>> how are you? >> i am well, thank you. >> how are you? >> let's do one here first. >> one more. >> right over here. >> perfect. >> now you're stuck with me. you are really in trouble. thanks for coming. we have a good lineup today. >> perfect weather again. >> perfect weather. can you believe it? tammy haddad. thank you for coming today. it is so nice to meet you. thank you. this is all for you. did you get the postcard?

can we have them pose with this? picture. get your look at that. ok. 1:30. >> perfect. >> thank you. [indistinct conversations]

>> hi, guys. how are you doing? >> good morning. >> happy birthday. >> ready to go. darling. conversations] >> how is it going? how are you doing?

[no audio] [indistinct conversations] >> nice to meet you. >> the sights and sounds from a short time ago. now a live picture from the white house correspondents' georgetown,h in another one of the events around the city ahead of tonight's

white house correspondents dinner. >> it feels like summer camp for us. that has been a blast. that has been fun. been a very glamorous summer camp. [indistinct conversations] what do you have to say about the future of the show? >> doing it always. it has been the best show. we all have fun. i look forward to all of the gallivanting with a great lineup. who is your favorite white

house correspondent? >> i can think of his name. sorry. [laughter] >> how are you doing? thanks for talking to us. thank you so much. you got my text. you don't want to ask them about tonight. [indiscernible] tonight will be over. we have the lady from [indiscernible] coming. ok. what is up? >> the scary thing it is not

that different. that is what we are told by people who work here. we are a little alarmed by that. the good news is we are coming off of [indiscernible] intrigued by the whole weekend. i have never been to this. i have never been to the dinner. it is quite the eclectic mix of people. >> who is your favorite white house correspondent? i metould have to say, him last night, chris matthews. i know he is not a white house correspondent. i am consistently viewing his show. [indistinct conversations]

yes, ma'am. >> how are you? >> tell us about what you have coming up. >> we are going to a brunch to support a great cause. they do so much for our country. i think it is a great way to get the issue out there. >> what made of a -- what motivated you? them have tragic lives, difficult jobs when they come back. finding ways to reintegrate into society. i love that people are aware of it through different causes. it is great.

[indiscernible] are notr away and we impacted. we need to be responsive to the people who did fight that war. you are very welcome. [indistinct conversations] >> how are you? >> i saw you last year. >> it is surreal and wonderful. [indistinct conversations] >> what do you like about it? >> [indiscernible]

>> some of the sights and sounds at the 21st annual white house correspondents'garden brunch, one of the number of activities ahead of the white house correspondents' dinner with this event hosted by tammy haddad. it is taking place in georgetown at the home of washington businessman mark ein. a number of celebrities arriving.

we saw some cast members from "veep" arriving at the brunch. we will have live coverage of the white house correspondent' dinner. our coverage getting started at red carpet arrivals. you will hear the speech by president obama. the featured entertainment is joel mchale of nbc show "community." live coverage starts at 6:00 eastern. >> there is a lot more trauma in people's lives, more disconnection. a lot more families are broken that should not be broken. i'm talking about good families that cannot hold through the stress of life, cannot hold a job. living in the working-class up-and-down world can put a lot of strain on people and the connection they should have. the addictions are so rampant

now because it is so easy to get drugs and alcohol. i think all of this is contributing to my story being more of the american story that a lot of people are willing to admit. >> clinical activist and political candidate luis rodriguez will take your questions starting at noon sunday on c-span2's book tv. week, reporters from bloomberg news and "the wall street journal" sat down to discuss the 2014 local and national elections. they looked at changes in demographics, redistricting, and the future of the republican party. the event was hosted by the anti-defamation runs a little more than an hour.

