articlereet -- that said about your j- doug usher, what you think about that? it is true, and is becoming a little more high 538 areas sites like shining a light on the profession. there are cases where things go wrong, and that was the case in the eric cantor case if you months ago. host: kellyanne conway, what would you add to that? i agree, and i would hope there is more great transparency .ndustrywide and scrutiny frankly, there is not enough it's -- of similar scrutiny and transparency with many of these

media polls that would apply right, left, and center in the mainstream media. in these academic polls -- sometimes little-known colleges and universities have a poll talking about the iowa caucuses 1000 miles away two years before the caucuses and people trust the polls sight unseen because they are not done bipartisan pollsters. hope, wouldket, i kick any of us out if we were not good at our craft, but there is not any accountability. wrongjor networks got it in two cycles. yet they are still standing. they still invest tons of money in their own polling. part of the lack of accountability there is because people look at them as news sources, so they are unbiased and objective, but all the news sources have a horse in the race. the major papers will endorse a candidate. the networks.

the cable stations certainly show a preference for one party or another in some of the coverage. i'm for transparency and accountability, but industrywide. usher, for the consumer, how should the consumer approach it, what should they way in terms of what they trust or not? guest: is buyer the where, and in this case it is products you do not money for, public polling. i think we see more folks, voters, consumers are taking a look at the polls, and more newspapers are reporting on it because as they cut staff it is easier to report on polls and hard campaign reporting. the posterlook at themselves. it is hard to know the track record, but as you learn the profession and start to follow these things, you get a sense of who is good and who is not good.

second, and more important, you take a look at the sample size, the methodology, the approach honest, yound to be cannot trust any single poll. every poll has errors. that is the nature of the beast, if you will. to be able to look at multiple polls and sift through the different polls is really the smartest thing to do in the consumer political polling. host: the numbers are on the screen if you want to call and ask our guests about polling in the science of polling. kellyanne conway, what would you advise people who consume polls? what are you looking for? i camecaller: -- guest: today because i'm a huge fan of online the public to learn more about polling. you did fine people selecting the polls that agree with her point of view already and touting those polls and if there is a poll that does not agree with that point of view, all polls are wrong and cell phones are a problem.

if i could contribute one major thing today to the science of polling, pedro, it would be weighting inmuch the science of polling. ands talking to a principal they said you're the only firm that will not do weighting and it is a remarkable statement. why is it a problem? we already know it is difficult to reach certain people -- younger people, people of color, urban voters, and higher income households sometimes do not want to talk to pollsters. so, if you're only getting -- let's say you get 12 people in that segment and you are weighting up to the 62 you need to be representative, that is terrible and i think his criminal in polling. i would actually urgent your viewers to start asking not just

about the methodology, cell phones, telephones, online, robo calling, but how much has the data becauseed the it is a cheap, easy way of mass-producing polls in quicktime, and it is why so many time and it isck why so many of these polls, particularly on the republican side are erroneous. usher, kellyanne conway talked about weighting, but maybe a layman's explanation. guest: you want your sample to of the entireive public and in a perfect world you get a sample of the population is obviously not the whole population. it is too expensive. you get a small, statistically valid example of the population and your plan, your effort is to get to be as representative as possible. if you know the electorate is latino, 52%18%

women, 54% women, down the line, you want the sample itself to look like that. in the end, even in your best efforts, those numbers will come in -- will not come in exactly right. -- waitlightly wait up or down. it is like putting siding on your house -- you've done all the work, but you need the final finish, and the question is whether you need aluminum siding to cover up your mistakes. i think kellyanne conway is right. i would say i disagree and never sayg weighting, but i would with limited parameters. at me clarifyest: the entirewith mountain -- margin of error.

if you do a nationwide poll of 1000 voters, the margin of error 3%.lus or minus it means that 19 out of 20 cases, had you asked the same poll, you would get the same 3.1 points in either direction in 19 out of 20 cases. there is that one out of 20 cases where it is not going to be correct, number one. number two, if you have that engineercentage martin -- margin of error, we will wait three in one or the other. wait, butnever avoiding over-waiting. i think some of the firms that are way too busy, have way too many clients at one time are anded to mass-produce polls

andhington journal the -- weight them. when you do polling, it is a way to look at the electorate in the case of consumers or corporations. people often ask, how can you tell what a population's opinion is if you only talk to 1000 300 million, and the answer -- -- 1000 out of 300 million, and the answer is it is a multiple. i use a metaphor of when you go to the doctor -- they take a sample of your blood. they do not take all of your blood. i think we're all confident with the way things work when they go to the hospital.

is not as critically scientific as it is with medicine, but that is a way for people to get their head around the idea that we take a sample of the population and use that to extrapolate. int: let's start with jerry oregon on our democrats line. you're on our guests. caller: thank you very much. i notice you folks never mention the fact that when we try to decide whether a poll is accurate or not, and who pays for it? don't you really believe that the most important thing for us to look at as consumers is who is paying for this? because it seems to me, just my observation, that nine out of 10 times, if it is a republican poll, the poll is going to come out very much in favor of

republicans, or if the democrats do it all, the same thing. -- do a poll, the same thing. i have noticed that a lot of isitical stuff coming out nate silver is being quoted as being this or that. would you make a comment on his remarkable record, particularly in the last election? ms. kellyanne conway, do you want to start? guest: sure. first of all, i do not think who paid for the poll is the most important thing to view. i think the science, the methodology is the most important thing to you because it is often behind a hidden screen, and you do not have access to it. if we connect up a shiny thing it is to peel back the screen a little bit. it is a -- is it important to know who paid for it? yes.

in a free-market system, if a pollster only produces results favorable to him -- his honor client, the free market will squeeze them out because it is impossible to always have a republican favorable poll or a democrat favorable poll. i do see them sometimes, and more and more, sir, those partisan polls, if they are outlier polls, meaning they seem out of whack with much of the they stand out as such and it seems like someone has a conclusion in search of evidence. it is that we want these people to winning, let's go find the evidence. i think posters have been called on that in the last couple of cycles, and we have had clients that do not like the results when the poll comes back and they get upset, but i tell them i am a pollster, not a plastic surgery -- i cannot guarantee what your nose will look like after the surgery. i perform the surgery, and you live with the result. at me say one last thing on that

polle greatest value of a is not to tell you whether you're going to win, but how to do it. it is really the strategic insight that you gather from a poll -- where your vulnerabilities, obstacles? ug and ithe work that do do will never see the light of day because people are hiring us for proprietary strategic information. i would argue that you should pay close attention when media outlets, who seem to have a horse in the race, whether they on the right or the left, they, withholding, and you saw that in 2012. there were where -- there were way too many people that knew mitt romney would win all of the electrical vaults, i say sarcastically, and he won one of the nine swing states. that was on the conclusion that we did not think obama was going to win, and we will find polls that show that.

