bill 38 16. he voted for it on september 20 8, 2010. >> we want to talk about a topic that we talked about under the umbrella of energy. senator brown, you said climate change is a result of natural and man-made forces. let's accept the idea that we cannot do much about the natural. but what should we do to stem the tide of the man-made damage being done? >> we need to have an all in of the above approach energy. wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, geo, making sure that everybody is at the table. it is so critically important for the key is how do we strike that balance? how do we have the ability to enjoy our environment, enjoy the natural beauty of our state, but also have the ability to create jobs and become energy independent? we have a real difference on the issue purchase against nuclear, against coal, against gas and oil innovation. i supported the tax credit. believing and allowing our wind

and solar folks to have opportunity to see if it works. efficiency is very important. that is why we recycle. we shut off our lights. but to think that we are going to not have the ability to become energy independent, that is where we differ greatly. >> senator shaheen, please respond and include whether you think a carbon tax is part of the solution could >> i have not supported a contacts and i do not support it. not supported a carbon tax. i do not support it. in new is down 40% hampshire. shorter.eason is i think we have to address it in ways that will help us in new england. i support energiey efficiency. i have legislation that would create 200,000 jobs, save consumers $16 billion and kate 20 -- and take 22 million cars off the road.

supportent continued to those subsidies to the oil companies. i think we should take some of that money and we should invested in new energy technologies and energy efficiency. and companies like flex energy, they are making gas turbines that are hoping to clean our oil industry. we should be supporting that, not continue to support the subsidies to the oil companies. >> energy efficiency is important. when you're dealing with an energy efficiency bill, you have to include the keystone pipeline. i'm in favor of it. good union, nonunion jobs. opposedshaheen's pitches indicated she is not proposing a carbon tax to achieve voted to pave the way for new national energy tax by actually creating a fund that would spend the money from the tax here it once again, only in washington is that not true sas to how they are trying to spend money before they get it. >> senator shaheen, did you want a moment to respond? we can move on. said, you know, as i have

i have never supported a national energy tax. independent fact checkers say that accusation is just false. what i do support is energy efficiency. i support taking some of those subsidies that my opponent keeps wanting to give to the oil companies and investing in energy efficiency, new energy technologies, because that is what gives our choices -- gives us choices. >> we will light it up before we get to our closing questions. charlie brown's great pumpkin is going to be on after this, i think. so, senator shaheen which character in peanuts do you most closely identify with? >> lucy, of course. >> senator brown? >> charlie brown? >> who's the football? we are going to move forward now to the final portion of our debate. we are going to have a closing question.

it is not something that is issue-based. we did draw for the order earlier. senator brown is going first heard the closing question comes from george stephanopoulos. >> i'm a linus guy. pigpen.fer >> senator brown, it is not using too strong a word to say that most americans are disgusted with congress to low approval ratings. 2/3 of americans believe we are going in the wrong direction or you served in the senate before. you want to go back again. so i wonder if you can reflect on what personal responsibility you take for creating that toxic and private? -- toxi environment. and what will you do if you get elected that you did not do last time? >> to be that independent senator. i was 50-50 voting with both sides. bill.e to get a veterans that's a very real difference. for this last six years, with no

pushback from our senior senator, washington has been chipping away to our rights and freedoms, telling us what to do, how to do, and sit down in be quite if you do not like it. i'm not going to stand for it. neither should you. we have an opportunity to be that check and balance to the president and pushback against the overbearing government and what they are doing to our citizens, chipping away with our rights and freedoms. and the only way we can change direction is to change senators. senator shaheen is a nice pers on. greatly, but since going to washington she has lost her independence to she is voting with the president 99% of the time for you asked what i will do. i will be that independent senator for the people of new hampshire. i will bring back that new hampshire independent spirit, fighting for our new hampshire advantage and fighting for our freedoms. that is what is missing in washington. they do not talk, they do not like each other. i want to be there to make sure i preach that cap. >> is or anything you would do differently? >> i think we need to change the rules of the senate. we should not allow one person

to hold things up and the senate. that is what my opponent did when he was in washington. he voted for 44 filibusters. that is more than we had in this country in the whole 50 years between 1917 and 1968. i've sponsored twice as many bipartisan bills as he has in the senate. and i believe we have got to work across the aisle, but most importantly, i believe we need a senator from new hampshire who's going to put new hampshire first, who understands that we need to give our small businesses and are middle-class families a fair shot at success. that is what i am done and the last six years. that is what i will continue to do it supporting things like the small business jobs act, which are helping our small businesses. i talked about -- the funding in helped 300as businesses create or retain 3000 jobs. we have seen 1 million people come to the united states and spent $ 4 million because of the travel promotion act that helped us attract visitors to out that by the state. willed somebody who

work to poor new hampshire everything with a. that is what i will do. my opponent supported corporate special interest when he was in washington. >> that is going to conclude tonight's debate. thanks very much to the candidates for coming. of course, thanks to our panel and her audience in studio. reminder for election information anytime, you can find it at wmur.com. on monday at 7:00, you can catch up on all of the races during our commitment 2014 countdown to the election show. this sunday, by the way, i will have a debate recap on close-ups. also on sunday, you can watch this week with george stephanopoulos, which i'm sure might touch on a little bit of politics for >> no question. we will have special election coverage tuesday night. . >> see you back here tonight at 10:00 on metv on wmur. thank you. have a great night. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> you can watch this and other campaign debates on our website c-span.org. we also have ads for races from around the country. here's a look of at the ads running in the new hampshire senate race. the nation's highest elected -- that is something i'm deathly going to change. -- definitely going to change. >> we have some of the highest energy costs in the nation. it will go up $42 a month more. about 75,000 electricity customers in new

hampshire. month extra, that is 83,000 homes annd businesses in new hampshire. r your bill.re fo ♪ i'm going tot change. ♪ >> i've never voted to outsource jobs. it is interesting when you look -- [laughter] >> your involvement with the

company. you are on the board. the business plan includes shipping jobs overseas. to minimize costs, outsourcing. >> i've never voted to outsource jobs. it is interesting when you look -- [laughter] >> anyone who turns on the tv these days know that we face challenges to our way of life. radical islamic terrorists are threatening to -- president obama and senator shaheen seem confused about the nature of the threat. not me. i want to secure the border, keep of the people who would do us harm. and restore america's leadership in the world. i am scott brown. i approved this message. because protecting the homeland is the first step to making america strong again. thehey don't call us

granite state for nothing. i never back down from a fight for the people of the hampshire. i do not work for big oil companies could i work for you. saving jobs at the shipyard, helping businesses compete, allowing families to refinance student loans and veterans get health care close to home. getting the job done for new hampshire. i am jeanne shaheen. i approved this message. i did not just move here. i have been here fighting for you. i would be honored to have you wrote. c-span's campaign 2014 coverage includes more than 100 debates for the control of congress. stay in touch and on top of the debates and engage. follow us on twitter @c-span and like is that facebook.com/c-span. on c-span, political hosts a discussion on next week's midterm elections with the heads of the democratic and republican senatorial campaign committee's. after that, events from the washington ideas for.

