certainly districts that are dominated by one party or the other have important ideological flavors that may be particularly advantageous or at least not disadvantageous to the same degree to scandal-laden candidates. we all know geography matters enormously in shaping the outcomes of races, specifically if a candidate with a scandal or scandalous past really has some ongoing geographical connection to a place. by context also is driven the social context of an environment, especially the composition of that district that may be racially or ethnically homogenous in one way or another or religiously homogenous.

and we know in politics, context always matters. it matters enormously. the three of us lost elections are first time out and i think context was important and we know it. we think context matters a lot more in scandal cases than in other cases. nature ofwe know the this kennels themselves matter. we know that from previous research. we make the case in this paper that what matters just as much, perhaps more, is the way in which the candidate grapples with scandal itself as they present themselves to the voters. our initial hypothesis focused heavily on the need for ongoing and genuine contrition on the part of candidates. but as we will talk about, we come to find that while contrition matters enormously in certain context, a different kind of reaction to the scandal, a form of combativeness, may actually be as effective as the

candidate faces the voting public, that knows about his or her scandal. the thirdy, hypothesis we have is about the s runn which candidate campaigns. we think more than in other elections where money, organization, those other traditional measures of a candidate success matter, in these cases, we believe the candidates ability to personally connect with voters, to go over the heads of the media in ways that often in which money is fairly irrelevant are incredibly important. so a candidate's personal charisma and a candidate's credibility as they face the voters crucially is important in these races in ways they are not in others. i'm going to turn it over to david who is going to talk a little bit about how we come up

with a cases re-examined and then we're all going to talk a little bit about those cases. jay mentioned, the politics of recovery seem to be of increasing importance and it was examples of winter, spitzer, in stamford that uris to this topic in the first place, but we wanted to see how often this kind of example had occurred in the past. it hasn't been the most frequent sort of experience to see the candidate who had to leave office because of scandal take time off and then attempt a comeback. source as partwd of this research on the website where i work and we explained our conditions for the situations we were hoping to look at and this is the universe of candidates we came up with. we doubted ourselves limited to members of congress, senators,

governors, state what elected officials and judges, federal judges, and, well, we certainly welcome any more examples that we have not managed to encounter on this list here. we did not want to limit ourselves simply to the treo mentioned in the title of the paper. we were looking for greater variance in the case studies that we wanted to engage in and this list of research here or this list of names your help us chosede our focus and we alcee hastings, who was impeached federal judge in florida, marion barry, the former mayor of d.c., and mel reynolds, former member of congress from illinois because we felt these examples are along all three of the variables that we have cited, offered real variance for us compared with spitzer, weiner , in sanford examples.

abouts going to talk those last three cases. >> thank you, david. about the three african-american cases -- marion mely, alcee hastings, and reynolds, former congressman from chicago. then i'm going to talk about them but first we're going to talk about the variables. after i finish talking about those three, david is going to talk about the new york cases abouty will close talking sanford. the first that is so critical is context. in context is one of the most important aspects of that is what kind of race do you choose in your comeback race, which is the most important one? the three candidates i one ofhed, of the three, the made a brilliant strategic decision in choosing a comeback race, that was marion barry. one kind of got it wrong the first time but then the second, better, -- attempt was

which was hastings, and the woird, mel reynolds, made t big airs. the why. marion berry had been a three term member of washington, d.c.. when he came back, he did not run immediately. he had a choice of running for city council. he could run for an at-large seat or he could run in his home base, which was the eighth ward where he sort of originally nurtured his political ties back in early 1970s. ward istrict or that also the poorest ward in washington and the most overwhelmingly black. he believed, and apparently wisely, he would find the most sympathetic audience for his return in that ward. he won ended up going on to be elected mayor after that. that probably would not have happened had he chosen to run for mayor in his first time back out.

hastings, case, alcee he probably made a mistake his first time back. he ran in the statewide primary for secretary of state in florida. one of the reasons that was very difficult, again, raise i think is premed here. florida state wide has about a 20% african-american state. democratic primary electorate tends to be between 25% and 29% african-american. in his first secretary of state race, his percentage pretty much trended pretty much was right about the percentage of african- americans in the electorate according to exit polls. in the runoff, he did not move at all. he finished second in the original primary, then did not add any additional votes in the runoff. his second comeback race he ran in a majority black congressional district and was more successful and was seated in the house of representatives in 1992 where two thirds of his colleagues had just voted to

impeach him. so that is pretty interesting. third -- the third case is no reynolds. do, he dide did not not go down a level. you try to run for congress to the same seat he had lost that she tried to run for congress to same seat he had lost. he was having a two year long affair with a 15-year-old campaign volunteer. that was not easily forgiven. he came back in his seat and tried to run for his former congressional seat and only won 6% of the vote. the next important variable is contrition or combativeness. one thing that is -- the african-american candidates we be on the10 to more combativeness. bad tombativeness

than contrite. marion berry said on the tape to go heh set me up was actually more contrite than the other two candidates we looked at. [laughter] if that provide some context. mel reynolds bailey alluded to some mistakes he made an alcee hastings that he never made any theakes at all, even though house of representatives found convincing enough evidence he took $150,000 in bribes that they voted 413-3 20 democratic majority house of representatives voted that to impeach him, then was convicted. levels ofind of the contrition and combativeness among the three i looked at. and in charisma and personal credibility. marion berry had 20 years of

experience in the civil rights movement going back to his days in nashville for helping organize lunch counter sit in's and washington, d.c., after the riots, one of the leading figures in delivering like literally driving trucks delivering food throughout southeast washington, d.c. he had a tremendous amount of credibility from communities and civic work. that really put him in good stead when it was time for his comeback. amount ofad a decent charisma and personal credibility taste on his work. mel reynolds clearly had the least and that was probably a critical factor that led to his poor outcomes in his comeback. buryposed to hastings and who had been committed he leaders before they ran for office, reynolds was a rhodes scholar and did not have deep community ties. he was sort of seen as an outsider when he first ran in a primary against the incumbent who had been enmeshed in scandal

unless so, clearly, scored lower on the charisma and personal credibility scale than the other two. we can maybe go back to the last slide and work our way back. and spitzer, spitzer started off with a lot of credibility in his race for city comptroller, but mostly having to do this work as attorney general and he became the sheriff of wall street. he was very eager to forget and not at all talked about his brief disastrous one-year term as governor. outspoken a very msnbc-type progressive who was capable of commanding a lot of needy attention and relating back to the context in which he was running. he was running against a field that had not really jailed for new york city mayor the democratic primary. no one had really caught fire or

was exciting voters. the moment that weiner jumped into the race, he instantly caught fire, shot to the top of the polls. based entirely on his recognition in the media circus that surrounded him and that was enough to initially release him, jeff made about the 2012 republican nomination for the president where the media enter certain extent the voters from at least expressed by polls, kind of jumped on the flavor of the month and anthony weiner for maybe literally a month or two months was in fact the flavor of the month. spitzer was running against manhattan borough president scott stringer was a very colorless sort of politician, not very prominent. the other factor here is that stringer pretty much expected a coronation. yet absolutely no opposition. spitzer got in right at the filing deadline. spitzer thing -- seemed to the

