people -- 300 did not list the tea party is favorably. it was done in 2011 at the beginning of the primary. our lead sample is freedom works is a tea party group which as we found out is the largest tea party membership group in the country. we have a survey of 12,000 of them, which was a nice -- and we did that in december of 2011 and we followed that up in march, april, 2013, re-surveying 2600 of them. there is very little bias even though the response rate was around 25% or so.

this project was undertaken with walt stone and with meredith who will present it. meredith has been involved since she was a sophomore at william and mary. she graduated in may. she is with the education advisory board after a stint as an intern where she was the resident expert on the tea party for the pew center for people in the press. meredith is going to take this and go with it and make it sound far more intelligent than i could. >> thanks. to give you an idea of what is coming, we will look at divisions within the local party and then we will compare rank- and-file republicans to tea party activists using that freedom works sample. once again looking at issues and political style. finally, we look at the response of the tea party to the 2012 elections, including perceptions

of why romney lost, change over time and willingness to time and willingness to compromise, and evaluation of the republican party and its leaders. we begin by examining the actual conflict between tea party republicans and non-tea party republicans focusing on issues, positions, and priority using the sample. this first slide shows the percentage of respondents taking the most conservative positions various issues. here we see striking differences between tea party republicans and non-tea party republicans. for example, 76% of tea party republicans took the most conservative positions on abolishing the department of education, whereas 10% of non- tea party republicans did so. also, 95% of tea party republicans took the most conservative positions on repealing obamacare, compared with only 59% of non-tea party republicans. next we are looking at the top priority issue of respondents.

we see striking differences between tea party republicans and non-tea party republicans in the mass sample. in fact, you can see that with the two issues, repealing obamacare and shrinking government, almost 40% of tea party republicans chose either one of those issues as their top priorities while less than 5% of non-tea party republicans did so. so now we are going to turn to political style. we asked respondents to agree or disagree with the statement when we feel strongly about political issues, we should not be willing to compromise, and we found that 23% of tea party republicans said that they strongly agree with the statement versus only 4% when you combine strongly agree and do agree.

when you combine the responses, that difference is even greater. 58% say they agree, and only 32% of non-tea party republicans saying so. this is not surprising. when we consider that recent role of the tea party with the government shutdown. we will turn to the freedom works sample. this figure shows the percentage of respondents taking the most conservative positions on issues but we are looking at tea party republicans from the sample and freedom works tea party activists. we would expect activists to be slightly more extreme or even dramatically more extreme than just regular supporters. this is not the case here. these two groups look very similar. there is little to no difference between them. this is true when we look at the top priority issues. once again, the group looks very similar. there is the exception that the percentage of a group whose top priority was to shrink government was at 17% from the

tea party republicans, whereas it is 31% of the freedom works supporters. and so we have shown the divisions in the republican party really exist between the non-tea party republicans and tea party republicans as opposed to the tea party republicans and the tea party activists. now turning to the 2012 election and the tea party's negativity toward the republican party, we would expect to see after any major election that the party that loses is pointing fingers at people and the reasons why -- how they can avoid that in the next major election and 2012 was no exception. in fact a report was commissioned that blamed third- party groups such as the tea party and the republican lack of appeal to minorities, use, and women along with other reasons

for the 2012 losses. we surveyed freedomworks activists. these are the percentage of tea party freedomworks respondents ranking each of these reasons as very important as a cause of the romney-ryan loss. 54% of respondents ranked romney as being too moderate as an important reason for the loss compared with only 5% of respondents who thought romney was too conservative. when you add up all the reasons why romney lost such as the lack of minority outreach and the

association with the tea party, only 52% of respondents selected any of those four items which is still less than 54% of respondents who said that romney was too moderate. so looking again at the question about political style and compromise, we find that in december 2011, 32% of freedom work respondents agreed that they should not compromise, but in the spring this percentage increased to 45%. now we look at the decline in ratings of the republican party and john boehner over the same time from 2011 through 2013. we can see that significantly more tea party activists who rated the republican party and boehner below average in 2013 as compared with 2011. boehner's below-average ratings more than doubled to 57% in 2013 compared to 27% in 2011. in this slide we show a factor analysis of republican congressional leaders and candidates using the freedomworks data. this resulted in two factors.

one was an establishment factor and the other was a tea party factor. those numbers that you see in parentheses are the net favorability ratings where the red dots represent a net negative rating and the green dots represent a net positive reading. you can see that we find the republican party along with republican congressional leaders such as boehner and cantor. in addition, most of these people in the upper left-hand corner have negative ratings. in the lower right-hand corner we found the tea party and the tea party candidates such as mike lee ted cruz who were low on the establishment factor and high in tea party factor. they had very high net

favorability ratings. what might be most interesting is in the middle we find ryan and rubio who have net favorability ratings at least 81% for each of them. and they have almost as high favorability ratings as the tea party candidates in the lower right-hand corner. we would expect rubio and ryan to be in a really good position for the 2012 election at least when we are looking at tea party supporters. although we see that the tea party is very negative toward the republican party and its candidates, we find that they were still very active for romney in 2012.

as you can see, regardless of who they supported in the primary, they still rallied around romney and were very active for his campaign. you can see that first bar, 86% of tea party supporters who supported romney in the primary were active for his campaign in the general election. you compare that with supporters who preferred perry and 75% were active for romney. the one outlier might be ron paul on the very end. a majority of his supporters ended up doing activities for the romney campaign. we looked at the data from 2008 and this can be said the same. true as well that tea party supporters who preferred a candidate other than mccain were still extremely active for him in the general election. as you can see, there is still a

lot of unresolved conflict within the republican party. the government shutdown is one recent example. looking forward to 2016 we expect to see tea party supporters similarly active in the primaries, supporting a candidate who might not be all that electable or have a chance of gaining the nomination, but are in alignment with their issue priorities. once the republican nominee is chosen, most tea party supporters will likely rallied behind that candidate and be very active. that is more due to the antipathy toward the republican party. that's all. >> thank you. next we will have peter francia and jonathan morris from east carolina in diversity. they will talk about their they will talk about their paper "the divided republicans." >> let me begin by thanking john green and everyone here at the

university of akron. staff has been wonderful. i certainly speak for my co- author. this is one of the most stimulating academic conferences that you get to attend, so we are pleased to be here. you can see by the title of our paper, it is a little bit of overlap with the previous paper. it is always nice to see and you will get a chance to see this in a minute. even though we have used different data sets and looked at some slightly different questions, some of our conclusions are very similar. let's jump ahead, then. so we are primarily again interested in intraparty divisions. the divide between tea party republicans and establishment republicans has come into full public view recently. any time a political party loses an election, there is a little

bit of that soul-searching that we all hear about. and so republicans were talking about what went wrong in 2012. there was the defeat, not only at the presidential level, but indiana and missouri, those looked like easy victories at least for time and they turned into defeats. what do we get, we get karl rove who makes an announcement in 2013 that his super pac, american crossroads, was going to support the conservative victory project. and for the purpose of the conservative victory project was to get involved in republican primaries and try to oust tea party republicans who were seen as costing the republicans some of those easy victories that i talked about. that was followed up with tea party darling who needs no introduction, sarah palin, funding, "of these experts who keeps losing elections and keep

getting rehired and getting millions, if they feel that strong about who gets to run in this party, then they should buck up or stay in the truck." i am sure you all remember that. karl rove was not going to stay silent. he came back shortly after that in an interview and said that he would serve out his term and he would not leave office midterm. you got to see the spat between karl rove and sarah palin, an illustration of these growing divisions between the tea party wing and what we might call the establishment wing. in fact, it prompted this question. was the dispute illustrative of a larger civil war within the gop? not a term i am using, that is a term that a whole bunch of headlines have used. you pick up "the new york

times," they described this as a civil war within the republican party. we think this is an interesting question because previous accounts of parties have long described republicans a bit differently. republicans if you go back to the 1980's, freeman did a study and talked about the culture of the two major parties and talked about how the republican party was one and had a culture of being closed, quiet, and consensual. if you look into the 1990's, another study describes the party as one that has a homogeneous membership. william mayer wrote a book, "the divided democrats," an important book and one we were thinking about when we were doing this research.