cook discusses the midterm elections. then remarks by secretary of state john kerry. and later dr. anthony fauci. on friday, c-span's campaign 2014 coverage continues with debates from alaska and virginia. at 8:00 p.m., the alaska u.s. senate debate between incumbent and his republican challenger dan sullivan. at 10 p.m. eastern, the debate between the candidates for virginia's seventh district seat. democrat jackd trammell are vying for the seat held by eric cantor. the c-span cities tour takes book tv and american history tv on the road traveling to u.s. cities to learn about their history and literary life.

this weekend we partnered with comcast for a visit to colorado springs, colorado. 806, montgomery pike was sent into the american southwest to explore the region. very similar to lewis and clark who were sent to the northwestern part of the newly acquired louisiana territory. pike was sent to the southwest part of the territory. and from his perspective, when he came out here, he dropped off the map. he went to an area that was unknown. when pike first sees the grant peak, he thinks he will result, the in a few days. it takes weeks to approach. they reach what they believe is a lower mountain on the flakes peak.the flanks of pikes hishat point he wrote in journals that given the condition, given the equipment they had at the time, no one could have summited the peak.

pike's peak inspired the poem that became "america the beautiful." coloradohere to springs to teach a summer course at colorado college in 1803. the view from the top of the mountain inspired the poetry, areired the images that captured in the poetry of the united states. of our events from colorado springs saturday at noon eastern on c-span 2's book to be an sunday on american history tv on c-span 3. few of the comments we received on or ebola virus coverage. >> my comment about ebola is we actually had ebola right here in this country. doctors coming back with ebola, patients in texas hospitals and

nurses and so forth. it's not hysteria. people are just reacting to a very serious disease where you doctorshave teams of and nurses waiting on you constantly. but we have the isis fear, too. they show the beheadings over and over on all of the media. getppose we should not hyped up about isis coming over to shop off your has, but not ebola that is actually here. >> i think that the people who in the area of the ebola from enteringed any other nation. and it is up to our leaders to do that. ebola the is this proof that we need a national health care system? we have just seen what happened when in texas with this capitalistic health care system.

and what now it is going to cost us millions and millions to clean that mess up. and that is what i was curious -- see what we would get for out there for remarks on that, if proof we need national healthcare. quest continue to let us know what you think about the problems you're watching to call us at 202-626-3400. e-mail us. or you can send us a tweet. the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. next, the executive directors of the democratic senatorial campaign committee and the national republican senatorial committee. about tuesday's midterm elections and the president's role this campaign cycle. collinsnd rob interviewed by politico. this is just over an hour.

ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the chief white house correspondent for politico. [applause] >> thank you for coming out to this playbook lunch in the middle of the day. five days from election day. welcome to all of you a live stream land as well. today we are hosting the executive director of the national republican senatorial committee rob collins. and his counterpart from the democratic central campaign guy cecil. it is only the second time they have appeared together in the first time in public. we are excited to hear their the election day. we will take your question. cards.you have we will also be taking them by

twitter. lunch.ok we would like to thank the bank of america for supporting these events. the playbook event series is and policiesues that matter most in washington. we have had a lot of fun. the roadevents on throughout this midterm election cycle. thanks to bank of america for making this continued conversation and this partnership possible. so now we would love to welcome guy cecil and rob collins. thanks for doing this. [applause] go right here. >> i'm in the middle. >> thank you. and you can start. twitter your questions playbook lunch. this morning, politico, and by @guycecil and @collins.

in today's magazine, the crystal ball was headlined "bet on a gop senate majority." how suare are you that he's right? >> we feel pretty good. our campaigns are working hard. at the end of the day, candidates matter. as mitch mcconnell says, this is the best recording class in 30 years. a committee,job as we are not on the ballot and we do not get elected. we do not get one vote. our job is to put campaigns in a position to win by recruiting and training them and by investing in them, giving them all of the best strategies and technologies and everything else to win. you know, depending on how you do the math, we have between eight and 10 campaigns on a razor's edge. where we started in february, 2013. the dems were going to take the house and in a place to have a super majority in the senate to

where we are right now. we are pleased with our progress. if you look -- all the prognosticators say that statistically odds are republicans will take the senate. we feel great where we are. anduy, if larry are wrong, it can happen, why will that be? >> first of all, i miss the headlines that were predicting our super majority last year. fact of thehe matter is that despite the historical trends, that have taken place for the last 100 years in midterm elections where the president's party has lost .despite the but one fact that there are nine states that are currently within the margin of error in states where the president lost, 8 of those by double-digit, half by 20 points, despite all of that, 8 to 10 razor's edge, within the margin of error.

from our perspective, the question that is going to be put to voters is not how do feel about the president or what you think about what is happening in washington? it is going to be about the two people on the ballot. it is going to be whether or not michelle nunn or david to do best fits the voters. >> given the map you have, why are there 8 to 10 races on a razor's edge? >> because we are going against the incumbents. they are purple and blue states. and incumbents are hard to beat. three in the last 10 years have been beat. this race has always been analogous to the 1986 race, what he saw a bigger pelican class come -- a big republican class come in with reagan. you saw the same class beat the heck out of a bunch of democrats. arkansas, georgia, north carolina, south dakota, nevada,

entiren with 50.8 the time. that is how we have framed it up. if you look at how we conducted ourselves. we always planned for a big push right at the end to try and push these races over. beat.cumbers are tough to the good news about our incumbents is that they are all coming back. they all look really good write up every got them all to the primaries for the first time since 2008. we were able to pivot towards picking up open seats and taking out incumbents that were well -funded, has huge name idea advantages. game that had been put to work before. so we had to build -- we went with a lot of first-time candidates who have done remarkably well. >> let's break it down. the audience, both in person and on the live stream, has been following these races closely. what are the three closest senate races in the country? >> i think george would be of the top of the list, and that