>> i am stacy burdett. we are in for a treat. this is our opportunity to talk to two of our favorite political reporters and have a chance for all of us to be able to ask them questions front and center in our mind as adl advocates. we are in the middle of a three-day conversation about adl's mission and how we can make progress on issues like preserving the voting rights americans cherish or an acting an immigration reform policy that a majority of the american people crave. having theight and will of the majority on our side is not enough. adl is a nonpartisan organization. we are completely uninvolved in campaign activity. but in order for our advocacy to succeed, we have to navigate the political landscape.

we have to be mindful of the political landscape in order to craft a smart strategy that will take us where we need to go. we have with us two reporters whose work we admire who will as advocatesstand what we can expect during this campaign season. hopefully, we will ask them to predictions. larne meckler of "the wall street journal" writes about changing american and the graphics and the effects of those challenges on politics and policies. she writes about issues that are close to adl's heart. she covers congress and has been a white house correspondent. she has written thoughtfully about issues we follow closely like countries of immigration reform and the nondiscrimination act, two issue she will be discussing with house members tomorrow. ofianna goldman occupies one

the coveted chairs in the white house briefing room, that is much smaller than it looks on t.v. housethe white correspondent for bloomberg t.v., bloomberg news, and bloomberg businessweek. political junkies who watch "morning joe" or political capital will recognize her and her analysis of the inner workings of the obama white house. she has just returned from ukraine where she was with vice president biden's entourage. she was with jeff goldberg who talked to us about his trip. to ukraine this morning perhaps we can ask her about that as well. please join me in welcoming laura meckler and and julianna goldberg. [applause] i'm going to dive right in with a couple of my own questions. please think of your own. i have colleagues who will be giving you cards. if you have a card, hold them up.

we want to take as many questions as possible. 50 years after the passage of the civil rights act, it is hard to imagine congress reaching consensus on something as profound as that was. the functioning political process, a functioning democratic process, and the give and take that is an essential part of a pluralistic society seems to have totally evaporated. the public has had enough. andratings of congress washington in general are at record lows. i guess the short version of my question is, what is wrong with our political process? is there anything we can do to fix it? >> i will take a stab at that. thank you for having me here today. i want to apologize. my allergies are getting to me, so if i keep rubbing my eyes that is why.

i think there are a number of factors that have contributed to this polarization you're talking about. when we were thinking about topics for today, i immediately thought to president obama's remarks at a fundraiser before the 2012 elections and he said, i think if i win, the fever will break and republicans and democrats will be able to come together and work together. clearly, the fever has not broken. it is still pretty high. i think a few factors have contributed to this over the past several years. one with redistricting. incentives to compromise, especially for republicans where their ability to keep their jobs largely rests , means they primary

are pushed farther away from the center. at the also if you look wheeling and dealing over the past decades in washington, a lot of that has come from relationships forged between the president, lawmakers, between lawmakers themselves. president obama and members of congress have both contributed to the lack of relationship building in washington. in part, because of fundraising. members of congress have to leave washington on the weekends and go raise money in their home districts. if we are honest with ourselves, we need to look at our own and say that the news media also contributes to the kind of polarization with the 24-hour news cycle. with access to information fundamentally changing, depending on your political

views, depending on how you have your twitter feed set up, you can access information that is already catered to the mindset of what you are already looking for. i think the immigration debate issuesthose three together. you ask, why can't we get immigration done if republicans and democrats both want it and know they have to come together? i went back and found a staggering statistic. this is from "the new york times" in february 2013. it is not that most republicans come from very conservative districts, but also overwhelmingly white districts. in the 232 congressional districts represented by republicans, the average hispanic share of each district is 11%. of the 232 republicans

in the house come from districts more than 20% hispanic and just 16 that are at least 1/3 hispanic. you can see the challenges. over this past weekend, house speaker john boehner was speaking at the rotary club in ohio. what a change from several months ago when he said the reason we cannot get immigration reform done this year is because the president cannot work with republicans. now he is saying republicans are not willing to step up for this. cycle, it4-hour news was any private event, the remarks came out. congress comes back this week. john boehner will meet with his caucus and probably hear some words from his caucus. i think the immigration debate is a prime example of the

polarization and gridlock. what is it going to take to change this? i think it is fair to say i don't know. i don't know anybody really knows. one would have thought after a tragedy like sandy hook where you have 26 children gunned down that would have been an opportunity to break the fever, break the gridlock and get meaningful gun legislation passed. cycles. this goes in maybe we are at the tail end of the cycle. i don't see this changing for 2014. i think it is probably going to be more difficult to break it before 2016. >i wish i could be more optimistic. , did you want to pick up on any of that before we go to another question? >> there are several points i would make.

