this coming. is one the rear shocks. does it mean anything? can we extrapolate from it? >> absolutely. it does. it has the republican talk is that has a forbearing on the house. it kills any movements. none of this will happen. it will also mean the leadership. it is also a reminder that when you have bad numbers like this, we are in cap them. luckily he really gets the politician. he is also the leader of a movement. owns a reminder of his burden.

despite the fact that this will be a very republican year, we're going to see a very few more weird things. betweenis the corollary cancer on this? he is a long-term legislative leader who represents the congress. he has the advantage of states.ng this in the it is a reminder. he has his own anchor that he has to deal with. this is a reminder of how an opponent could crystallize that kind of perception and wrap it around one particular person. >> we spent a lot of time talking about certain ghosts in the republican party.

what do you extrapolate from? >> you look at this bill and say you must be the democrat. must be the republican. no. i am the democrat in this crowd. let me just starts and put it away in terms of candor or any incumbent of that nature who pleases this. they lose either because they are old, because of a scandal or they lose because they essentially become out of touch. if that is what happened in his situation. the part -- the point that i was building from is what we consumed in the wall street journal poll. choice, 60% of the american publicly dutch public

will pull away that would give every single members of congress out. if their rent that opportunity and it there were an independent on the ballot, you would summer get in the neighborhood of about one in four saying independent. essentially, the american public is looking for a way to be able to say i want to get rid of these guys. i do not think they brought recent us. this was just the easy point that was there. mcconnell has never been loved and missed -- in kentucky's only does have that kind of personal esteem. we are going to pull you. we can have the first audience response question. would you describe america's

military and economic future? our best days are behind us, still to come, or the jury is out? i wanted to talk about one of the most basic questions. is the country on the right track or wrong track? historichat could be a crossing point in 2004 2004. we became a wrong track nation. say the country is on the wrong track. it stayed that way ever sent us. a pretty wide margin. you first.o are we basically a wrong track nation? how would you explain this? hashe great recession reshaped our attitude to the point where are no longer convinced america is the leading power in the world. we are no longer convinced we will have a better future.

that is a big deal. we had "right direction" go up after 9/11. we saw it when we captured saddam hussein, the killing of osama bin laden. those are transitory. we are a long way away from feeling good economically. this long time of "wrong track" will continue. it will take a sustained economic recovery to get people back on track. or, some terrible episode that triggers the american pride reaction. failing that we are quite a long , away away from having a strong enough economic recovery that gets this country feeling good again. >> these numbers about the next generation being worse off than ourselves, that is a real scar

and a change from the core belief of the american public, generally. >> for 13 generations, we have handed the baton for it and believed that the next generation would be better off. for the first time in our history, we believe that the next generation is worse off. the plurality is about 20 points, in that neighborhood. the second thing is, we asked a question that goes back to 1995. looking a generation ahead, economically, which country around the world will be the best off? we had the united states, china, japan. at that stage of the game, 54% of the american public said that the united states would be best off and 3% said china. the year or so

ago, 40 % said china. that reflects his point which is economically and psychologically, we see tougher times ahead, rather than blue skies. >> you can see the results of the poll. they are quite interesting. only 16% think that our best i days are behind us. a lot of ambivalence. >> the forward-looking earnings statement on behalf of the audience. >> the jury is still out. let's talk a little bit about november. we have seen some interesting elections over the last decade where big changes have come to washington that washed whole bunch of people out of the house in the senate to bring an air -- bring in a bunch of new people. do we see anything like that?

>> it is not a classic wave. have a most always and credibly clear signals. we don't have those signals. what we do have a strong republican year. they are going to pick up seats in the house and senate. kind of 1994 year, those numbers, i don't see those numbers. they are too unhappy with everybody. i tell people the secret strategy for the republicans in the senate was to lose every election in 2008. the secret strategy for the democrats in 2016 is that they lost every senate seat in 2010. people have not talked about it. holding the senate will be difficult for republicans in a presidential year. >> before i get to you, peter, let's go to the next response question.