has changed a lot over the last five or six weeks. eorgia would be at the top of the list. colorado is a close race. those of you that three or think are the closest. >> you have a slightly different list? >> north carolina and new hampshire. 96% of voters are going to vote on election day in new hampshire. we have the momentum, all the movement has been toward scott brown. the same with north carolina. brown'se way, scott movement has surprised everybody, including him. >> movement? no. not to be argumentative -- but we reset after the primary september 9, that the republican base is going to go to the republicans. that race is going to tighten up. i think he has run the race he predicted, which was it was going to be a short race, hard race. and what he said to me when we were talking about running was,

i want to be on the ground shaking hands. he has done an unbelievablejob. >> how do you explain scott brown's durability and closeness? he is not even from the. c-span 3 >> i think the most important number in the new hampshire raises 50, which is the number that jeanne shaheen has never been below in the course of our polling of until which hasng's track are at 52%. and so the reality is that new hampshire is a notoriously fickle state. flippedse members have back and forth over the last three cycles. we prepared for and expect a close race everywhere, which is why over the last 8 cycles we have won most of the close races everywhere. surprise us that scott brown would be a 46% or 47%. the problem for scott brown is it is a two-way race. and 47% does not do it. >> so you saw nate silver who says republican have a safety 64.0% chancee a

of winning the majority. the new york times give republicans a moderate edge. the washington post is hedging their bets. they say that republicans have a 93% chance. the, on the way over here in cab, i got an e-mail from your president said that guy cecil is cautiously optimistic about the elections. why? >> i would offer for other protections that nate silver mad e. >> are you going to go negative on nate silver? >> no, i'm going to go factual. there was a 7% chance that -- a 13% that jon tester was going to win. a 30% chance that harry reid was going to win. all of those four people won. silvenot to say that nate r is going to be wrong, but we are on a razor's edge in terms of who is going to hold the majority. you do not have to be wrong and 10 races to make a difference.

you have to be wrong in one or two races. in the past is that 10 races in the cycle, we are within the margin of error in all of those on either side. quite this is a jump all question. neither of you may buzz in an answer first. today's column "against the president said," obama is costing democrats control of the senate." true? >> false. go first on him that one. i'm glad to jump ball on that one. i appreciate his perspective. josh also predicted that teri lynn lang would be in a margin of error race. all just think that, look, these prognostications are better off when the election is over. let me say one other thing about the president. this is not about barack obama personally. ronald reagan lost seats. george w. bush lost seats. every president in her second

midterm is had the challenges this president has. we are not going to nationalize the election and play on the terrain of the republican party. that is why in north carolina, the number two issue among voters is education. why? because we have made it about education. so i do think that a bit of the hyperbole around the president is overplayed. >> ahas president obama done enough to help senate democrats? >> he has done everything we asked for >> nothing. >> he has raised $25 million for senate democrats. available his entire data operation, the best in the country. he has made available every volunteer. just to look at things from the prism of whether or not the present happened to stop at a restaurant in a media market as the only measurement by which he is judged, i think is a pretty simplistic way of looking at things. >> what are you going to say? to be serious for a second, there is a pretty bearish out l

ook, understanding that it is not about the president, but to what degree is that part of the because of the present? th head winky face are reale. you face areadwinds real. >> it isn't a can of of a map that is difficult for the democrats regardless of who the president is. we are dealing with states like arkansas, alaska, north carolina, louisiana, many of which the senate candidate is the only democrat elected statewide. is the only democrat elected to congress. so i think from our perspective, it is less about identifying and isolating the president as the number one issue and recognizing what the facts are, that irrespective of who the president is we are dealing with a set of states that are more republican than they are democrat. that is the challenge we have to overcome. >> just to set our pace because a lot of people here in the audience who are going to be writing stories, doing commentary on election night. rob, how hopeful has the

president been to your candidates? -- how helpful has a president been to your candidates? >> the challenges democrats of had is that they have a president with 42% approval. >> let's talk about your candidates. >> how has the president or the environment help to? >> so the challenge you have is -- we have a president who your baseline is an unpopular president. the president is under 50% lose 5.5 seats. then you look at the past summer we have had. obamacare rollout. then a summer of the border crisis. ukraine, syria, isis. and then you see the ebola, where it is not me speaking. if you look at the polling, the president has not gone high marks on foreign policy p has the worst job approval. when the president gets polled nationally with job approval,

his job approval is six points worse. how does that help our candidates? it'll help us recruit. help us to talk to people and say there is an opportunity to serve and win. and there is an opportunity to talk to the amerco people and say that there is an alternative, there is a different direction -- to talk to the american people and say that there is an alternative, there is a different direction. this midterm is about where we are right now. the american people have lost confidence in the economy by six points. they feel we are on the wrong track. they feel this president has not led and the right way. it has nothing do with his personal approval. it has everything to do with his job approval. our candidates are comfortable talking about that. >> how much of a difference has ebola made? >> the one thing i wanted react is that -- to create th -- cor rect that americans think that the president has handled ebola well. contributed to an

extreme on ease. >> i think you are isolating individual issues. if we go back to the v.a. or to ukraine, there are dozen commentators saying this is the issue that is going to matter most in this election. i think that context through which to look at this is that in north carolina, we are going to spend between the two parties million. in alaska, one congressional district, $55 million. so the ability to break through in every other commercial, was a paid advertising for the campaign is overstating. that is why you go back to north carolina. or let's talk about georgia rain david perdue o tings has risen by 15 points. why is that? because in georgia, it is a contest between the two people that are on the ballot. and not just a referendum on an individual crisis or individual challenge the president faces.

so i think it goes back to our we nationalizing the election or is it a choice between two people? it is clear republicans want to nationalize it. and democrats want to make it about the two candidates on the ballot. that is a question that over the course of the next five days, three weeks, two months, we will have answered when the elections are finally >> i would counter that by i talkedebruary 2013, to a group of reporters and said we are going to localize the races. we have. tom cotton talking about social security and veterans. dan sullivan talking about replenishing the teacher fund. we have -- we are not going to make the mistake in 2010 and 2012 are candidates -- where candidates were being attacked

for their local the firebox -- fire department and the response was obamacare. moneye invested a lot of not only in positive ads, and is alsohown numerically, but talking about local issues. we have framed it through the prism of a group of incumbents voting with the president. over 90%lar president of the time. but we have talked about local issues. that narrative is not accurate. >> you all work together. which state is the biggest surprise? >> georgia. at the point we met last time, we were down seven or eight points. today, we are up three points, 47%. we have eight or 9% undecided. >> why has the --