even more recently, "the divided democrats" book, howard dean when he was running for president, which is within the last 10 years, he said that he represented the democratic wing of the democratic party. that is a reference to this ideological split between the moderate democrats and more liberal faction of the political party. it is the democrats who have been long divided. in light of the recent developments where we have been talking about republican divisions more so perhaps of the democratic visions we wanted to ask a few questions. our republicans pacific league tea party and establishment republicans, if they are divided, how deep are the divisions and what other issues divide the gop factions? also how divided are republicans compared to democrats? do tea party republicans go out and grab political information from different sources than establishment republicans?

i will get into some of those numbers in a minute. we were primarily interested in that question because we wanted to begin to try and answer if there are divisions, are they just fleeting, are they going to go away? is this is a temporary blip on the map, or are these divisions likely to persist? and so there is this literature out there that says when you only hear like-minded ideas, all the time, when you live in this echo chamber, your ideas get reinforced and people begin to he come more polarized. by looking at media sources we were hoping to project that perhaps if there are divisions, they would persist if there are these divisions in media sources so that is the second thing. final question which i think was probably the most challenging

part of the project which was we wanted to specifically look at social media as well. social media, the reason we wanted to focus on that specific question was that the tea party has made really effective use, according to some accounts, of social media. so we were curious to see if the comments made on social media venues like twitter were significantly different between establishment republicans and your tea party republicans, and that required getting twitter data and doing some content analysis. my co-author will talk about that in a minute. to get at the first two questions, we looked at the 2012 studies, and to give you a sense of what we were using as our definitions, tea party republicans, it is based on two questions. you have the party i.d. questions. anyone who is self-identified republican or an independent who leaned republican, we included the leaners. if anyone wants to know why, i will be happy to explain.

it is pretty much in agreement that leaners should be included. the establishment republicans were self-identified or those republican leaners, but they were neutral or opposed to the tea party. for purposes of comparison we add two democratic categories, very similar to the republicans, self-identified or independents who leaned democrat, moderate democrats, the same thing. we used the ideology question to break them apart. if you are liberal to extremely liberal than you were in that category. if you were slightly liberal or moderate you are in that

category. we had the pure independents. let's get to the results. if you look at the first question, there are the standard seven-point scale questions that the nes has looked at for quite a while. we looked at all of them. i will not show you every single one, but we did look at every single ones, so i picked the most interesting for time reasons. you can see that it is the tea party republicans who answer in the most extreme categories. 31% in the one category and if you add the one and two, you are looking at 68%. the most extreme categories. it was eye-popping to see that that many fell into the most extreme category. it is interesting when compared against the establishment republican category. democrats are a bit divided as well. if you look at certainly the six category and you would add the six and seven, there are some

divisions, but the republican divisions do stand out. this was one that we thought was fascinating. nes asked for seven-point question about whether the government should provide assistance to african-americans and on the seven point african- americans, should help themselves. that is amazing when we saw that. 51% answered in the most extreme category at number seven versus 36% of the establishment republicans. we were really amazed to see if you add the six and the seven together, you're talking about a huge number of tea party republicans. if you look at the health care law, this is unbelievable, right? not that terribly surprising given that there was so much frustration from the tea party rank and file over the health care law. on the 2010 health care law, 70% of tea party republicans fall in that most extreme category. by comparison again, the establishment republicans, only 35%. i do not mean to be glossing

over the democratic members, but since that is not our focus i am going to focus on the republicans. the democrats have some healthy divisions as well. to be crystal clear here, we are not arguing that democrats are not divided, too but the republicans are very much divided as well. on the environment, you can see again some divisions but i put this one up to show you that the democrats, there is quite a bit of division in the extreme category. if you go to the number one on the seven point scale which is the most liberal response, a lot of liberal democrats in that category, a much smaller percentage. if you look at the number seven, no regulation at all, 18% of tea party republicans versus only 4% of establishment republicans. again, pretty big difference is there. you look at other questions, president obama's handling of the economy. i could give you the establishment republican numbers. i wanted to give you the tea party numbers here just to make the point. in the disapprove strongly, the most extreme category you can get, 92% disapprove strongly of

his job is resident. 93% disapprove of his handling of the economy. 90% disapprove strongly of his handling of health care. 87% disapprove strongly of his handling of foreign relations. even on the afghanistan war you might think maybe there could be some disagreement. 63% disapprove strongly on that particular question. almost across the board on all the obama questions, we had a whole bunch of feeling thermometer questions. obama, 16 from the tea party on that zero to 100 scale, zero being the coolest and 100 being the warmest. you can see very low ratings. this number stood out so i had to put this one up. michelle obama, for crying out loud, a 28 from tea party republicans. even the first lady who is not even controversial, she cannot even break 30 with the tea party republicans, and that compares to 45 for those establishment republicans.

tea party republicans were, however, favorable toward mitt romney. 77. paul ryan at 79. even george w. bush, 72. more favorable than the establishment republicans. this is consistent with the last paper. when they had to rally about their candidate, the feeling thermometer questions indicate that perhaps they did that. whether those divisions will persist is when we look at the media question, so let's turn it over to jay morris. >> it is clear there is a division on several issue positions and on how tea party versus establishment republicans view certain candidates, certain issues. do they get their news from different sources? we already know through the research on partisan media that democrats, republicans, liberals, conservatives get

their news from different sources in today's fragmented media environment. when you look here just at tea party versus establishment republicans and where they get their news regularly, we can look at these several shows from fox news. we can see a dramatic difference. in tea party members versus establishment republicans, and whether or not they watch these fox news programs and these are four of several fox news programs. the division is clear there. talk radio, nobody is surprised, i don't think. look at the bottom. one part about the democrats, the democrats also have their divisions. i am surprised that there is 7% of tea party republicans who listen to "all things considered." >> it is worse for "the new york times," so we put up more number

so if you want some we have got them. >> we looked at new media as well. because of the advent of social networking platforms has allowed the rank-and-file members of the tea party to express themselves, the era of one-way mass media is over. that allows the tea party to voice their opinion. how did the tea party -- how did they make their views known in the twitterverse? facebook is already pass?, as my students tell me. we wanted to look at tweets from conservative-leaning posters. so we did a content analysis, about a 250,000 tweets with the following hash tags that you see at the bottom. from october 1 through october 24, we searched every tweet that mentioned the terms.

that got us to a manageable quarter million. we looked at the sample we had over time. you can see that our content analysis, which is looking at positive versus negative ratio in terms of the comments made on an individual tweet, you can see that the top line is the positive and negative ratio for mitt romney and the bottom is barack obama.

