they have a significant advantage in intensity. i did the romney campaign two years ago and i have seen those numbers before. we had the same intensity advantage in 2012. i've learned a lot of valuable lessons in working the romney campaign; an unenthusiastic vote counts just as much as an enthusiastic vote. [laughter] and so when democrats are able, because of their ground operation, to turn out voters who are low propensity, who are unlikely, who are low interest voters, their votes count just as much as my republican, you know, 45-year-old, you know, man in the suburbs who rushes the polls on election day. they count the same. so all this you hear about the republican intensity advantage, cautionary tale. and we don't have president romney now, unfortunately, so we have president obama. take that with grain of salt,

because on the ground does matter in these campaigns. so my fifth point here is, guys, we have a long ways to go. in critical terms, we are -- well, we're five weeks out, four and a half weeks out from the election. that's several political lifetimes. a lot of stuff can happen, this race -- the senate is not yet decided. you know, i think it may change a couple of times between now and election day. and don't take, you know, don't take to heart all these, everything saying, gee, republicans have that enthusiasm advantage. you know what? if the democrats' ground game works and works well and they have unlimited number of states to do it in, six or eight states, that enthusiasm advantage may be wiped away by the democrat turnout operation. so this is, it's a dead heat. it's a today up. i -- toss up. i agree with charlie's as accessment of the states. do we win colorado or iowa or both?

can we? how close is north carolina going to be? all these states. it's a fascinating campaign, but we are a long ways from determining the winner of the senate. and as you know -- because this is a pretty smart audience -- election night isn't going to determine the winner of the senate any way, probably. so a final piece of advice to you if you have any extra capital, buying a tv station in new orleans -- [laughter] be a really, really good investment. and, you know, if you want to watch a lot of political ads. just go visit new orleans between, you know, election day and the runoff election in december. every political operative will be in town, and every tv station will be full of tv ads because it could come down to that runoff election in louisiana. >> florida 2000. [laughter] >> one thing, i was in baton rouge and new orleans this

weekend, and i was talking to the station manager of a cbs affiliate, and he said they're actually now seeing for november 4th getting scaled back because they're just, basically, saving money for the runoff. and, you know, i thought that was interesting. stan? >> charlie, you're the best. i appreciate this and really value all the collaboration i've had with neil and respect his judgment on almost every point that he's made today. i apologize for -- but you should know that this is the future because my schedule said that charlie palmer, but my uber app sent my car there. so it was automatically programmed, and what i said when i walked in, i said maybe the rsvps were down and they've gone to a smaller room to try to

create a sense of interest in this election. [laughter] >> sorry to -- i was at charlie palmer's yesterday morning. >> i kept asking for charlie cook. anyway -- [laughter] this is, obviously, i mean, all elections are fascinating, but i think this is genuinely is on the knife's edge. everything that neil has said about the conventional wisdom, particularly partisan conventional wisdom, one ought to step back from. neil began talking, and i said, oh, my god, one more panel where they tell me, you know, how many white males don't vote for obama or how many independents, how well, you know, republicans are doing with independents, you know? romney won independents and won them well. it was kind of the spin it couldn't be possible that obama was going to win. we're in a different country, and neil is one of those people that recognize the change. i'm in, i'm in the 50/50, you you know, probability.

probably slightly down from the -- neil, actually, you sound like you're in the 50/50. you go from 60/40 either way -- >> don't let me get away with 50/50. i've got to shade in one direction or the other. >> pollsters are paid for it, you know? i know, you have to go the other way. we are doing, you know, the heavy senate battleground polling right now for np rbi partisan poll which we release tomorrow which i'm not going to give the results of. we'll also release on monday a poll in four of the battleground states for wv, women's voices, women's vote. so we will have that. we're also, as you know, both involved in actual races and, actually, independent efforts in

many of these states. and i'll try not to talk about the states involved -- >> go ahead, feel free. >> -- but i do spend probably, you know, just twice a day going through all our patrol polls looking for what's the trend, you know, what's emerging there. just stepping back from it, and i think it's a little hard to read what's happening from washington because the part you read from washington is the obama part. focuses on the president, he's in the news, and that -- he's, clearly dynamic. and just noting on the obama piece, we had in the npr poll that -- i'm not going to give the number, but in the previous polls that we did for npr or the senate battleground, his approval was 37, 38%.

so very low in these 12 states that we poll that constitute the battleground. romney won these states by eight. tough territory. we'll look at the results tomorrow. but if you look at, just take the last ten polls, public polls conducted and looking at obama's approval polling away from the monthly average, his approval's gone up from 42 to 44 in the public polls that are out there. it's been stuck at 42 for a long time. i think the dating, i think when we look back on this, you know, next week, we'll look at what happened with isis and syria and iraq and might represent a point in which the president edged up, you know, nationally. and that effects republican motivation, etc. let's go to the the states. the other factor playing out here is the intense unpopularity of the republican party. this is not a both-party issue. there is nobody, we have our current polling in the battleground, there is no one more unpopular than mcconnell. mcconnell as well known as harry

reid and is the most -- i don't want to make comparisons that will cause problems on who i work for on the house side who'll get attacked as targets in republican campaigns, but mcconnell -- >> i mention her name? [laughter] >> mcconnell has exceeded that in the senate battleground, which are republican battlegrounds. he represents washington and gridlock. and if you want to look what in regression model would drive the vote, views of the house republicans are more important than views of the senators and the senate parties. the house republicans define the republican party. now, we move away from that when we say, well, we don't is have gridlock, we don't have a government shutdown. the way the republican brand problem plays out is in the advertising and the positioning of the candidates in the states. you don't see it because it's being played out, you know, state by state. and as a reason why you went from republican, these states

being fairly republican to then moving democratic is because they began associating those candidates with their parties. including insensitivity to women and a range of things that have become important in these state elections. now, there's a third piece in this which i've come to recognize is increasingly important you want to understand kansas, understand north carolina. the republican governors and republican model of governing coming out of the 2010 election is intensely unpopular. if you want to look who has lower job approval ratings in louisiana, look at governor jindal who's lower than the president. so look at tilles, look at the republican program in north carolina and what's happened with that sort of association. so states that have been brought into play are in play because

there's another part to the -- there's a state story and local story to the republican agenda and brand which is making these races more competitive on the democratic side. we also found in the, which neil is underscoring, in the battleground we have not found in the last poll we did, you know, with errors -- did the polling for a surging republican, that poll -- we've found no difference on consolidation, likely to shifting your vote, and intention to vote amongst democratic and republican voters in the battleground states. they've been so bombarded with media that they are kind of in a different, you know, place. if you go back to the 2000 -- 2004 election and what happened in bush's re-election, the, there was a shift of around three points nationally. in the battleground where it was fought out, no change.

not a point of change. not a decimal point of change from one election to the next where the advertising and the intense campaign centered. so in the battle ground, we'll look and see what the npr shows tomorrow, but alert to neil's point that the presumption of the advantage -- and watch the issues that have emerged. part of the republican brand problem is their problems of wick. these issues have been played, and they're a factor in how people are voting -- women. and the last piece i'll add is on the affordable care act. where the presumption and the strategy for republicans has been to pound that issue. initially, i think, as a swing vote to get, to punish democrats.

but i think increasingly as a motivator on, you know, as a reason for people to vote. you should watch for the npr poll tomorrow on this issue on the affordable care act. they're -- when we look back and we say, you know, how come there was one more election cycle in which republicans were certain to take control and didn't? you know, the single biggest ads that they have run, i think always have, have been on the affordable care act. it's down to about a quarter now. it's still a quarter. and on our testing it is the weakest attack that they have, that her using. they are not -- that they are using. they are not using other things that are much stronger because i think there's an ideological intention to use the affordable care act, obamacare, as their issue. you'll see it's a much more complicated issue than that. the senate who are really against it because it's big government is not big enough to decide elections.

and so the issue priorities, what they choose to run on -- and there's already lots of evidence that they're shifting, you know, in the states. but there's a lot unresolved, and 50/50 means i really don't know. i am looking at enough states that are very close to themselves 50/50. and, you know, i don't see a trend either way in terms of these things i just describe are things that go into the equation, and a lot of it's baked. [laughter] already. but it's, and i don't see any evidence of it breaking one way or the other. >> let me ask, ask neil a question on affordable care, and then let's just sort of open it up. we had a top republican senate strategist suggest to us six months ago that they started telling their clients, you know, you need to move away from the affordable care act. we've, quote, we've milked that cow for all its got.

and you can't be a one-trick pony, you can't be a one-issue, you know, start diversifying, start moving your messaging other places because they're not, there are no more points to be scored on the affordable care act. does that reflect what you think and what you seen in your -- what you've seen in your data? >> the approval rating of the affordable care act and you compare it in the same survey to an approval rating of obama, they're identical. obama is obamacare, and obamacare is obama. they're one and the same. the obamacare issue is one that is, i think it's pretty much maked in, but it is as stan said -- you know, stan's trumping this -- it's a motivation issue. it remined -- reminds voters why they need to go out and vote. it's a stimulation issue.

i think you'll see some campaigns go back to it late just to remind voters, hey, everything you didn't like about it, this other person voted -- just to put it pack in the mix a little bit because obamacare is shorthand for big government bureaucracy, government takeover of health care, and then you tie that to the sense that there are, you know, thousands of people who have lost their health insurance or lost the ability to go see their doctors, weren't able to keep their plans. you go back into that and kind of remind people. so it'll come back up, but it's not -- no, no, it's not the only issue. and, in fact, late in campaigns i think you're going to find what we try to do in a lot of our campaigns is inject new information in the mix. you want to tell people something new that they didn't already know. because if you repeat the same stuff over and over again, they're immune to it. they need to hear new information. they want to -- they're still

trying to figure out their decisions, and so i think you'll find some of these campaigns turning to some new issues over the last weeks of the campaign. >> stan said there were other issues that are more powerful that republicans could be using, and let's just for grins, what do you think -- >> no, to comment -- [laughter] >> no, what i was saying -- >> i'm not -- >> beating on my clients. so i'm just kind of curious -- >> no, i'm going to pass on that one, charlie. they always do well when they talk about spending and deficits.