keep it take advantage of stringer's lack of preparation. but across the spectrum am a there was a raid against spitzer. it is pretty rare you have the entire liber movement that very much like scott stringer and wall street and the business committed to, which could not stand spitzer, thanks to his presenting activism as attorney general, there were all in the same side and on top of that, newspaper endorsements all went to stringer. in a way, spitzer sort of perhaps wound up biting off more than he could chew. if we could flip back to the contrition versus combatant notion. weiner definitely tried to present himself as having atoned, definitely being contrite and having gotten past the sexting scandal that forced him to resign from congress to

begin with. you sort of made it seem like it was in his past. he did this very glowing interview with his wife that appeared in "the new york times" magazine that he had turned over a new leaf. of course, that turned out to not at all be the case. the contrition routine will totally fail if you are a recidivist. weiner wound up looking like a junkie who kept promising he had quit, only to ask a still be getting high. once voters started to realize that, he created -- cratered in the polls and wound up finishing in fifth place behind a candidate whose campaign finest rector had been indicted for campaign-finance fraud. so he wound up a total failure. spitzer is right in the middle on this chart. i think that susan quite well. spitzer did not really seem quite willing to be contrite, but he played up his competitiveness and particularly

exceeded among the black amenity. the problem was the black share vote wound up being a little bit too small and he fell just four points short of stringer. will come back to context if we need to on that. i will talk a little bit about sanford. context is crucially important to the same success. heavily republican district in south carolina, but importantly, a district where business conservatives really dominated. well educated district. it was a perfect fit i think ideological he for mark sanford. in addition, he represented that most of thatess -- area. it had been redrawn any exceeded expectations in the part of the district where he had represented before. those parts only in of the district which had not been part of the original congressional district. in addition, one thing that

especially an environment where there's a lot of antigovernment or anti-washington sentiment, the factor china comeback from a scandal really can present you as an outsider and sanford did a particularly the job of trying to play up on that theme. he was all contrite all the time, from his introduction in a television ad, his media rollout, it was ongoing contrition. your work subtle allusions to religious redemption -- there were subtle allusions to religious redemption and emphasis on the normalization of what had happened with him and jenny sanford. it was there at the beginning of became very important after jenny sanford's charges about his arrival at the home to watch the super bowl and the fact that marriage is just have problems and divorced couples have problems. and this is an ongoing challenge. but he was very contrite throughout. and most importantly -- excuse

me. most important, mark sanford had always been a tv candidate, a candidate who believed ably in the power of television to move voters. he moved away from that dramatically in this campaign and became the guy who went out with a staffer, drove all over the district and really emphasized personal connections with voters. and that was a 180 in terms of who he was as a candidate. the folks who worked with him closely see that as the secret to his success early this year in coming back. these 6 cases. they are big. it is a long paper. we are grappling with how to get a little control over this very confiscated topic that we think is going to be increasingly common topics in american politics. >> candidates are also grappling. we are going to open it up to questions. i ask you wait into you a microphone in front of you to

ask the questions. this is being recorded from a potentially for c-span. do we have another microphone in the audience? basically, everybody is under the same rules. wait until the microphone is in front of your face to talk. [indiscernible] you will describe differing degrees a role or lack a role for political parties, even in the sex scandals it seems the parties have deliberately and those cases stepped away from it all and said, if you're going to come back, you're going to come back without our help. you also have everything from introduction to civil service to the citizens united decision that seems to be making less and less relevant. [inaudible] i'm sorry. ok. what do you see that says the parties can or are doing

anything other than rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic? it's an open question. jump in. our paper would say is an example, actually, of how parties can be very much involved in an environment that a somewhat hostile to them. the reforms in california, the new top two primary was specifically designed to weaken the parties. here we are showing they can continue to play a role and continue to have an influence on the outcome of races, even when all of the rules are set against them. ono, some work that i did the california primary outcome, i just said, all right, let's imagine we can try and predict the outcome of the sort of partisan vote in each district, the total vote for democrats, total vote for republicans predict that from the districts

party right -- in past predict theen is 2012. it did pretty well. survey suggest people were largely voting, choosing among candidates of a given party, even though they had the option under the top two primary to vote for anybody they wanted to. i think parties are still an important cue and appears they can be an important sort of formal cue in terms of endorsement but also in terms of the party label on the ballot, voters are still sort of herding along that basis. what we're going to see this cycle and in the 2016 cycle as well is that parties are operating basically under a different name come almost like a pseudonym. you see this guy holsinger, the wall street private equity guy

that he and others are putting together millions of dollars to basically be a proxy for the republican party only because they understand the antipathy with which the party is greeted or the favorite candidate is often greeted by restaurants republicans, so they're going to do it in a different name. but i think it will be operating much as the party otherwise would. on the democrat side, you see something similar at the state legislative level the cycle. one of the largest is super packs is basically devoted to getting democrats elected at the state level so there's not another districting debacle for democrats like there was after 2010. as a supercorporated pack, operates as a super pack, but isaac we just party operatives who have migrated over as the super pacs who are acting as proxies for the party. so maybe they won't be as powerful as we knew them, but i think it will be powerful and are different guise. think and underlying

message of my research is that the rules the parties set in place really do structure the presidential nominations in who becomes a candidate and how they campaign and how voters have a say in the process. think thefinitely role of the parties has changed over time, it's just that the parties are operating in a different way. so they're setting these rules, tried to regulate the calendar and then does have implications for both candidates and the voters. i also think their breaking of the rules by states and the parties reactions to it show the parties can have different levels of effectiveness if they want. the democratic party was able to keep the candidates from campaigning in florida and michigan in 2000 eight, meanwhile, in 2012 in florida, the candidates spent massive amounts of money despite the fact that florida willingly broke the rules that the republican party. so there is the opportunity for the parties to take a stand and

really shape the nomination, whether it is through setting the rules or endorsing and coalescing around a candidate as wayne talked about. >> excuse me. i think the political parties are going to continue to be the dominant actor in the american elections as long as the candidates are party nominees. it is that straightforward. parties organize the conflict. they're the ones generating the ideas along which line grassroots activists are falling and picking sides. they affect how we perceive politics -- at least we, the politically active segment of the population, they create the rules for nominating candidates. they are the organizational muster for getting out the vote. analyst every respect, the a most every respect, you can understand the elections without it.

the form changes. there's no question the tactics change. parties or more network- oriented, more diffuse. i think the weakness the parties face in the modern technological world that we live in with the internet and blogs is that the parties become so multifaceted that there really hard to provide direction to. i think that is the great challenge they face. >> i just want to echo some of what wayne and jeff are saying. about a decade ago, one of the major concerns was the rise of 520 seven's. people were saying, we don't know if they will undermine what the parties and candidates are trying to do. it could be random rich people with her own off message kind of advertisement. i have a couple of papers i did with david dooley on richard skinner in which we tried to look at this in terms of campaign finance networks and found basically the parties are very skilled at co-opting these 527's, which were very much part of the party networks it very

much on board with what they were doing and helped them get around some other campaign- finance rules. the parties are very adept at this sort of thing. rules come into campaign-finance regimes, and remaining as relevant as ever, if not more so. in ohio on tuesday, we had roughly 25% turnout in general election -- granted, it was local races, but 25% turnout increasingly says people are not tuned in, not paying attention. so the parties may be very adept at adapting within that structure, but it seems like a lot of other folks are outside that structure. anybody can jump in. >> it's an odd number year. you're lucky to get 25%. that's great. >> ok. other folks, we have microphones. >> this is for wayne.