quickly about nate silver -- i think the man is brilliant, and he has a tremendous amount to contribute to political polling and sports polling and he shows there are variables other than just the public impression or opinion they go into the dynamic. the most important thing that he shows, really, is that you cannot just presume trends from before will continue. that past is always prologue. you have to give people credit to tell you who they are, how they believe, how they might vote, and not presume that we are static and to know that we are more dynamic thinkers and doers then i think sometimes the data might suggest. host: mr. usher. guest: less the second question first -- i think the value that nate silver has wrought, and the development -- has brought and the development with "the new york times," is the power of

analytics, not just the polling, buttery thing you know about the region -- with the electorate looks like, other variables you can look at. it is true for us in the work we do for corporations. for corporate polling, when she'd not see as much about, but has a little bit of a political -- which you do not see as much about, it has a little bit of a well, theyand as have a daily grind of consumer work they are dealing with. polling helps to put together a strategy to get you from a to b . in terms of partisan polls, and i do not do partisan polling anymore -- i did it for a number partisan and now we do and nonpartisan work in addition to our corporate work. i think for the most time they do it -- for the most part they do a terrific job. problem is polls that are

released publicly tend to be the most optimistic. the issue is not that partisan posters only give results, it is that they only lose the results that are good for their client. that is the problem. >> let me hear from you --host: let's hear from jerry. thank you toer: c-span, it has been a while since i've been out of college and i used to be a good public talker. i had a question on the last presidential election and how much the polls influence the election. and it seems that the democrats took a lot of the electoral vote, especially on the east coast. republicanske the were getting the votes, but

there polls might not have been up to speed. pollsch influence did the play? host: mr. usher? guest: i will say for -- few things, jerry. there are times when the polls can drive a race. this is particularly true in primary elections. people will use polls not released publicly, navy to release publicly, but in some -- maybe two released publicly, but in some cases to clear the field or show their viability. it can affect the viability. it does not have been a presidential election often, but it happens in senate races, gubernatorial races, what have you. i would say i am not convinced that the polls affect the outcome in a presidential election because there are so many resources at play in so many different actors that i do not think any single poll or polling itself will do that much

to affect the outcome because there are so many information sources. i would say -- this made her something that we have heard already today -- that i do think that -- mirrors something that we have heard today -- i think some republicans or posters on the republican side lost their way at the end of the 2012 race, and it is essential to be completely honest about prospects, and we did the purple pole, so we heard polls from both sides. what i heard is that republicans were fully confident they would win, and hearing them say obama is pulling out of virginia, giving up three weeks before the that ind when i heard thought people lost their way and bought into groupthink. there are times when democrats do not do well and republicans do very well in polling, but 2012 is an example of where once i did their candidates wrong. host: we will hear from

kellyanne conway in a second. ms. conway, go ahead. guest: the only republican -- i was the only republican poster that said president obama would be reelected, not because i wanted to him, -- wanted him to be, by the way, but it is because what we saw. happens in the romney campaign in 2012 with respect to polling was a presumption of who the electorate was going to be in these major swing states, including ohio. all of this has been made public. the idea that african-americans were not going to turn out the same level in 2012 to reelect president obama as it into electricity to obama to the presidency was incredibly

presumptuous and it turned out to be wrong because it was based on this idea that well, the economy is not great, and no president has ever been reelected with the economy so poor, the unemployment rate so high, and it completely misses a whichblic opinion dynamic is that african-americans in ohio were going to support president obama a second time to maybe in connection to how they thought the economy was come but any number ofn to different factors. so my women, young people, independents -- groups he was able to rely on in 2008. the just is simple. bowlers should not presume the electorate -- that just -- jist is simple -- bowlers should not presume who the electorate is. if you're only using lists of past voters, you are not allowing for new voters.

you are not allowing for the fact that made people that have , they areble voters really mad, so they will stay home, or really upset with the performance of the republicans, so they will stay home, and analog are reliable because he or she is making a statement. that the to presume electorate knows a specific of an issue that is new to all of us -- if you support or oppose campaign finance reform, going back into the rack to try to fight isis -- maybe people do not know enough about that. it to presumption. state the fact, give the forrmation, and then ask their opinion pat i am not sure that all of this has been cured going into -- opinion. i'm not sure that all of this has been cured. i think these rosy assessments do not take into account all of the ways that voters look at ofas and viewing the power

incumbency, which was missed by the republican pollsters. the fact that you are there -- many americans say will give you a four-year extension unless they are given a reason not to. host: knoxville. he'll. -- bill. answersthat basically the question i was going to have. i aml say that ms. conway going to use that, list user, a election use -- loser. and gokes you stand up the wrong way -- how does a wave come together? we had a recent election. i am a democrat, the republicans had a wave and on election day and slept everybody -- swept everybody. how does the wave come together?

host: ms. conway, why don't you start? guest: it is a great question and i am sure doug has views on this. 2010 was a wave for republicans. 2014 does not look like a wave to me. the difference is as follows, if you can nationalize elections, so every candidate has to run their own campaign. everyone is really focused on some of the same issues -- the government is too intrusive, expensive. obamacare is really bad, i am worried about it. in 2006, for example, the democrats will very much able to -- after george w. bush was elected, they were able to see the issue is not national security and terrorism, it is

barak and afghanistan -- and q and afghanistan. .ou can build a wave waves are difficult. i do not see one in 2014 because all the key senate races that have honest polling really show everyone stuck at 45%, 46% on a good day. the question is what a shoe each of those races is going to push -- what issue in each of those races is going to push someone? everyone already knows what obamacare is. i think it is not a way. host: mr. usher? guest: i think there are three factors you need for there to be

a way of looking at the last 20 to 25 years. the first is that it needs to be a midterm election, which we have right now. the second is the party in power, the president's party needs to have serious challenges is opinion that is favorable for the other party will very much against the party in power. the third factor is more structural factors. in the house, there are real opportunities. in 1994 u.s. a lot of opportunities because you had a lot of folks, old southern democrats, not necessarily that old, but democrats from southern districts that had not voted publican and they were right for taking over. in 2006, you had the opposite -- folks in swing districts that had gone to republicans that were ripe for takeover for democrats in the wake of george

w. bush's late-term swoon. on the senate side this year, you have some opportunities and a lot of democrats up for election and if there is any way that will build. side, you not have that. you have republicans maximizing what they can get if you look at the underlined dynamics of the -- underlying dynamics of the individual seats -- they can gain a handful, there is not that much territory. i do not think you will see a wave on the house side. in terms of a wave, i think kellyanne conway is correct. if you watch the next couple of months, you will get an indication. you will see a -- not see another way, 50 secret santa on the republican side -- 50 seat advance on the republican side of. george. republican line.

i was a resident of pennsylvania and i have been in kentucky for 15 years. i saw on the news that the governor colbert in pennsylvania is losing by 25 points against a democrat contender, however, now, this governor said he is going to extend medicare now because he is losing so bad, and i was wondering if that will lack of popularity in pennsylvania? i am going to keep my eye on this poll and see if i can find anything out. also, the polling says that 51% of the women -- no, excuse me -- 51% favored the democrats, and 37% only favor republicans in the women voting. host: color, thank you.