the federal government is a force for good, a force for bad, or a force that defies all of the above. these questions are probably not to your standards. lines, no matter what happens, will anything be markedly different next year, when these people, whoever they are, come into congress. will we be looking at something similar to what we have now? >> i think it will be depressing in terms of how we come out of this election. it will not be uplifting. it will not galvanize us in a positive way. election night will be a one-story election. can the republicans return the senate to their majority? seatspublicans have seven

they have aimed at, already already -- all red states where democrats are retiring or the incumbents are under challenge, if republicans do well there, they are in good shape. you have blue states where democrats are defending and are in tough races. the republicans have a lot of opportunities. one thing that maybe interesting is mississippi. if thad cochran loses, it is a key party victory. -- tea party victory. that victory in 2010 and 2012 turned into general losses in the general election. that could happen again. >> let's talk about a guy who has not come up, so far. barack obama. not great numbers at the moment. last two years look like for him? >> i think the president is, in

so many ways, not in the picture. i do not think he is particularly if sexual -- particularly effectual. his numbers are low with the american public. this happens with incumbents. we had benghazi, the v.a. scandal. the prisoner exchange, the irs lost two years of e-mails. story after story that make it difficult for him to talk about anything else. when republicans pick up seats in the house or control the senate, the lack of clout he has will be very exposed. failing a dramatic military intervention or some episode, he is in a difficult position. having said that, you can never underestimate the power of the american presidency. at the end of the term, there tends to be a little bit of a

lift and people try to put him in a historic perspective. i think failing some huge episode, the force of his presidency has dissipated. it is kind of gone. >> two points i would have to make. i would love to be a democrat and be a huge cheerleader. reality strikes in this case. the worst part for the president is the events are controlling him. rather than him control in the -- him controlling the events. we have gone through five months of the year. you talk about all of the things that bill mentioned and you add in the ukraine, iraq, and everything that is happening. every event has controlled him rather than him controlling the event. we have been doing something over a long time, which is looking at how people feel about

him personally and professionally in terms of his job performance. when he entered his second term, he had the wind at his back. way more people were thinking that -- they were applauding his personal and professional rating. at this stage of the game, it has turned around. on a personal basis, he no longer has the same strength that he had. where people say that they love him and respect him. at this stage of the game, the president has to reestablish himself. it leads to the other thing. you have hillary clinton out there. that puts a whole new story and makes it harder for the president. >> i want to play a game. god created the world in six days and you will create the ideal democratic and republican candidates in five minutes and 30 seconds.

both of you are sort of mind readers. in this case, we will be political gods. bill, you have a mound of clay. you can create the ideal candidate for 2016 on the republican side. i'm not talking about a name. i want to to formulate what the person looks like. >> i want to be bound by reality. the democrats carried 18 states for 24 years in a row. in a 100 yard dash, you are at the 80 yard line. those states are in the northeast and far west. number one, i would love to have someone from one of the states. you need to disrupt the map. i desperately would like -- and we have, by the way, a lot of great u.s. senators -- not from

-- ideally i would love to have someone not from washington, d.c. i would love to have a governor and have them talk about what they have accomplished in their state versus the dysfunction in washington. the third thing is, president obama said that he would break the red-blue division. we will work across party lines and get the was done. that is not a promise that was cap and it is not what happened. people are tired. they cannot imagine why we keep fighting when the country is in trouble. my ideal candidate would try to find a way to tap into that sentiment and demonstrate some track record and the capacity to work across the aisle to get things done. or fieryrist type anti-crony capitalism populist? >> when ralph nader has become

good friends with grover norquist and he is writing a book about the left-right continuum against corporate power, that is of consequence. understand part of the basis with cantor was the bailout vote. we need to understand the power that has. here's the other thing with the republican party, every primary -- there is a woman who tracks every single political ad -- every single ad. people running for city council anti-obamacare spots in the republican primary. you have to demonstrate that you are going to stop the obama agenda. but at some point, you have to

govern. that is what people are looking for. >> you have two minutes to create the ideal democratic candidate. >> i would like someone with the experience of hillary clinton. the charisma of bill clinton. the oratory skills of barack obama. and, most importantly, an economic program that shows the potential for growth and a sense that you can work with business and across into the democratic lines. the point that bill made is the most important one. the democrats have carried a slew of states for the last 24 years, about 90% of what is needed. any democrat has to be able to continue to do exceptionally well with minorities, young people, and women. democrats have a major advantage. until the republican party finds

a way to reach those voters, either through immigration or some element of the choice issue, they have to be able to break through. it cannot be the old republican party. it gives the democrats too much of them advantage. >> does this person have a dollop of elizabeth warren in them? >> i would say a very small dollop. from my point of view, the thing that you have to understand about elizabeth warren is what bill was just saying -- there is very little confidence in the business community. all of those elements. the public is looking for a way to balance that. that is the thing that is working for elizabeth warren. >> name a state that will go red in 2016?