if you would apply your analysis to 2012 for us, was romney the presumptive nominee based upon your standards as you compare with say 2000 with gore and bush? and was this in part due to super pacs? then a question for seth and superpacs role do play? 2012, romney i think was the beneficiary of a sequential decision-making process during the invisible primary where he was initially unacceptable to large numbers of people within the republican party. that's referred somebody else. and as a look at who the other alternatives were, they did not pan out either and all of a sudden -- >> [indiscernible]

>> i think romney reemerged as, well, it can be gingrich, it can be santorum. these guys aren't going to be able to win. i think you did reemerge. i say that it is a must exactly the same pattern that you saw with don mccain in 2008. john mccain does arrive back as a weak front runner. i pretrade is in this paper as really two different alternative scenarios, but it is a continuum between them. i do think the party established that the party activist group leaders had come around looking at romney, but he was nowhere near as strong or as sure of a thing as they george w bush was in 2000 going into the iowa caucuses. if that makes any sense. >> and what role will super pacs play? >> there are two things going on. them.pacs are one of

i write about this in this book i have coming out next year. basicallyis super pac enable candidates who somebody or some group of people literally would like to see nominated, can all of a sudden give them a cash infusion that we never saw before. so candidates who were innocent knocked out can reemerge -- in a sense knocked out can reemerge. we saw that with newt gingrich and rick santorum. these guys did not have broad- based appeal. we would talk about campaign- finance, what does that indicate? traditionally, the amount of money they raised really reflected kind of support among donors.worked with the internet, we really have to look at how many donors are giving and is a small donors or big donors? it doesn't tells a lot about the support. or their appeal.

i don't think it changes whether they are electable or not, but i do think it makes them competitive. it can really mucked things up. more generally, the internet. i think it is reinvigorated momentum as a possibility presidential nomination, simply because from roughly the 1970s through 2000, arguably 2004, candidates could not have the capacity with an increasingly frontloaded primary schedule to raise the money and make a difference. now they can. they can raise money really, really quickly. that gives the potential for a candidate who beats expectations like a barack obama. now obama in 2008 was well- funded, but, man, he really shops forward with his campaign .undraising thereafter it helped him enormously.

the internet as a fundraising vehicle, super pacs really have changed the game and made greater potential for instability and momentum during the primaries. but it is going to matter in races in which the party already hasn't come together. and what role do super pacs and the primary process? >> [inaudible] >> oh, and the general election. i haven't looked in depth at that in particular. i did collect all of the super pac spending at one point in the general election but did not fill it out after the election was over. at that point, i was sort of early october. at that point, there was a lot going into certain races. i don't read call how much.

they were managing to raise a lot of money regardless in the berman/sherman. geary miller, who ended up in the district, he is a republican running against -- probably .hould be elected democrat there was a ton of money from realtors see when it did that raise. at that point in time and october, there really wasn't a lot going into california specifically. if you look at the universal super pack money, most of it was going to the presidential election. there were certainly some going how these races when i saw the money change the protected outcome of the house elections nationally, generally change or move the needle much. so my own view on the super pac is a goes in where the races are ready highly competitive. i will say in california, they saw a lot of super pac activity for state legislative candidates.

races areslative hugely expensive. campaign finance law in california has allowed something very much like super pacs for about or encourage them for about a dozen years now. there is tremendous super pac activity at the legislative level in both the primary and the general. i don't think it was quite as big a deal in the congressional races, though again, i haven't followed up with it. >> one thing i think that we will see in 2014 and 2016 as well is not just more super pac involvement in primaries, but more super pac involvement in the other party's primary. after what happened with todd akin, claire mccaskill, spending $1 million to run ads the basically promoted todd akin to the republican primary, some of the operatives i talk to see that as a pretty effective model going forward to sort of just make mischief and the

republicans might have control of the senate if it weren't for oh donald and murdoch and buck and people they are nominated in the last few years. i think republicans are not interested in maybe trying to -- are nowbles interested in maybe trying to turn the tables. >> another question? on with the campaign finance institute and also with suny albany. i don't want ask about super pac s. i was fascinated by the findings the second error reported. i have the three part question and the third part of the people might want to weigh in on. i wondered -- i know you're writing about california races. legislativetly races, maybe a mix.

but to what extent do you think your findings were shaped by the fact the first round election, not even sure what to call the primary, the first round election involved both democrats and republicans and therefore, party cues are the hubs more important to the voters? that is, this is speculation on your part, but to what extent you expect to find this to transfer to more normal primary were party label is not as important? two, to what extent do you think your findings are influenced by the level of race or the specific office, the visibility of the election to the voters? and then, three, totally speculative part, to what extent -- i know a lot of party operatives are sticking their toes in the water and saying they will get involved in primaries of the congressional

level, but to what extent do you really expect that to happen given their costs when they lose? >> than me try and answer the first part i guess. how unique was his particular .lection election't the first was california parties have issued endorsements. we are still trying to obtain the data on this country level endorsement votes for say 2010 or earlier. it is hard. you basically need someone on the inside and we have that for this election cycle. but we like to do that and are hoping to do that to get a sense -- i don't think they endorsed illy as widely in previous races. they didn't see as much of an urgency. in some cases they did that and we are hoping to measure that. , we see of speculation 2012 as an unusual election

cycle for party elites, for candidates, party leaders. not necessarily for the voters, though. not that many of them had a very different voting experience with a win in the ballot booth. the endorsement was a really staring them in the face. you had to go look for in the back of your voter booklet to find out what the party was endorsing a person or not, it wasn't right there on the ballot line. other primary, you had a list of candidates and maybe you heard something about them and maybe not, but as you pointed out, these are mostly state legislative races, if you congressional, but, generally, voters don't have a ton of familiarity with the people on that ballot. i think for the voters, it was a pretty typical election. >> can you remind me with the other questions were? would you expect a similar effect in higher visibility race? and would you expect the parties really do start weighing and more often in primaries?

primaries in higher-level races such as congress? endorsements were for congress as well. whenever pretty broad distribution status and become, state senate, and congress. it is just a general mix. continuexpect them to doing that. one of the key questions is how much of the primary competition will be in the future how much was a function of the redistricting, which was also pretty radical in california, just in the basic sense in movie lines a lot. there's a lot of uncertainty out there about who my representing, how well did they know me and my name, and so forth. and are they going to be involved in the future at higher levels and would we expect to see higher levels? i would expect would be less likely they would get involved at higher levels. if you have a legitimate race on the kind ofit is

thing i think the party in his endorsement process would probably just want to set out and you wouldn't get a consensus developed -- developing and the way you would for lower-level races. perhaps the endorsement wouldn't carry as much weight because of the higher profile contest, voters have more information coming at them from other sources. the coming election cycle 2014 is not going to be a real great test for that because jerry brown basically is not going to face in the renomination the democratic side and on the republican side, you have a but model not oh who actually was the -- abe maldan ado running as the main candidate in the sky tim commanderho just a the race, tea party candidate, interesting,e, um,

i don't want to say anything to back here on c-span. it will be interesting to see if you get a broader-based support within the party. ldonado is persona non grata. or can be the potential for real five. the republican party can have its real system similar to the democratic system for designing these nominations. we will see. >> on the question of party involvement in primaries, or broadly, a couple of days ago the executive director of the national republican senator or -- senatorial committee said the actually start playing the republican senate primaries to ensure that more electable candidates become the nominees including possibly spending money and places like louisiana and georgia. of course, as jeff mentioned a little earlier, the nra see's

hands-off approach led to your todd akins and richard murdochs. the problem is the hands-off parties -- hulsey became about from a hands-off policy that backfired. in 2009 8 endorsed shirley crist for senate in florida and that sent conservative activists through the roof and had a big impact on marco rubio's rise and nowtually charlie crist becoming a democrat. i think the conservative activist can feel justified in their anger. i think for a on the republican side, they're stuck between a rock and a hard place of wanting to insure electable candidates but the more they play in these primaries, the more they risk getting fuel to the less electable candidates and i think if i were paul broun in georgia who is the most obviously tea party candidate in that race, i would welcome the nrsc coming in and spending money on somebody else.