mr. usher? guest: sure. first of all, george, you are in kentucky, you have a great way -- race to watch that. race, thereylvania is always a race or two on either side where the figure will be competitive early on and then becomes clear that it is not that competitive here i think in the -- competitive. i think in the case in pennsylvania, it does not look like a competitive race. on the other side committee look at ohio in the senate, democrat ed fitzgerald, this seems to be , hasong candidate early on had personal troubles, which make his race look much more problematic. often, you start, you feel an incumbent like the governor of pennsylvania should be strong, and you think in ohio, a swing state, a democrat should be strong, but you look at individual candidates, both come

out, and you realize it is a race that will not be that competitive. kellyanne conway, in pennsylvania, go ahead. guest: that is right. colbert is in battle, problems -- probably one of the most embattled republican governors. when you do something so close to an election that you have been reluctant to do before him, voters get skeptical, if not cynical because they believe you're trying to get votes, and in this case female votes. i also believe the governor has lost his advantage in contrast to the democrats, so he might depress republican turnout. he would need to explain why he changed his mind and decided to expand medicaid under what the obama administration is expecting for governors who have agreed to expand medicaid, and

their are more than a few republicans who have. they make this point. something doug said -- candidates and campaigns matter the most. wave or no wave, polls or no polls, you need quality candidates that connect with voters and do not have foot-in-mouth disease, and not just the absence of saying something controversial, but the ability to say something compelling. he mentioned ohio, the governors race. john kasich is going away with it. john kasich, scott walker, scott corbett, they were all elected and are in difficult -- different positions. campaigns matter. i wish i was as powerful and important as to both imposters are, but campaigns and candidates really matter. host: james from new jersey.

independent line. go ahead. about: i have a question governor christie hugging president obama after the hurricane. i was wondering if the polling showed that had any impact. i just spent a week in britain and there is a lot of talk about the scottish independence vote, and i was wondering if your guests could comment on the accuracy of the polling on the question of scottish independence. usher, usa either of those? you for some.take i will leave scottish independence to those that know more about it, but i will say to governor christie, at that moment he was doing what was needed for his state. the question is what effect did it have on the polling -- pulling for what? it was far ahead of any race he

had to worry about and it was an important moment for new jersey. i think it was the case where a politician, in this case an elected official, was doing what was expected of them, to do what they could what was the best for the people of the state. what that affect them in a presidential campaign? frankly i think there are other issues that will affect them that are more significant than hugging president obama, but in own peoplelping his and doing the job he was elected to do, i think it was both smart and it shows the truth -- that governor christie really wants help,deral government's and president obama was delivering it. it was two elected officials doing their job. , would yous. conway theypollsters finding that be asking the question -- would your opinion change because the

governor out the president? the on the way you would answer the question is how it affected president obama's reelection chances? it happened so close to election day, how does look when a leader goes to new jersey to help hurricane victims. the answer is usually it helps very much. part of what james from new jersey was asking was how did that affect mitt romney? people in the mitt romney campaign blamed governor christie for hugging the president and i thought that was incredibly unfair. i do not think that governor of new jersey getting the president of the united states to help after the hurricane is somehow why mitt romney lost eight of the nine swing states nowhere near new jersey. i think his question went to that. there is no question that we as americans expect our presidents and our governors, republican or

democrat, to be fully present and on the ground when a tragedy such as that strikes. i cannot imagine anyone with any type of common sense would accuse president obama craving for votes by going to help hurricane victims a couple of days before the election. i think it did help with those that were on the fence saying what they thought to see leadership, the kind of leadership they do not see right now in him, frankly, if you look at the polls. i thought governor christie was unfairly blamed by the romney campaign for the president gaining in some of those swing states. campaignsart of our series you're watching this week -- we're looking at the science of polling the two guests. conway,d from kellyanne a pollster and strategist join us from philadelphia, and doug usher, from purple strategies. columbia, missouri. republican line. hello, jeff.

caller: how are you doing today? host: fine, go ahead. i think what is really needed for our election is tv voting stations, like what we c-span, what we can learn more about the candidates for federal, state, and local -- one station for also a you can make intelligent decisions about our candidates, all run by c-span,rs, just like maybe even a little better, so that we can get quality candidates. i would like to hear your opinion on that. thank you. host: doug usher, when you are pulling someone, the level at which someone is informed, does that play in tune with you talk to? guest: i think it is important not just to speak to the most informed voters. people,broad range of

as are people that have come to the polls that have never voted before and might not know that much about the candidate. from a polling perspective, i think it is important to know what people know and understand what people do not know. most important is to use your polling, your public opinion research to develop a strategy that gets to 51% by combining those who know the most and those that are most intense and are your supporters in turning them out combine with those that might not know that much to give them the kind of information you need to help frame the questions you are asking when you go to the polls so the answer to the question will be your candidate. host: how do you choose your samples? guest: what we try to do in the purple pole is get a sample of likely voters based on a number of screening criteria, and

--pite kelly and --caller: kellyanne conway's victim, we do combination ofa past turnout and data, leaving a lot of room for flexibility as they gather the data. one thing i want to know about what the caller said -- i believe there is a lot of information out there. there is a nonpartisan information, a lot of websites. this is a time when there is more information than ever about the candidates. one problem that he is pointing to that is right is it is hard to know who is providing the most accurate information. there was a time when your newspaper would give the voting insert and you trusted one or two of your local newspapers and and get theen it up information. now when you search online for election information you're just as likely to get a sponsored parties find as you are to get an unbiased source of information.

there is a lot of information, there just aren't that great filters. we do much of the same. it's all like my company is very similar to dog and most and most -- doug pollsters. independent list brokers by people who do this as a business, keep collecting information about who is voting -- who is not not every it who is not. but not every state is created equal on that. we apply a number of screening questions where we make you, the respondent, comfortable to tell vote, will

vote, not sure. one thing i saw 2012 is that somebody is telling you nine months in florida election that they are not sure, they are being honest. front of an election that they are not sure, they are being honest. you don't just hang up the phone , you keep them on the line. keep on going with the screening questions. find out what they think about politics on a scale of one to 10. how interested are the on the issues? do not vote because

they do not have the time, may because they are not interested in the candidates on the issues, or because they do nothing there vote counts. give people a comfortable out so they can point at the system rather than that themselves. we were involved in a runoff election, and there was a runoff between two candidates, and our candidate came in second, but eventually won. most candidates will not pay for a full eight and we did, because we were only asking four questions. if we were asking greeting questions about a runoff in the middle of july where they are already think they voted in the original primary, than we are not doing the right people on the phone.

you need all of the screening questions. you cannot take the list, insert the name and start doing the paul. you have to respect people enough, and the dynamism of each them what they intend to do this election cycle. host: bob in lincoln, delaware. caller: good morning. ms. conway answered my question about the polling. that is what i was calling about. thank you very much. next caller, shirley in tallahassee, florida. caller: i'm delighted to see that you're having both sides of this. s perspective. playynamic that comes into with all of the different mediums that you can get information on polling and policy and different perspectives. the 2012e nonpartisan,

project out of rutgers, we have thatlose the gap project also creates a dynamic and a different medium of how it is you can be certain information as a relates to candidates, policies, and party politics. in our local elections, i recently did polling and phonebank calling for three of our local candidates about 75 on my list. 35.sponse of about that there is a sophisticated electorate that it seems that we are still somehow dynamicabout an older of the numbers and the data mining that we are not being given as the general public. we have a governor's race

against an incumbent governor who was called a tea party governor, and now we have a primary candidate who was a former republican governor. florida is third in the nation with the dynamic of demographic as the particulars where we a state, i hear about ohio, pennsylvania, we hear about kentucky, but not about florida. can i ask you a follow-up question? those are going to be dynamic races. i think surely brings up an important point, which is the there are lots of things that go into a race beyond the polling. isre is phone banking, there not reached to voters, there is

getting people to share on facebook, sure on social media. the early types of analytics that help you bring that forward. unfortunately what heads up instead ofand stan watching the game on the field, everyone is watching the scoreboard. and the problem with the scoreboard is that no one can agree what the score is. fans, baseballll fans, and match it if you had everyone play in the same stadium and you had four different scoreboards. cap do not look at the what is going on on the field. when people are doing, but what resources will are bringing to bear on mobilizing voters. what analytics they happen play -- have in line. play. guest: any smart campaign listening should grab s

hirley. voters are sometime skeptical but they are much more smart and than are sophisticated lot of folks in the political for. give them credit go to all, not to they become conscientious objector tears. they become upset with republicans, with president what she is tapping into his incredibly important goes to the heart of polling and other pieces of the industry that you have been covering this week on c-span. you have to credit the voter, the individual voter, for being much more savvy and sophistic gated. that does not mean they know every jonathan tittle of economic policy.