>> there we go. okay. you were more forthcoming than i expected. [laughter] why don't we, i think there are some microphones womanedderring -- wandering around the room. yes, no? yes. there's one over here, there's one over here, so as my not- relative wave your hand in a nonthreatening fashion, and we'll come to you. there's one. >> charlie, you have arkansas, louisiana, alaska as toss-ups, and when you're discussing them, you seemed to indicate you thought republicans were likely to win two out of three. so if you take your ten toss-ups and district them 50/50, you get a three-seat democrat advantage. are those seats really toss-ups? >> some of this is semantics and approach. and if you'll look, the new york times periodically is running sort of what even of the models were doing, what larry sabato, i should have mentioned earlier, they lay this all out. and you'll notice that we continue to carry more toss-ups than anybody else, and so it's a

matter of definition. to me, a toss up is i don't have a really strong -- or we, our team, does not have a really strong feeling that we kind of know who's going to win. if it's a lean, we think we know who's going to win. if it's a toss, there is a sufficient element of doubt that we're not going to be putting our reputations on the line. so our -- it's sort of like an umpire. our strike zone's a little wider than some of the other folks. and i'm not saying better or worse, i'm just saying our definition. >> okay, so charlie, rank those three states. >> i would say if democrats only lost one -- which i think is highly unlikely -- it could be arkansas. i think if they only lost two, i'd throw in probably louisiana. >> okay. >> and if one survived, i think it might be more likely to be alaska, but i think more likely -- i think it's more likely that

all three go down, well, far and away than only one, and probably more three than two. i but, you know, sort of in my calculation, though, i'm kind of assuming that pat roberts comes up short, and we may all be surprised. but i kind of think so in my mind republicans need seven, not six. they need a close seven to net six. but my hunch is going to to be iowa -- i mean, if i could note two races, i'd rather know iowa and colorado. >> yep, me too. can i just answer that question? i would recommend that you bring a regional, cultural and historical trends lens, you know, to it because -- and this

cup's not only gridlocked in washington, we are polarized. and it's not just polarization, we have some regions of the country that are moving more and more, more observant, more republican, more -- [inaudible] of others that are moving in the opposite direction, and they're very different trends. so when i look at these races, i look at the south, and without doing specific races, you know, the trends of the south are dramatic. and if you look at these states, they always come out a little worse than -- i will say that, you know, that mary landrieu always manages somehow to work out something in some kind of magic, and there's some non-southern parts of louisiana. but the south always -- [inaudible] north carolina is much more, you know, we know presidentially it's much more part of the new, growing coalition that includes postgraduates and others a that make it, and a diverse immigrant population is making it part of -- so the trend there is important.

i think of alaska as not, you know, each though it's -- even though it's rank order, it's much more in the libertarian montana/alaska mode which does quirky things. and whether begich wins or not is a function of how we think that kind of, you know, candidate wins. >> you know, as most everybody knows, there are a lot more men in alaska, you know, working -- [inaudible] and there was a reality show that had the -- it was taking some alaskan women and taking them to florida that were single. [laughter] kind of an interesting premise. sphwhrl where's this leading? >> i know. [laughter] >> the tagline was, you know, for women in alaska the odds are good, but the goods are odd. [laughter]

i always kind of loved that. but i kind of say that -- go ahead. [laughter] >> jeez, charlie, i don't know how i follow up that comment. [laughter] dan, when you look at those states, i mean, i think it's likely all three may go our way. but i just want to make this point, kind of reiterate how charlie opened up this whole session and talked about, you know, kind of historical perspective. if republicans fail to win majority -- and i think it's going to be very tight, you know? obviously, you know where i stand on that. but i think you go back to look at previous, look at delaware, look at indiana, look at nevada, missouri, it's not necessarily a failure of republicans this year to win it, because winning six

or accept seats, that's a hell -- beating an incumbent is tough. it's damn tough. and i think you look at what, you know, our failure in previous elections that failed to set us up so that we could win, you know, with five seats or four seats this time instead of having to win six or seven. so i think we fixed some of those problems in terms of we don't have those, some of these wild and crazy nominees we've had in the past, and i think we've -- >> exotic. >> exotic, yes. [laughter] and i think we're in pretty good shape. but it's still tight. >> nearly fixed the problem with the elites. you haven't fixed the problem. tillis represents the core of the republican party. he was the preferred candidate. the problems you're having are with the people that represent the core of the party. that's a serious problem. >> the quality is always an issue. shall we talk bruce braley? [laughter] you know, it's always an issue. you know, campaigns and candidates matter.

that's why i don't think, you know, if you ask me today how one outcome would take place but it's 33 days from now, whatever it is. you got the -- that's a long ways to go. campaigns make a lot of mistakes in 30 days. >> to amplify neil's earlier point, and i'm going to put my colleague jennifer duffy on the spot to do a fact check for me. in the last ten years, five elections, democrats have unseated 11 republican senate -- 12? 12. you're saying 12, yes? 12 republican senate incumbents, and republicans have unseated three. yes, three democratic senate incumbents. for some reason there has been some resistance or inability for republicans to knock off incumbents. so, yes, they do have to overcome that to get the majority. okay, where is the next question? we'll let the -- who's got the

mic, and are you next to someone with a question? >> charlie, there's one over here. >> yeah, okay. >> i guess a tactical question. a lot of money is sunk into television advertising, and my impression would be that is going to the near dead rather than the living because most -- my children really don't watch television commercials, yet we finish it's almost like heading into world war ii with a strong cavalry. what are your thoughts on the effectiveness of television advertising, and who is it hitting, which voters is it reaching, and what is it a achieving? is it motivational or is it actually trying to swing -- >> i mean, your point is exactly, i mean, we've seen in our data. we did a national survey with turner and -- [inaudible]

and a democratic partner as egg well in which we found fewer than half of americans, half of american voters now say that they get their news from live tv every day. that they watch live tv every day. and among 18-44-year-olds just one-third say they watch live tv every day. you've got to be kidding me. and so it is, it's extraordinarily difficult. things have changed dramatically two-thirds of americans now with smartphones, and that includes these, you know, blackberries which i don't consider a smartphone. [laughter] >> but it's got a better keyboard. >> exactly. >> if you would have gotten here on time, you would have looked at your schedule -- >> but i think how you communicate with voters is extraordinarily difficult, and right now there's a ton of money spent on tv advertising that,

you know, that's hitting people who have already decided. and that's why some of these digital companies, you know, all of our campaigns are spending much more money on digital and trying to reach out and doing targeted communications, personal communications with voters so what you're seeing is everybody knows we've still got to do the tv, but what you're not seeing in the campaigns is the amount of money that's going to digital, individual contact and even mail through these campaigns and personal contact. so under the service you're not seeing a lot of how that money's spent, but that doesn't mean you leave tv uncovered. >> to illustrate your point though, i like to use an example. our daughter who, in 2012 was 26 living in cleveland, ohio, she did not -- their tv set was not wired to cable, it didn't have rabbit ears, and she watched something called apple tv which i don't i don't even know what that is. and she'd generally listen to either her ipod or iphone music or to npr on the way to and from work.

and so, you know, reaching her, you know, she wasn't a swing voter, but reaching her would have been a challenge for a campaign. and that's what it says, exactly what neil's saying. >> the, let me speak both sides of this. and, but we still have -- >> want to be a political analyst, on the one hand, on the other hand -- >> we still have campaigns this cycle where advertising and shift of the race in major ways. look at pennsylvania and the governor's race and what happened there. i mean, somebody's watching tv. [laughter] so there's, races are still impacted, you know, by the tv. now, i remember, you know, after super pacs became legalesed by the court -- legalized by the court, i remember in the last cycle us worrying, and not just worrying, watching surprise million dollar buys coming from outside and really impacting the races.

that seems to be much less of an issue. people know it's coming. they, i think i the media, therefore, the fundraising has attempted to balance it so you know it's coming, and the planning balances it out. and i also think you now reach not so much penetration of market, saturation into the market in which they just -- people roll their eyes. the getting hurt on negative ads right now, you know, in these elections, i just don't think any of these are going to be shifted by a killer, you know, sudden buy or ad that, you know, i think it's locked in, and people are taking a lot of advertising. >> who's got a microphone? who's got a question with a microphone?