the mentions of either one of these candidates. you can see that barack obama does not vary too much. it is much lower than that romney. you can see with a positive comments, the positive sentiments spiked. after that first debate, you can see that conservative leaning twitter posters, they were excited. and they were posting positive things and it dropped off but you can see it spike again with the debates. we are not interested in the overall trend of how conservative posters posted. we wanted to look at tea party versus gop and here is where our findings overlap with that of the previous discussion. if you look in the far right column, the ratio of positive to negative tweets, tea party versus gop, they were equally as negative toward barack obama. it did not matter if you hash

tagged gop or tea party. same thing with mitt romney. exactly same thing, the positive to negative ratio. positive statements to negative statements. if you look at this now you can see a bit of a division. tea party members were more critical of both parties compared to establishment republicans. what does that mean? it means we have a divided republican party when you look at issue positions and attitudes

toward the candidates comparing tea partiers to establishment republicans. media habits clearly differ. we did not show you all our findings, but fox and talk radio, it is clear. at the end, in the month of october at least, in 2012, when it came to posts on twitter, the posters for the tea party, the gop, the people who hashtagged

the tea party and gop, they rallied around their candidate. maybe more significantly, they rallied against the opposition. that is what we show here. divided in some ways, the rally effect at the end is still there. thank you. >> thank you. next we will have william miller from flagler college and i call john burton from ohio university, discussing "who needs enemies?" >> thanks. we always appreciate the state of the parties conference. it is interesting to point out that if we go back to the 2009 state of the parties, i remember one conversation about the tea party. it was at lunch and it was not very kind. it was much more of a they will have these nice little rallies and dress up and be gone in a few months. a few months later we started to see the idea that robert boatwright talked about, of individual elected officials being primaried within their own party and the effect that could have. what we are going to talk about today is a little bit different

than looking at actually speaking with activists or tracking money back to causes. instead, we want to discuss the intellectual history of the tea party and how what we're seeing today and hearing about today is not necessarily new to the conservative discourse, but it is being presented in a new way with a little more organization than previously. and again, focusing on the fact that when the tea party came into existence, it was using the acronym taxed enough already. it was an economic movement. that implied if the economy improves the tea party would disappear. they are not the johnny one note but have found a consistent theme that allows them to apply the same principles to issues that are not directly economically related. so what we want to do first of all is place the tea party into the intellectual history of american conservatism, focusing on modern beliefs and looking at how what we see became cemented under reagan has only altered since. illustrating the idea of this unifying concept of constitutional liberty, allowing us to talk about the economy, abortion, and drones and be using kind of the same

language amongst the same in the individuals to bring that to the forefront of american politics. also to show you the strategic position of traditionalism and libertarianism in the gop, the movement that is competing with the more pragmatic wing of the republican party and pretty much every battle that comes through for congress. the major claim being that the intellectual history and strategic position of the tea party movement is going to allow it to have an enduring place in american politics as long as it does not self-destruct. if we look at the reagan coalition and the republican party and what he was able to do, he was able to bring three rather diverse groups together again, obviously focusing on the christian conservatives, the free market, and also the more republican leaning pragmatists, moderate in their views but willing to negotiate and compromise as necessary to advance their causes. what we will start by arguing is this is what we see today. this morning at the first panel, we talked about rand paul and how some identify him as a libertarian, some identify him as a traditionalist, and at the

end of the day what we say is that there is a middle ground where he can be both and still fit into the overall picture of the tea party. it is not simply the reagan era times. we have seen some alterations to this design. beginning with the decline of pragmatism. whether through polarization, redistricting, whatever cause you want to attribute it to, the modern republican party appears to be less pragmatic. we see more ted cruzes and rick perrys than john boehners and mitch mcconnells. the moderation we used to see is being replaced and as a direct result the middling area become smaller and smaller which impacts republican and national policy. most importantly, the traditionalists and -- have grown closer together. there's more opportunities for this bridge, especially during the reagan administration. that alters not only the political discourse but outcomes, especially for today's modern republican party. with that in mind, there are really four ways that these

three groups can cooperate in order to achieve their ultimate goals. the first being the idea of a supremacy-inferiority split. there are not willing to say, you have control over issue. you are in charge. there is much more give-and-take than that. secondly you could have a simple split. the idea of we agree to disagree, something we are not seeing within those two camps. you can leave it ambiguous. this is an argument where activists kind of fudge the differences between themselves and reality it is not there. we argue that we have a pattern of mutual reinforcement between traditionalists and libertarians, that they are not necessarily aware is occurring. that reinforcement centers itself on the concept of constitutional liberty. we can talk about divergent issues that do not have a common tea party economic thread, but at the same time builds off each other in a way that allows for a spirited discussion.

this gives two examples. libertarian defensive traditionalism, ron paul. stephen fincher. linking the economic libertarianism and the traditionalists values to reinforce one another in different ways but ultimately making the same sense of an argument. we argue that these contours still come from a reagan-style conservatism. starting and building with the idea that we have families and markets having a symbiotic relationship. the idea being that a good upbringing will lead to good workers, good workers will lead

to the ability to raise a family, that family will lead to a good upbringing. at the same time we still recognize that government has a place at the margins. most of the time we want it to get out of the way from a reagan conservative-era stance. the power to tax and incur debt needs to be limited. obviously a discussion we have had recently. families should be left largely free to follow their dreams. ultimately, what we want from government is to protect security and liberty, including religious liberty, and not tell individual citizens what to do. again, the idea of constitutional liberty and mutual reinforcement. this is a strategic situation. we have traditionalists who revere old-style politics. it is the christian conservative

base. we have libertarians who want privacy of choice in social and economic matters. we have the pragmatists that understand that politics is the art of the possible, who are willing to strike bargains and deals to get things done. now we have a couple of different policy issues that kind of illustrate where we can see traditionalists and libertarians coming together and having an impact on pragmatic republicans. we will start by looking at obamacare. an issue that -- wow, it does not like me. an issue where we see all three sectors of the modern conservative movement in agreement. it starts with we don't like obama, we don't like obamacare. you want to dig deeper, traditionalists have concerns with obamacare related to birth control.

for libertarians, you have government intervening on something they believe the free market can do better. for the pragmatists, obamacare is simply a mess. fiscal responsibility much along the same way. you can go to benghazi where you have these groups in agreement. it brings them together in a way they otherwise would not. the key point with these is on these type of issues where you see the pragmatists, the libertarians, and the traditionalists in agreement. the tea party is having a minimal impact because their voice is one amongst many. it becomes a unified republican issue. we can start as traditionalism as the outlier. same-sex marriage. this is an important issue for christian conservatives, that they are willing to fight for and unwilling to compromise on. libertarians can argue that it is not an important issue or government does not have the

right to regulate marriage. pragmatists view it as a bargaining chip. is not necessarily a quid pro quo, but something where they may be willing to make necessary arrangements like passing it off to states in order to assure they win in other issues. you want to look at libertarianism as the outlier, look at the drone debate. we look at it internationally, drones are great. they're less costly. there is less loss of life. we allege we can have more targeted killings that we would have through conventional means. for traditionalists, we protect american pilots. there is famous quote about six months ago -- it does not matter how many innocent pakistanis die, the american pilot will be

home for dinner. for the libertarians we still have a problem. this is unnecessary interference in international areas. we do not need to be there. domestically we heard the argument. this was rand paul's filibuster. even for domestic security purposes, we could turn these groups towards us. we look at where the traditionalists and libertarians unite and oppose the pragmatists. i will speak to both the shutdown and the debt ceiling in the same vein. the pragmatic republicans, the mitch mcconnells and john boehners, understood that the defaulting on our loans was not going to be a positive solution. they were willing to make the compromise to prevent that. as opposed to traditionalists who are upset with where funding is going, libertarians who felt we simply overspend for the sake of overspending. they were unified in their fight against the pragmatist against