but it does mean that they are availing themselves of the multitude of information and they are applying that to each race individually. only a fool would ignore florida , after florida decided the presidential election by less , and hasvotes in 2000 been a bellwether state in many different ways since then. the more north you are in florida, you're really in the deep south, because you get so many folks who want to live in the northeast. place whereida is a the smartest political strategists make sure they understand the dynamics b. everyone is watching with peanut chews

what is going to happen there this year. it will be a fascinating race, and we are all watching. host: i want to get a response to twitter. jim asks how you are dealing america cutting records landline phones -- the cord on landline phones. guest: i will say that that is a serious issue, the idea of cutting cords, the idea of cell phones makes it extremely difficult to have high-quality polls. need to understand was there is a glory time for holes, when everyone in through

their landline and long distance calling not cheap. it was the late 80's, the late 90's, and into the mid-2000. hard to get a proper sample of voters, and that you need to reach them across medium . there just aren't the same availability of respondents by their landline as there used to be, it even when you factor in cell phones, the telephone is , voice interaction is going by the wayside for younger voters. i think it is making polling extremely difficult. host: d.c. the same shift? -- do you see the same shift? guest: no question. back indial 12 numbers the day, now you have to dial

40. people have their set, they screen calls, they do not pick up. i do think there is tremendous benefit to polls if properly done and scientifically sound. a major touchstone to what a representative sample of americans or folks in a certain county think and what they feel. i assure you that elected andials -- officials candidates are not just looking at those polls to say am i going to win, they are looking to get some information and some advice from their constituents, consumers, voters. they want to hear from you. your voice matters to them.

the fact is if you want to participate in democracy, and so the poll, take 10 minutes because someone is listening to your opinion and it matters. host: democratic line, go ahead. caller: i would like to know why the republicans claim that obama is not a very good leader. i would like to know why they would back a republican party that sabotages everything for of benefit of all mayor america, but they claim he was the problem. we have been talking about specific races, but what about holes that ask about president's credibility, or his job with the economy, are those polls

conducted, and in the same manner is it surely would -- julie with those races? guest: if you take a look at the incentive in terms of what the poll result of what people looking at, everyone looks of the national polls. congressl numbers of look at the polls of their electorate. if you're a house member that has a very republican electorate, you're not going to worry about whether president obama's numbers up or down. -- the opposite is true with someone who is a very democratic district to the nationals can give you a picture , president obama is in the 40's on approval, which is not great but not a disaster. the problem is when you look at it, it is tough for a consumer

of polling to look at the national polls and really understand what incentives are leaving democrats and republicans to act the way they are. rating is disapproval a disaster. i can understand the caller and other people who want to defend the president and blame republicans. always being is asked questions, and usually cannot finish a sentence without saying republicans eight times. his disapproval rating is creeping up, which is more important than the approval rating. right, left, center polls, his disapproval rating is for the consistent. it is a domestic economy, and

his foreign policy, it is all of that. i will end by saying this, forget about republicans are is democratic candidates who cannot get far him.gh away from there are senators who are campaigning who want him to move away or change his policies. you cannot just look at falls smiss -- you cannot just look at the polls and dismissed them because you do not agree, or they do not go with your opinion. host: before i let you go, es your own organizations, what polls do you trust? entrust -- and

generally trust the larger news organizations who have been doing it for a long time. but if i'm trying to figure out what the real number is on a specific question, i start by looking at as many different ways of looking at the question and look at as many questions as possible. today,ow, in the world we have five standards to look at -- high standards to look at. guest: i agree. the more polls you like that you can see how they are conduct did and not just on the horse race questions but on what americans say are the important issues. is motivating say their vote. not just who to vote, but why to bother at all. ofould caution the viewers

becoming too enamored of the so-called verbal polls. an increasing number of states heavily,icting them which means folks out there doing them on the cheap may have to p some penalties. the reason those are not as , it is different than getting opinions. for for our life people talking to live people. it allows the respondent to have a conversation which is the way they talk about public policy and consumers and politics in their lives. look at campaigns this week, we have been looking at polling. and doug conway,

usher, >> on the next "washington journal," tim lynch discusses what he sees as the increasing tarrization of police states.n the united then martin sullivan talks about corporate tax inversions, how benefit byan purchasing foreign businesses, rate.ughs corporate tax and we examine the state of the american worker. join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal," live at c-span.. eastern, on next, a conversation with ohio senator rob portman. that, a town hall meeting looking at the implications of

ferguson, events in missouri. and live at 7:00 a.m. your calls and comments on "washington journal." >> this labor day, on the c-span networks, on c-span at 5:30 an education department summit on bullying in schools. at 8:00, bill nye the science foundercreation mule ken ham debate evolution. on book tv, at 7:00 eastern, congressman james clyburn talks about his life from his youth in the jim crow south to his leadership position in the house of representatives. sylvia morris on her book, price of fame, about playwright, diplomat and congresswoman claire booth luce. 'at 10:00 p.m. michael lewis, boys, discusses the hidden world of high frequency stock trading. c-span 3's american history tv at 7:15p.m. eastern time,

american art i tacts looks at declassified documents related gulf of tonkin incident that led to the escalation of the vietnam war. at 8:00 p.m. president harding's lovelers.released the life of prize winning economist milton freed man. schedule atevision c-span.org, and let us know what you think about the programs watching. call us. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. tuesday, republican senator rob portman of ohio spoke to business leaders at the new england council's politics and eggs event in manchester, new hampshire, about the current the americans, work force, and the lack of

bipartisanship in congress. senator portman has been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2016. this is about an hour. this is a special time much year for us, our athletes have may to campus. our new class arrives on friday. and i was telling senator portman we are very blessed this year to have a class size 25 students than we had last year.