>> because we have done the opposite of what the president -- republicans have done. we have localize the election. when you look at the case he made and what voters are see ing, they are coming to terms with david purdue's record. the biggest issue is outsourcing. david purdue is probably the worst republican candidate the cycle. for a candidate to stand at a podium -- >> senator roberts? >> close call. worst nonincumbent. >> there are plenty of bad democratic candidates, don't worry. that a candidate says i was only sued by 2000 women for gender dissemination. by most measures, that would be seen as a lot of women. [laughter]

combinationt is a of the fact that he has been in it i put -- and inadequate candidate in michelle nunn is the single best candidate we ave this cycle as challenger. >> who's the worst democratic candidate? >> that's a good question. so many. >> who has underperformed and been weaker than you expect? >> kay hagan. i thought she has hid behind a big pile of money. that was debate, covered by the top three political journalists was a mistake. the denver post endorsing cory gardner. change fromriking endorsing democrats.

to besements, you have careful not to overthink them. it is an indication of a campaign that is a little off. >> you know: do better than anyone in this room -- colorado better than anyone in this room. technically a purple state but many are thinking of it as a loose state. why has he done so well? >> because it is a purple state. republicans won almost every statewide office. the of what happened under hickenlooper and bedded wins was republican -- bennett wins was republican. in a state like colorado or iowa, purple states would be competitive. that has been true in the case. the one thing i think, and this is a misperception, is that mark udall has spent all his time talking about choice

contraception. captain --r country contraception. editorialszen written against us at we were making choice and contraception a big issue. there was no way republicans were ever going to roll back choice and reproductive rights. we have seen over the course of time that they have done exactly that. this idea that somehow talking about choice in contraception is i'm trying to, think of a nice word i can say. it shows a misunderstanding, especially, of women in suburban colorado. who see it not just as a social issue but economic issue. >> who all agree are the key to the election. >> absolutely. >> they are the key.

it has notwomen -- worked. a seven point advantage. not enough for me they have turned off a lot of folders -- not enough. they have turned off a lot of voters. they should have been talking about the economy. instead, they pivoted into the single issue and it has not worked and turned off people. >> everyone on the room and a lifestream is a pundit. some get paid for it. has aody here conversation in their circle of influence. on election night, what is the state we can watch for how the night will go? if itth carolina is a -- is a go for us, it will be a great night. obama had many paths to get to

of 280 -- we have a lot paths to get the majority. some in runoff scenarios. eastampshire and other coast dates will -- states will post early. if we can keep it tight, and then looking to the west to alaska. we will not get returns until 1:00 or 2:00. that is what we are looking at. >> do agree that new hampshire and north carolina are bellwethers? >> i would add georgia in their, iowa. is in ruralreality parts the state, in some cases the ballots will not be cast for four or five days. we are spending a lot of time preparing for a runoff and recounts. just to be prepared. those two states, georgia and

iowa, probably florida, will probably give you a good impression of what is going to happen. >> if republicans take the majority, we will that when? i would predicted election night, meaning my election night, before i go to bed. i feel good about where we are. how the races are closing. the momentum and enthusiasm. how the independents are breaking. key constituencies. they rely on either through early voting or just in polling, they are not where they need to be. i think election night, we could have not an early night but a majority. louisiana,d virtually certain -- the runoff in louisiana, virtually certain. >> i think it is most likely. >> georgia?

>> there is a path for us to get to 50. i am pretty coveted david purdue will not hit 50 on election night. >> you agree, likely runoffs in both? >> there are more scenarios. there are more polls that say we are up. >> actually one of the last seven. >> there have been five public polls that have purdue up. >> we will check on that. >> i guess i would say this. we had a dip in the polls during the outsourcing debate. it is what it is. it tightened up. we are seeing david purdue nudge back up. it is republican state. early voting has not been where it needs to be for the democrats.

there is a path for david to hit 50. we are prepared for both scenarios. >> how heavily do the national parties play in that? some but he told me, between the two sites, -- >> i think 35 million is a conservative estimate. when you think about 55 million in alaska, georgia is a large state. you have five media markets in louisiana. we are already at $10 million in television reservations in louisiana. haven't even gotten to election day yet. youhile we are on that, think each of them could be 50 million? >> between $35 million-40 nine dollars. >> if the majority is on the line, sure. a goodnalists will have

time, spending their thanksgiving and christmas in atlanta and new orleans. issue of early voting, i was looking at the north carolina numbers. thefact of the matter is margin between democrats and republicans at an early votes right now is almost 17%. a larger margin between democrats and republicans than any last president election. when you look at iowa, the largest number of individual voters are actually democratic gop voters who did not vote in 2010. republican votes are folks that did vote in 2010. in a number of places, we have seen a change in the makeup of the early vote. >> we are going to come to jonathan in a second. how will the undercount of pollsic voters in the play out? >> that has been one of the

primary challenges in colorado. in 2010, there were five or six polls that showed ken buck was winning among hispanics. i think hispanics in colorado, alsoe alaskans are undercounted in alaska. it could play a large role in either election. times, polls york are likely to undercount democrats. do you worry about pulling data? any flashbacks to 2012? >> we have been really tough on our pollsters. ollinglling community -- p can be has change the mix and technology they are using to polling community

has change the mix and how technology they are using. questioning, but also after 2012, how can you not? we learned a lot of lessons. if anything, i feel good about where we are. we are seeing a preponderance of polls that favor our worldview. we are not fooling ourselves and saying, our polling is the right one and there's is wrong. we are constantly checking and looking at the mix. and are we waiting or did we actually speak to them? are we extrapolating based on a few interviews? it is time-consuming and more do notive and posters like it, but that is the challenge we face in becoming a 2000 12. -- after

2012. >> jonathan? >> wanted to ask about kansas. >> no separate of question? -- south dakota question? it was said it is an impossibility that he will caucus with republicans if he wins in kansas. my question is whether or not you agree with that and are they ruling out they would go to him the day after the election and try to convince him to caucus with them? i know you don't have a candidate in kansas -- how do you assess the race? >> republican senators do not caucus with private set -- citizens.