i will incorporate it into my opening remarks. >> everyone knows our entries at a demographic tipping point. that is what everyone is telling us. talk about the impact of -xers andls and gen voting box of communities of color and how it is affecting elections. >> thank you for having me here. this is my second time on the panel. the first time, i was moderator and got to ask the questions. i can be the moderator again next time. question of communities of color and millennials is about the changing demographics in our nation as a whole, which the electorate reflects. it relates to what she was talking about in terms of the polarization in the house.

certain members come from certain areas. the best way to look at this landscape is when we look at national elections. you can rewind back to november of 2012. the morning of election day, mitt romney woke up thinking he would win. the people around him thought he would win. obviously, he did not. why not? he won 59% of the white vote. that is a higher percentage than any candidate since exit polls began. this time, white voters accounted for only 70% -- 72% of the electorate. it is dropping every year as minorities become a larger share of all voters. at the same time, president obama beat him 71-30 nine percent among hispanic voters, the fastest writing group -- rising group. things have changed.

numbers like that would have been plenty to have elected a republican president. that is one thing changing. our country is becoming less white, more diverse. at the same time, you have rising young voters. they are overwhelmingly democratic. they are not necessarily identify with the democratic party. they're less likely to identify as democrats than any other generation, but they are liberal in their outlook, especially on social issues. in the wake of that election, republicans were left to look around at their party. a lot of them saw themselves as increasingly representing older white voters. the big problem with older they tend to no longer be part of the voting public at some point. the country is becoming less white every year.

there were a lot of alarm bells that went off inside the republican party. in both groups, republicans see hope for how they can do better. the answer to the question of how things can change is i don't think it will change on immigration because republicans wake up and decide i want to work with democrats. that is not the environment we are living in right now. if they pass the legislation, it will be because they decided is good policy and good politics for their own party. look retweet at two issues i think reflect both changing demographics. it is increasingly a threshold issue or young voters. >we have seen a remarkable transformation of the issue of how americans view gay rights

and gay marriage over a short time. it has been a stunning change in public opinion. that is led by young people. for every opponent of gay marriage who passes away, they are replaced by a baby that will one day support gay marriage. a respected republican pollster said as a pollster, this debate is over. as much as the country is changing, you still see only three republican senators supporting gay marriage. the establishment of republicans has not changed much. i think what we do see is opposition fading away. stacie mentioned the nondiscrimination employment act. employers from making employment decisions based on sexual orientation or gender identity of a worker. that controversial in 2014. when i saw this debate in the

senate, two things were striking to me. -- there was not a single person who spoke against it. one republican center -- senator registered mild th objections. when it was on the floor, one person after another said why they support it. almost no one said why they opposed it. it passed in the senate with a vote of 10 republicans, four more than they needed. they only needed 60. they got 64 yes votes. supporters were happy about that. you you look at the debate, think it is over and easy. but now it is in the house. non-entity. it is like it does not exist there. it is not being talked about. republican leadership made it

clear was not going to come up for a vote. they are that violently opposed to it, but it is not part of their agenda. that is because there are parts of the republican party who are very opposed and see this as special rights. the immigration issue is striking. a bipartisan bill passed the senate. the whole republican coalition is for this bill. we are talking about religious organizations, including this one, business, law enforcement, evangelical christians. lots of support for this. is resistance from people who believe it is wrong to reward people who broke the law and who are living here illegally, people who are scared about newcomers taking american jobs. now we have a situation where it is stuck in the house. the difference between this debate and the one we just is an about is that there

enormous amount of political pressure on speaker boehner to pass this. last week, it was not really a private event. there were television cameras with reporters taking notes. i think he knew that. i think his frustration boiled over. he would like to get it done. i think he thinks it is the right policy and because he sees it as important for his party to move past this. i wrote down what he said at the rotary club. he said, here is the attitude. domain we do this, this is too hard. he scrunched up his eyes like he was crying. we enjoy moments like these. to makewe get elected choices and solve problems. it is remarkable how many of my colleagues don't want to. they will take the path of least resistance. the other reason is we are in a congressional midterm year.