>> hi, bill signer. over the last month there have been significant shifts in iowa and colorado. can you discuss why there have been shifts there and, obviously, candidates do matter, and is that what's happening in those two states? thank you. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> i can't, i can't. >> iowa first. i think, obviously, a very competitive race. joanie ernst came out of the primary, and the democrats did a nice job of beginning to define her, as did the braley campaign. but i think what happened there is that braley failed to define himself. he failed to give voters a reason to kind of vote for him. it was all about joni ernst. we did some focus groups on walmart moms which is really a fascinating group, and we did

one of these groups in des moines, and they knew a lot about joni ernst, positive and negative. they knew nothing about bruce braley. and so what bruce braley failed to do, he failed to define himself at all. and once republican money caught up with democratic money, we began to kind of focus on his record. it caught up to him. and so i think, and i think voters excepted joni for who she was, and they're now focused on who bruce is. i think those numbers have changed a little bit. that's one. that's just iowa, but it's still a tight race. colorado, i think the attacks against corey gardener as being an extreme republican tea party candidate have fallen a little short and just not really rung all that true. and as combined with the overwhelming focus by the udall campaign on the issue of birth control and abortion. and i think from our work out there, there's a sense that, you know what? that udall's kind of running a single-issue campaign, a single-issue focus campaign and focusing on these issues instead

of jobs, oh things that are -- other things that are going on. and i think they went, i would guess they went too far. and there was a bit of a backlash not just among women voters, but among men. and we were seeing that in our colorado suburbs, denver suburbs. so i think you're seeing some shifts there. colorado is still a tough state. we had great hopes for colorado and iowa in the presidential, and they both fell flat. i think -- iowa we saw in the presidential campaign, we saw iowa as a state that had the greatest sense of kind of, you know, voter remorse after the 2008 election between 2008 and 2012. these are voters in iowa who believed they put obama into office. and there was more disappointment, there was more of a sense of -- betrayal is way too strong a word, but more of a sense that he wasn't what they

expected. and i think that's one reason why the obama campaign spent so much time in iowa in september of 2012, to try to rectify that. they ended up beating us pretty well there. but i still think you have that kind of sense in that state, and i think that's part of what may be giving a little bit more energy behind joanie's campaign too -- joni's campaign too. >> who else do we have? okay. there's somebody over here. do you have a mic? there's a hand here. let's go ahead and get mics to hands. there's one hand there and one hand there and a hand here and a hand here. >> good morning. i have two questions. the first one is about georgia, about their 12th district, and i was just wondering from your perspective how do you think, what do you think is the -- sorry, how is the race looking for the incumbent, john barrow? and my second question is, there are a lot of candidates that go

out actively seeking for women's votes, but what about the male vote and particularly younger votes? like what's your point on that? >> any of you have a unique feeling on bare row? >> nope. >> i wish david wattsman, our house editor, was here, but i'll just sort of jump in. barrow seems to, he's got an edge, a decent edge in a district that's just absolutely ugly, i mean, for a democrat. really, really, really ugly. you just sort of, sometimes you see people that are survivors, but you know that when that person steps aside, boom, that seat's gone. i mean, just gone, gone, gone. but at the same time, and everybody up here has seen candidates that were able to survive and in really tough races, and then there was just a really ugly year and, boom, the trap door opens and they're gone.

i think barrow's going to survive this. like mike mcintyre in north carolina, this year he just decided to pull the plug, you know? it'd be better to go out and not lose. i think barrow, as i remember the districts got we call it a partisan voting index. as i remember, it's either seven or eight. i think eight points more republican than the rest of the country. but barrow's got a bond, he's got a connection. and so far this year et looks like finish it looks like he's working so that if you told me democrats were going to lose ten seats nationwide, i don't think barrow's would begin there. the difference between the house and the senate, there's sort of technical reasons why the house isn't going to shift much and technical reasons why the senate's going to be, gosh, the

absolute best case for democrats no matter what would be losing four seats. you know, five, six, seven's more likely, and eight is less likely. that's kind of the bell curve. but in the house there just aren't that many vulnerable democratic seats left. i mean, when you lose 63 seats in one election and you only get eight back in the next one, you're already, you know, the low, mid-hanging fruit for republicans already picked. so it's just sort of a mop-up operation after that. i think barrow's going to be okay. if you saw early on -- and georgia's not one of the first states, but relatively early -- if you saw barrow going down, you'd be saying, okay, democrats may be having ap even worse night than we had thought. my depress is he will survive -- my guess is he will survive, and i say that despite the fact the environment's pretty tough this year. >> okay, charlie. what about west virginia 3? >> i wouldn't necessarily say that.

i think ray -- you know, stan alluded to this earlier sort of -- don't worry, i'm not going to avoid your question. [laughter] if you were going to do a profile of where in the last ten years have democratic party, has the democratic party struggled so is, so much, i'd say south, border south, small town, rural, lots of, disproportional number of older white voters, and just for britains i'd say a state -- grins i'd say a state with a heavy fossil fuel. [laughter] >> not to name anybody but, yeah, okay. >> so west virginia, kentucky, that's just sort of where it all comes together. and, you know, i think he's got a good campaign but, you know, if ray hal can survive this thing, it'd be pretty

surprising. it's got all the risk factors for a heart attack. i shouldn't use that metaphor, but anyway -- [laughter] that one's a lot, a lot tougher. >> yeah, okay. just one more, the response to your question about men, there's a lot of focus on the gender gap and the flipside of that, you know, is obvious. you know what? democrats have a huge problem among men voters too, and the gender gap cuts both ways. you see that in all of our states right now where republicans are doing much better among men and not as well among women. is ask and you know what? you're seeing anytime the approval ratings of the president, seeing it across the board. we've seen that gender gap since

the ronald reagan election in 1980, and it it expands and contracts, but it's still a significant gap and, you know, we need to do better among women voters, no question, but the democrats also have significant challenges among males. >> not to disagree at all with neil, but there's one sort of partially mitigating factor, and i think this is one of the great inequities on our planet. women live longer than men do, so 53% of the electorate is fell and 47 -- female and 47's male, so that's where -- >> it comes out of balance a little bit. >> yeah, yeah. everything neil said was absolutely right. >> i just want to, again, the lens or the filter for this ought to be what's happening in the republican conservative heartland in all the places that you talked about, the deep south border states, more rural evangelical. those are all trending heavily on every one of the issues in

problem areas for democrats. but if you look at white noncollege men outside that heartland, there have been no trend against democrat, no shift against democrats outside of the republican -- >> while we're on sort of the gender thing and i'm not going to put either of you on the spot even though i suspect you both have done some work in louisiana this cycle, but there was a cnn poll out a couple of weeks ago that showed in the mary landrieu/bill cassidy race that showed effectively no gender gap whatsoever. now, i have not seen crosstabs in any other surveys in the state, so i don't know whether that just an anomaly in that poll or whether there was a pattern and some reason why, unique reason why she wasn't doing a whole lot better among women than men. >> no, that's an anomaly. >> okay, okay. >> but it's a good warning. take every poll you look at with a grain of salt.

and when you start looking at, when you start looking in terms of independent voters of women or white women or african-americans or hispanics, you know what? the subsamples, the margin of error can vary dramatically. how that's dope can vary. -- done vary. if something doesn't seem right, it's probably not right. [laughter] >> tell whether the banners come back, and you say a -- >> yeah. >> that can't be true. >> i don't, i've done, i've redone, i think, a handful of polls this last few weeks because i didn't believe the data. it's like, you know, and i can't -- if i can't explain it to the client, i've got to do, you know, if there's not a rational explanation, i've got to redo it.

i've got to figure out what's happening here. so if numbers change for no apparent reason, it's probably not right. >> i hope be there are any cable show bookers watching this that when there's a poll that shows something different from every other poll, rather than considering it hot news -- [laughter] the odds are it's probably just wrong. >> doesn't matter. >> and so putting a huge spotlight on it, you're probably doing your viewers a disservice. >> that's right. we should note there's a difference between campaign polls and almost all the polls that are done publicly and for the newspapers. all of our polls are where we

are sampling people that we know voted in either 2010 or 2006. we are dealing with likely voters. and that's true of every campaign in these states, and that means, again, campaigns are dealing with polls that are much more real and not as subject -- >> let me throw one thing out, and if either of you guys want to respond, but you can't say it yourself because it would sound so self-serving. but one of the things you hear in a lot of these poll aggregators and averaging and models is that independent polls are more reliable than polls by partisan organizations. and the idea is that the partisan-sponsored polls are somehow really, really biased as if a poll, a campaign would spend a whole lot of money on getting numbers that were wrong would be a good idea. and, you know, i think what a lot of people miss out is that, you know, if stan does a poll with really lousy numbers for a democrat, the odds that you're ever going to hear those numbers are almost nonexistence. and the same thing finish -- >> no, if we had good numbers for democrat, we would release -- [laughter] >> yeah. and so the thing about it

they're getting, this assessment is getting made, and the thing is, you know, a typical, a free-standing poll in a state that you would do, not a benchmark but something that you would have done, pick one in the last week or two, what would it, what would it cost? >> i'll let you price it. [laughter] 28,000. >> a little more. [laughter] >> okay. i submit to you that there are no newspapers in america, no radio station and none of the -- that are releasing numbers from a survey with a fair market value of $28,000. it would be probably closer to $3,000. and so this is sort of a mythology that's built up that, you know, the academics kind of dwell on -- >> right, we ought to take it to

a fact in modeling. with democracy corps which is the most accurate of the national polls -- [laughter] i should mention, we release every poll, and we announce in advance we're releasing it, and so we don't have the option of a result we don't like. we do that on purpose. so -- >> but why don't you do that as blanket policy for all your clients. >> but i would just speak about the harstead poll. i think he's right about the race being very close. they're not going to release the polls -- there's random variations. some of the ore states probably -- other states probably had a poll where the democrat wasn't doing very well. they didn't want to release that one. i think you have to be careful saying there is a house effect or bias. >> we've done 1400 polls this year. 1400. we've released, what, 20 maybe?