>> i cannot believe they announced that publicly. there's enough outside groups on the republican side with the establishment money that could've done that without having the parties and for mature. i was surprised. >> i from northeastern university. i've comment on two of the papers. one, the paper about the politics of recovery. two other names you could add your list are harold washington who is both debarred and spent time in prison and then got elected mayor of chicago, and the other if you want to go further back is james michael -- iy who had a variety know he spent some time in prison -- >> [inaudible] >> i think that's wrong, but he forserve time in prison taking the civil service exam for somebody.

that was at the beginning of his political career and was never derailed for it. is ituld make about that does seem a lot of the examples i know people who have done this successfully our people and certain kinds of ethnic and racial subcultures where there's a certain kind of suspicion established government, where there is in or about a legitimacy around it. therefore, there were a whole lot of irish in boston who did not really think it was all that bad that somebody took a civil service exam for somebody else because they thought they were needed,that fair and anyway. the other comment i would make jewett paper. it is not quite fair to say the republicans did nothing up until

1996. i don't know if you know something called the delegates in organization committee that was created in 1968? with very little fanfare, yet ended up making many of the same changes that mcgovern fraser commission did. it did not go quite as far, but did open up the process significantly. and one reason is because -- that they were able to successful is there is this faction in the republican party, goldwater being the primitive or early example that basically says the establishment is against us and therefore the war we can open up the process to ordinary voters, the more we will succeed. the second thing is, i disagree with your comment that the 2012 reforms in work. it actually did significantly frontload the process. in the following sense that the process for the republicans in

2012 begins with eight weeks in which there is only a single word to primaries. -- single or two primaries. the classic example, the kind of thing it allows, newt gingrich unexpectedly wins south carolina primary and for a couple of days is in the lead nationally in all the polls. romney is able to come back because the next primary is in for another like 10 days or something like that. it is interesting to note that in previous years, the south carolina primary had been followed three days later by super tuesday. if that calendar had been in effect in 2012, it is not unreasonable to think newt gingrich would have been republican nominee -- at least in my view -- would have been a complete disaster for the

republican party. so i think it actually did work. >> i don't disagree with you. i think it lengthen the process and change the calendar. i think what i was trying to highlight is that i think their goals of lengthening the process in bringing more states into the process or perhaps intention this year. they did lengthen the process of yours more time between contest. we had that lull in late february that had not previously been seen. yet fewer states voted because more states moved their contests back. not only to the republican reforms, also in part due to some states moving their contests to match up with her congressional or statewide primary for economic reasons. your first point, i do recognize i write my paper little bit about the reforms of 1960 -- 1968, i think i classify them or as recommendations and strong reforms and requirements to the same degree that the democratic in just how

historically they're not viewed in the same light is becoming as involved particularly new look at the fact the democrats changed the rules and change them back and change them again for years after. perhaps i should temper that point as well. >> picking up on that point a little bit about the scandals and some of the others that take it way back, in your discussion of context, can you go little bit further on the context of what the accusation is? we're talking about money, talking about sex, talking about drugs. are any of those content -- contexts better to get caught doing? >> in a lot of the research there is a big indication that the fiscal scandals seem -- >> combined with abuse of power. >> that seems to be the worst.

i think were fighting something different when we're talking about a comeback and especially if you are running in a context in which you can present your self as an abused -- part of an abused by the system. you can really play that quite well. and whether that is the cases jeff talked about were rory moore in alabama who use the 10 commitments controversy very effectively in terms of an attack on christian conservatives, i think that is very much the case. i think in many ways that is what makes the mark sanford comeback so extraordinary because he did not have a lot of that other stuff going for him. i think you just did it out of his skill as a candidate, somebody who just had a great ability and a lot of luck. he ended up with a runoff opponent who flailed around the did not -- it took a while to get his act together. cold air bush was a

weak candidate who is very much much contain a did not allow her to fight much. i think it is up point well taken, but i think the interplay of what happened, how candidates do and what happened in the context in which they're running, all really matter more than the underlying scandal itself. argument atthe least for some there's a second act in politics. i'm looking north of the order at rob ford. has anybody ever cap the first act going long enough they and while they were in office? don't have thewe paper because he never left is david vitter. i don't have the authority or any knowledge about whether he is still wearing diapers or what his deal is, but you may remember him, the louisiana,

u.s. senator from louisiana who andonized the d.c. madam they gave graphic testimony about some of his habits. he stayed in office, ran for reelection. the sec had a moderate or center-right congressman. they thought they could beat him. he won by 20 points. is one example in terms of alcohol and drugs. to rack my brain and think about if anyone has kept it up as long as rob ford, but the best example is probably marion barry who has been censured by the d.c. city council twice in the last three years, once for bribery and then a second time also financially , hased abuse of power

talked continually about his struggles with alcohol and drugs and continues getting elected and reelected. oldink he is 78 to 79 years . the only election he ever lost was the one he ran while he was literally waiting to go to prison. [laughter] it is verynk possible. again, depending, david -- you make a good point. we explored a great deal in our paper about acts of oppositional culture that are already very skeptical of either the media or the establishment generally speaking and how advantageous those context can be for scandalized candidates. >> we have some questions on that side. franklin. i wanted to play off david's point at the end of a couple

rounds ago on the republican senatorial committee. i want to direct it at caitlin for the 2016 round. german previous is facing all kinds of efforts to shift the party. in a broader context of the party, the goal of the parties to nominate ineluctable, strong best candidate that unifies the party and marches onto victory. given the difficulty of supporting charlie crist and see him crash and burn, to what extent would you advise the chairman about things to do in this nominating process? he has proposed a number of things. i would like to hear your thoughts on that. i would like to hear your thoughts on that. really depends on what his goals are and what the goals of the party are. the structure is so important. which states are allowed to go early, the percentage of tea party support, how strong the

tea party is in those states at that time, can the republican party keep other states from bucking the rules and moving for they want anyways? i wonder if the penalty of nine delegates is going to keep florida from moving forward. are the candidates going to spend millions of dollars there? i do not think that florida cares how many delegates they have, because in recent years we have not seen that it matters when the convention comes. that is not penalty enough. from paper i have quotes arizona governor officials in florida, saying that we deserve to have these places early in the calendar. that florida deserves an early contest because their voters are a stronger test for the candidate than any other. until the republican party can figure out a way to enforce its rules, it really needs to

consider how the calendar is structured and where the tea party is going to come into play. youorically there has been, know, fights and concern over when southern states get to vote . there was concerned that mitt romney would not gain momentum in the south until too late in the process. it is all just unseen at this point until they make stronger recommendations. >> yes, sir? >> university of new hampshire. i have a question for wayne. if the goal of republicans in tinkering with the rules is to try to boost turnout to the primaries and so forth and if they are looking back to 2008 on the democratic side as a model worthy of emulation, do you think they are taking the wrong lessons from 2008? about 2008 on the