this which ultimately led to the shutdown. without that voice going against them it could have been accomplished far earlier. the central point this all comes back to is, obviously if you go to november 2012, we had tons of media reports that the tea party was dead, and also had media reports this morning that say the tea party is dead. is the tea party going to become their own party? no. that is not their stated goal or intention. they're still having an impact, even as the media -- the tea party operative they are saying that at least we beat a rino in a primary. this will be one of many headlines looking back in 2012. on the summary piece, what we argue is that it strategically places things in the republican

party and has the possibility to cause headaches forward. we can argue far longer. if we go back to the 1960's, the idea of explicit racism within the republican party was rebuffed and told this won't work going forward. even for the tea party today if there is an argument made or a question asked, they have a response of some kind. it may not always be the strongest response, but they know what lines of attack are coming and what they stand for and believe in. that is the intellectual history. the simple idea that the tea party is not dead. if you look at the reports from this week, we can see where there are arguments to be made that the tea party is suffering. you look at the alabama house race where the chamber of commerce through an $240,000 over the last two weeks. it prevented a tea party house

member from entering the house. you can look at colorado where the koch brothers have been throwing $300,000 into school board races. you can with the virginia gubernatorial race. you can look at new jersey building on the data presented before. you have chris christie was no means classified as a tea party republican having no problem getting elected. what it really comes to, to some extent, is an idea behind -- the idea they cannot create their own party and be successful. as a third-party they will never have the power they need to get elected on their own. they can remake the party in which they reside. that is what they are obviously attempting to do. if you think about it, if you have the libertarians and the traditionalists oppose, republican influence as a whole ultimately suffers.

at the same time, if you have an issue where the libertarians and the traditionalists are sharing sentiments and arguments against republican pragmatists, they have a big chance to have an significant impact moving forward. the pragmatists are beginning to realize that they can't necessarily win without some minimal tea party support. at the same time, the tea partiers are realizing they're not as relevant as they would like to be without some support from the pragmatists. >> ok, thank you very much. our last presenter will be john berg. >> i really do talk about the tea party so i'm not out of place here. i want to think john green and janet and the whole staff for putting on this great conference.

i have not come the last couple of times and it is great to be back. i wish i could find a way to get a longer view of akron outside this building. i will take the stratospheric view of this. i'm happy to see this data, but i'm not using that kind of thing. i have been looking at -- i have to go fast. here's how i see it. right now, we have intense party polarization. it is based on extreme disagreement on many issues. yet i think there are several important issues, issues that are important not just objectively, but to voters, that are kept out of the party debates. a couple of examples. at least out of the presidential level --

he said we need to stop worrying about the deficit. the major party debate was stimulus --r the past. an interesting debate. it is easy to understand why you believe that out. your having to educate people about why a deficit might be good.

drones only made it into the debates because it was an online debate. we did it in a very cursory way. what do you think? were fiveeople were by drones. climate. we're seeing every day how serious it is. spent ahe debate significant part of time with both candidates talking about how much they were in favor of clean coal. we are here in ohio where they mine coal. it is a swing state. you can see in the two-party system why you might do that.

it does mean that we have a phenomenon going on that might destroy civilization and is not entering in any significant way into presidential debate. globalization -- the free-trade debate has been going on a long time. that is the debate that splits the parties. both parties are dominated by pro-free trade, pro- globalization people. what a rethink of the merits of those issues, they are issues where a lot of people are not well represented by the major parties. in the past what you would expect to see is maybe a realignment or something like that, some kind of change in the party system. it has not happened. i don't want to say anything about the reform party with rapoport here because i would probably make a mistake.

they had a run. they didn't really manage create a debate about free trade. they created a debate about the deficit which was solved by economic growth. it collapsed, which kind of proves that history repeats. it was farcical enough to make up for it. the green party made a smaller run. didn't make a difference in the 2000 election. didn't get any leverage out of that at all. they might have in past cycles, but this time it was led to a determination to destroy them. this is the context of what i want to say. i will be quick about it. there are lots of theoretical attempts to say why. it doesn't really work for this case because it doesn't seem to apply to anyone in canada or india. also, it can explain may be long-term why we don't have a

multi-party system but he can explain, given that the republicans came out of nowhere to become dominant, the people's party became strong, it cannot explain why you don't get a short term disruptive upsurge of minor party activity. i think there are multiple causes. it gets harder and harder as time goes on. there is an interesting argument that with the adoption of the australian ballot at the end of the 19th century, we got to a situation where the government had to decide who the candidates were, who would be printed on the ballot. when checked in decide that you get to exclude people. for the next hundred years, the major parties got better and better at creating obstacles. nader after 2000, or 2004, the spent years battling this lawsuit in pennsylvania. it did not have much merit but

it served the function of the state. it made hard to go on. that role has kind of been blocked. that has reinforced the ballot laws that control be presidential debates. it has become reinforced by the media and our political culture. the bulk of this paper is meant to be about what happens now. i think one reason -- i want to look at three mass protest movements. i think bt party develop the way it did is because -- i agree with you guys -- they see there is not much potential as an independent party and they have more potential as a non-party force.

i want to look at occupy wall street as reactions to the situation. i argue that they are. i think people are fairly familiar with the way each of those movements developed. i will not dwell a lot on that. i want to sort of compare them in several, dimensions. one is jack walker's idea that you can overcome the irrationality of forming an organization if you have a patron. with the tea party, i think that is pretty clearly -- i have to be careful. there is a book out there that says the tea party never existed. it certainly existed. it is a real thing. it really did come out of grassroots unhappiness and protest. that originally health care.

originally, the stimulus and bailout. kelly character's protest in washington was focused on what you call the "porkulus bill." it was cut by freedom works, which i guess is a tea party group. it is funded by the koch brothers. they saw the rant on tv as it happened in a couple people said it was big and they put it on their website and it created a whole apparatus were groups could write in and tell them where the nearest group was. it really added to it. and then fox news, which may campaign, a crusade about reporting on the tea party all the time and help it get going.

the wisconsin protest -- i think people are familiar with that, too. it sort of started with democratic senators leaving the state so that would not be a quorum but also the graduate students union at the university of wisconsin marching into the middle of the state house and sitting down. it went on for quite a while. clearly, their patron was the fcio. they got control of the. it turned from a mass protest to a long, drawn-out series of electoral campaigns. first over a judicial election and then attempts to recall various state senators and ultimately governor walker. none of them responded by trying to call state democratic senators. they did not recall any

democrats. they recalled some republicans but not enough to change the majority. they also recalled walker. a lot of the original activists were unhappy about that direction because they thought they were more interested in the protest. secondly, because once it was an electoral campaign, it looked just like any other electoral campaign. they lost the ideological thrust. they started looking for scandals. a lot of people really not happy. some people were very not happy about the idea that you are going to elect a supreme court judge on the basis of how you expected that person to vote on a particular case. whichever way she votes it is

going to be terrible. it would destroy her. she did not win. a lot of people said in the campaign -- i am told that, especially for walker, they did not think you should recall someone if he hadn't of done something illegal. they might not agree with what he did but he should be able to serve out his term and beat him in the next election. the moment kind of still exists. there are still organizations and people gearing up for the next election. it is no longer what it was. goals. the goal of the tea party -- this is not quite right -- but it is summed up by winning primaries. it is a primary goal. they want to win elections, but they care more about winning primaries and get their

candidates in. or at least getting candidates they don't like out. the first was to undermine a candidate. none of the tea party people i ever saw expressed any regret about that at all. they were delighted. there was getting rid of immoderate and, in her case, probably a liberal republican. the goal of the wisconsin movement -- the immediate goal was to reverse the budget repair act and restore the right to organize labor unions as it had existed. the strategy for getting that goal became winning elections with the democratic party. i would say that was somewhat of a blunting of the original thrust because the candidates that they are supporting for governor were not the most pro- labor candidates.