and so in this environment thing.a good [applause] the hillke your way up top, you will see a brand-new residence hall that we built, and it is a very unique building, because it is a living commons. we have 150 beds, but we also common space as we do bedroom space. classrooms, two there are gathering spaces, study lounges, recreational spaces, cooking areas. places for students to meet, to greet.d to so we are very, very blessed to was telling tom that when all is said and done lists andr wait students that have been put up in lounges and tripled, this year we have two empty beds on that's eithero really good planning or dumb

luck. happy.re very as many of you know, st. anselm and our new hampshire institute of politics and political library is a premiere forum and frequently the first step for those interested in our primary in new hampshire's tried and tested political process. with the 2016 election on the horizon, st. anselm college and the nhiop will once again take a leading role in hosting town conversations, nationally broadcast debates and gatherings this one, where new hampshire citizens, the media theour students can reap benefits of being first in the nation. we thank the new england council for your continued partnership with the institute of politics. england council remains the leading voice for the onion's business community capitol hill.

the council's tireless work of collaboration among regional businesses and government thought leaders future for newt england employers looking to hire graduates from campuses their offices, in their factories, their rooms.ories and board so on behalf of our students, staff, and the studied, who have worked and lived here for 125 welcome again to new hampshire's home for politics, st. anselm college. welcome, senator portman. [applause] >> good morning, and i too would like to thank our leader here at st. a's.

and his assistant. he only for the kind words had this morning, but also for posting this event at the institute. englandnow, the new council has had a fabulous with ourelationship president and neil and his team here at the institute. together on these politics and events other the years, and i'm very happy to be back here again today. the thank ourike politics based series sponsors, whose banners you see around the room. the list is on the table of the people who make this possible. are not only distinguished members of the new england trulyl, but they are great corporate neighbors here in newhampshire and england. and we want to thank them for their generosity. i introduce our guest this morning, let me just tell events forpcoming

those of you who often travel to washington. colleagues there. looking forward to seeing many ourou at our next event in capital conversation series, which is a huge success in washington. on september 30 we welcome massachusetts congressman mcgovern at a breakfast in our nation's capital. of course on october 9, we'll be to have so many of you who have been so supportive to join us fort our 2014 annual dinner, we have over 1500 neighbors from all six new england states. region'sis one of the most anticipated events and will be something that i think you will enjoy. tol, today, we're delighted welcome back a special guest from ohio, which probably will be the nba championship city maybe later next year, we'll

see. senator rob portman, as he this great state. senator portman may be a native of the buck eye state, but he no stranger to new england. having earned his undergraduate degree in anthropology from our own dartmouth college, a institution, which just happens to be also a member of the new england council. he school atattend law the university of michigan, and he established a very successful as an expert in trade law hisoth washington d.c. and native city of cincinnati. 19 # 9 he began his career had joining thece by first bush white house. senator had held several under the president george h.w. bush, including house council, director of the wows office of legislative affairs. years at the white house, the senator returned to in 1993 and did

a very special election to fill congressman who was thought very highly of. he went ontosful, represent the second congressional district with honor and distinction for some years. he resigned his seat in 2005 to join the second bush aministration, serving for year as the united states trade representative. and later as president george w. of the office of management of budget. 2010 the people of the great him tof ohio elected represent them in the united states senate. and since that time he's a reputation as a leader in a variety of important of a balanceds, federal budget, reform in our taxon's entitlement and systems. as a member of both the senate finance, senate budget committees, he played a key role of a senateopment republicans jobs for america plan, which was unveiled this past march.

this plan is meant to serve as a blueprint to create private growth and strengthen our economy. of reformsds a range and new policies to foster private sector job creation. highlight a few because i think they are really well thought out. strategy, regulatory reform to cut red tape, investments and that stem education to close the skills gap. expanded access to foreign markets. a very comprehensive tax reform that would enable business toes grow and keep the jobs here in the united states. the senator has been a vocal advocate for reforming our nation's social security, health entitlement programs and to help balance our federal budget. the new england council was host senator portman back in march during our annual d.c.g event in washington let me also say we are are truly delighted to welcome him to the area once again.

please join me in welcoming our very special guest here, the honorable senator rob portman. [applause] >> jim, thanks very much. for a good democrat to endorse a jobs -- me. a big deal for it's great to be back. i talked a little about the legislative agenda in march. it's great to be back. we'll talk a little more about that today and have some with you.nd eggs it's good to be at st. a's. thank you very much, dr. consalvo for having us. i found out this morning why i invited, about three months ago jane and i were in the mailen going through the and there was this big package from new hampshire. we got a daughter in school and sally is sending me

something, this is great. no, it was from st. a's, and it was ininvitation to come speak to you all. so i thought i'm going to be up brown at somet point, i'd love to do that. dr. consalvo for inviting me and he pointed to who is a freshman at fordham and said actually it was andrew who invited you. so i appreciate andrew's great toout to me it's be here. i want to thank the institute. i have been athat new hampshire stumper over the years, and i'm feeling like i'm here with a lot of phones who know me all too well, because ins with comcast was the guy that drove me around in for bob dole when i played the surrogate. and i remember him because i point slidingn down one of the exit ramps on getting inentually

the middle of traffic. but my best recollection was we were up somewhere in northern new hampshire doing debates.paign and bob dole couldn't come to this particular debate so he send me instead. and it was me and five candidates, none of whom you will remember, except maybe the the grizzly bear. remember him? going from alaska in around in a motor home. we had a fun time debating that night. presidentialst debate in a republican primary, with a bunch of folks who were that'sheir thing, and the wonderful thing about new hampshire. candidates come here and they to be authentic, because people from new hampshire can them.ight through and going to the coffee claches and doing these debates and town meetings is fantastic and gives us all an opportunity to it out tocs the way be. i was asked this morning the talk about what's happening legislatively in washington. a very short

speech. ( laughter ) not a whole lot is happening. and there's a reason that congress has a 10% approval rating. i gave a speech recently in to theati and said audience, 10%, that means basically just paid staff and members. and jane, who was in the audience at the time, as she is spoke up and said don't count on it. ( laughter ) so, look, i think instead of talking about what's happening in washington, i think it would be more productive to talk about what should be happening and what can happen. thenot too hopeful about future of our country, i think we're in trouble right now, both on the international stage, which we've seen over the last 24 hours in places like iraq, and libya and ukraine. but also trouble here at home. unless we change direction and come up with a new direction, i'm really worried that america

will continue to slip in our of ourhip and the people great country will continue to fall behind. so that's what i want to talk we can find that new direction and get back on our feet. watched thelly i news last night, which was probably a mistake, because good.was nothing fires burning literally around the world. seeing what's happened in ukraine in the last month is poignant for me. thes there during presidential election a few months ago, and at that time the outle ukraine were crying for american leadership saying we want your help, we want your have somee'd like to help to defend ourselves. we have not been forth coming and i think that we should step it up and be more aggressive helping them. certainly here in new hampshire with the tragic death of jim foley, the people of new againire have seen once the fact that evil does exist in andworld, and the brutality

tragic circumstances of his death remind us that this group, isis, truly is a national security threat to our country. our thoughts and prayers go out to the family of jim foley. think again it remind us of the fact that without american leadership, a vacuum is created. and into that vacuum, chaos and to ensue.ends we are reluctant leaders. america is the sole remaining superpower, and we don't always embrace that. but i think what we've seen inin, around the world, even the last 24 hours, is that america is not engaged, the peopleot only do of this country suffer, but we in have humanitarian crises places like northern iraq with iraqi kitchens and other minorities, as well as but alsond shia,