>> iowa. i think iowa. >> iowa. what will be a state that will go blue? it does not have to be 2016, that will surprise people. >> georgia. >> georgia. before texas? >> texas will be reliably blue. it will take another generation. >> georgia, sooner than that? >> yes. >> questions from the audience? we will start over here. >> does the inability of the current two-party system to effectively compromise create an opening for the introduction of a third party? >> i mean, bill and i have been on a jag together. the american public is so

unhappy. give them some alternative, and they will go for it. i honestly believe that, if there was space on the ballot that said -- for the voters, call it a "broom coalition," i want them all out, if you had that, i think people would punch it. the potentiality is there. i do not have the name or the way that it comes together. i think there is a lot more right andss with the left in some areas than we think as we work with individual issues. >> we have one more question. ipads.ur >> are we publishing this? >> publishing the responses? we are tweeting them. when it comes to the recovery,

the federal government did what? bill third-party. peter's ideal candidate. that sounded exceptional. there are not ideal ceo's. these are real people with pluses and minuses. an independent party needs the democrats to nominate someone to the left of hillary clinton. they need to nominate someone well to the right of the last two nominees. if that happened, i believe there is room in the middle. the barrier that used to be money, the internet has replaced that barrier. what there has not been is a candidate. we were saying in 2011, look at these numbers bid someone should

run in the middle of this. and ais senator clinton mainstream conservative like mccain or romney, each party sucks the middle out. right now i know if you ask people if you would vote for republican, democrat, or an independent third-party, the answer of the country right now is a third, a third, and a third. you can look at the margins. but it is a country that would love to have an option. going back, ross perot, if she party, that created would have had fundamental impact because it would have forestalled the republicans winning the congress. we inherited the perot votes. >> i wonder how that jibes with what would happen if we asked 1000 americans.

i wonder if that would be similar to what came out of this room. the other way america works is, they are the anchor for the party. the democrat party drifts and the people pulled them back. the republican party drifts, and people pull them back. there is a governing instinct in this country that is pretty powerful. >> anybody else? another question from the ipad. great. >> it is asking its own questions. what are the chances that we have a woman president in the next election? that is a question for both of you. >> well, there is only one answer, hillary clinton.

can hillary clinton when? of course she can. she starts off with a tremendous advantage. the last person who had as big of an advantage in the election year was ed muskie. it did not turn out as well for him. she it comes down to is will have a tremendous advantage with youngerters, voters, and she will have an advantage with minority voters. all three key to the core of the democratic already. the one question we will be looking at is, people seeing her as competent. it goes back to the barack obama quote rate is she likable

enough? she starts out in a likable position. it will be interesting to see those numbers. that is the one i will be watching in this campaign. >> the next question is for both of you. can we get the air conditioning turned down in here? it is freezing. [laughter] is that the consensus? is it cold? should we turn it down? we will start a small fire in the back. >> is there a fortune 100 ceo -- this must be somebody tried to get a little bit of free polling advice -- who has the fortitude and capabilities to run for the presidential office? >> no. [laughter] i have a funny story. i have been doing john mccain's

campaign since 1992. i love the guy. we had a high-level woman surrogate. she said sara palin would never be elected. the point is that what ceo's do and what you do to govern are massively different. it is very hard to be a candidate. the average ceo, despite their extraordinary gifts, are not good at the give and take that politics requires and negotiating with equals. >> eisenhower? in this way, he was an unusual general. he spent all of world war ii being a negotiator to get something done.