all the movement has been towards roberts. up, where welves need to be. the roberts campaign released an ad, and endorsement ad by the kc football coach. we feel good. the party is high functioning in kansas. we have a great ground game. pat roberts is going to win. >> i asked you hypothetically. i know we have engaged in hypotheticals. are you saying republicans will not go to him and say, try to convince him? >> i am on the political side of the equation. i will lead of -- leave that to the policy side. ship will try to have

as many voices at the table supporting republican policies. if that is part of the equation, it is part of the equation. those are decisions made in the great big white building in the middle the city come and not where i live. >> either of you may buzz in. excuse me, go ahead. the leader will try to get him to join the republicans. the fact of the matter is, we do not have a candidate. we see the same polls as everyone else, which is is a jump ball. i like will go until election day. in.ither of you may buzz which of you has the technology edge in the selection? -- in this election? voter vault has been a

tremendous asset. 2002. created in it provides great historical data. it got a little threadbare. the movement itself inside and outside the party structure has invested over $50 million and data. real-timeave the application we had in 2012. i think we have made massive strides and it has worked well. florida 13,aces, where we went head to head with the democrat technology and turnout machine. performed well. the proof of the pudding will be how we do tuesday and the runoffs but based on the cultural changes, in which we have the think that has been an

unbelievable change. turn joked it is hard to an elephant. you have to smack him hard. we got smacked hard and we turned him. do we catch up? i don't know. to something up built over the course of the obama presidency? we are going to have to find out. a massive investment and cultural change. early returns show we are doing ok. anyhat is ok -- possible the technology area that was not possible in 2012? >> one of the things we decided early was we were going to try to apply lessons learned both in senate races in the presidential race. that is why, in addition to bringing field and technology folks, we also brought on board the president's analysts team.

the deputy campaign manager for the president. to serve as advisors for our field director. the real-time application, i think, is the thing -- talking to jim a couple of days ago. our ability to go in and look at, from my office, the organizer in the arctic circle office. the doorsther the have been knocked on, the goals have been met. the flake rate. >> what is the flake rate? >> the number of volunteers who sign up but do not show up. that allows us to adjust the total number we need. i think maybe four or five days ago, the rnc put out a huge press release the first time in history that republicans have passed democrats for early voting in iowa.

everyone of those days since then, we have outpaced them in both requests and returns. we have a pouty -- have about 835,000 vote lead. we are looking at unaffiliated voters. ly to votemost like for different candidates. the real-time application of the and, the booty of us campaigns to share facts, is something that has moved leaps and bounds. >> what have you learned about technology that will help your candidate in 2016? >> the further application. >> what is the next frontier? what are you hoping to do? >> the better the date it is, the more robust the data is, the better the application is going to be.

the ability to not only target your mail to a household but target your individual television at to a participant -- television ad to a particular household is a huge next step. >> what have you learned about your electorate? your voters? that will help your presidential candidate or shape how the twitter 16 provincial primary is run -- that will shape how the 2016 primaries run? >> all the talk about the republicans being a regional party and having demographics against us is a talking point. >> you think the graphics are working for you -- demographics are working for you? >> i think what we have learned is the engaged audience, if you talk broadly but also specifically, almost to the thereold level --

are predictive analytics that say they can predict how the kids will move based on the parents. you can do well and do better. we spoke about the gender gap. also, if you look at millennial's to read -- millennials. right now, we are plus for. >> what did you make of that? >> the same of what i make of most public polls. >> now you are going negative on harvard? >> this is not a nationalized election. this is not about the president. >> asking millennial's how they feel. >> the reality is we are operating in an election. whenever you have midterm elections where the environment is difficult, the map is difficult, the coverage is difficult, or a president who like every president that is at

40%, you are going to see these types of changes. not just among the one eels but all voters. -- among millennial's but all voters. that republicans find a new ways to alienate the emerging coalitions. welcomet expect to latinos when they are running ads attacking democrats for supporting a bill that was originally authored by marco rubio. that is not the way you expand your election. they are basically picking up the shovel and digging their graves for the 2016 and 2018 elections by alienating young people, unmarried women, african-americans, latinos. a failing philosophy of politics but of government. >> i think you heard you say, when you get away from generalities and look at

specific audiences, you are more optimistic. what is the most encouraging demographic chand -- trend for republicans? demographics are something for other people to worry about. job is 22 months. >> you saw clues. >> it is hard for me to make broad generalizations looking out 10 years. i would be honest and say, votersch to younger w and single women has shown in impact. if will reachem out -. we have seen that movement.

it implies a status model. and republican parties will be on these paths in america is going to change. change is going on within the party. andou look at our leaders, who is going to run for president, who was going to do things in the future, we have diversity on our site. -- on our side. if hillary clinton does not run, they have none. >> what is the diversity on your site? candidates.oo our >> brian sandoval. >> a lot of people running for president. >> is a better group than yours. >> what has been your most effective surrogate? >> over the course of the last couple of weeks, president

clinton and secretary clinton have been remarkably effective. in particular, there is a better committee cater to women who are going to decide the election and secretary clinton. the other great surrogate for us in terms of motivating our base and getting volunteers excited has been senator warren, who has trouble to run the country. the beneficiary of a handful of surrogates. t eagers your mos surrogate? been answer would have barack obama read anytime we got able to say,lways my policies are any ballot. that was helpful. have the- we don't president or first lady. a former resident or first lady on the stump.

we have had john mccain. mitt romney. rand paul, jeb bush, marco rubio. they have been engaging. going out butnly freeing them in. saying, come to my state. i want to help you out. i'm sure i forgot somebody. is hows been gratifying many people have said the senate thing, even though i may not be in the senate or have visions outside this one race, everyone gets how important this is. they are working hard. we are going to see that continue through the election. >> a question from the playbook reader. map and environment you have, -- >> the nrc has been a small committee.

majority.n the obviously to the victor goes the spoils. i would say this. they raised $30 million more than we have. however, if you look at spending and our cost of fundraising, we have been able not only to the competitive over the summer when they had a spending advantage between their party and outside groups, but also to things have been important factors. last month, we have been competitive. we had a great september. we were able to keep cost down. partner.ave had a $100 million that they have invested in races. governor, house, senate, dogcatcher. haveocus on the senate, we

focused energy to build a world-class ground game. well we got outspent on tv and it has been a challenge, we have been competitive. february, 2013, nothing would have changed to change that fact. the important fact is we have had enough resources that people get there is a choice. based on the incumbents. is not just one party. >> how helpful has mayor bloomberg been? any don't think he has done fundraisers for us. he has been engaged in some races. it is less about the raising that is important, even though we have raised more. it is more about the spending. >> who has been the most helpful outside force? >> the senate majority pack has been more engaged and involved. i would expect by the end of this, there will be over $80

million. they were able to come back what was a significantly more aggressive, earlier operation on television than our site had. room to delay going on television and some key most of the coverage on television is about how much money is spent. he one thing republicans have not learned from the 2012 race how -- in many cases, we are being outspent. we have significantly more points on television because we reserve time earlier, more efficiently, and that has made a huge difference in not just the amount of money spent on television but how many points it is actually buy, how many ads it is actually buying. >> you worry about a tom sire who can come in and play big.