in the individual -- you know, when -- >> and your party's having a good year. >> you know, so, i mean, we're doing a ton of surveys. we don't want to release this stuff, and yet we're -- stan, you're from an -- we got c+, and it's based on 20 polls. it's like, you're kidding me? it's ridiculous. but take it with grain of salt. the grimes campaign released the day, 1800 survey done over i i think eight days in the field starting on friday night and ending on saturday. my takeaway of that is they did tracking, 1800 in nine days, and they cherry picked those days because those were the very days that showed grimes up by two points.

if they'd done it day earlier -- but they cherry picked, uni? take it with a grain of salt. >> i've not saying specifically mehlman necessarily. >> no. but, yeah, take that with a grain of salt. when you look at some of these polls that showed when they -- [inaudible] likely voter samples and then their numbers get really crazy it's because they're not doing it right. it's flawed. it's just flawed. so take it with a grain of salt. >> okay. where are the mics? >> [inaudible] >> yeah. and get one after this get one over to jeff.

he gave me a plug with my newsletter 30 years ago that was -- [laughter] you know, i'm not biased at all. >> you never have been. michael lubell, and just one comment and then a question. the comment is about georgia. i mean, i think neil said that the election might not be settled until december can. isn't it possible it could go into january? >> yeah. i mean, i keep saying louisiana in december, but there is the runoff provision in georgia -- >> georgia, same thing. >> pushes it to january 5th? >> 6th. >> 6th. >> it's november 4, december 6th for louisiana, january 6 for georgia. >> and it's absolutely certain that louisiana will go runoff. it's entirely possible it could be georgia as well.

so what does that do to, if orrman gets elected in kansas? he's in limbo until -- he doesn't know which way to go. >> and until he decides, he can't get any committee assignments. [laughter] >> but that was not my question. >> sorry. i thought it was interesting. [laughter] >> if you look, if i listen to everything that's been said, this is not going to be a wave election. the races are very, very close. and if we look forward to 2016, what's the takeaway right now in terms of the strategizing since it's not a wave? where do the parties go in the next two years given the fact the presidential's going to start shortly after this election ends? >> good question. let me, yeah, it's not a wave election for congress and senate, but one thing i would like you to take a look at, state legislatures. republicans are going to make senate gains. if you -- significant gains. if you think it's going to be lower level campaigns, not on

the federal level. what does it mean for 2016? number one, i think it means we haven't, as republicans, we haven't addressed the issues that cost us the election in 2012. and i think we still, you know, just like -- the great success we had in 2010 didn't mean squat for 2012. we didn't take that and run with it in the 2012 election, and it was -- that was a challenge for us, and i don't think we as republicans have addressed that challenge going forward, 2016. we face still significant objects cls going into the '16 presidential election regardless of running against hillary, elizabeth warren or anybody else. >> let me jump in. on the senate a lot of the factors that are working against democrats that i talked about this time flip over and work against republicans. there are 24 republican seats up in 2016. there are only ten democratic seats up. seven -- i've been saying six and went back and counted, it was actually seven -- seven of the republican seats are up in obama states, and there are no democratic seats up in romney states. second, because as neil alluded, it's a presidential election so instead of a midterm like we have now where there's a turnout

thumb on the scale for republicans, that thumb's a not on the scale for republicans. so there's a real, you know, republicans really, really, really need to not only win a majority this time, but if they could put an extra seat or two on the scoreboard, they might find that real handy if they have as ugly a year in '16 in the senate a as is entirely possible. but to me, the sort of nightmare scenario for republicans is this, that their party was so, so pumped up and optimistic about 2012 both in terms of the presidential race and in terms of winning a majority of the senate. so they were bitterly, bitterly disappointed. and they came out of it wondering, you know, did we get lied to or was our money not well spent? i'm talking macro, the whole thing top to bottom, you know? and as a result there hasn't been nearly as much money going

into republican committees, super p because the donor community so down on the republican side. and we had a strategy -- i think i may have mentioned this earlier, you know, a republican who said, you know, if it weren't for the koch brothers, we'd be getting blown away financially right now. they're keeping republicans in the game. so the thing is let's say if republicans only picked up four seats or five this year, so they're sitting at 49/50, they've had with all these amazing factors working in republicans' favor, if they don't get a majority, a, their donors are going to be absolutely in a state of enormous depression, it's going to make it harder to raise money in 2016, and if they're going into 2016 with only 49 or 50 states in an election where they

could lose umpteen seats themselves, that's how you get to see democrats up -- they're not going to be at 59, 60 where they were in 2009-'10, but 53, 54. i mean, that would be the worst case scenario for republicans. and so '16, you know, it's just really huge which is why all of you, as soon as the election's over, take a vacation, relax a bit. this next one, you know, stay tuned. anyway, we have -- >> looks like -- [inaudible] >> the implications for the presidential. as neil indicated, republicans have a base strategy. they believe if they win this, it'll be because their base has turned out in bigger numbers, they've been excited about other issues. but they have taken irretrievable positions on immigration going into this

off-year election, they have moved for repealing the executive order for the dreamers. every one of the presidential candidates now is lined up against the idea of legalization of the dreamers. they come out of this election with that being a defining issue if you're a republican, where you stand on immigration, for the hispanic, growing hispanic population. the dreamers is the most important, powerful symbol of whether you understand us. i've, you know, polled it for l.a. times, a bipartisan poll for l.a. times, there's nothing more porn than dream -- more important than dreamers for the hispanic party. there's a lot of states that are going to be out of play with that. >> okay. last question let's go to jeff, right here. they're giving us the five minute warning. >> charlie, thanks.

i was glad to endorse your newsletter back in the '80s. i i'll give you my new address, because the commission check got ost in the mail somewhere. [laughter] we're giving up our landlines and moving to cell phones. i know it's something that's always been discussed, but can you talk about exactly how you figure out to make sure you get a good demographic cut? i think the landline people are older and white males, things like that. >> that would be the predead. >> yeah, the predead. how do you get to that cell phone group? >> money. i'm serious about this. the democracy corps, you know, does 50% cell phones and rising. but the cost after -- cost of a national poll with cell phones, $10,000 more just dealing with the cell phone portion. now, in a bigger sense it has safed -- there's a cost, but it's actually saved polling. i thought we'd be gone by now. i thought we -- we were so badly, you know, had polls that

were so underrepresentative of the country that -- but what's happened is increasingly you can get cell phones. they do cost less. people are increasingly able to be gotten via cell phones. young people and minority voters who are particularly high with cell phones. i thought people would not do long surveys on cell phones, and i was wrong. the dropoff rate on our polls on cell phones is no greater than on landlines. and so i think the it's saved polling. i think we're still here pontificating because that transition has happened. >> remember eight to ten years ago, nobody gave out their cell phone number. are you kidding me? no. no way. and now it's just automatic. of course you give out your cell phone.

i mean, that's where you can be reached. i mean, i can't remember the last time the phone rang at home with a personal phone call, you know? it doesn't happen. so it's what stan said. ten years ago we never would have dreamed we would make a living by calling people with cell phones. we do, but, boy, that increases costs. at least 30% of every survey we do is you need to make sure we have another younger voters. you set quotas so that we make sure we have younger voters in our samples. it is much more expensive, more difficult, more time consuming. i mean, when i first started this business we did volunteer survey research at the republican national committee in the late 1970's. i ran these phone banks, and for every interview we wanted to complete, we polled five telephone numbers. it's probably up to 150 numbers for every interview you want to complete. it's extraordinary. that's why, you know, it costs so much.

that's why these media outlets are unwilling to kind of spend the kind of money that they should be spending on this to do it right. there's also, you can do polling by internet, but you know what? in the stuff that stan and i do, we're testing messages. we're testing tough messages pro and against candidates. that allows people -- if we test that over the internet, people take screen shots of that. you don't want your message on front page of the louisville courier journal. or the kansas city star. you can't afford to have that happen, so that's why we stick to telephones rather than internet. >> let me ask one more question, and the question i ask of each of you is first of all, pretend the c-span camera is not there. if you had to give some advice to your party in the 2016, 2017, 20 18 -- in other words, pass this election -- if you had to

give candidate feist to your party on what they ought to be thinking about and what direction they need to be shifting, where would you go with that candid advice to your party? and forget the cameras. >> i think a season woman presidential candidate is really the right -- [laughter] >> short of 60, you know, that kind of -- >> tough medicine, but, you know -- >> your grandmother. >> is that your wife you're talking about? >> i think the tough advice is on the economy. the president spoke at the united nations where america stands in the world, but the economy has fundamentally changed and people know it's structurally in fundamental ways. there's not been a mature discussion from democratic leaders about the economy and

what you have to do to end the conversation needs to start. >> i think i read that in the book. a couple years ago that you and some fellow named carville wrote. it was actually very insightful. ok, neil your advice? , >> we have a demographic that we need to address among the african-americans and latinos. unless we address that, we are going to have a tough time winning the presidency. >> i've treasured my relationship with the national journal since 1998 and it's been great collaboration of the technology to be able to have a helicopter in my backyard.