democratic side could be duplicated in terms of rules and proportional representation, but nothing about the rules could produce two historic candidacies going head-to-head with one another and all of the identity politics involved with that. that is not able to be duplicated by the rules. you could have had three more santorum,romney, gingrich, but i do not know that that would have boosted turnout more than it was already. -- are theyr is overestimating how much they can boost turnout? maybe? >> i think that when we look at the long jeopardy of the caucuses and the primary, how quickly do they unify? that is the question that we have. in the case of hillary clinton and barack obama, that was just

a dragged out fight. elongate and get more people participating, you need more agreement. find party leaders who will advocate for that. it will be tough. that is what we are talking about by replicating it. see that necessarily happening. i do think that both nominations in 2016 will be competitive. i think that that will be the case on the republican side because there is a lot of disagreement within that party. thinking about tea party versus establishment, just the tea party, which is the next panel coming up in the schedule, the tea party could not really unify on which candidate in 2012 they would back. if we look at the event -- the evangelical christian ministry,

the baptists, the ministers down in dallas, they could not agree. among themselves, which of the candidates should have been the nominee? we should have seen more nominations for romney than others. when we look at these grassroots groups there is a lot of internal disagreement and i do not think that is changing. i do not see anything that says these guys are becoming more subsets either within or across subsets of the republican party. in the democratic party i think they are more unified, but going back to my argument about candidates, hillary clinton is a strong front runner. if she runs it is apparent who a lot of democratic groups will support, but if she does not run, for health reasons or if her husband is not able to campaign, if that is the case, look at that race. it looks a lot more wide open than it might right now and you will have a much more competitive primary.

that is what i would look at. these things are so interactive. we cannot just look at one thing out there eerie of the parties are diverse. we tend to stereotype with these images -- images, but they are really broad-based. >> i just want to comment on one thing that william brought up, it is interesting to sit here and talk about how the republican party is less unified than the democratic party, and historically i think it is an interesting time to be studying this, because for the first time in recent years we are seeing a republican party that is facing many of the struggles that the democratic party faced 20 years, 30 years ago when they think or do with the reform process every four years. in direct response to your question about whether republicans are taking the long -- the wrong lessons, i think that in large part they are. when i was showed the table of turnout, it was divided into

competitive and -- the competitive portion and the noncompetitive portion. turnout does not really fall afterwards. that is because in 2012 i had 19 states who voted after the race was decided, essentially, an something like 17 of the 19 of those had statewide primaries on the same day as their presidential contest. people coming out for other races. another one looking more directly at the rules and how they affect turnout, by and large the biggest for dichter, of course, is switching to a primary rather than a caucus, but i find the interactive effective that we states holding contests later in the nomination season within a competitive window, they have a higher turnout. it is not just the early states. going earlier does not necessarily mean more turnout, but going as long as the race is still competitive has the biggest influence on turnout

rather than straight location in the calendar. >> just a follow-up on that, when you look at the date before the nomination, which was not effectively decided, and in which romney had enough delegates at the convention, his vote share in the remaining primaries did not change much either, but even after he had the delegates, he continued to limp along, 65%, 66% of the republican vote. even though newt gingrich and rick santorum were off the ballot, they were getting some votes, ron paul surged a bit. there were people in the expressingparty dissatisfaction with mid-romney is a candidate even after he had locked up the nomination. i am not sure what to make of >> i appreciate the paper. i do not know why we had

for theonality republican primary voters. i do not know why we moved from winner take all. now i understand that they had to to go ahead with the primary. i do not think that that is very productive. it seems to me that proportionality just fuels confusion. you want to nominate a candidate to come into the election, that is what we are trying to do. i always thought that republicans were smarter, winner takes all and gets it over. previous complaints about it, his complaint really was not about the calendar. he was complaining about all the debates. that was the bloodletting that caused the trouble. every debate, whoever the front runner was, the other eight or seven dwarves would jump on that person.

it just went on and on. they were so damaged by the time they got to the election, or the point where they could have a , true rules and all of the stuff they had done, it really weakened their opportunity to run a competitive campaign. there was so much discontent he does of all of the accusations that had been hurled by the candidates at each other with all of these groups coming in and spending all this money. what would you do? rulesuld you remake those to say to republicans that you have a better opportunity? i do not think it is an issue of the calendar or proportionality. i do not think that turnout adds anything for a candidate to win the election. >> when preparing this paper, one thing that i read by the judge was a short piece in which

they looked at how the delegates would have been allocated in 2012 if the states have used the same rules as 2008. obviously, they cannot account for the fact that there were different campaigns and behaviors might have changed, but they actually found that the race might have lasted longer under the old rules then the new rules. the torsion analogy, because of the way the candidates split the timeis time round -- around, different candidates winning different states, it did not necessarily prolong the nomination season this time around. interesting, in my paper i talk about one of the rules the democratic arty tinkered with the most throughout the 1970s and 1980s was the delegate allocation rule for proportional representation and manipulation of the threshold which allowed winner take all at the state level.

that candidate winning the district. and so forth. they added in superdelegates. they tinkered with this to achieve various goals, partially to protect president carter and partially to help jackson and heart at various areas they thought were not fair to try to ensure a fair allocation of delegates. it is a rule that they tinker with constantly. >> not my paper, not my paper, but i do not think that turnout is important for the sake of turnout. but i do think that the establishment has an interest in producing higher turnout in so far as that reduces the possibility of more extreme candidates in their -- low turnout elections in which the base is palpable.

know? i think there is research out there to corroborate that. >> other questions? i saw a few other hands. going a little bit further with the turnout question, on the one hand you see parties at the most, the local levels, the local elections, trying not to spend money energy in the primaries, keeping fighting one guy or one woman and letting it go. then they argue that they are disappointed that people do not get involved and vote later. it seems like a real mixed messages being passed on. is there a way to bring those thoughts together? unify early, somehow generating interest and enthusiasm? that goes to anyone who wants to jump on it. >> the one thing the chairman has proposed for 2016 is moving the convention into june, which i think will be interesting,

just to sort of get the general election started earlier, it will be interesting to see if they decide to definitively do that and how the democrats respond. somewhat it is in reaction to the fact that in 2008 it lasted so long and was so exciting for the democrats. respond briefly as someone who ran and it can point and five point primary. i do not think there is any substitute for those kinds of primaries in terms of getting people engaged. there are so many candidates with different perspectives that can appeal to different parts of the electorate. the part -- the problem for parties is you have to take the long view and say that i'm not intervening, by allowing this to happen we will be registering and mobilizing a lot of people who otherwise may not have ever engaged in the process and it will help us two years, four years from now. as long as we can keep the

losing candidates engaged in party activities. i totally hear your question about the trade-off, but i think it parties really need to take the long view. sorry? go ahead. >> turnout is a mixed bag for party leaders. if they do not necessarily want extraordinarily high turnout in primaries, they basically want to get the results they are looking for. if they can do that with low turnout, they will do that. the general election, people close to them on their side turnout and vote for primaries. sometimes you want to keep that as much in-house as possible. >> all right. brooks? >> all right. we appreciate everyone's participation.