>> it's no secret that most democrats believe that we have a -- campaignensis finance system that rewards outside donors. concerned about is that it does not tom sire or michael bloomberg or michael koch. but candidates have less and less of a say in what is happening in their races. across the board, it is not uncommon for a senate candidate to have 20% of those voice on television. way,thing else -- by the not just what is on the other side but also on their side. 70% of the advertising is something that is completely out of your control on both sides. i am not sure that is the way that we want to run campaigns. ultimately, long-term, it is not the way you want to govern. >> i agree.

[laughter] and the gators. >> you have agreed to have lunch together. >> after, yes. d's gety cycle, two e together and have lunch. we are going to do that on roll call. [laughter] how did your researchers miss the john walsh ledger is an instance. in october, he said john walsh was the right candidate with the right team in the right time in place to win for 2014. thatobably in the same way republicans missed monica levies pledgers and charges. i think -- plagiarism charges. on both sides, both sides have

struggles with dealing with it. regretfulcase, it is only in that john is remarkably kind person who has spent his entire career in service to this country and put his life on the line repeatedly and led one of the largest national guard battalions in iraq. my only regret is that it happened to him. but this is something that happens, as we get more into more -- more and more into research and income pain that runs on two years, it happens on both sides. we made a strategic investment early on. internally ando with outside groups research demography. they find these little things that blow up our campaign. we put $3 million into research in the off year.

we are going to bite the bullet and we will continue to do that. discoveredher who elizabeth warren's native american claims is a fabulous researcher. he was going through the paperwork. what caught his attention was there was a very pro-bush neocon thesis. he was investigating it and he put it through a translator that checks for plagiarism. the entire tablet turned bright red. subsequently, the name on the wall at the university has been pulled off. it was pretty dead to rights plagiarism. acrossdid your side come michelle's campaign plan? as tois the secret sauce who found it.

but the research team through america rising and our team -- you know, i don't know much about the research techniques and i asked the same questions. what kind of insane under web, dark red -- dark web, or silk road? >we basically googled michelle nunn and there was a link right to it. so they downloaded it and no one wants to go there because they were afraid to see a bunch of outside things. but it was an unsecured google documents. so he pulled it down. we thought it might be a ruse or a trick so we watched it all the way through. our goal was to actually campaign to make sure that she did not go up on tv -- she is sitting on a huge pile of money. purdue was coming out of a rough runoff.

we ran a memo to try to distract him for a couple of days. we distracted him for three or four weeks. we will -- we were able to get him some money and prepare him for the next election. >> is there something unique to the cycle or has something changed in our politics that the research it's grab so much of the conversation? hits grab so much of the conversation? >> i think it has gotten more prevalent in part because there are more avenues to deliver the hits. 10 years ago, we talked about an hit, you would go to a local reporter and talk to them. the reality is that so many local newsrooms are the pleaded -- are depleted. active newsill very bureaus in des moines to cover politics and in some cases in big cities.

the function of the coverage of the d.c. cases that has driven a lot the expansion on the research side of things. we already have research operations like american rising and american bridge whose express purpose is research for an election that will not be happening for another 2.5 years. i think this is what we are -- and i use this word intentionally -- stuck with unless something fundamentally changes about the way we run the race. >> what is the biggest story about the cycle that was either overlooked or underplayed by the press? something you felt would be a big deal or that you thought should be a big deal that went under the radar? >> kay hagan is worth $50 million. she got her husband and her son stimulus funds for a job that they had never done before. i could not believe that the north carolina press took a pass on it. >> you have a better answer. [laughter] >> it was unbelievable.

i don't even remember the question. i am processing all the -- >> the question is -- i am talking about a bigger picture, something about the landscape. what is it about this cycle that you thought would be a bigger been under has looked. >> when you are in the middle of challenges, when you are in the middle of the website rollout, which obviously was not helpful, it feels like the worst thing that could possibly happen. then you get two months away from it and the reality was all of our incumbents recovered their favorable rating and we were starting the race. i think it is just a reminder for us that, in the moment, things that feel very big will have an enormous influence on the election because it receives 145 blog posts and was on the nightly news for two nights.

i think that perspective is something that all of our campaigns tried to work their way through. onen't know that there is story that is fundamentally -- >> you were in the permit sector and you came back into the political game. how has the game changed? >> the focus on technology, the real investments, not just the thought of, well, i've got a college kid who wants to do some kind of website so give him a few pizzas and he will do it to the actual professionalization of investment in technology, investment in digital and data, but also investment in grounding. i was on 13 campaigns and it was always a point of pride that they paid their volunteers and we had better volunteers. they showed up for love and not for money. but in 2012, we learned that there is a hole in our logic which is operational -- and which is to professionalize the

whole operation. and now you have seen a much more professionalized ground game and the proof is in the pudding. we are hanging tight against the democrats. >> i think we have learned a new phrase here -- paid volunteers. >> yeah. >> we don't have paid volunteers, but i think the reverse is actually true of us. 4000 staffabout around the country. we have invested about $60 million in the ground operation that is about four times as big as 2010. our staff, we prohibit them from doing the voter contact. we want them out there extending the volunteer base, managing the volunteer infrastructure, keeping it local, making sure they are talking to their folks in their precinct, on their block. the difference between a paid

ground game and a volunteer ground game, americans for prosperity put out a press release a week or two ago that they had not on 140,000 doors since june in colorado. we are on 225,000 doors this week and 4000 calls a night. that is not from paid volunteers. that is from doing everything you can to get people motivated and excited about the race and it is why in colorado it makes what we did frankly in 2010 look pretty junior varsity just in terms of size, scope, technology and we hope that it pays off. >> we appreciate the numbers guys put out. a lot of smiles in colorado. ask you all -- people in this room and people on live stream, we have a lot of young people who watch and they want

to be used. [laughter] what is your advice to a young person watching? >> run. >> america needs more lawyers. go to law school. [laughter] >> here is specific advice for getting ahead in washington. >> the most common question i get is why i decided to come back after last cycle. >> you are a former southern baptist minister. >> i am. >> explain. >> explain? [laughter] i do this job because i care about it. i believe job because in what our party stands for and i took the job because i wanted to have an impact on the election. if the source of your motivation is that and not am i going to get promoted? when will i become the field director? at what point will i get to manage a campaign? you will do remarkably well.