[laughter] anyway, thank you all, it's been great and we had a standing room only crowd and thank you all for coming. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> a race getting national we continue tonight with another debate. tonight our focus will be on the oklahoma governor's race with a debate between joe dorman and governor mary fallin live at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. on c-span two at we got another debate between candidates for the nebraska governor. that is live starting at 8:00 eastern on her companion network, c-span2.

>> c-span's 2015 student can competition is underway. this competition for middle and high school competent -- students will give away prizes totaling $100,000. create a five-seven minute documentary on the three branches and you. c-spans to include programming and show varying points of view and submit by january 20, 2015. good to c-span student cam.org for more information. this is for california's 52nd district. located in the southern region of california and enclose the central and coastal regions of san diego. according to a poll conducted,

voters in this district are split on a 47% for representative peters to 46% percent for the challenger. the political report and roll call rate the race as a tossup. this is just under >> we want to one hour. and now a news special, conversation with the candidates. >> good evening, i'm catherine garcia. >> good evening, welcome to a special edition of nbc seven news at 6:00 and tonight we are hosting an in-depth conversation with the two candidates. this is for the 52nd congressional seat. >> a race getting national attention because of the close race between a democrat and a republican. >> we want to welcome if -- the two candidates congressman scott peters and i a long with councilman carl demaio. er wanted to do a different debate.

instead of a set amount of time to answer the questions we , really wanted this to be a conversation with the candidates so hopefully in the end benefit you the viewers. >> and katherine before we get started let us set the political scene in california's 52nd congressional district. to give you a good idea why the race has nationwide importance. >> the 52nd district stretches from coronado to la joya to rancho bernardo. 34% are republican. 22% are democrat. -- 32% democrat. 29% independent. >> most races in congress are very highly split between republicans and democrats. this is one of the few nonstate seats in the country. -- non-safe seats in the country. >> which is why this race matters. san diego voters could give the g.o.p. another seat in the house. so what message do peters and demaio have to convey? >> peters has to convince that demaio is too extreme.

which is why you hear "tea party" from peters' mouth and hope that the republican surge are going to see is not going to extend to san diego. >> voters are familiar with the candidates both former city , councilman. both generally agree on most issues, same sex marriage. both are pro-choice. up to know they're focused on local themes familiar in san diego. demaio has hammered him over taking celt in his role over pension reform. -- over the san diego pension issue. >> the challenge for the demaio campaign is how to try to take that track record and those experiences that carl had at the local level, translate them into a national race. >> what about the issues they'll tackle in congress. immigration reform, homeland security, defense spending -- >> demaio is not interested in talking about national security. foreign policy. he wants to focus the race on

business issues and budget issues and that's where he think he can make inroads. >> but recently the chamber of commerce endorsed peters ending with this ugly tweet from the chamber. demaio campaign imploding. it could all end up to the turnout. -- to the voter turnout in an off year election. that includes a critical block of several thousand student voters at ucsd. >> we think our post graduation job prospects. we think of what the economy is going to look like for us five, 10 years down the line. >> ok. so with all of that in line and our colleague brought up a lot of issues that we'll touch on here, we wanted to start with the issue of the day. the u.s. began air strikes against isis targets in syria last night. this has received bipartisan support. what i'm issue of ground troops -- what i'm curious about is the issue of ground troops because a lot of military experts have

said that without adequate ground troop support they're not going to bring an end to isis. they don't think the iraqi security crisis will do it. at what point will you support ground troops? >> san diego is a military town. national issues are indeed important to all san diegan. if you're going to ask someone to leif their house, you best satisfy two key tests. -- to leave their spouse and their children and put their lives on the line, you best satisfy two key tests -- first make sure that it's a national security crisis or an issue that is of direct impact to the american national security position. i think in the case of isis that clearly has been established. this is a terrorist group. it has already killed several americans and it continues to threaten americans. if not checked we will see this don't spiral out of control. but the second test is equally important and that is that we have a thoughtful, common sense strategy to win.

when we intervene we should have a strategy to actually successfully win and mobilize our enemy. in this case, i don't believe that the president has laid out an adequate strategy. i've talked to my own military advisors these are generals, admirals who are advising me, veterans and they all have expressed concerns that the president seems be playing more of a political game of talking about air strikes and a little bit of technical advice on the ground. well, i think that we're going to find in the next several weeks that's probably going to be inadequate. if we have to build the case for expansion that's got be something that the american people will support that's where the administration and congress should not treat this as a democratic issue or republican issue, this is an american issue. and we need more members of congress to approach it that way. >> so at this point you're saying not enough information for ground troops.

mr. peters, when would you support u.s. ground troops in these regions? >> as a congress member, my job is to keep you and your family safe from harm. we know around the world not just in the middle east there are people in dark rooms and even caves planning to hurt our country, our families, and we have to go to those places and stop them. isis is a tremendously dangerous force. these new terrorists are better equipped, better funded, better tactical than al-qaeda which attacked us in 2001. we have to take this very, very seriously. i support the plan that congress, the president and our commanders most important agree to which is going to build a multistrategy plan for dealing with isis, part of it is these air strikes which will degrade the enemy. there's a much bigger plan, part of is developing a political system in iraq that everyone can rely on so these people will be equipped themselves.

part of it is what we saw yesterday, allies in the area. part of it is getting international support. we know that france has indicated they interested because they know before terrorism gets to the united states it's going to hit europe first. part of it is the equipment and training of some syrian who is will be carefully vetted on the ground. >> both of you are expressing a good measure of support for going in and trying to eradicate isis. i think for a lot of your would-be constituents where's the line in the sand for both of you? at what point would you say, i'm no longer going to support the effort? >> it goes to the criteria that i laid out. they're not my criteria but they were laid out by cap linebergerful he said if you're going to put men and women in harm's way, we have to satisfy

that it is a national security threat to our country, and second, that we have to have a well thought-out plan. i believe we've gotten into conflicts where the first criteria has not been adhered to. we got into nation building, policing other country, imposing governments, running public health systems in certain cases, roles that we should not be in but don't really relate to our national interest. they may be humanitarian but they are not linked by the national interest. second, we have to insure that when we do use force that it's part of a essential, strategic approach to winning. that should not be a democrat or republican issue. that should be something where congress asks tough questions and isn't afraid to challenge perhaps their own party when

they're not getting those sorts of answers because you're asking men and women to leave their families and put their lives on the line and they need to know that it's not only an important issue that they should be involved in that relates to our national security. but we have supported them by giving them the right sort of intervention and approach for winning the battle. >> thank you. congressman, at what point would you say no? >> we really seen the limitations of our ability to affect afghanistan and iraq with ground troops. and so i think we've got to resist that. at this point i don't think the case has been made to put ground troops in. and at this case no one's proposing it. we listen very hard to the briefings about what our ability and interest is. and what our real interest is for our own security, for our own families. >> do you believe isis can be defeated without u.s. down troops? -- u.s. ground troops? >> i think they can be degraded in the strategy that we're following. it doesn't have to be american ground troop. we like the people in the area

to be fighting for their own freedom. iraqis, kurds, syrians. we would like to equip and train. >> i think the problem is those forces are not going to be able to accomplish it on the ground and that is the concern among the american people that we are being told snag down the line is not going to be -- >> we share that concern too. i think, you know, you can't guarantee that this is going to be successful. but i have a lot of faith in our commander. they may come back and ask for more. but the one thing we insisted on is any further authorization would have to come back to congress. the one thing i would say too is i've been critical of the president for not being as close to partner with congress as he could be. in this case we worked very closely with the president and with our command irs to figure out what the best strategy at this point in time. >> could i follow this? and this may be a very early hypothetical. let's just say best case scenario, the air strikes are

successful or whatever may come afterwards and isis is reduced to let's say a manageable problem. what move should the allies make in order to fill what could be a power vacuum that's going to attack other terrorist groups? -- going to attract other terrorist groups? al-qaeda and now we've got isis. what might be next? >> one of the main problems we've had is we've had an iraqi government that wasn't politically sufficient. the maliki government was only concerned with one second. -- with one sect. and we have to have an inclusive government that reaches across the secretary yarn lines. that's been our first priority. we've seen the change in the government. we've seen some promising signs that the next government will be more inclusive. we can't be the government of iraq. we is have to use diplomacy.