bringunately we have to this session to a close. our break is next door. and then the final panel for the day will be back in this room. thank you all. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> today, the book gifts of the heart. arrived --at we >> forward operating base? >> yes. the day that we arrived for the new surgical team to take over, our colleagues that are going to be leaving their, first we saw the real casualties that i remember vividly. >> who was it? not by name. >> a young green who had been

injured by an ied, and improvised explosive device. does takeman -- it one of back, saying that brooklyn was a formative place to grow up. i thought that i had seen every trauma possible. explosive injuries, even. felt very comfortable with my level of experience on the trauma. what i saw that day, the first it is so hardere, to describe. even though i had been at walter reed for years before deploying with prosthetics and some of them undergoing additional surgeries that they needed, i

had not seen it in real time, right after it occurred. that is what i saw upon arriving. there was no delay. some of them did not see a casualty for weeks or months. >> you can see the entire program today. it is on c-span. thinks.ys what he sometimes i would get after him. >> you have to be honest and say the same things. but still you have to cater to people, i think. you have to know what they want and what they need in order to get them to vote for you.

it is just about finding out more. and how you will help them. >> first ladies, influence and image, season two. this week, lady bird johnson to rosalynn carter. >> next, a discussion on the housing market and the impact on the overall u.s. economy. from today's washington journal, this is 40 minutes. host: at the table now, lawrence yun, chief economist and senior vice president at the national association of realtors here to talk to us about

housing, how the year ended, prospects for 2014. good morning. guest: good morning. thanks for inviting me. host: we wake up to this headline, home prices back at peaks in some areas. recovery remains uneven as cities spared in bust soar but many others struggle. estate is, so certainly we see the va do agree? guest: all real estate is local, so certainly we see the variation in different parts of the country. one can see that broadly, along the middle of america, from the state of texas, oklahoma, denver, north dakota, they're already at new peaks in terms of home prices. but in some areas they're still in a recovery mode. host: let's look at some of the organization.our we can put them on the screen. key stats from 2013 in the housing sector. existing home sales, 5.1 million homes were sold. overall.es rose 12% and the median existing price for a home in november of this year, $196,000. anything else about those about? you want to talk guest: very respectable recovery. this is the second consecutive

year of recovery. accumulatively over a two-year time span home sales have risen 20%, home values have risen roughly 20% which has lifted the people who have been to above water status. at the worst possible case a few had 13 million homeowners under water status. half the number. so rising home values is helping families'e american finances and broadly helping the economy as people feel more wealthier and feel more comfortable going out and spending. host: phone numbers on the ourom of the screen for guest, lawrence yun, with the national association of realtors. he's the chief economist and v.p.r separate lines for the eastern part of the country, so eastern zone and outime west, mountain and pacific. just two numbers for this particular segment. foreclosure about trends in this country heading into 2014. doing? we guest: the worst of the foreclosure has passed.

we still have some, but these assets from the bad lending condition back in years, 2006, still going through the system. but the recently originated three years, past these are one of the most outstandingly performing very,ges with absolutely very little default. one thing that is helping lower default situation is job creation and also rising home values. home, they see a the home values rise. they do not default. so this has been a nice reducingon in terms of the number of new defaults. but we still have some need toures that still go through the pipeline from the past lending mistakes. host: how about lending itself. give us an update on home lending. we read a lot that it's really a good loan these days. can you plug that piece of it into the picture here? guest: it's extremely stringent conditions. regrettably. and the reason why i say regrettably is because the

homeownership has been key to middle class reaching the they feelstatus where very comfortable. but what has happened is because underwritingight standards, we have buyers coming transactions the are all cash. they are not able to obtain mortgages, so they're coming in cash. many investors are coming in. and they are participating in this home price wealth creation, wealth growth situation. but homeownership rate has now 64%.om 69% to and that is leading to the traditionallye where we have viewed a solid middle class participating in now we wealth, well, have fewer people participating in the wealth recovery. wider, unequale wealth distribution in the country. host: what does that mean to the economy? guest: from the economy perspective, from the society point of view, we want to have a class.lid middle and right now because of the excessively tight underwriting

thedards, maybe it's due to excessive regulations that is preventing lenders from lending, to so manyis due lawsuits against lenders. because if there's lawsuits, abouts are very hesitant lending. so it's a combination of many factors. is the bottom line excessively tight underwriting renterds is leading to population rising, homeowner population not rising. host: let's turn the corner to your forecast for 2014. again, our guest is with the national association of realtors, lawrence yun. we'll have your calls in a moment. but what is the overall forecast for 2014? guest: home prices have risen much faster than people's income. affordability has taken a hit. it's coming down. it's at a five-year low levels. begin to hinder some of the home wi buying momentum t experienced. we hope that the underwriting standards begin to be relaxed modestly. back to thet to go bubble years, clearly. but from the stringent to back

normal conditions and bring more buyers into the market. but because of the falling conditions, i don't anticipate the home sales to rise much next year. home prices, we still have some housing shortage conditions in many parts of the country. so home values are expected to digits the mid-single next year. host: and we'll put those forecasts on the screen as well can talk a little bit more about them. as our guest said, he expects basically stay the same, prices to rise about 6%. mortgage rates. 5.4%. about saying they're now 4.16%. the all-more than mortgage interest rate. fed hass of what the recently done and what you think that's going to mean for home later.e interest rates guest: we have had the ultraloose monitoring policy with zero interest rate on the short-term borrowing. plus the quantitative easing,

which is essentially printing of bring downin hope to the bond yields which then helps the mortgage rates remain low. printing of the money cannot continue forever. and the fed has announced their tapering, which means they will slow the pace of quantitative easing which clearly means that the long-term bond yield will be rising, .ortgage rates will be rising so that will be the anticipation regarding the interest rate .utlook host: numbers to call -- two separate lines here, eastern mountain andthen pacific for our guest, lawrence yun. hero via twitter wants to know, you can please explain how housing is getting more explain how or housing getting more expensive is good.

in price ising up good? guest: it's good news and bad news. .ad news for potential buyers they don't want to pay higher prices. but it's good news in terms of bringing wealth to the homeowner population. we have roughly 75 million families who are homeowners. and the wealth recovery has been of $4 trillion from the low point. and that is lifting people who aboveeen under water to water and also people who own their home outright. there is an increase of overall wealth, which means they feel more comfortable about going out and spending money, whether it is for furniture or even sending their kids to college. so that helps on the overall front.c host: we have john, our first call, from leehigh acres, florida. welcome to the program. with lawrence yun. good morning. john, are you there? caller: yes. can you hear me? host: yes. thank you. caller: hi. question. but before the question, i'd like to state something.

there has been various opinions bust.t led to the housing elizabeth warren was on cnbc, in a debate with a businessman on cnbc. fact thatt up the repealed, and was this was the primy cause of the boom and bust, the mortgage crisis. censored. she was not allowed -- her statement was not permitted on national television. so my question for mr. yun is, that deregulation, primarily the repeal of class-stiegel led to the boom and bust? was this deliberately done by lobbyistst corporate in an attempt to legitimize deflawed the american -- defraud the american consumers? thank you. guest: thanks for the question. the act which separated the

banking and -- investment banking, was repealed 1998. and the reasoning for that was that many of the global centers whether singapore, london, they already had integration between investment and the conventional bankings, so u.s. wanted to compete in that space. as to the reason for the housing market bubble and subsequent bust, i think there are many factors. certainly wall street got wild. they saw the relaxation regarding regulation, so they chased after any potential yields. prime mortgages would be a good way. the rating agency, these are the poors and moody's, gave a.a.a. top rating for the sub prime mortgages which led to the many mutual funds and investors purchasing. had, at the same time, we the government getting involved. regardinge regulation fannie and freddie to e encourae