the two pieces of advice i give to anyone who asks is work hard and be nice. the combination of those two things, actually despite all of the back and forth between the two of us and what you see is the most important thing you can do in order to be successful. don't always live up to those two at the same time, but try my best to do it. guy said. echo what the people who make it long-term in this town are easy to deal with and they have passion. if you are doing it and just because you want to get some title on a business card, you won't be happy. if you have passion for what you do and you are walking every day and say i am going to make a difference, d.c. is a great place. i was onr i was 27 and a $10 million governors race.

where do you see in corporate them interesting summit -- then interesting so much responsibility on someone so young. you've got to work hard. >> guy young is said of the board of el james charter school. be kind, work hard, get spark -- get smart. what are you going to do next? >> last night, i was talking to my wife and we are going to disneyland. [laughter] >> january 6? two book in advance if you want to have breakfast with the princess. have four kids. it is not just my wife and i going to disneyland. as exciting as that would be, we

would probably go somewhere else. >> i've got to get through this election. i used to work at a really great place. corporate strategy. we will see how that goes. >> what is next for you? >> i got married last year so the honeymoon is going to get scheduled. we will not be going to disneyland. [laughter] >> group rate? >> we are going to take a honeymoon. that is the plan. >> you are often mentioned as a potential campaign manager for hillary clinton. is that a cup that you would drink eerily? >> it is not any surprise that i hope secretary clinton runs. i think that she would make a remarkable president.

but i am going to focus on winning one election at a time. if the opportunity presented itself, i will deal with it then. >> you are a fleetwood mac and i. you are a -- fleetwood mac guy. you are a grateful dead guy. why? >> it's a long story that could be summed up that my older brother handed me a tape. he was getting rid of a bunch of tapes and he gave me a cassette tape. cutting grass was my job when i was 12 years old for the neighbors. i put it in my walkman. as they say in grateful dead world, the bus came by and i came on. you've got fleetwood mac. tell us why? >> that was the best wedding gift that we received that my

husband could care less about. it was a first edition, never-opened fleetwood mac album. they are a little before my time. i just want to stipulate. i did not grow up with them, but i am a big stevie next fan. and fleetwood mac will be here halloween. so i will be there. >> as we say goodbye, we want to thank a member of the politico family who is going to a great job in new york who helped us putting on many events over the years. we want to thank sophie for hard work and [applause] appreciate all of you in live stream land for watching. we thank heck of a america for making these conversations possible. -- thank you for coming out in the middle of the day. and thank you. [applause]

>> throughout campaign 2014, c-span has brought you more than 130 candidate debates from across the country in races that will determine control of the next congress. watchuesday night, c-span's live election night coverage to see who wins, loses, and which party will control the house and senate. our coverage begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern with results and analysis. you will also see candidate to victory and concession speeches in some of the most closely watched senate races across the country. throughout the night and into the morning, we want to hear from you. campaign 2014 election night coverage on c-span. on friday, c-span's campaign 2014 coverage continues with debates from alaska and virginia.

at 8:00 p.m. eastern, the alaska u.s. senate debate between incumbent mark begich and his republican challenger dan sullivan. eastern, the debate between the candidates for virginia's seventh district seat am my republican david bratt and democrat jack trammell are vying for the seat held by eric cantor. this weekend on the c-span networks, friday night, starting at 8:00 eastern on c-span, eric campaign 2014 debate coverage continues in primetime. on saturday night at 8:00, the funeral for former washington post editor ben bradlee. and harold holzer on his new book. c-spannight at 8:00 on 2, author chris tomlinson on the story of two families, one white, one black and the slave plantation that bears their name. saturday night at 10:00 on the tv's afterword -- on book tv's

afterward, james macpherson. then a three-our conversation with michael korda. at 8:00, on american history tv on c-span 3, 1 of the first african-american labor unions, the other foot of. sleeping car porters. . saturday night at 8:00, propaganda and america's eu of the japanese during world war ii. sunday afternoon at 4:00, in 1936 film on tuberculosis in america. find our television schedule on www.c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us. e-mail us. or you can send us a tweet. you the c-span conversation like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> on thursday, the atlantic and the aspen institute cohosted the

sixth annual washington ideas form come up an event that brings together political leaders, business entrepreneurs, journalists, and science and technology experts. next, from the second day of the event, charlie cook on the midterm elections. [applause] >> notice she kissed my microphone. >> i did. atanyway, last year i spoke this ideas festival and i looked around the room and the audience was just as impressive as the green room before. anyway, it is a real honor, a real privilege to be here. listening to tom fanning, he was outlining what a tax deal might look like and i was talking to some people with a very large company the other day and asked them would you go along with raising the minimum wage in

exchange for lowering the corporate tax rate? taking a break, in a second. those are the kinds of deals were used to put together in this town. let me get back on subject. i am glad everybody is seated because i don't want anybody to fall over and hurt themselves. we have this election coming up on tuesday. it is kind of a big one. tos election, if you go back early last year, early 2013, there were two very different possible scenarios that we could have had in this election. one scenario might have been that some of the problems and challenges that plague the republican party, that hurt them so badly in 2012, might just flow into 2014. so that was one scenario. scenario was that this would become a classic midterm election, particularly

second midterm election where he comes a referendum on down on the incumben was -- the incumbent president and policies. while, you will have one. mostly, midterm elections are up or down for the president and policies. fourutcome is one of categories. losses, heavy losses, and extra crispy. those are the basic categories. just to kind of look at these two, in terms of republican problems potentially flowing on in, if you think of 2012, there was an enormous disappointment for republicans. they were only three seats out of the majority. they only needed three more seats to get a majority in the u.s. senate and it looked