and we have to ally with other countries in the region. to create a political system that is more sustainable. >> mr. demaio? >> again, this is again, i think a situation where politicians from both sides of the aisle are trying to sugarcoat it. i think we have to have a more focused view. and we have to have a more limited use of force that reflects our national interest. clear le define missions are important. my concern here is that the mission is not clearly defined as katherine pointed out. we wake up one day and find that what was sold to us is not actually the case. and that we've seen mission creep. we saw that in iraq and afghanistan. members of congress need to take on their own party and administration to make sure we have clarity and limitation and

focus whenever we're putting people's lives on the line. >> ok. moving on to issues which still are international in scope. but it's a big domestic issue. you were a member of congress right now. i've heard it said that immigration reform is a lot like the weather, everybody talks about it. nobody does anything about it. you had any specific policy, -- do you have a specific policy ideas, initiatives that would , break the gridlock. >> the senate last summer voted with 69 votes on a bipartisan immigration bill. it's a compromise. but i would like to see the speaker put that compromise on the floor. it would pass. it would have tremendous economic benefits both for economic growth, 5.4% over the next 20 years and the trillion dollars in deficit reduction helps stabilize him, increase border security. and allow the workers to earn a path to citizenship by paying

their fine and we're sending people home whom we educate to cure diseases instead of keeping them here. the farm workers who -- who we don't have enough farm works, we're letting some workers to rot in the field. -- some crops rot in the field. my opponent says he would not invite for that. put it to us. this is why washington is broken. this is they load up this big bill. thousands of pages long. and we crowd out the issues that people actually agree on. here's an issue that i think everybody agrees on. we need to security the border first. we need to put the resources and the attention and action. they get to run to the front of the line but also for national security issues. not only so we can prevent an immigration system where people

can run to the front of the line but also for national security issues. who knows who's able to cross into our border in term of terrorist groups that may want to harm the american people. border security is a prerequisite. instead of -- democrats support a border. latinos supported border, independents and republicans and democrats support a border but members of congress wants to put poison noise in these bells. -- poison pills in these bills and they point fingers at each other. i this we have to focus at issue where is we see great unity. security the border first should be a single subject bill. and i think that it would give support if you focus on those areas of agreement. >> this is the magic of mr. demaio. trying to confuse the issue. there is no disagreement in the senate. part of it is securing the border. they want to build a fence all across the border.

want to double the size of the border patrol. we can't get a vote because the speaker of the house mr. binger -- mr. boehner won't even put it up for a vote. listen, this is something on which everyone agrees. the u.s. chamber of congress and the labor community, the farmers and the farmer. and the farmworkers. all agree we all know that the -- the tech communityall agree we all know that the harvard business school says that this is one of the most important things we could do to get job creation going, get the economy growing and how important would that be? all we need is a speaker. to put this before the house and we would have -- immigration reform the next day. >> you had an opportunity when the bill came before the house, a very target bill on border security. funding for border security. much of that would have been here. in san go to do with our challenges and you voted no. on a scaled-back version.

when you sit there and say, well, you had a vote. to actually be a part of a model step forward to provide the resources to secure or bored, -- our border, you voted no. it has been your own parties pressure. nancy pelosi and the democrat leadership twisted arms saying we want to make sure that they are part of this economized package. -- this compromise package. >> i voted no, because security isn't the only part of immigration reform that we need. what we need is we need to deal with those labor surprise. -- with these labor supply issues. i would like to say manage about mrs. pelosi. i think the councilman knows that i was rated last year the fourth most independent democrat because i'm willing to take votes against my party and i do. iraq my country first and my district second and my party third. i would not have gone that ranking. if i was voting lockstep with my party.

and i got the endorsement of the united states chamber of congress. out of the candidates they endorsed five were democrats. , what they're concerned with is they want democrats to solve problems. what they don't want is extreme party sides. they threaten our nation's security. they threaten our nation's credit rating. here -- just stop right you want to continue to apply labels to me because you can't defend your own record. so you can call me names all you want. i haven't sat there and called you names. i have issues that i can disagree with you on. there are differences in our record in the way they approach issues. but to sit there and say i'm got to go there. -- i'm just going to call my opponent i tea party not job right wing extremist -- it's divisive and it's what's wrong with politics today. let's talk about -- >> can you talk about the party thing first? we knew this would come up. we've seen it on a lot of commercials on television

>> nonstop. >> let's bring time-out quote that has been attributed to you where you basically said you would owe to the tea party. >> actually no. this is important. scott peters took a video and he spliced it. i gave a speech taupe many -- across san diego too many groups including unions they are on the far left. who don't support there's not a may. whole left we have in common. but i stood before any group that could listen to our plan on pension reform. i'm not talking about social issues because i disagree. with the tea party on the right wing approach to social issues. i don't think socialists you should be part of o focus in washington. i stood before them and i said, let's focus on a positive agenda. and what can we do positive in san diego? we can reform the out of control pension system at city hall. we can replay those tensions that the politics have voted himself including mr. peters put in place a system that allows us and restore surfaces.

i implored them to come to the table and be part of the solution to move san diego forward. i will continue to reach out to groups that disagree with me. >> this is what they're saying. it says i will owe you and our collective group everything. >> and you see the question that mr. peters spliced out. the question was who's backing your opponent? and i said in the marriage race the downtown insiders and the government yang i'm not their candidate and i'm proud of that. i owe you the people everyone everything. and that's exactly how i always approached and for him to try to deceive voters is just an example of defamation because he can't defend them. i'm more than happy to defend my record.

>> i'm more than happy to defend my record. how do you take this out of context, gene. the whole video is on my website. but they call it the tea party is the conscience of the accountable. government movement. if i win i owe you everything. later in the video, you see him sneer at people who sit down around the table and would work out solutions. so that's one thing. it's his own work. -- it's his own words. the second is his supporters. there were three running in this race. every tea party choice mr. demaio as their candidate because they know because when he gets there. he can join up with them. >> that's absolutely true. -- not true. >> 102 times she was the one no vote on the city council. he voted against all four of mayor sanders council.

bipartisan bunches because they weren't extreme enough. hi voted against the $700,000 health care reform. the u.t. when he lost the mayor's race, she would leave a legacy of she would leave a legacy of devices. , and when he wanted to be mayor they had a big meeting of the republican leadership in la hoya. they said we want kevin foster. your vices. we have enough of that. and sending a tea party extreme lists to serve your party with extremism of is not the way -- where do i even start to unpack that. >> the teen party did not support you in this primary. they put on a right-wing candidate. they backed that right-wing candidate because i have a history, a record of taking on my own political party and

challenging him to change. dachshund them to change. i'm talking the right ring. -- the right wing. on social issues. i don't believe that social issues should be part to step. we should allow people to make decisions on association issues in terms of their fates. when you talking about the accomplishments that we talked at city hall. everyone in san diego saw that when mr. peters left the council. in 2008 the city was on the brink of bankruptcy. billions of dollars in debt, hundreds of millions of dollars in shortfalls in the budget, the city was paying out lavish pensions that we could not afford. mr. peters talked about his extreme budget. he voted to cut library hours by 52%. he voted to eliminate day care for needy families. he voted to under mind police and shower services. -- and fire services. he limited the only fire rescue helicopter before a major

disaster city. how do we reserve services? and in four years time, i've cleaned up the mess. and we did that by bringing people together. bipartisan. on the city council and the ultimate bipartisan vote in the city the pension form initiative in 2012. that brought them together from around the city. it carried every single council district, every social economic group. why? because we built a solution or an agenda to fix or meetings. -- to fix our city. mr. peters opposed to the reforms every step of the way. i would consider that pretty extreme. >> the city of san diego had a couple of decades for bad financial practices. and i wasn't on the on there. but i was on a city tunnel is ended up.

-- the city council that ended it. we worked for many years on reforms and mayor sanders called me. his partner at the end of our work, the s.e.c. which enforces the security laws so there aren't models. -- said that san diego was a model for other cities to follow. when we negotiated new pension system in 2008, i would save the people about $22 in pension -- $22 million per year in pension payments. he came to congratulate us on the work. so to say that nothing was done when he was there is really disingenuous. we had a lot of the issues with the bubble boasting in on the desert bursting and the internet. -- we had to deal with a lot of test -- tough issues. we also, you know, we work with the mayor with the republican mayor with democrats on the council came up with budgets every year they supported. they had tough choices and them. they weren't always great.