veryy more mortgages from low-income neighborhoods. in hindsight we see that not successfuln be homeowners, but a mandate to purchase a certain number of a low-income neighborhood i think also excessived to the mortgage lending conditions. so there were a lot of mistakes involved. now we are healing from the process. but i think as with any market and bust, we are over correcting the underwriting standard is clearly excessive tight. and even though we are seeing a reasonable housing market recovery, it is still hindered because of the excessivively underwriting standards. host: so the over correcting that you speak of, how long to last? expect that guest: we have new regulation going into effect in january consumer finance protection agency regarding new mortgage rules. solve we have to see how much tightening or what kind of clarity so whether lenders can

lend more or whether they will hold back. one aspect that i do not like about the new regulation is the potential lawsuits. they are saying any small mistake there will be a lawsuit against lenders. the is not something that lenders want to have hanging over their head. hinder.nk that may but we have to wait and see. host: are there fewer lenders out there now than there were the crisis began? guest: there's clearly more consolidation in the lending industry. we have the large banks, the big chase, bank of americas. and then we have many of the smaller lenders. smalleraspect of the lenders is that we have housing shortage. we need more new-home more inventory to come online. traditionally many home builders are small size, local home builders relying loans from the local community banks. but because of the excessively burdensome regulation, at least hear it,

host: does congress play a role in that piece of the puzzle? guest: there is good aspect of the legislation. we do not want a repeat. on there is overcorrection making it too tight and it is hindering the recovery. host: let's hear from joe from north carolina. most of all of your sales are on housing already built and investors. you do not have permits eating drawn for new construction. you have permits being drawn for repair. so your quotes are wrong. plus, tell the people what shadow banking is. on the first point, you have made this point that there are a lot of investors that are the most active right now. been veryestors have

active and there is a new set up raising him in buying homes along the neighborhood with hope of getting the rental income yield. then you have the small investors. the housing permits situation, the housing start, we are roughly at one million. that is well below historical normal. normal should be below 1.5 million. housing shortage, we should be at least racked a 1.5 million and that is not the case. we are going back to home. small local homebuilders are having an excessively difficult time obtaining the loans. >> you mentioned earlier the rate went down. is there a number out there considered good just for the overall health of the economy? >> the number would be good if potential buyers stayed within their budget and became potential homeowners. clearly, some of the young

people, in the 20's, the traditional rental population, i do not think they want to settle down. renters many of the aspire to be homeowners, even after the bubble. 90% still indicate 80% to eventually want to become homeowners. regarding what is the right i think 65 and 66% in the current demographics would be ideal. we are over correcting downward. in 2000 14, even with additional housing market recovery, that the homeownership rate may continue to fall because we have the household formation coming from rental population. tothe last caller wanted know what shadow banking is. >> many people have different definitions of it. it goes back to the first caller's question.

you have the traditional where people make deposits and banks use the deposits to lend it out. large banks,arly are able to raise funds differently. then they can have their additional subsidiaries. different ways to describe it, but clearly, money is around in many places. >> on twitter, they want to know, what is the next bubble to be concerned about? >> clearly, things are out of line with the fundamentals. regarding the sectors, i am not sure what that would be. regarding housing, housing is not a new basel -- bubble. we are back to a historical number. home price is back to a

historical number. withiny so far has been fundamentals paired we do not want to see two fast increases. people's income needs to rise. for hanging on. you are on the line. caller: good morning. i have a question. several, really. you are talking about how rental properties are doing ok technically. they can go into negative income. then we have schedule a, only use.op 10% of homeowners the wealthiest of schedule a. to take the home mortgage and property tax off.

not having a good outcome of all of this, the average homeowner does not get to take any further investment of a depreciated house. 100% of homeowners, the individuals that live in that home should be allowed to take mortgage and property tax deduction because it is an investment. we should all be able to take a write off for any investment expenditures we taken that includes homeowners. i will listen to you explain all of this. those are two biggies she is talking about. that is currently the irs tax code for homeowners. because we have the standard, some home owners prefer to go to the standard and taking the property tax reduction separately. that has to be the key to encouraging homeownership in america.

many people have utilized it. many young families because they have a much larger mortgage, because they are at the early stages of homeownership. foras been very helpful many traditional average homeowners. then you have investors. today, we have many institutional investors coming in and they are looking at every aspect of the tax code to their advantage. >> let's hear from john in michigan. good morning. i figured a way out of the bubble. i got caught up in it and started holding solar energy , very hard to get financing. i lost that one. what i did now is i bought a rundown property, fixed it up, do it cash. stay away from the bankers. nails.rself a hammer and

if you are not familiar how to, ,here are places around community colleges, that will show you how to build your own houses and stay away from the financing and you sleep a lot better at night. thank you. guest: busy you. that is good advice. today, we have many investors going in all cash and the reason is some voluntary decision like you have explained but the other are having investors a very difficult time obtaining mortgages or the additional property purchase. because of that, they are also still coming in all cash. >> let's hear from josh in florida. mr. yun meet a few comments. one was the regulation that. frankel entered the economy. i agree.

-- that. frank -- that doodfra dodd-frank will enter the economy. i agree. all -- the whole act was complex. london was the first to their institution with investment banking. some people feel hesitant. today's controversy over the rule, how much of the bank clientbe remitted to use funds for proprietary trading? though that is an ongoing debate still unsettled here. that is part of the new dodd frank legislation to see what

aspect of the repeal that was is taken. excess >> one of the many housing headlines this morning. -- remind me to ask you again to review the country as a whole. which areas will do the best and which will be the most flat when it comes to prices moving forward? the florida market, there is still room to grow. foreign by cash buyers. people from latin america are going to miami. are going to orlando. now chinese according to tampa for rental income potential. we see the recovery occurring faster along the state of utah, idaho. colorado.

they are applying for further growth. the areas that are more sluggish is areas where they still have inventory and this will be in the new england states, new jersey, new york, all the way to maine. it may be more sluggish. >> chris, good morning to you. hello. i have not heard anyone bring this up and i think it is very important we talk about this recently. if you can talk about what i'm about to say. for probably 200 years in this werery, property rights paramount. also, state laws all around the country stipulated you could never step the late -- stipulate the notes and the mortgage itself, from each other. the two documents must remain together. what has happened in the last decade is that we have had thanks create a ponzi scheme on the american public where they

have basically taken our stockges and used like certificates on the open market. tax have cut out the local collector, the people that keep records of property sales transactions of every market in the country. they have separated the documents and sold it off. to the investors. they have bought these documents. what has happened is there is no record now of who owns it. there could be thousands of people investing in one piece of property. one house. yet, our politicians do not want to talk about that. you, as the vice president of american realtors association, have not brought that up. it has not been fixed. what are we going to do about

that. why are we not talking to the american people about that? go and checko local documents and see what has andened to their mortgage see if the document has been recorded and what has happened initially.s recorded if they bought a house in the last 11 or 12 years, i guarantee you the local property tax collector has been cut out of the process. mortgage electronic registration system to supposedly handle that and did not do it. i agree with the caller on the importance of the property rights. the connection between the note and the property is that, to deepen the additional funding or mortgages, securities came about in order to attract many of the global capital. in the process,

it has been sliced and diced and as a result, regarding the was madere process, it very difficult to identify what fraction of the notes are being held by whom. i think this is the clear byproduct of the downturn we experienced because we need to have a clear connection between the ownership and the notes. i would say one third of all mortgages are home owned, held as portfolio. and hold thatland in-house. they do not sell that to wall street. the majority are sold off to wall street or the fannie and freddie. that is tofor attract global capital and sell off those securities. process is that because we