the advertising themes were not really about the real issues that everyone was voting on. you could say they didn't have to talk about, but it probably hurt them somewhat. the goal of occupy wall street they did not have any goals -- they did not have any demands. the goal was to win the war of ideas. for everybody participating, i think it was that. for the court, the goal was to model a new society by running these things with a general assembly. i think outside of occupy wall street that was not understood very much. people were tremendously proud that they have libraries in the encampments, that they had

medical clinics. they thought it was just terrible when the police raided the library and threw away the books. this was a major thing. in boston, they had major campaigns around the cities that you are serving food and it is not meeting sanitary standards. they went out and bought an industrial sink that met standards and tried to bring it in. they had a major confrontation with the police over whether they can bring the sink in or not. as long as they stayed there, every time they had a demonstration they would be holding a card will models that cardboard models of the sink to show the ridiculousness of it to the police. it was all about modeling a new way of running society. that is why they were able to

move into occupy standing so quickly. when sandy hit, they said this is what we do and did a pretty much the same way. the red cross eventually swamp them with the resources. they were the first on the scene, almost. ok, so, where does this -- i think i got into my next point. i asked point is where is his goal leading to? the tea party are more ideological than the republican party. the wisconsin movement was democratic victory a majority. for occupy wall street, a new form of society. let me go back to how you evaluate the potential for these were kind of shaking up the party system, making it more responsive to the issues i was talking about.

the tea party has had some effect. if the tea party was able to take over the republican party even more thoroughly, i think we would see some kind of realignment, probably to their disadvantage. we would see things falling out differently and some other issues being addressed. where that is going is another question. it looks to me -- i interested in that last paper, but it looks like they're pulling back a bit. there is talk that we may be need not to knock off everyone in these primaries. i am not sure about that. where the wisconsin movement is is pretty much diluted and defeated. it has set an example and it will come back but i think the momentum is lost. maybe they will be able to defeat walker the next time through. or not. occupy wall street was dispersed. i can say was an organization

because it was not, but it was dispersed as a phenomenon. you still have the activists. i think there are still some general assemblies in the cities where it was that continue to meet and might decide to do something else. on the other hand, i saw someone that said obama would not have won without them. that is hard to establish but you can make a case for. they really injected the idea of inequality as an issue. the one percent sp 1% versus the 99%. romney was not being attacked. he was projecting himself as a successful businessman rather as an exploitative venture capitalist. that really hurt him. a guy in indiana whose company had been bought out by bain capital and lost their jobs, they have done the same thing when romney ran against ted kennedy for the senate about 10 years earlier.

it was not a secret that they were around. it is just the impact of occupy made it more relevant for them to come out and give it more bite. i think we are going to be stuck in the same kind of stalemate situation for some time yet. i think these things are percolating. it is not really biting enough to make a change for one final thing -- someone mentioned that earlier today -- earlier today, someone said that there might be a tea party developing on the left. i think there is a big difference. the tea party was government to do less. it doesn't really care about what happens to the government doing for people about health care or for poor people. for them to shut down the government to block action is not painful.

actually, it is getting a little bit of what they want. the democrats are really -- the wisconsin unions -- protesters in wisconsin were members of unions. there were teachers and health-care workers and believed in what they were doing. they wanted to protect their own working conditions. more generally, democrats are people who want to provide social services. that is why they end up supporting moderate democrats because they have a better chance of winning. the prospects of a -- for the tea party, the prospects of obama being president -- they hate him, but they can keep fighting him. they are not losing a whole lot right now. the democrats are prospects of losing control the government is too horrible to think of.

>> thank you very much. we'll move into the part of the talk where we are going to involve the audience. i thought i would start out with the question of my own for our esteemed panel. a couple of you mentioned that you don't envision a situation in which the tea party could split and become its own party. i talked to some tea party activists here in ohio that have mentioned the idea of possibly joining with another minor party, like the constitution party, for example. i wonder if any of you foresee that as a possibility or if you think it is more likely that the tea party will continue working on within the republican party. >> i think it is very likely they will continue working in the republican party. i think it has a lot more influence there.

as we heard this morning, it really hates the democratic party. the choice is between a mitt romney or even a chris christie and then hillary clinton -- i don't think that is a real challenge to them. i think their goal is to take over the republican party. the head of freedom works, the name of his book is "hostile takeover." i think that is the goal and that is why they are willing to support candidates who are not necessarily the strongest in the general election because they think that is the strategy, sort of ridding the party of the rhinos that they don't approve of. i really don't see that. i think you may get a few rogue individuals doing that, but i think they have been fairly successful. i think -- i would be very surprised. we did ask a question about how you see the tea party and one of the choices was as a

third-party. the only group that really bought into that were the ron paul supporters. of course, ron paul has run as a libertarian. maybe a tad, but very unlikely. >> i think that they would obviously stay in the republican party. it is a suicidal strategy to break apart. they would a cop was nothing more than splitting the republican vote and electing democrats. i'm going to quote david campbell in one of the earlier papers today. he talked about a deepening reserve of negativity and it captures what a lot of findings were on this panel. tea party activists are animated by their dislike of the democratic party. at the end of the day there is a motivation to see democrats lose. the most viable strategy out there would be continued to do

what they are doing. after all, we are talking about the tea party right now. they had a major seat at the table during the whole government shutdown. it was all about satisfying the tea party. what they're doing right now by getting involved in the primaries has arguably been a pretty effective strategy. they may not be getting everything that they want, but, you know, i would imagine that there are enough smart people there who would understand that staying the course makes a whole lot more sense than trying to jump off and form a third-party. >> i agree. at the same time david was making his point this morning, it was also said that it is not that we also love our parties or we our candidates, but hate for the other side can be a powerful, unifying force. if you look at mitt romney, the person who was the author of romney care in massachusetts and

was a moderate and had been referred to a four years as a rino, 93 plus percent of tea party supporters turned out to vote for him. there is your answer. >> one thing. i agree they do not want to start another party at all. they made a big deal that they were against the republicans and democrats both as far as party establishment. we don't like george w. bush at all. that's what they were saying. i think they know their strength is that they are willing to lose, to see the republicans lose. i think this is true. there will to put a tea party candidate in a moderate district even if it is harder to win for that candidate. that is where their unlike the democratic left.

it is much more concerned with winning the general election. >> thank you. there's a gentleman with a bowtie. we will start with him for our questions. >> for rapoport, i am curious if you have any data about the tea party and turnout. we just had data drop on us but overall we know that turnout was down in 2012. was or any evidence that the tea party supporters stayed home and i could've hurt romney and republicans? for francia and morris, to what extent is the drive behind the tea party movement race? >> am i on? one of the things that we just mentioned the paper is there was

an enthusiasm gap that we heard about in 2010. it turns it -- out that if you run the data among non-tea party republicans show exactly, to the decimal point, almost, the same level of enthusiasm as democrats. the entire enthusiasm gap was tea party republicans. that is 2010. what we do find and are able to look at is -- over time, we have data. this is not a mass sampling. the impact of tea party activity controlling for 2010 activity, 2008 activity, is quite strong. what we find is that the tea party people -- i see them -- in one sense, this is the right wing of the republican party but i think it is a super-energized right wing of the republican party. i think it is more active than what was there before. i see the tea party based on our data as tea party identification