but i was proud to be part of a solution oriented, consensus building group which is a problem solving group that we need. he did not do that and then , claiming people who were in there. >> i understand. look, mr. peters handed off in 2008, a city that was on the brink of destruction. roads were falling apart, the city services were at historically low levels in terms of library hours and police and fire coverage. after cutting the services, he gave politicians a 42% salary hike. in the middle of one of our worse. budget crises. he took $69 bill for his he took allowances for his bmw. now, in four years' time what did we do? we balanced the subject. -- the budget. reformed we will able to the pension budget. we will able to actually make san diego a model through my pension refer. this is what i'm passionate

about. we started cutting library hours road repair. -- restoring the services mr. peters cut, library hours, road repairs, getting her city moving again in ways we have not seen in a decade. i'm proud of that. it took democrats and republicans work together and no amount of distortions can change that reality. >> thank you. gentlemen. hold that thought. we're just getting started here. well done so far and as we head to this break, we wanted to pass along in the nature of full disclosure. while doing research for this particular debate we learned , that comcast has a political action committee that has donated $8,000. two congressional candidates around the country including mr. peters. that committee's actions are no bearing of what they do. -- on what we do here at nbc seven or any of the questions

tonight but we wanted to be as open as possible. we'll continue do talk to the candidates right after this. >> welcome back. we hosting a conversation with the candidates of the district 52 congressional seat in the two candidates facing off our incumbent congressman scott peters and former city councilman carl dimaio. >> so before we get to some questions, we thought we'd give you the viewers some background of both candidates. scott peters earned his undergraduate degree from duke university and attended duke university school of law. -- new york university school of law. he was an environmental lawyer. he served on the city council from 2000 to 2008. in san diego. he became the first council president. after the switch to a stronger form of government. he lost his bid for the city attorney's office in 2008 and was termed out of office. the same year. in 2009 he became am commissioner of it. of the san diego unified port district. in 22012 you challenge brian

-- he challenged brian bilbray bill brace. he lived with his wife in la hoya. they have a son and daughter >> karl demaio before running for attended georgetown university before running for office demaio , started the hispanic and found that the american strategic institute offers management to conversations. and offered financial and management training to corporations. both companies he later sold for millions. demaio moved to san diego in 2002 where he began speaking publically and backing efforts at government reform. -- aimed at city government reform. in 2008 he ran and won a seat. on the san diego city council. representing district five, he's an openly gay man. and a self-described government watchdog. he later backed proposition which put before voters retooling city worker retirement benefits along with changing the cost of it. he ran for mayor.

he lost to bob filner. demaio's partner is jonathan hale the owner of a san diego based marketing form. targeting the lgbt community. >> one thing won't be candidates -- both candidates have in common they think that we left into a break. so we're going to give them both 20 second to wrap up that and then we want to talk about a few more things. >> i guess we should be taking about issues. , on the car allowance everyone , got the same car. allowance. it existed when i came into the council, i was the first one. to turn it back but everyone got the same amount. the only one not taking it car whowance is lori zappp supported mr. demaio in his tv commercials. i don't understand that he's ever asked her to stop taking it or na he made any effort and the city council got it out of the conversation package. mr. demaio made millions of dollars off of government contracts and posted he was a

man of means who drove a b.m.w. you could say the taxpayers bought him a bmw. it is nothing to do with creating a job or educating kids. perks isg congresses never ridiculous. you ought to be a shamed because you are worth $100,000 but you took payments from taxpayers and this is years while you're cutting services for our kids. in terms of the issue i wanted to respond to is this false attack about the tea party. you saw the package from nbc, gay, socially moderate. focusing on government reform, speaking truth to power including my own political party. making government work. that's not a tea party agenda. that's an agenda of trying to fix broken government and standing up to extremists in my own party and saying cut out the social issues. let's focus on job reform.

and fiscal reform. that has been my life work and mr. peters, no amount of distortion can change that. >> i was struck by your marks on the day that you announced for congress last september. you had some very harsh statements about the republicans. one of your quotes said turner's brand but they are now touting you as someone who can remake the image of the party and you at one point attended yourself as being someone in the mold of senator ted cruz. how is that going to shake out? >> that is not true, this is what mr. peters has claimed. what i had said is people can make a difference even if there's one person and that could be a good difference. oregon be a destructive difference and that was the context took completely out of of the speech which mr. peters took completely out of context. so destructive difference would >> be -- if you have individuals >> if you have individuals and not actually move the ball forward.

i don't see how that moves the needle. and actually solves problems. i willing to take on both the am accomplishment republicans -- the established republicans who think there's nothing wrong with wasteful spending, and certainly nothing wrong with giving politician perks. i'm also ready to talk the tea party one. who also would rather stand there and say we have to get everything down overnight or everyone else is somehow suspect. i think we should have a focus on what i talked about that day life'sannounced that my work is been offering positive solutions and trying to build consensus. i don't care whether it is a democrat, republican or independent. >> if you are so busy taking on everybody and speaking truth to power, think a lot of constituents would want to know

whether you are going to go to washington and fight with everyone. or if you can really get things done. >> and i would point too before i was on the city council where we took out some member of the party. san diego and stood with me to reject that tax increase in the middle of a recession. we took on the pension system and several republicans tried saying we don't need pension reform. i'm pointed to a record of saving the city from bankruptcy and that means you need members of congress members of the city council who are not worried about pleasing the special interest about making sure they provide. >> your question at the nail on the head and the fact is, you no, the tea party, the frustrated it's a shutdown the government. the tea party talks back to the republicans. it says shut down the government

and don't pay our debts. they don't seem to have any duty to come together and reach an agreement. that's the mold that mr. demaio has followed. both in his own words, who supports a him and in his history. he fought with everybody. but the problem is if we have too much of that in washington. i and to shake hands ant tell us. i was proud to be unanimously elected as the city council president. it's a sign. mr. demaio is the only member of the city council, the only member. who is not trusted by his colleagues with even a committee chairmanship. they needed someone who can work with other people and that's what we have to avoiding congress. we cannot share this with divisiveness by sending another tea party extremist. >> take a look at the problems we did in san diego.

eliminated the politician pensions and perks they were giving themselves. we stopped the downtown redevelopment shell game where they were taking our money from the general fund and putting it in the pockets of developers. we stopped the largest increase in the history of san diego that mr. peters was backing. look at the economist spent we are able to get done in four years. that is a positive record. san diego is today benefit from the fact that we fixed the financial crisis. i'm proud of that work and i took democrats and republicans. >> although people care about what you do in the city, with a want to know what you are going to do in congress. you said you think we should leave social issues out of our politics. you're going to have to deal with these social issues if you're elected to congress. you both are telling us you are moderate on matter if of these issues. where do you disagree so that the voters know? can we just write that off as

they both agree? >> i think it gets back to jeans question. when i announced for congress and this is how i dealt with these issues throughout my time at city council. i said we should trust individuals to make decisions for themselves. >> we are going to trust you to make decisions as you represent us. >> that means going to washington and standing up to some of the more right-wing members of the party and saying i respect your beliefs if i don't agree with them. this is not the place. governments and congress will not be the place to impose your moral views on the rest of us. oppose any i will attempts to put social issues or social agenda at the forefront of congresses priorities. >> i'm proud to be endorsed by pro-chores america and planned parenthood. i have a long-standing track record of standing up for women and women's reproductive freedom and their economic security. the thing about mr. demaio is you. debt did not get an answer

to your question. he will not fill out the form that planned parenthood puts out to tell where he is on this issue. they endorsed republicans like jerry sanders and greg cox and ron roberts to fill out this questionnaire. they make it public and you can see my. i have a 100% record standing up for women's reproductive freedom and have been advocate of equal pay for equal work. mr. demaio do not take any women'sn any of those workplace equity issues until a press conference two weeks ago and he did not mention the paycheck fairness act which i have been behind from was two years since i got to congress. rainer who is. raising money for him to let us have a raise so i like him saying that he's a moderate. we don't know whether he would support the paycheck fairness act. it's more than labels, you have to say what you do for people and women.

>> would you be able to say whether he could support this? >> i have said that clearly months ago. this is what's wrong with our political system, democrats want to social issues and keep them alive and far right republicans want to use social issues and keep them alive. to constantly battle and issues that should have nothing to do with what happens in congress, we should allow individuals to decide these issues anderr on the side of personal freedom. >> what about asking the government for some sort of help? >> i believe our civil rights laws should defend individuals and we should treat -- we should treat everyone with respect. we are getting a lot of attention in my candidacy as perhaps someone who can break -- someone who can challenge the intolerat inflexible views of the republican party. if we are willing to trust

people through lower taxes and willing to trust the free market to solve government mandates, can we trust people to love who they want to love? and trust people to make decisions for their health? these are issues we should settle on the score of equality, respect, and nondiscrimination. i will be a voice in the republican party to change those issues nationally. >> let's let congressman peters weight and. >> when he had a chance to be a voice he wasn't. i supported marriage equality. we used to call it same-sex marriage back in 2000 when i was running for office. mr. demaio was elected in 2008 in june he goes he won the primary. the next thing up was proposition eight. he wouldd him if please as a republican be a change agent and stand up and say this is the wrong thing to do. he told his own community know he would not do it. that's why at the pride parade, you saw him get booed and he

will not going our because he cannot stand the treatment. the community feels that he turned his back on them and he did not stand up. i think these words are hollow. we see someone running for office and said it was now popular but has no history of really being the change agent that he purports to be today. >> are you being ambiguous? always been have clear about my orientation if that's what you are referring to. i have always been a believer in personal freedom. i have not reserved any sort of support for those issues. bt voting100% lg record on the city council. i led the charge to get the city on record against don't ask, don't know which allowed gay servicemembers to serve openly with dignity and without fear of retaliation. i also supported the equal benefits ordinance that said we should be treating people equally whether they are married or domestic partners.