are able to attract global capital, you keep the interest rate lower than what it could be. when there is a foreclosure crisis, it will take a long time to identify who will make the decision. host: on twitter -- guest: the price values are determined by sellers and buyers. there are no governmental officials involved in the transactions. the transactions occur and the subsequent transactions at higher prices, and from the you, they when of have said they will take a certain percentage of property value to fund the local government service. is not a government authority trying to elevate the price. just the homebuyers and sellers. will the year bring

anything from the hill in terms of housing prices? one legislation our organization has advocated strongly is for people still underwater and have to sell their homes for various reasons, the debt between the mortgage they canto the value obtain from selling their home, it may be negative. from the irs point of view, they want to tax that forgiveness as an income. someone whoicking is down. it clearly does not make sense. we hope there is legislation that is not a taxable income for the forgiveness. host: let's hear from florida. you think the reverse mortgages will work out in the state authority e --

authority? difficulty are because it is very expensive for consumers. it benefits some seniors. they have wealth tied to their home and need cash. they are doing the reverse mortgages. we have found it is very costly for consumers. leading to some problems down the line. for the market to determine how this gets resolved right now, the reverse mortgages appears to be excessively high for consumers. some homeowners are benefiting, but, personally, i would not ,ecommend reverse mortgages for for example, my parents. >> lehigh acres florida. what part of the state? caller: southwest.

i would like to read an excerpt from an amazon at about one of his books. thoughtfully advises earners to liquidate in a hurry, raising the stakes from his previous bestseller. housing prices will plummet by as much as 50% in the next 5-7 years. i think that will be felt on an international level. it was just stated there is no way to predict when the bubble will burst. my question is do you think mr. fort's stand was a plate reasons of wrongdoing? do you think perhaps there is corruption that caused the housing bust and how would this be prevented in the future? there are many players involved related to the bubble

and let's hope we never experienced that. regarding how to prevent it, we need to be sure people who can become successful homeowners are ones able to obtain mortgages. right now, it appears to be the excessively stringent underwriting standards. we look at the credit stores -- scores of those 10 years ago, and the credit scores are much higher, which means a good middle class, a good segment, have been denied mortgages to obtain their dream of american homeownership. ow do we prevent it? we need to be sure mortgages go to people who have the ability to repay. joyce, one more call from florida. we are talking about housing. two questions. the first one is, and this has been advice from years ago from an attorney to my mother and it isved her well, the question

as it relates to baby boomers. do you think baby boomers will continue to be homeowners if they are currently homeowners, and do you think they will turn into renters as they get older? the second one is as it relates to a condo. in a foreclosure for three years now, it has been in foreclosure. what is concerning me is the title company is also part of the foreclosure, along with the homeowner and the condominium itself. banks, which i cannot recall which bank it is, and that is my second question. what is it involved and in a condo. thank you. boomers aftery they retire may downsize. we have seen a shift for the condominium units or adult living community. baby boomers may downshift. a majority like their home and want to stay and it.

for thanksgiving and christmas, invite their kids over. we do not see baby boomers downsizing that we have some movement for a slight preference of going into condominiums in the future for baby boomers. i do not see baby boomers becoming renters. it is rarely the case a successful homeowner decides to give up ownership and become renters. condos, i do not know all the details involved. sometimes, it is very funny in the downturn. you have a case where lenders would say they will foreclose on the whole condominium because some homeowners association fees are being late. you look at the detail of who is late and it is the lenders not hang. but you have all of this chaotic situation out there. i think this is the legacy impact. >> a reminder of what is put out

there for the year 2014. they say home sales will be at levels from this past year, roughly 5.1 million homes sold. you are saying most of those aren't this thing homes. homes and new starts. home prices will rise the present. the rise this current year was double that, 12%. mortgage rates will start climbing to about 5.4%, now about 4.16%. callerst is our -- our is from georgia. caller: good morning. our home in 1992 coming out of retirement from the military. purchased our home and never had a new roof, never refinanced on our home. 2007, we was picking things off of the walls.

they were foreclosing on our home. know, could not even answer why. what happened? what is going on? we faced the judge. nothing. to see that wer could make payments. nothing. never refinanced. -- we would never refinanced on our homes. money,our hard earned 2006.994, to host: a question for our guest? what washat happened? the problem? that we had to move out of our home. you tell me.

i do not know. someone who would purchase their home in the mid- they would clearly not be in the underwater status. it does not seem right regarding what she is explaining. i do not know all of the specifics involved. people in trouble were people who bought their home in 2005 and 2006 and there are still people who may have purchased earlier who took out a large cash out refinance and went -- and they went to underwater status and combined that with job losses. few more calls for our guest. florida. laura has been waiting. hi. >> yes, hello? hi. i am calling because i have a question regarding a statement made earlier about the bubble. i understand banks were previously giving out high

bonuses for people and that was responsible for driving the bubble and how we got to where we are during that time. but now, we have tons of empty homes sitting around and the banks are choosing to let the homes sit and deteriorate and to auction them at incredibly low prices. i have been watching the auctions. they are selling these homes for $40,000 and cash only and people are coming in six and buying who have the money to do that. all of the people across the country who are trying to take credit cannot finance a home and cannot qualify. we have all of these people left without being able to purchase homes and tons of homes are sitting around empty and vacant very banks will lose money on homes home it will take construction companies to come in and repair the homes. would rather leave them empty then

show them to people who can afford to make payments. ofeasonable cost instead auctioning them, some of them, taking many of these homes a long time for that to even happen, we could sell at a more reasonable cost to someone who can afford them. i understand the overqualified people before. but now, it is near impossible to get a bank loan. i was reading online. to an online advertisement from washington journal. 640, it isf difficult for people to get along. isis a definite -- it ridiculous. it will really impact our economy if people cannot own -- own homes. that is my question for you. the historyoks at

of america, because we have population increases, every year, there is one million additional homeowners. the past eight years, we have not seen an increase in the number of homeowners. there is a tremendous amount of potential tent up demand for buying, as the caller is mentioning. people want to buy but cannot obtain mortgages. the underwriting standard is excessively tight. one has to go into why that is the case. hinderingregulation but the bottom line is there is a large potential buyers who can enter the market but are being denied mortgages. >> one last call from lancaster, pennsylvania. he spoke about a reverse mortgage a while ago. we had a business and sold our business and incurred loans. i was wondering, this reverse

mortgage, you said it was a disadvantage. can you please explain that? >> it is clearly helpful for some people who have used it property -- properly. they have paid mortgages for the past 30 years. they have owned their home outright. they now need additional monthly income. they want to use their home as a cash flow and if they do it right -- in terms of getting reverse mortgages, the fee they are mortgagesget reverse tend to be very high. as a result, the equity amount, cuts right away from the very start. at some point, they have to repay. some people run into problems. personals upon circumstances. some people are benefiting from runhile other people have

into trouble. >> what else are you looking out it is clearly on the supply side and not the demand. we want more buyers to come in because that is helping to build the middle class. they are bringing new home housing starts to the economy. it isnstruction alone, very difficult, and we hope the lending begins to open up. realtor.org is the website. our guest has been lawrence yun economist and vice president of the organization. thank you very much. >> on the next washington journal, author and pulitzer prize winning author hendrik -- hedrick smith discusses the top stories of 2013. phone calls and