among the activists leads to higher levels of activity. among the mass groups, we can look at it in 2010 we find the same thing. that is a little different. i don't think you have this, i will take my marbles and go home. i think it is a group that is committed and i think it is not a diminishing turnout. i don't think the decline in white turnout was tea party people. i don't have real evidence on the mass sampling. allen may have looked at this more. >> to david's question, we put up the numbers for government assistance to blacks but that could arguably be about government assistance. the table before shows that tea party members were the most

hostile towards the government giving away anything. i think we have to be careful there in attributing that to race. it could be, but in light of the other number of we have to be somewhat careful. some people say it is a good -- >> there was one thing i do want to say to be a little more cautious here. we looked at the thermometer question on the feeling from honor towards blacks. the numbers were 64 tea party republicans, 61 for establishment republicans, 64. dependence, six d 84 moderate democrats, 72 for liberal democrats. not huge differences. social desirability effects may be in play, here. people do not want to say they are cool towards a minority group, perhaps. i did not look at all the racial resentment questions for this

particular paper. there was only so much we could percent, after all. on the feeling thermometer we did not really see it. with hispanics, similar numbers. 61 versus 60 versus 59, 65, 71. sort of on that same range. from the numbers we ran i cannot really give you a clear answer to that. >> ok, thank you. let's take another question from the audience. >> hello. following up, it seems like we have kind of established that hating obama, hating democratic principles really drives the tea party. i am wondering, now that it is possible or plausible because of their actions or their leaders'

actions that they might lose the house in 2014. it is tough, but possible. it would keep the senate but everything they hate would be remanded by the american people. i wonder, would they have a true sense of expanding if everything they hate just got reaffirmed? wouldn't this small movement fall to pieces like a lot of them do, reform in another way, but in this together fashion, it seems the hate of obama and the eta democrats now really keeps them together. wouldn't a re-mandate really be a true ending blow? >> all future events we are going to guess that. if we look at this week, the results in virginia have members

of the tea party doubling down. if only the mainstreamers had backed this up, we would have won this. there is a strong sense in that the end of days may be more religious. that might be a parallel in which the way defeat is seen. there are -- if you ask a tough question, they have an answer. they have a libertarian tradition. they have a moral conservative tradition that will provide answers for why it is that you are defeated. so the next up is to defeat those forces that defeated you last time to stay in the game. in the american system we have two parties for some fairly strong structural reasons. in a winner take all election,

if you take your toys and go home, home is a lonely place. the desire to stay within the party versus the desire to not lose your principles but to continue working harder. i think it will be pretty intense. >> i think, to answer your question from a media perspective, the leaders, the media personalities that you can really look at and really say, these are the leaders of the tea party movement, they are not -- they don't rally the troops from a strategic perspective. how they might be able to influence the election to get more republicans in. they think they are right and they are claiming moral authority to rally the troops. i don't think that is going to change under any circumstance of

more of a mandate to the democrats or anything like that. those leaders are in place. they have their following. i don't think that will change anytime soon. as long as there is a democrat in the white house. >> ok. we have a question on the side. >> from ohio state university. i am interested in having you comment on the internal dynamics within the tea party movement. we know there are a whole bunch of moments out there under different names with different leadership. some of them are not agreeing with each other. we also know that the movement started out in 2009 as a moment that had two targets -- one was government, the other was wall street. that wall street target has a long history in american

politics. that has kind of evidence where the anti-government part has expanded over time. you see groups like freedom works that is more like a beltway group. the leadership is their driving the movement in some ways. it is applying a lot of the financing for it. please comment on that. how do we sort all that out? >> i think part of what we spoke to at the constitutional liberty argument hits on that, where they found the least common denominator thread so you can have multiple groups that are taking somewhat diverging views on similar issues but still tie it back to some broader peace where they say i may not us earlier grew the policy statement being made, but i sympathize with the logic behind it. it ties back in some way, shape, or form to liberty. they have been able to successfully use that. >> as we talked about the

occupied movement, i think a serious case can be made that the occupied movement not only was not funded but it prided itself on an utter lack of central ideology. so, if you have -- there are no occupied movement panels at this conference. for a good reason. once it got cold, it is time go home. we had an occupied movement, and no one seemed to occupy their tents. every time we were there no one seemed to be there. the reason for that is that you do not have a central unifying idea. it is difficult to rally people around that. if you do have ideas that can reinforce one another, to quote from ron paul, if you cannot defend life, and that you cannot defend liberty. it strongly speaks to the fact

that they are finding ways that an outsider might not think can reconcile different views. on the one hand, libertarianism might tend towards anarchy board traditionalism might trend toward autarchy. they have a unified you ideology that i don't think we passing on anytime soon. >> there was an ongoing discussion in occupying tenants after a while, we have been doing this a while and we are losing news value. it is time to move onto something else. in boston, the proposal was to stay there until the first day of spring. primarily because a lot of homeless people had joined them and they did not want to leave them out in the cold. he felt a responsibility. they were dispersed not because it was cold but the police rated them and destroy the encampment.

i will make a production about the wall street bankers i think is the health-care debate goes on, now we are starting to hear about some elements of business who are making money off of it. i think that the tea party is going to latch onto that. that is generally what they said about wall street. they went for dodd-frank, but they argued that a lot of government programs that are supposed to help ordinary people are really pumping our tax dollars and giving them to big business and wall street. >> let me give one thing a response. this is something i've been concerned about based on our data. the one thing was in the cces, we found that you have an awful lot of people -- to say you are a subscriber does not mean you are anything but on the mailing list. we had a very large sample, over

12,000. i was able to sort out people on the list who had done nothing for freedom works but had worked for other groups. i found very, very little difference there. that shouldn't be totally convincing. i would love to have multiple groups. i think that is a very good question. i was not able to find a lot of difference and that gave me more confidence in it. on the other thing, i would say that the occupy wall street movement kind of misunderstood the fact -- they were inspired by arab spring -- they did not understand that it was arab spring and not arab winter. that probably would not have been as successful, either. >> what are most about the occupied movement is saying, what are they protesting? we were not getting a clear answer. it seemed like the entire time -- we have a question in the middle. >> one comment and one

question. the comment is about the opinions of big business. there is a feeling thermometer but -- to monitor question about big business in the nes. tea party supporters like big is this better than other republicans, way better than democrats. >> we also find -- >> they are pro-big business, not anti-big business. they might be against government subsidy to business. >> according to the way we coded tea party supporters, there were 63 for the tea party and, -- >> my question is about looking forward on based on what you have seen looking at the tea party supporters. how are they going to respond to a chris christie candidacy for president? in the republican primaries and looking -- will they rally

behind a chris christie candidacy for president if he becomes the republican nominee the way they rally behind mitt romney? >> christie is better from their point of view, isn't he? he is more conservative. romney was governor of massachusetts at times. he was for gay rights, he was pro-abortion. christie does not have to do as much transformation. this time they will try to put up their own candidate, but if they lose, i think they will be just as enthusiastic. >> [indiscernible] >> one thing is that among people who in december 2011 rated -- not only did they not support romney, but they rated

him below average --2/3 were active in this campaign. i think it is that last slide, kind of. >> labor unions. on the thermometer, tea party is really not like labor unions. chris christie has made a reputation for being very anti-labor. that's an indication he does not love the guy. his numbers have gotten worse with the party republican since he embraced obama after the hurricane. if he ends up being the nominee, i am not sure that it's going to happen, but if he were, there are these things there that they can convince themselves they like. in the general election, they will come around.

>> i want to add to that. the one thing for chrstie that romney did not possess is that there is one thing they can point to and say, we really like this. that was not there with romney. i think the chris christie video where he was going off on teachers and teachers unions is something. they played at me very happy. with romney, there was nothing they could point to. >> the democrats have to nominate somebody. hillary clinton will generate a similar amount of dislike. we will have the same thing. whether it is hillary or -- wait, for now.