when he did d-day and said the credit goes to the troops, he wrote that if i fail, i take all the responsibility. that is a powerful story that few people get. >> i have another one from the ipad. do you have a perspective on term limits? >> yeah. i do. terrible idea. i will tell you why. the theory is, that gives us turnover and that will help. the fact of the matter is, you would not do it in business. if you have a good leader, you want the good leader to stay in and if you have a bad leader, you want to be able to get them out. all it does is hand to the professional lobbyists all the power in washington and it would be a terrible idea. >> i agree. half of the congress was elected during the obama era. there is no institutional memory. i did the tracking for speaker

gingrich and i can tell you what happens during a government shutdown. i can tell you what happens. there were very few people left in the house republican caucus and had term limits been done, it would have given more power to the unelected. it has not worked the way people hoped or desired. >> i have a question. business has felt shut out of washington over the last several years and alienated at various times. vilified by washington. does that change in the midterm elections? does the sentiment and engagement of business change? is that shifting? will we see more of the same? >> i would say that the biggest problem is confidence. at this stage of the game, and we measured it recently, it for big corporations it was in the neighborhood of 17% or 18%.

i think the good news is the news media was about 14%. when it comes to financial institutions, it is down in single digits. the idea that business is not listened to, the american public would say that business is not listening to us. there is a lot of repairing to do on both sides. >> any thoughts on that? >> that is a good answer. >> please join me in thanking our panel. [applause] >> we will have more from the cfo conference in a moment. tomorrow, we will continue the conversation about politics during the midterm election year with the chair of the democratic national committee. she talks about her predictions for the midterm elections. race is not going to be a referendum on the president.

ast happens in the midterm, much as the republicans would like to make it about barack obama, this race is going to be about local issues, about issues important to each congressional district in each senate race. the question for voters is going to be, does the candidate have their finger on the pulse of what i care about? the republicans have their fingers on is right-wing tea party expansion. >> politics and the midterm elections tomorrow on "newsmakers." back now to the wall street journal cfo conference and a conversation with the former nsa deputy director on cybersecurity for better defense and transparency. this is 30 minutes. [applause]

>> i appreciate your willingness to open up on these issues. what danger do you worry about most in cyberspace? >> if you have been reading the papers and talking to colleagues, i would say four things about cyberspace that are perhaps not well understood by the public. therefore, we still have some surprises that have creeped up on us. the first thing i would say is cyberspace is not this massive technology that vexes us. it is often considered as of technology we need to build up. it is a mix of technology,

people, and critical process. it is a most impossible to tease one out from the other. you cannot delegate this to the i.t. shop and say to fix it. the other thing that is surprising is everything is connected to everything. convergence is the reality of that space. for those who think they have some firewall or protection that will hold them harmless, their hearts are generally broken. there are two kinds of people. those that know they have been hacked and those that don't know they have been. is we arereality storing [indiscernible] it was once a place where there were communications racing back and forth that reflected or spoke of things of value that lived outside the space. resources ore share secrets held outside. it was coordinating and largely under the influence of people saying at this moment i choose to take a risk. i will push the secret from

place a to place b or exchange a confidence in the system. now these things are stored in that space 24 hours a day. a couple of weeks ago, i was about to travel and go through my standard routines. i said to my children, i'm going to the bank and to get some money. they said why. i said that is where money is. they said dad, money is on the internet. they are right. many of us have not glommed onto that fact. here is the fourth reality. it is not possible to secure this space, and we should give up on the goal of securing the space. but it is possible to defend the space. why is it not possible to secure the space? the things people do in the space, the technology, and the fact that you want to connect this to transactions, people who generate revenue for your companies or entities that you want to do business with,

the fact you are connecting with them means you are taking risk by design. the goal of trying to make this enduringly secure, we need to give up on that. we need to presume these things are deficient by design and defend them accordingly. it is possible but requires a fundamentally different approach to cyberspace. i worry most about the fact people are waiting for some future problem. there's a lot of description -- discussion about a cyber pearl harbor. that misses the fact the problem is already with us. what we are suffering at this moment is this insidious sapping of our strength whether through the theft of intellectual property or the confidence these systems will be resilient against a threat in the future, they will not be because we have not made the necessary investments at this moment in time. any number of companies have suffered the loss of intellectual property and think they can weather that because

they will out-innovate adversaries. i think that is less true than 30 years ago. there are worthy adversaries in the world in the competitive sense who not only have our intellectual property but can innovate. with the best of us this is insidious. that is what i worry about the most. that is less the problem. if your wealth and treasure is stored in cyberspace on a network, it is going to be interesting and lucrative to a potential adversary. judge said to the willie sutton, why do you rob banks?