these issues of young and hispanic voters are more important in a presidential year where you have to worry about winning in all different kinds of states and where the electorate is more diverse. in midterm elections, it is a more republican electorate. minorities and young people are less likely to vote, so these issues are not as urgent from a political point of view. that is why we see them stalled right now. some republicans will tell you next year is the perfect time to pass it. there is always a next year. there will be political barriers next year as well. we will see whether they get ort those this summer whether we live to see if next year is the year. >> thank you. i want to remind everyone you .an send your questions

we have colleagues giving cards for your questions. we want to get as many in as possible. it has been almost 100 years since the first woman was elected to the house of representatives. we finally have women in politics who are political forces on the national stage. polling shows the vast majority of americans would vote for a woman for president. but half of people polled say they don't think it is going to happen. is america ready? i know michele bachmann famously said we were not. but i would like to hear from you. if you want to talk about whether you think hillary will run and if anyone can beat her, inquiring minds want to know. 2008, whoever had won the democratic primary probably would have won the general election. in that sense, i think the

country was ready for a woman president. if you look at the credentials of the leading female presidential candidate right now, former first lady, senator from new york, secretary of state. i am not sure what higher credentials or what more you esumeon a resident -- r to be prepared to be president. i think the country is ready. my colleague just wrote a book on hillary clinton. i asked him if she is running and what his take was. he said the question is not whether she is running. the question is whether she will stop running. [laughter] she is essentially running for president now. that gets into the big challenge for her, which is what dog her in 2008. she does best when she is the underdog. if she has the front runner status and is walking into it

like it is a coronation, that could hurt her. i think it will be interesting to see what issues she grabs onto and tries to frame to try to capture the underdog status. last week she was at a speaking engagement. she said something along the lines of don't discount older women, we are not senile. i think that is one way she could be trying to find that kind of issue. laro was just talking about the demographic challenges for older , that would be a way for democrats to be able to grab onto that demographic group. asked -- >> is there anyone that could be her?

>> in a primary, i think the answer is no. i would not rule out the idea of joe biden running a primary -- in a primary. who would they be most afraid of? i think now they would be most afraid of jeb bush. if that were to be the magic, it would be interesting not only because of the family names but also the friendship that the forgedand clintons have over the last few years with the tsunami relief fund. they did some work on haiti. at an eventjeb were recently together over the last month. i think there is also a respect the clintons have for jeb bush, so i think they would see that as more of an even matchup. so that would be fascinating.

it does look like she is running. everybody who watches carefully thinks she is definitely running. i'm not going to disagree. i would caution the premise of the question of whether anyone could beat her. sure someone could beat her. but we are still two years away from the first votes. a lot will change. think about the predictions in 2006 at this time. was anyone talking about barack obama beating john mccain? nobody was thinking like that. john mccain rose and fell a few times between then and when he was on the ballot. , everybody within 15 miles of my voice, needs to keep prognostications this

far in advance are not worth a lot. >> hillary clinton has talked about a double standard for women candidates. a, you admitted the media bears some responsibility for the polarization in the public debate. are your colleagues fair to women candidates? dual use ofa good leaning in. [laughter] i think that is an interesting question. >> i think largely yes and not completely yes. the whole conversation kicked off a week ago with and her nowegnancy

being a grandmother, i found that to be absurd. [applause] nobody asked that question [indiscernible] i found there is a lot of media around it will be talked about so we are raising the question. that is as bad as raising the question yourself. nobody asks those questions of men. mitt romney currently has 22 grandchildren. [laughter] nobody has mentioned this as a reason why he might need to spend more time with them. not to mention barack obama ran for president with two young actual children who you is directly responsible for caring for. i do think there is some of that with the fact it was raised. i don't think there is widespread sexism the way you would have seen some time back. little things impact our public discourse. out one is a new book

the confidence cap. gap. there are these issues circulating because hillary clinton is likely running for president. articlek, there was an about whether you could have two women on the ticket. could it be hillary and these other women? it is not just the women who could be potentially running mates. elizabeth warren, claire mccaskill. it is not just gender. you have to look at other factors that go into picking a running mate. geography as well. it would make sense for hillary clinton to have elizabeth warren on the ticket. you have two individuals from the northeast.