mr. peters wants to misrepresent my position. he wants to divide us and that's what's wrong in washington. they look at the social issues as issues to excite the base. it distracts us from getting people back to work, creating middle-class jobs, balancing the budget and dealing with the national debt and holding government accountable for veterans programs. we have to get off these divisive social issues. by willing to do my part challenging the republican party but you have shown in this debate that you are willing to deceive san diego's and distort my record and i think is a shame. >> there has been no distortion in the record. it has been quite clear. i would be happy to move onto other questions. >> let's talk about health care for a moment. with national healthcare and the so-called obamacare, same question for both of you -- repeal it, replace it, were fix it? >> i am a fix it guy.

i was in congress when it passed the affordable care act. we cannot go back to where we were before with people getting their health care from emergency rooms which costs us money. people don't have enough money to pay their medical bills is the largest cause of personal accuracy and costs are spiraling out-of-control of control insurance companies can deny your coverage is a pre-existing conditions. we have to move beyond that so i think this has been progress. there is a lot left to do and one of the areas where i have distinguished myself as an independent is willing -- is being willing to take votes with the other party to fix this law. i voted to let your keep -- let you keep your plan if you like it and get individuals the same extension and compliance time is businesses. when we saw the roll out and how that was botched, that was a good vote and i have shown again and again i'm willing to work on it to make it better. i don't support repealing it. we cannot go back, we have to move forward. >> health care was in a crisis

state before obamacare and obamacare i think is the wrong direction. it adds to the problems3. neither party has offered a solution to provide for accessible, affordable quality health care were people get to make decisions with her doctors, not some health insurance company getting in the way and not some government bureaucrat telling us what's good for us. i supported different approach to the health care reform debate. i hope we can get past the labels of obamacare, republican if we cant, and say support commonsense health-care reforms that bend the cost curve to make health care more affordable. there are some things i would keep about obamacare. i would keep the elimination of the pre-existing condition penalty. i've never understood why that was in place. i think it's a very punitive policy that health insurance companies used to limit access to care. second, i would allow children in college to continue on their parents insurance if they chose

to. i would also keep health-care exchanges but i would not have government manager website or the exchanges. i would allow the market to handle that because a health care exchange allows us to diversify the risk pool and allows us to get bulk purchasing power. i will go further -- i would allow people to redeem their employer health plan on the exchange to get a better plan or a plan that allows them to keep their doctor. i would allow competition across state lines. i would also reverse the $700 billion in cuts that mr. peters supported as part of obamacare to medicare. that threatens the health care security of seniors. above everything else, i would strip members of congress of those special health care subsidies they put in the obamacare law. if a law is good enough for you and i to comply with, why shouldn't members of congress be expected to live under the same law? >> i think the implication is

that mr. tamayo would vote to repeal it but i did not hear that. the 700 million dollars was attack of the last campaign. i was not even here when obamacare was adopted. i think that attack is misplaced. you should know that i have turned down my congressional pension. i have turned down the congressional health care. when the tea party sequester went into effect and it was eight percent across-the-board cuts, i cut my own pay eight percent and donated it back to charity. when the tea party shut down the government because they wanted turned mythe aca, i whole salary over to charity here in san diego for veterans and seniors who were affected by those cuts. i don't want to hear that i am not attuned to what these perks are.

tamayo -- adel maillot --i have given every dime of my pension back and i am proud to do so. >> this is an important issue. it's about leading by example. will our elected officials put them under the same rules as the rest of us? >> let me ask you about an overarching issue. this is pretty crucial in the western states especially california. we've got a drought going on. what specific plans or ideas or legislative initiatives to you or congressman you have for dealing with this especially since there are concerns about whether san diego will get another waiver from the clean water act to discharge sewage into the ocean. we have done it for a number of years. what about funding for the pure water program? is there a linkage there?

is there anything you can get through congress and the white house? here --eters just sat he's worth $100 million and there's nothing wrong with that, congratulations. he's the eighth richest member of congress but this is a man was worth this amount on the city council and voted to increase his own salary and took a big automobile allowance -- auntie took his pension early. he also voted in congress to protect the perks of members of congress. he allowed them to get paid even though they shut down the government. i need to correct the record before we move to water because this is important. i think this is a lead by example issue. >> we've got some other stuff to get to. >> do you have something you can do that's immediate? >> it's about investing in infrastructure and making sure that we have water structure in san francisco that allows us to save money.

mr. peters had a federal law called the clean water act. he wrote it to not follow the clean water act and setting water rates in san diego on resident so he could subsidize businesses. we will not save water until we change the water act. i want to address what i think is a fundamental issue that the localities, the state, and the federal government have to be in partnership with. that sandia has taken a lead to take care of its own water supply. on the council, we did a deal with the farmers and the imperial county to bring water in. we also invested in storage at local level. ination whichesal is an important issue. we have to diversify our water supply. the other thing we supported locally was the pure water thing which people demonized as toilet into the tap. we need to recycle our water. my opponent was an opponent of that. we cannot be sending treatable

water out for miles into the ocean. we have to take care of that resource right here. in the federal government, we have gone from being behind the curve in san diego always asking for permission to discharge waste is not treated to the level of other places. we always made a scientific justification for it. we did not want to impose the cost on ratepayers but using this pure water system, we can be the leader in the nation. we can show how to do recycling and take care of our own resources and do it here. that does not need the permission of the federal government. the federal government needs to be a partner infrastructure we hopes folks will support the state water bond. tothis question might speed more of a big picture of how you would look at having this job in congress. representative jackie speer of california has asked the house oversight committee to hold a hearing on the ray rice domestic incident and how the nfl handled it.

have democratic senators also brought up the washington football team's name. if you are in congress, would you support having a hearing like this and would you support that sort of legislation? >> i think the ray rice case is deplorable. women should not be treated that way and we have role models. we should hold them to a higher standard. my hope is that the nfl can clean up this mess. >> would you hold hearings on it? >> hearings are important because it is part of raising the consciousness and the issue. if we are not satisfied they have dealt with these issues, congress is a member of levers it can use to push the issues along. at this point, i want to see what the nfl does. i think the message has been sent loud and clear. as far as the redskins name, i don't support that name. i think it is offensive to many

of our native americans. in san diego county, we have 19 tribes. . >> you would support the legislation? >> my hope is that the team ownership will see this is not a good economic decision for them. if necessary, think the congress can take action on this. wei would just say that should recognize that domestic violence is a problem that extends far beyond the nfl. the interest congress has beyond whether it's in football. we have been dealing with this and jackie spears has been a leader, in the military. inplay an important role congress and facilitating a national conversation about these things. we have to shine a light on this in congress. the idea of having hearings -- i don't want you to think we are about the nfl but we have to have this discussion. i think it's important for congress to participate in that and play a role. >> we are just about out of time and we would love to give both of you all one minute to get some final thoughts or 30

seconds. in this campaign, you will see a lot of these nasty attack ads and i think san diego deserve better. the four years i was on the city council, we save the city from the brink of bankruptcy. the measurements i always use was not to balancing the budget, it was restoring important services to our communities. in washington, we have to tackle the fiscal crisis and get the middle class jobs back in this country so the american dream is restored and we have to hold government accountable to get results in key areas like veterans benefits and the border. i'm a proven reformer and no amount of name-calling will change that. >> when i was elected in 2012, i promised to bring a problem-solving approach to congress to get beyond this tea party divisive mess. we have made tremendous strides. we have the first budget congress in three years. the local delegation has five people who like each other and can work together.

we need to continue to extend that ethic throughout congress. if the 52nd district voters are willing to do so, i would be happy to go back and continue to fight to make it better. >> this sounds like a good place to end it. our special thanks to the two candidates for sharing their views. the 52nd district is an important district for not only us but the entire nation. they're watching to see which of these men will represent many of you in congress. >> we hope you are able to get a better sense of who they are and what they stand for and how they would work for our community. don't forget, the election is november 4. many of you will be voting by mail before then. we hope this helps give you information to make a choice. thank you for watching. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] this weekend on the c-span networks, friday night at 10:00 eastern on c-span, a

conversation with retired u.s. supreme court justice john paul stevens. on saturday night at nine eastern, the founder and former chair of microsoft, bill gates on the ebola virus outbreak in west africa. sunday evening at 8:00 on q and a, the director of the smithsonian's national museum of african art. friday night at 8:00 on c-span two, authors talk about war and the constitution. saturday night at 10:00 on afterwards, author have work richards -- heather cox judson on the republican party live sunday at noon, the legal affairs editor of reuters and supreme court biographer. friday at 8:00 in american history tv on c-span3, historians and authors talk about world war i 100 years later. saturday at 5 p.m. eastern, former fbi agents on catching the unabomber suspect ted kaczynski. sunday afternoon on american artifacts at 6 p.m., the 100th anniversary of the panama canal. find our television schedule at

www.c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. us,can call us, it e-mail or you can send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. c-span's 2015 student can competition is 150 prizes totaling $1 00,000. create a 5 to 7 documentary on the topic the three branches and you. grab a pen and get started by. mary falin and the first and only debate with her democratic

challenger joe dorman. governor falin was first elected in 2010 with more than 60% of the vote. oeta and e comes from oklahoma state university.