america's security is threatened. is a concern for us people.freedom living i know americans are weary of war, i am too, all of us are that we onlyow reluctantly accept our responsibility as the sole superpower, but the reality is that we are the one indispensable country. and if we're not out leading, don't expect others. i went around the world representing our country. and i had the opportunity to about how we should be knocking down barriers to trade, fighting corruption, promoting transparency, promoting free markets. in public, not always, but often in public and always private, my administrators thanksay to me, you know,

good news america is out there, theuse they're not europeans who are usually happy with regulated trade or protectionism. not the emerging economies, concerned about protecting their industries. was america talking about the need for us to knock down these barriers, which is ultimately to the well-being of the citizens all these countries. i think the same is true across the border, whether it's human rights or democracy building, or straitsit's keeping the of hormuz open or the south --na state thee got to be like sheriff, we can't do it alone. a posse of alice. and we don't have right now, without showing that leadership and instead leading from behind it's impossible for othergrow that group of

countries who can work with us to be able to solve some of the real problems we face around the world. america's role in the world can only be strong if we're strong home, and that's my only concern. and i believe we're in deep trouble here at home. again i'm hopeful about the future, but i look at what's happened over the last several i they wow, is this the new formal? be.an't we're know living in the weakest economic recovery since the great depression. look at the a.d.p. growth, the jobs numbers, people improvement here and there, but the reality is that this is a remarkably flat economy. both issues about 1%, last year about 2%. saying national just the way it's going to be. way, becausehat that doesn't enable us to see the upwar mobility and tub we've

been used to. with this weak economy, the american dream is really in trouble. jim mentioned the jobs for i'll talk about it in a second, because i do think it has some of the to get us to be able back on our feet, here it is. here is to take all of our institutions of our from faxes to energy, certainly.are, trade our ability to be able to ampete goblely by having weather education system and the need for us to be able to have that make sense for small businesses. to meer of you talked earlier about the businesses and the regular willer to environment. all these things america is behind on because we're not addressing the issues. some of my friends tell me when this, including in days a debatee

with a conservative republican friend of mine, rob, you talk about washington doing more. washington should be doing less. and here in the live free or die some of yougine agree with that. unless washington does it better. but i would disagree. i think we're at a moment in our history where washington ought createoing more to freedom, to change these fundamental economic systems for the't allow prosperity and the treatment of becometem that we've accustomed to over the years. in theson we're living best economic recovery is that forward andstepped made the kind of changes that are necessary to unleash the entrepreneurial power of so the parties at d.c.,ck that we see in does have real consequences. we're missing the ton to engage on these issues and therefore to to tell people to get back on their feet.

the american dream is at risk, and many people in this room understand that because you've experienced it. and you don't see it today. in a small business family, when i was a kid my dad left a job as a salesman where had a commission and he had health care, had a little retirement plan, and he gave it all up to be able to star his own business. and we started off with five people, my mom was the bookkeeper. and lost money the first few years, which was a little awkward since he had borrowed money from my mom's uncle to start the business. because he couldn't get a loan bank.he does that sound familiar? and over the years, he found his footing and he ended up, retired, my brother took over the business with about 300 people working there. i worked there. guys i've of the known my whole life to turned a career,heir whole

technicians, mechanics, will with $4 or $5,000 in the retirement man. plan. i worry about it because of the fact that washington is in gridlock. i also worry about it because the american spirit is in trouble. most troubling poll i've seen all summer was not about a amate race ashes thol i following some of those closely as you can imagine. the americanout dream. was nbc "wall street journal" al poll, so you may have seen it. it showed that 76% of americans do not believe the next generation will be better off our generation. 76%. numbers. record we've never seen anything like this. also, another poll, cnn poll young people what do you

think, are new better off than your folks? and again, over 60% said no. be almost ams to resignation right now in america. just gotta live with this, it's the new normal. it's not. it doesn't have to be that way. it's no wonder that people feel that way, because take home pay average,4,000 bucks on poverty rates are up, health care costs and other costs for up, creatingare that middle class squeeze that many of you feel, many of you hear about. recovery were as trng as the average of the 10 recoveries just asrld war ii, strong as the average, per cap that income would be $6,000 higher, and almost 14 million more than americans would be today. so that shows you what we've tried hasn't worked. to get busy on an aggressive reform agenda. yesterday i was talking to a and i told heris

some stories of people i know in ohio who have lost their jobs able to find something that is comparable. some of them are working. they said, rob, my friends are consultants, they're self employed. they haven't been able to get back on their feet and find a job, so they've become consultants, meaning they're self employed. heads nodding this morning. if you look at the labor participation rate, which means the percentage of people working in america, we're at record lows men. goes back to the 1940's. inaw something recently connection with the situation in missouri. and it was a discussion about the african-american community andafrican-american men, the point was made that the labor participation rate amonth african-american males

particularly younger men was remarkably low. again, probably historic levels going back to the 1940's. this can't be the new normal, are.not who we this little proposal, and he did a gray job with it, is important that not only is there an agenda here to win elections, but there's a blueprint. we've got the break through this

gridlock. and the only way you do that is to get the president to the discussing some of these positions. tank -- two to tango. so it also needs the -- has been doneis before. ronald reagan never had a majority in the united states congress. yet in 1986, working with tip o'neil and bill bradley and together the tax reform that in my view was critical to the economic growth next couplethe decades. in 1983, again working with tip o'neil, dan rostenkowski put in place social security reforms. but those programs are currentnable in their

form. so this is not something that we haven't done before. bill clinton and newt gingrich like eachticularly other, yet they were able to work together to put forward not welfare reform but also a balanced budget, also tax reform. whate give you examples of i think could be done. is, improve the pipeline to us energyake independent in north america and to create the biggest public project inure america. but also all the above. meaning looking at all those sources of energy including efficiency. second, i think we could see immediate expansion of exports and people talk about the fact that the president is out there negotiate trade agreements, but the fact is we successful, in my view, without the ability to be able to take these agreements to

congress for an up or down vote. every president in the united f.d.r. has asked for that ability, it's crucial finish the or, andific partnership yet this president although he called for it in the state of allowed harry reid to block it. reid basically said over my dead body. presidential leadership it's not going to happen. but the, with a republican happen. it would we would get busy getting american work dispers farmers and service providers back in business of expanding our exports and creating jobs. since the last time we had trade promotion authority several years ago, there have over 300 trade agreements negotiated. we're not a party to any of them, because of the lack of this ability to negotiate agreements. that could happen, it could days. in the first 100 tax reform. today we heard news about burger company thatest

may be inverting, these are that choose to american with companies usually much smaller with them overseas domiciled 'those foreign countries in order to lower their taxes. lastpany in ohio did it year, it's a manufacturer, they irelandith a company in and are now sending about, are saving about 1 of 0 million a year in taxes. we need to stop that. to reform stop it is our outdated and inefficient tax code. everyone agrees. we simply say we're going to go after this on a case by case band aid in place to punish companies, what will happen, we'll continue to see investment jobs going oversays u.s. companies will become targets of foreign take yoafers. i'm surer drinker, there aren't any others in here this morning, it's kind of early try to find american