would it make sense to have claire mccaskill? claire mccaskill supported barack obama in 2008. are whole other range of decisions and factors that would go into this decision-making the on the fact that there would be two women on the ticket. >> a few people are asking about issues that will be election issues this year. there is no question opposition to same-sex marriage was a get out the vote issue. what do you see in a midterm year where candidates are playing to their base? what will be the get out the vote issues in this election? >> for republicans, the affordable care act. they see health care as a base driver. i think the issue has been neutralized over the last several weeks. you talk to democrats in the senate now and people watching closely, and they think this has turned.

they think with the 7 million enrollees, they have this positive narrative, starting on a new page. kathleen sebelius is out. it is a clean slate right now. is theye for democrats need to be able to get obamacare to be a base issue for democrats, and i don't see that happening. that won't be a driver. you have democrats looking for other ways to do that. i think the president was laying the groundwork when he spoke at the al sharpton even talking about voting rights. the issue about the affordable care act for republicans is, has it peaked? she is suggesting it has. that is possible. they will have decision-making about whether they want to put more issues into the mix. they are considering bringing up

alternative this summer. that is risky. all these ideas have risks because then you put your own ideas out there. none of the solutions are pain-free, and it gives someone else something to shoot at. they're talking about putting forward positive visions. the question of immigration goes back to that. do they feel they need to do something positive? do the benefits outweigh the risks for them? that decision-making will happen in the next few months. >> my sense is the white house thinks immigration reform, 35% chance before november. but really we are going to have to wait until after the primaries, the republican primaries, to get a sense of whether it is higher or lower. >> the president will have a big

decision to make. there's a huge amount of pressure on him to act on his own using executive authority to deportdeportations and fewer people. there is enormous pressure on him from the hispanic community. it has shifted away for from pressure on congress to the white house. of the summer, if the house has not acted, there is a strong possibility we will see something from the president. that will be base motivating in certain circles. i was at ah care, roundtable with a republican senator about a month ago. he said republicans cannot put all of our eggs in the obamacare basket. he said we have got to get immigration reform done for the health and success of our own party. in 2014, it won't be as big of an issue. riverr 20 support --

2016, it will be damaging to the party and brand. on health care, republicans seeing weakness in the repeal argument. privately, a number of republicans see the polling and know that is not a wise political strategy. democrats kind of small blood. the arguments you will be hearing from the president, they want to latch onto the repeal argument because they know how unpopular it is. it will be a two front attack. on the one hand, this is the law of the land. you want to repeal this? here are the benefits that will be taken away. you ready to hear the word "obsession," republicans are obsessed with

repeal. they have been obsessed with votes on repeal. every day they took a vote on repealing obamacare, that was the day they did not deal with minimum wage, pay equity. that is how they will be tying obamacare and the repeal , the weakness for republicans, back to the economy. >> this is a relevant discussion for advocates. on issues like immigration, the only way we can permanently fix the system and make it practical and workable is through legislation. but our guests have described how hard it is to legislate a solution. advocates look to executive branch action and where you can have an impact because there is a human cost of not having a functioning immigration system. i want you to talk about money

and politics. everyone's mind in the aftermath of the supreme court decision. is there an uptick in the trend we will see in this election and 2016? >> i am not an expert. it seems every election it upticks. i don't think we have seen an election where somebody said it seemed like monied interests did not have much to say. it seems to always be on the rise. people come up with more sophisticated ways and different organizations to channel money through. i think there is little doubt we will see advances on that front again this year. there are few limits now. if you have a lot of money and a cause that is important to you,

there is little stopping you from spending what you want to get that out. >> democrats are in the super pet game -- super pac game now. in 2010, republicans were winning the super pac game. now we will see to what extent that evens out. it keeps getting more expensive. if one side can match the other, it evens out. i was having a conversation with a senior administration official recently. i said, remember in 2010, the big scary corporate billing with the chamber of commerce? what is going to be the foil for democrats this year? are you going to go after the chamber again? the official said no, remember that was about outside spending