>> she had a higher rating, but her ratings dropped significantly. we have a question here. >> university of dayton. this may be too pragmatic. i'm interested in the resources behind the candidates. the impact of the mccain fund and limitations on political parties. unlimited donations to political parties. the rise of the whole super pac movement. in terms of the tea party goals to win primaries or influence moderates, it seems to me that the availability of resources is a huge fact or. i am a moderate, i look at the possibility of not just an opponent, now i am looking at some kind of super pac coming in and recruiting an opponent.

in terms of their staying power, and their ability to move forward, resources are a factor. i do not know if anybody has studied that. -- ifould add onto that you are a pragmatic republican, you better watch what you say during the campaign. even byd be calling accident on a challenge that you do not expect. you may look around and see that there is really no credible candidate. with the threat of a super pac, suddenly someone can come in from nowhere. >> anyone else? no? i think john will want to wrap up. do we have time for one more question? ok, one more question from the audience. how about steve brooks?

this better be good. ago, john waseeks here promoting his research that he spent doing on the younger generation. in response to a question about politics, he said that he thinks the liberal conservative dimension is going to diminish and be replaced by a communitarian division. especially for the three circle guys. do you think that the tea party has met on that kind of movement? they will be a libertarian movement and the traditionalists left behind? i think that where that becomes problematic is that there is no one thing called liberty. there is no one thing called morality. the two concepts work with one another. we redefine what it means to be

a democrat or a republican. but the idea that we understand what liberty is, what would bertie be to get a good meal at night? would it be to carry a gun? we redefine those things. students, they sort themselves by party pretty well. anyone else? ok. >> we need to do two things. one is, thank stephanie and our panel. [applause] >> a look this morning at some of the news from the new york times. the tangled role in the gop war

over the tea party. an article featuring warmer ohio congressman on your screen. he is the president and ceo of the republican main street partnership. they are an advocacy group that he runs. he served 18 years in the house. the new york times he -- says he is emerging as a top general in the war against the tea party. his opponents accuse him of profiting from it the -- his presence in washington. and they claim he violated a statute that prevents lawmakers from lobbying for at least a year after leaving office. hear more about the republican party and the issues important to conservatives this weekend on newsmakers. we will talk with michael needham from heritage action. here is some of our interview. >> 72% of the american people do not like the republican party. i'm one of those right now.

the republican party needs to find its soul. and it's find who it stands for. when americans look at washington d.c., they see a game. wealthy people have the tax code written in their favor. are a small business person or an entrepreneur or someone who wants to work and go home, you do not have a voice in washington. >> are you a part of the game? you score them. games and scores go together. you're part of the process of scoring members. republicans think you are stirring things up within the party. >> we ask tough questions of members of congress. we inform their constituents of the answers to those questions. we have opinions on pieces of legislation's. we thought that it was a bad deal when paul ryan and maddie -- patty murray cut a deal. we put out an argument for that.

needham onh michael newsmakers, tomorrow at 10:00 and 6:00. former first lady barbara bush was discharged from hospital in houston this morning. she was treated for six days for pneumonia. she says she cannot think the hospital and nurses for making sure that she got the best treatment. married the longest presidential first couple. she will be home in time to celebrate their 69th anniversary on monday. years ago, we started looking at the census department data. something very strange pops out. when you look at where the profits are, if you look at a map, you see germany, france, ireland, italy. if you look at the data on where the profits are, italy, france, germany, ireland.

hugely is proportionate amount of profit in ireland. that was one indication that something is going on. >> more with the chief economist for tax analysts. sunday night at 8:00. next, look at journalism and whistleblowers. new technology and political scandals. with abc news president ben sherwood and the chair of hearst television. a talk for one hour and a half. [applause] >> thank you, david. thank you, susan. this has been a delightful day. this is the second time i have been on campus. i am always impressed when i am

here. white harbor has been my friend for 25 years or so, when wade says that i need you, i will go wherever that goes. he has been my most trusted business advisor, i have a high appreciation for him, this has been on his mind for years. we have talked about this. i smoke a cigar, wade bears with that and tells me about his vision. i am delighted to be here. i also want to shout out to hank price. hank is my colleagues who runs w x i i over in winston-salem, station we are very proud of. hank is one of our great leaders and i am glad that he is here. also another person i am glad who is here who wore the hearst jersey for a number of years, he got honest and came to a university for the closing chapter of his great career, he

ran the station in pittsburgh for us, an outstanding executive who made the company a lot of money. so, good to see jim again. i have been blessed to work for hearst for many years. i was the lucky guy who had the opportunity to run the radio station. i found the company to be a great fit for what i was all about. our company was founded in 1887. we have been at this for a long time and have been at the forefront of media as it has evolved over the last 426 years or so. we are very active in the digital media space and we will have an opportunity to talk about this tonight. mr. hearst was one of the true visionaries. early in his life as a newspaper publisher he declared it was good business to be a good citizen. it has been a cornerstone of our

value and has resonated at all the stations and markets where we operate television stations. one quote that is on my mind as i meet students is teddy roosevelt, who said far and away one of life's great religious is to work hard and have the chance to work hard on something that matters. journalism is important to this community and to all the communities around the country, aspiring to work in a business that matters, do business that matters in these communities. one of my abiding believes is that people care about what happens in their local towns. they want to hear about what occurs. men can talk well about national and international media, and we

will have an opportunity to talk about local media, tonight. another thing to focus on is how culture is so important in any organization, along with these notions of core purpose and core values along the built to last theme, the notion of transparency, honesty, and integrity in reporting. values that transcend the strategic and tactical changes that occur in media on a regular basis. those are lasting values. there was a great piece in "the new york times" a couple of weeks ago, october 26, that talked about values that do not go out of style. one of the things we are focused on as a company is ethical

decision-making in the digital world. then and i will chat about at a little bit. i think it is terribly important. this has been a time of disruption. review this time of disruption as one of opportunity. the hearst name, randolph hearst was always a gentleman who believed in innovation. we have tried to be gentleman in the things we have done and things we have associated ourselves with, which often means taking risks. risks are a good part of what we do. yet acting responsibly in the journalism that we do is equally important. i love the quote from the other than bob dylan, a hero is someone who understands the responsibility that goes with freedom, which should resonate with all the journalists. in recent times in just the past year we have had experience with the boston bombing.

our washington bureau cover the navy shipyard shootings. there are all manner of these very significant stories that have been poorly handled by certain people in the media. i am not here to criticize them, but i hope we take away learning from the people who did things the right way, the wrong way, and see the opportunity for us to be better as journalists. this is a great calling. i have law of the people who are engaged in the pursuit of their journalism careers here. you should be very excited about what the future holds. as an old guy now, i wish i had the opportunity to enter the media business at age 20 or 25, this is a time of really great opportunity. there are important careers available to people. i always think about how important the role of the

storyteller and the editor is. i think about mr. hearst's father, part of the gold rush when he came across the country. there were radio stations, television stations, a few news -- no radio stations, no television stations, and only a few newspapers as we knew them. i imagine that people sat around and spoke to each other around the campfires. few of us are very good storytellers. few of us are very good elders of jokes. to me they were the early journalist. journal -- journalists. i would say the same thing about the armies of napoleon, marching across the world. high priority on storytelling, it is essentially important to people in the societies that we serve. it is now an opportunity for us to pursue individual pieces of