beer. it's the largest is sam adams. a new england beer company. 1.4% market share. owned.t are all foreign gotengland may say they've 1.5. but here's the point. this is happening as we sit here this morning. companies and board rooms all across this nation are themning to people come to and pitch them the fact that think should become foreign because the u.s. government is thing to the right create the environment for success. and getting back to our discussion earlier of what should be doing, washington should be lowering the tax rate, which is the now among the world all the developed countries, and toes prosperness and flourish here in america. it.president talks about but shows no leadership to get it done. a republican

majority, again, the responsibility goes both ways. ensure that we do put in place immediately the kind of res for to keep businesses here keep jobs here. and who is the beneficiary of that? it's the workers. the studies show the same thing. over 70% of benefit of lowering workers.ate will go to this is all about these good middle class jobs that awful us want to create. do these things, open up our ability to negotiate taxe agreements, fix our code, so it works, come up with a way to deal with energy so we can take advantage of the great can allity we have, we deal with health care costs, regulations, reform our -- if we don't do these things, america will continue to fall hype. if we do do them i believe our best days are ahead of us. that's putting a wet

blanket over the entire economy record deficit. when i'm in new hampshire i hear about this a lot. frankly, more so than some other states. because you guys get it. can you not continue to spend means and expect to succeed. you can't do it in your family budget, you can't do it in your business. so part of this economic plan is, what kind of a budget, not ourng had one is one of problems. someone famously said this is the biggest economic crisis we most predictable one. if we don't deal with this issue financialve another crisis. record levels of debt mean that in this administration we're debt beingee more added to the nation's balance president'sll the and history of this country combined. to the point that for young from st. a'sting

some of whom i met this monk, $40,000 pering at graduate in terms of the national debt, on top the roughly $29,000 for the average in terms of toon debt. of the fact that obamacare doesn't work for them because much of the increased from younger people. on top of the fact that they're going to have a they're having a tough time finding a job. these are things young people should be concerned about and all the should the. in order to keep that american promise, to be able to make that american dream real we have to deal with the debt and deficit. president kennedy once said famously of rice in the tide lifts all boats. i think he is right. the economic growth, things we talked about, the importance of having progress policies and changing them is necessary to not -- we have to deal with this enduring issue in america.

the war on poverty started in 1968 yet it is at higher levels. we do have an issue of the lack of upward of -- mobility. people not able to get back on their feet and washington plays a role here. sometimes a negative role. if you combine losing the subsidy and increasing the taxes, sometimes it is too hard to get to that first rung of the economic ladder. we should provide people the kind of safety net programs they need and hand up but not a handout and not this tendency we see around the country. in looking at some of the causes of poverty, we wrote legislation that deals with the issue of recidivism.

people who get into this revolving door of prison, recidivism rates are incredibly high. 50% of people in prison are back in five years. we all pay for it. in terms of those people's lives. not being a will to turn them around them a to take care of their family and become productive citizens. the second chance stuff works and it is one of the causes of poverty. those approaching drug addiction through prevention and recovery. we talk about education reform earlier. i want to end with a story and it is a hopeful story.

the guy am at in cleveland, i was at a discussion with people who are taking advantage of this federal second chance act. you have to come up with a match locally and engage the community. you have to meet certain criteria including testing. melvin is about my age. he is in and out of prison a lot. he is a recovering addict. he said rich mike get out of prison i get in trouble and i go back. there is this program you can join and it helps you get the job skills you need. he has the ability to come up with his daughter. he has the dignity and self-respect that comes with work and taking care of his family. we are a country that believes the best days are ahead. i certainly believe that. i think we can find this new direction.

i think we must. and i think we will. and i thank you for what you do everyday to make your communities better and make new hampshire a better place to live and to work and to help restore the american dream. thank you for having me this morning. i look forward to your questions. [applause] >> we have a couple of questions. identify yourself or the company you are with.

>> [inaudible] generates $1 billion in revenue. we are reducing the debt that we are worried about. the majority of senators support it and it makes sense. >> i do support it with reforms and among those are to make it more transparent and ensure that it is not interfering in the marketplace. i had an opportunity to see what other countries do and in terms of financing exports, everyone is aggressive about it.

with the exception of the u.k.. china is very aggressive on financing. it has made money so it is not something that taxpayers can look at and say this is costing us. my view is simple. we allowed the market to work. that is not the reality. we would be shooting ourselves in the foot if we were to say in the situation where economy -- the economy is in trouble, where these countries are taking market share, i do think more transparency is important and putting in place the measures to make sure it is not competing is

important. i do support it and we have made a big mistake if we shoot ourselves in the foot and not be will to expand our exports. if you go along with opening up more markets worth, only 10% has a trade agreement. and that 10% we sent 47% of the goods and services made by american workers produced by american farmers and american service providers so that is what we have to do in addition to being sure that we're trying to level the playing field in terms of financing. when we do that, what happens is we have the ability to compete and when we do that we do just fine.

but do better if we create that environment for success. the issues we talked about in terms of education and job training. even using energy more efficiently. there are some things that i am really excited about in terms of trade. if we can get this done because then we can expand or exports. >> nice to see you. [inaudible] >> what you would do in terms of the dysfunction in congress.

>> [inaudible] it was not so long ago we were able to figure out how to talk and do it in a bipartisan way. it takes presidential leadership. takes the legislative branch to work with the president.

reagan said we will do the righ t thing. we will move forward with this. that was 1983. people remember ronald reagan as being a popular president. he made some tough decisions. social security reform. 1984, ronald reagan went on to win every single state but one. today that might be more challenging but i do not think we should throw in the towel. we should insist on principled leadership i am talking about establishing what the objective is. the object is to have a credit will tax code. instead of saying these people

are economic deserters and saying we're going to take away this tax benefit or that which will make them even less competitive and more right to be a target of a foreign takeover let's fix the problem. every single one have lowered the rate. i don't think we need a huge adjustment to our system. what we need is leadership and for people to insist on it. i think republicans and democrats need to do a better job of talking about the need for us to find common ground and why that is important.

why it matters in the daily lives of citizens. >> how are you? i share a lot of the concerns you mentioned. the direction of the country and where we are headed create and where we can change that direction. i agree that a lot of it is the dysfunction that is happening right now and i'm wondering if you could share with us what i think is more than a passing interest in some of the senate races that are happening and how you see those shaping up and how that might change and reframe what is happening in washington. >> good question. i mentioned earlier the poll that i was most interested in was the one that people in the next generation do not think will be better than the current one. it means people are feeling that anxiety and uncertainty. i am looking at other polls. i got my [inaudible]

from politico. they were talking about the polling around the country. it is too close to call. there are states that are literally when you look at the rcp average, probably four or five of them where it is one point seven rating the republican and democrat. in the end it would be surprising if republicans did not prevail because there are seven states where there is a democrat representing not just a red state but a romney red state. six of those, president obama got less than 42%. there is only one blue state and that his main and that is susan collins and she's doing great. i would think that in the end we will be ok. i am the national finance chair for the majority efforts. it does change the dynamic.