and money and our hands are dirty now. we cannot make the same argument because we are playing in the same sandbox. seeill be interesting to what shape influence takes this and whether democrats can remain competitive. that and ag up on previous question about motivators for the democratic base. sometimes you see something that does not happen and that motivates people. the administration decided to postpone the decision on the keystone pipeline. that is something environmentalists care about. there's big environmental money out there. there was a sense that if obama had approved it and allow the pipeline -- allowed the pipeline, that would have affected the democratic turnout and possibly big money spent on

behalf of democrats. don't discount that sometimes decisions are made without in mind. come back fromt a trip with the vice president. i want you to share some observations about that trip and the american interests in ukraine. when we go to capitol hill to talk to representatives and senators, we are a community very interested in foreign policy. partly because of our history, partly because of our concern about the spread of terrorism, partly because we are concerned with the security of israel. is foreign policy an issue in the midterm election? leading up to 2016, what do you see as the role of foreign policy concerns in the election? >> we will have to see what happens with ukraine and how this plays out over the next several months. own sense is 2014 will not be defined by foreign policy.

it will be more defined by domestic issues. even if it is somewhat neutralized, it will be and whate drivers campaigning will focus on in addition to the economy. oftentimes, foreign-policy issues rise to the forefront for a second term president. in part, because of what we are talking about in the beginning of the discussion. , but they haveck more sway and leverage on the foreign stage. tick through the issues the white house has on its plate right now, it is all coming to a head at the same time. talks,e mideast peace

the six-month window running out. it has already stalled. you have the iran talks, the six-month window coming to an end. you have syria. you have russia. there is a lot they are dealing with now. their ability to get out the economic message will be challenging for the president. you saw the administration announced today the next round of sanctions targeting putin's inner circle. they have been talking about these sanctions for the last 10 days after the geneva agreement a couple of weeks ago. they went into the geneva agreement pessimistic. they came out thinking it went better than we thought. even days later, they were expectthey don't anything to change with putin right now.

looking back, the geneva agreement bought putin time. i don't see that resolving over the next month. this could play out over years. putin is very patient. i think that the administration is pretty hesitant and wary of going to the next level of sanctions. of theight to the heart energy sector. the president warned that there would be costs on both sides. here.would be costs i think this will play out for quite some time. it was fascinating in kiev last week -- we had some free time that was pretty rare. we got to walk around the square were the protests were.

there are still thousands of people camped out there. it reminded me of occupy wall street. people are waiting for the may 25 elections to see what happens. they're in a holding pattern over there. i don't get the sense that they came away from that trip optimistic. i think there are major concerns about the governance. will beher or not they able to accept the help that the er.. is willing to off millionnounced a $50 aid package of technical

assistance. all they announced was $11 million to go to the upcoming elections, to make sure they are monitored. that.s. is helping with there's also the question of how much ukraine can do. it is really a fluid situation, very fascinating. >> did you want to say anything about foreign policy? >> i agree. i do not think it will be much of a driver. i think it is ironic that most of the issues on the agenda now are about foreign policy. it does not play out in a midterm election. however, i think it will play a bigger role in 2016. isecially if clinton

running. that will get additional or new. she will be in a position to talk about foreign policy in a robust way. i do not think it will be gone forever. the average american will never it ise to stay in, unless a true crisis that impact their lives. >> it is ironic because war weariness can be a constraint on government, even if it does not drive people to the polls. i would like you to think about watching thatu are may be indicative of national trends. give us some pointers to 2016. >> i think a couple that come to mind -- i think a lot about the racial

politics and immigration. a couple that come to mind are colorado. one of two republicans needs that immigration bill to pass. also, there is an interesting senate race in georgia. that is a state where some democrats have looked down the line -- that is a state they could move toward. it will be interesting to see if she succeeds there. those are two. help me out. louisiana. >> i think one of the interesting dynamics to watch is how some of these incumbent democrat distance themselves from this president. and how hard they beat him up was giving the white house a little heads up it hopefully. we mentioned keystone.

and mention some reporting on the keystone pipeline. in talking to some people nking, itwith the thi would have been difficult to take out and separate control of the senate, mary landrieu and keystone. if he had approved it before the election, it probably would've helped. it does not help her or hurt her. it allows her to run against the president. think will be the impact --how do you think the effort to limit voting op portunities -- your organization has a strong input. do you think there will be an impact or that will play out in

the midterm election? >> i think the interesting thing is that people voluntarily limit their own opportunity. the turnout is so low. people are not fully eligible to vote. that is a much bigger issue. res you are talking about, trictions, those become more important in a presidential race. you can get people out for less frequent votesrs. they don't think about it as much or have an issue that flags them. i think that is something that concerns a lot of people. saw it was a huge issue in 2012. i do not see it going away. >> i think you'll hear more about the white house and democrats using it to try to rally the base.