information, different rights of media, audio, and the like, but the notion of a media company that is an aggregator and creates and curates content is still very important. one of the bedrock principles of the corporation as a media company, if you do not put something on the screen or on the page that resonates with viewers and readers, you are not really in the media business. it harkens to the line that sam nunn used to use from time to time, that everyone who says they want to be a leader should look over their shoulder and be sure that there is someone behind the leader as he marches down the road. absent any one behind you, he said you are just out for a walk and not really eating at all. we will have an opportunity

tonight to chat about some things i hope are on your mind. i am particularly delighted to be here with ben, who is so good to come join us here. no one is busier than the president of news organizations. ben is a young guy, the dean of music executives, telling you what a pair of us and brilliant producer he is. he has made abc news a better place. he and i have become good friends and i am delighted he is with us tonight. you will have the opportunity to hear his point of view about abc news, an important institution that matters in this country and in this world. the same way that hank does important work in winston-salem, the same as our stations in sacramento, albuquerque, it

matters to the local community. people care about their towns, the issues that occur there. it is important for us to be the future in those communities. it makes us who we are in the markets with the important businesses. this is an exciting time. there is a great future for journalism. we will be serving people on a lot of platforms. it is an exciting time and i believe the best is yet to come for this industry, we will have a chance to talk about that tonight. with that, i will be seated. [applause] >> our second speaker this

evening as the president of abc news, responsible of all aspects of the broadcasting, including world news tonight. in addition, he oversees their radio, online, and satellite services. he began his career when he was still a student. during a year off from college she worked for the news and observer in raleigh. the los angeles times paris bureau. and the united nations border relief operation in thailand. i have to imagine that it was especially hard for him to leave raleigh for that assignment in paris. [laughter] he launched his journalistic career in earnest when he joined abc news in 1989. after a brief stint at the network, at that network with a peacock, he returned to abc news

in 2004 as the executive producer of good morning america and it was not long thereafter that he was named president of the entire news division. under his leadership, abc news has been anything but complacent. last year they watched content art ship with yahoo!, reaching nearly 100 million people, serving up to half of a billion videos each month. this year they launched fusion, launched just recently, stealing one of my favorite lawyers to run it, assuring them good legal advice. a network to serve and empower u.s. hispanics, the youngest and fastest growing demographic in america. as if that were not enough, he is also the author of two critically acclaimed best-selling novels, the death and life of charlie st. cloud,

released by universal pictures in 2010, and "the man who ate the 747," also being developed as a broadway musical in a major motion picture. his latest book is an exploration of those who beat life-threatening diseases, who triumphed after economic hardship, and who surrenders. i see obvious parallels there with sites topic on the future of television. please join me in welcoming ben sherwood. [applause] >> thank you, professor. good evening, ladies and gentlemen. it is a great privilege to be here tonight. deans, professor, we appreciate your warm welcome.

wade, sandy, congratulations on this great night. when he calls, we jump on planes. we will fly anywhere. especially to this wonderful institution in chapel hill. i have to say it is extremely humbling to be excited to share a stage, tonight, with my friend. bbn work together a few years ago. david has been a friend and a mentor. usually when we sit next to each other he is in the even more contentious board meetings of the network. sometimes we sit next to each other at a new york rockers basketball game. it is a privilege and honor to be here. thank you, i look forward to our discussion.

when i look out at this audience tonight, i see a bunch of friends. as the professor mentioned, 29 years ago ipaq up my car in massachusetts and drove a beat-up round saab down into north carolina to start was -- what was a formative experience in my journalism career. i began working for "the news at the observer." a beacon of great journalism. what i want to say in introduction is very simple. i echo -- if i could do it all over again, i wish that i could start right here and right now. i wish i could begin a career right now in this highly disruptive, highly volatile, and highly certain media environment.

i think the future of television news in the digital area at -- digital era is very bright. now, there is some history to share with you very quickly about the disruption that has taken place over the last thousand years. i think it will give us a sense of what is to come. if you think back to the beginning of communication and storytelling, news is fundamentally a social activity. fundamentally news is coming back saying -- do not hunt over there, hunt over there. it took thousands of years to go from the first stories that were told around the fire to the advent of being able to write things down on stone, paper, and then being able to print them on a press. the time between was around 377

years. and then another 71 years until the advent of television. then another four years before the advent of the internet. some futurists predict that the rate of change in the next 100 years, it could equal something like 20,000 years of change in human history. 20,000 years of change. we know that these disruptions are coming fast and furious. at abc news, we welcome the disruptions. we are excited about that change. as the professor mentioned, we have begun to make the changes in that world. a world of digital transformation, demographic transformation as this country becomes a majority minority nation. so, the future is highly

disrupted. one of the things i look forward to talking about tonight. this is an exciting moment to be here at chapel hill. my job, in 1984, was to write a letter box. after earning my stripes writing the weather box, my job would you to wrap up for the political reporters and cover some event in some far-flung place where the reporters did not want to go and they would send an intern. i relished those chances. one of those jobs was to run around north carolina and my little car and see what the candidates were spending on political advertising. i would like to think that i am one of the few people in this room and this state -- in this

room, in this state, who has regularly visited every station. i called my parents and told them i was leaving college for a year, that i would stay in north carolina to see the race to the conclusion. the epic battle between senator helms and governor jesse thorn. at the time, the most expensive in national history, i went on to write an honors thesis discussing the changing role of race in north carolina politics, going back to 1950, front senator lamb ran against senator smith in the runoff. all fodder for conversation later. i will go join david for the discussion.

thank you very much. [applause] >> you get the first question. >> excellent. >> today in the new york times, the former executive editor of the times described this as a golden age for journalism, particularly a golden age for international reporting. my question for you, david, looking at where we are today and where we are going ahead, is this a golden age for television news, bronze age? silver age? >> i lean more towards it being a golden age. there is a world of opportunity out there for us to tell stories on all kinds of different platforms. i believe that people gravitate towards the best available screen. but there are so many screens

that they can take advantage of, it is an opportunity for people to engage with journalism, engage the storytelling that is very profound. accompany this year generating 5 billion pages on our websites, 250 million posts on news and weather information. 10 billion ad impressions. 60% of those impressions are on smartphones and tablets. the migration to mobile is extraordinary. i view that as a great opportunity. we strive to have the leading source of local information on traditional television. 80% of our newscasts are rated number one or number two.

i think there is a world of opportunity out there. it is not contract in or as involved in the newspaper business. our business is expanding because of the proliferation of these devices. the world is interested in video and that is what we do for living. >> i think some people would say that the number of people watching television -- there are these studies that come out periodically, young people in particular are asked -- did you watch television news yesterday? six years, seven years ago, 49% of young people said they watched television news yesterday. most recent statistics show that that is around 33%. there is this sense that there

is a declining audience among young people. how do you feel about the changing demographics? >> people are migrating to different places. if we are going to do right be our -- right by our viewers, we will have to be in these different places. it is very important that we have established brands. i spoke briefly about the value of the editor, the value of storytelling. i am the boss of the best television station in the market. though you would expect me to say that. we saw the bombings occur around the marathon, people's viewership increased. younger people migrated to a known, trusted source for information. our audiences were typically greater than that of our largest competitors combined. so, sometimes it takes a big event.

oklahoma city, when there are tornadoes in that market, as the demographic patterns change the people do gravitate towards watching local news with local it is a challenge to remain relevant, you know. do i worry about the next four to five years? it is about maintaining that. we have to stay invested in business, recruiting the best and brightest from institutions like this. find a place for them, putting resources to this business in a proactive way, to remain relevant and create reasons for people to watch our stations and rearm publications. >> i think the actual title of this conversation tonight could be slightly modified. i think that we both share the belief that the word television news is one of crushed -- of