i just believe that the current dynamic is flawed and the president is not likely to come to the table. i look in 1994 and what happened when bill clinton again without any great love for newt gingrich was able to come to the table and say let's see what we can do together. it took all sides of -- being willing to do that. if i were president obama and i was looking at my term in office and thinking what is the legacy here, are we going to be happy with 1%, 2% growth, are we happy with the uncertainty and anxiety that people feel, i would think he would want to do some things and focus like a laser on jobs and growth in getting us back on track in terms of dealing with the debt and deficit. the legacy will be in part having added more debt to the balance sheet than all the presidents combined. it will not be true with dealing

with [inaudible] i am hoping we are able to come together. some of the issues will not be resolved. there is an opportunity for us to focus on these economic and fiscal issues. i think the next two years will be very productive. if you had a change and a different dynamic in washington. >> if you could speak a little bit about natural gas, it is a big issue in new england. trying to get more natural gas appear -- up here. it is energy efficiency and renewables -- [no audio] >> it is a great question. where the saudi arabia of

natural gas. it is probably because of our technology and the land that is available. we can do more on public lands including offshore which i support and i think it is important to take full advantage of this and bring back manufacturing. there have been three companies that have come back and what i asked them why, i have been to over 150 plant tours and they say a lot of it is natural gas. just the sense of because of the supply, there is the stability going forward and it is a couple coming here. we have been and are subject problem. this makes us an energy exporting state but the pipe structure is not adequate to deliver that gas. we so that this last winter.

it was pretty scary. we did not have the infrastructure or the grid to understood -- to make sure we would not have runouts and we had a propane crisis that some of you may be were involved with. there is legislation to come up for way too better predict what our propane needs are. ithink it is exciting was happening. we need to focus on how do you truly take advantage of moving the natural gas to refineries and to other areas where there is a scarcity.

>> i do want to return to the question of bipartisanship. you have mentioned the second chance act. i know from having observed your actions in those days that the effort to be right -- bipartisan, to find common ground on a very tough for the whole issue, crime policy, you are part of that. you were very intimate to that happening and a very successful thing that you mentioned today. the question i have for you is this. we have not talked about the money and politics piece. don't you agree that the fundamental problem in 2014 is that everyone in this country is inundated with the negativity around politics in advertising and bashing of candidates and what you're getting is a very low bottom of common ground.

there is no way to find any positive things about your opponent during a campaign in then you wonder how do you pick that up in january when you have to work with these people. how do you see the tone of the conversation in campaigns changing when you have these third-party influences and this fundamental shift in the respect people have in the process of government and settling differences in the civilized way. >> i do not have an easy answer. i think speech includes the ability to promote whatever your position is so you will continue to have a lot of campaign rhetoric positive and negative. the negative seems to work and that is why there is more negative ads and so on.

the one difference that i have experienced when i ran for the senate is the ability online to communicate. and the degree to which people are accessing online sources of information and that could be positive or negative. it gives candidates a way to get their message out. one of my concerns about my party is that we're too often represented and misrepresented of the -- as a party that is against. we need to stand for something and we do. we do not always communicate that. there is a way to do it now. even in terms of the people who were accessing sources online. it is incredibly powerful.

i agree with you about the airwaves and some of the ads and so on. i'm not saying that being online is positive either. they have the potential to say to potential voters this is what i have done, this is what i am for. not what someone else says i am against. that is something that we need to take more damage of and those of us in office, it you are that and i am doing that. i would make one simple comment. we are lacking -- locking too many people up instead of figuring out ways to turn their lives around and we know it works and you a know it works and we talked about this earlier. it is much more active. there are 2000 collisions that have come out of that but there is much more effective treatment. there -- this is the one area that has been vulnerable.

we can make incredible progress. this is something we ought to do. >> two more questions. >> thank you. i am also with the aarp. he did not ask the social security question but i am just curious. there are a number of solutions to the problems where social security is. some of them are not devastating if we take care of them right away. it will not the a catastrophe in a few years. get i think that is a place

where you could start to compromise or build partnership. what are your thoughts on what we should do? >> isn't really well and i appreciate aarp. -- you said it really well and i appreciate aarp. it's the third rail of politics. we have to grab it, if we don't, our country will go bankrupt. it is a matter of math. these entitlement programs are incredibly important, that is why we need to save them. the one i have been pushing, very frustrated we have not been able to make progress. this is the fourth thing. i am hopeful. which used to say let's put more means testing into social security and medicare. we could do more. specifically with regard to

medicare, the president put a proposal in his budget saying those who make over 170,000 bucks a year as a couple pay more from premium part b for dr. visits but also r&d for their prescription drugs and for those people who can afford it and these are people who would have three or 4 million in that asset, they have to pay in terms of their participation. that has an impacts on the social security trust fund. it starts off small but maybe $60 billion in savings. this is what you are referring to. you do small things and have enormous impacts in later years if we do not do this we are

looking at having another $10 trillion. this goes off the rails. there are some things we can and should do. this is in the budget and something i have been running. when i go to my socratic colleagues they say we cannot touch anything on the entitlement side without raising taxes on the rich. i say this is raising taxes on the rich. this is asking the wealthy or americans to pay more. which is equivalent to taxing the more. they see you cannot touch entitlements without taxing the rich under the tax code. it makes no sense. there is no logic here. this is a small step but an important step in the right direction. it is one that i have been out there promoting.

sometimes it might political peril because some groups are taking me on on it. i want to save this program. i want it to be there for future generations. i think that is a great example of what you're talking about and i would add it as number four, what could happen if we have just a little bipartisanship and had some common ground. >> one final question. >> my problem goes back to bipartisanship. [no audio] >> i recognize the gridlock cannot take place, you have to talk to people. you are up close and personal with them. you have to balance budgets. when i was a new mayor with donna washington after september 11, we were to meet with gephardt.

i went into washington and it had dramatically changed with security you would not believe especially after september 11. it is much better now. i was in on of being, it was in sam rayburn's former office building. i was intrigued but i had a chance to meet with him one-on-one and i said how often do you and the speaker me thinking our nation is in crisis and there is so many challenges and he said we do not even talk to each other area that was after one of the greatest national crises and you talk about presidential leadership. we had a republican president that was ingrained in the philosophy of washington and we do not talk to each other. i would be interested in hearing from you, who do you work with on a bipartisan manner to give us a sense of who you are as a leader.

my sense is that you are bipartisan but can you talk about that issue that we do not talk to each other at what you're doing on your site to change that. >> it is a great question. one thing i did not mention, almost all these are puzzles have bipartisan roots. a number of them i am involved with. all three bills are bipartisan and could have we could get it to the floor of the senate. in that case mark pryor is my cosponsor and it is on regulatory accountability. the other is related to permitting. it puts accountability into the permitting process and ensures

some of the legal liability is there so you can permit things. wind and solar. we have a good bipartisan group there. we have got legislation as was mentioned on second chance all of which are bipartisan. i do not think unless we make these things bipartisan, we have to find common ground. i reached out and made some concessions to the other side sometimes create your member what it is like, you do not get everything you want. this is how you do it in your daily lives. jane will tell you. we figure things out. the same is true in your marriage is an and her dealings with government. that is -- it is not that hard. the climate is more difficult,

even poisonous in some respects and the gridlock seems to be ingrained in the washington politician's mind. i use ronald reagan a lot as an example. i do think a lot of republicans use him as an example of what they are looking for. he used to say is amazing what can get accomplished when you do not care who gets the credit. i put that on my desk and that is a very deep thought. maybe more profound than people initially think. what is happening is about politics and who gets the credit and the blame. it should be about how do you choose the result, let's agree on the objective and figure out how to get there.