try to make that a driver. >> you talked a little bit about -- we talked about what is wrong with the political system. talk about the homogenous districts. is there light at the end of the tunnel? >> i think that it was laid out very well. these districts are gerrymandered within an inch of their lives. they are just packed with like-minded people to guarantee certain results. i do not member who to attribute this to. it is no longer the voters pick their elected officials. elected officials pick their voters. that is what happened. you have very few people who really need to think about -- the national journal does this that shows howic members of congress rate on a s

cale. if you can imagine that, democrats go from very liberal to middle. it used to be that they were here and they would overlap. you have liberal, republicans more liberal. there is a considerable overlap. today, that is no longer true. the most conservative democrat is still more liberal than the most liberal republican. people just do not need to do that. the biggest challenge, especially in the house -- the biggest challenge that a republican will face is from somebody more conservative than them. in almost every district, that is the case. they are worried about being challenged from the right.

how is it in their interest to reach across and compromise? we have gotten a system that we designed. districts,ated the i'm not sure that these people realized exactly how profound implications would be. i would also add that some democrats, especially minorities, have been in on this too. there have been some states where african-americans want to be sure that they have reliably african-american representation. put them into a few districts and that sets them out. very few house republicans have any kind of substantial hispanic population. we have another opportunity

to do this in 2020. the outcome will depend on state legislatures. they are the ones who draw these districts. if democrats win back more of these legislatures, they will have an opportunity to do it differently. we can take a poll of how many people think democrats will win. it really helps -- it was not good for the country, so let's do it in a bipartisan way. or how many will say that worked well for them, let's do it the same way? we will see. states that are very competitive in a presidential election. the delegations are overwhelmingly republican. the lines are drawn. >> i can take a few more questions in the back. we started off talking about polarization.

an organization might be anti-defamation league has a real stake in people being able to come together to forge consensus. you alluded to -- you probably watch hbo's " newsroom" -- what responsibility do you feel as members of the media to "fairness naand sanity." what are the conversations about this issue? >> it is not as dramatic. annoying as in "newsroom." just to reassure you. >> the night of the osama bin laden killing, i was by myself and our group at the white house.

i was with my editors. there was no big newsroom. >> i was literally in my family room with a laptop and cell pho ne. definitely not dramatic at all. of room for a lot self reflection on the part of the media. making sure that we are practicing responsible journalism. cycle, i woulds not even call it a 24-hour news cycle. more like 24 seconds. you're constantly under pressure of every to be on top piece of breaking news that might be related to your beat. --er 30 word characters

organizationsof placing emphasis on that over stories. word beyond the headlines. the landscape is totally changing now. you have the new media. everybody is talking about news organizations having the need to go digital. everyone is trying to figure out what that means. people are getting their information right now on a smart phone. they can watch video, they can twitter, new york times, washington post -- everything is right there on a handheld. what do i try to do to practice? one thing i do is when i am writing an event or speech or

cover state of the union or press conference -- i really try not to look at twitter. i try to kind of get away from not group think and necessarily look at what other people are writing. we all follow each other. there can be kind of an echo chamber. you can take yourself out of that and that is important. >> i think it is a problem. i do think that there are absolutely responsible journalists and organizations that are committed to explaining the world. also, breaking news. noise outthe sort of there. it is not a big breaking story that so and so called so-and-so a name.

i can't think of an example. there are a lot of -- >> we can think of an example. >> during election season, it feels like everyone's opponent is a nazi and they call him that. we get a lot of that. it is not enough of an insult unless they have been compared to hitler. it absolutely is true. i think that they answer really is -- consumers have a role to play too. two sources that you think are giving you the information and a fair way. in a way that is plausible. that does not mean it is digital. i look at my news every morning. we are all in the midst of a revolution of how we deliver news.