puzzled they could get it to at the same time, president obama's numbers were not very good head every president that had a worse than his wpn. he was in a gray area. we were coming out of a recession but the economy was stuck in low gear and people didn't -- the economy may have been recovering but most voters didn't think that their economy was recovering. median family income had not gone up since 2000 and that had been under democratic presidents, republican presidents, democratic, says and republican congresses. but it is stuck with whoever is there. republicans had every reason to think they had a good chance of winning. what happened in 2012? instead of gaining three seats and getting the majority, they

had a net loss of three seats and they came out of that election six sea side of the majority instead of just three. and mitt romney lost by a hair up under four percentage points. if you want mitt romney for the loss. mechanically, his campaign was inferior to the obama campaign. i think it also had some bad strategy. but there were broader, systemic problem's that were plaguing the republican party and damaging the brand that also led to romney losing by four points, republicans losing the national popular vote for the house of representatives, even though they held their majority, and came up short in the senate. voters,es with minority young voters, women voters, moderate voters, self-described moderate voters -- these were all real challenges. seen this tendency we have in 2010 and 2012 for republicans

primary voters to nominate candidates -- my wife lucy is trying to get me to stop using wacko.m while co--- term so i am going with exotic and potentially problematic. [laughter] it had cost them as many as five u.s. senate seats between 2010 and 2012 great all these were things that republicans had to have it on their minds coming into 2014 to worry them. then you go to the other side and you say, well, ok, where are we right now? mostoll that i watch the is the nbc wall street journal poll. for 30 years, they have paired up. fabulous poll. the poll from a couple of weeks ago, they asked people, do you think the country is headed in the right direction or do you think it is often the wrong

track? what does it show? 25% think the country is headed in the right election, 65 percent off in the wrong track. the president's approval rating is net -10. underwater, upside down. in handling foreign policy, even though americans rarely vote on foreign policy, clearly over the last your, people have been thinking more more, anxious about what is going on around the world for good reason and the president approval rating was -30. so just horrible numbers. two different courses of action. it has now become very clear which one it's going to be. while there were problems and challenges that hurt republicans

so badly in 2012, they were real. they are real. and i think they may be big problem's, challenges for republicans in 2016. but in the context of this midterm election, they have shrunk insignificance. -- shrunk in significance. the potential problems for the democratic party are just as big and broad as a year and a half ago. in the house, nothing is going to happen. 96% of all the democrats in the house are in districts that obama carried. the house is kind of sorted out and not much is going to happen. the senate is where the action is. if you think about it, it's like they have more seats up, 21 versus 15. number one. but much more important, the geography. the democrats have seven seats

up in the states romney carried. seven democratic seats up in romney states. there's only one republican seat in the obama state and that is susan collins in maine and she couldn't lose if she tried but more importantly, democratic seats, the same number republicans need to miss six of those are in the state's mitt romney carried by 14 points or more. montana, south dakota west virginia, alaska, arkansas, louisiana. so, given that romney lost the national election by four percentage points, you show me a state that mitt romney carried by 14 points and i will show you a state i wouldn't want to be a democrat running this year. so the bottom line on this is that republicans don't need a wave to run to get a majority. all they need is people that live in the republican leaning states to vote republican in a

very republican year. that's all they need. now to the extent they have weird things going on for montana, south dakota, west virginia. they are gone. it's like a strong swimmer with a real, real, real horrible undertow. the democrats are lucky if either one of them survives and the odds are probably not. so that republicans obviously have some problems but i think it is going to come down to besides georgia and todd robertsroberts -- pat in kansas that will be those in the purple states kay hagan, jeanne shaheen in new hampshire, mark udall in colorado into the open seat in iowa. that is what has come down. we think there's about a 60% chance that republicans could get the majority, but keep in mind there are a lot of close races that will be about a point

or 2 one way or the other and it don't be stunned if democrats hold onto their majority but the odds are pretty good that republicans will. now for the first time in my , life i have done this in ten minutes and 30 seconds. so i'm only 30 seconds over. inc. you all, very much. -- thank you all very much. >> next on c-span, more from the ideas forum. remarks from john kerry and dr. anthony fauci. that is followed by the governors debate. governor -- governor's debate. the next "washington journal," diane discusses how prepared americans are to potentially outlive their retirement savings. after that, mickey mcintyre

looks at the death with dignity laws in place across the u.s.. this comes in light of a decision to end her life after a diagnosis of terminal brain cancer. plus your phone calls, facebook posts, and tweets. >> on friday, the wilson center hosted discussion on oil prices. hosts axperts -- discussion on oil prices. energy experts will talk about the future of iraq and venezuela. we'll have that live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. student cam documentary competition is underway. the theme is "the three branches in you," showing how went to

action i one of the branches has affected you in your community. prizes total $150,000. for a list of prizes, go to stu dentcam.org. kerryretary of state john talk to the ideas form about the worker who insulted benjamin yahoo! and the foreign-policy strategy of the obama administration. this is 25 minutes. >> we have a lot of ground to cover in 20 minutes. >> on one of the most uncomfortable sofas i have ever sat on. [laughter] >> that is duly noted. duly noted. i don't know how you could talk about that from the senate chairs you had but i understand. let's start with, i feel like we need to start with page one of the "new york times" where mark lander went through and to put

mark's article in context, very interesting profile of the national security decision-making process and the players in it. and if you contrast it with just a few years ago when you had hillary clinton, you had jim jones and tom donilon and various other players in the department of defense, there seemed to be, they were all on the same page. you never saw people speaking off script. and i'm really interested, you were described in there as someone that wasn't as tightly tethered to the white house. and i'm interested in what your comments on the national security decision-making process are right now. >> i think it is extremely effective and you know this is a chatty cathy town. where -- >> but it seems to become more chatty cathy. >> i don't want to get, look, we have much more important things to talk about than that. this is, you know, there is always people who make a business out of really trying to

, i think, gossip and tear things down who may be on the outside and do not necessarily have the ability to be in the loop of what is happening. but, i will tell you, i will be with the coordination and relationship between susan and me and dennis and the team is as tight as i have ever experienced , you know. susan was over at my house the other night. we spent 3 1/2 hours of dinner going over the world, working on things. i have not, i don't think i have missed a national security meeting or principles meeting as we call them even when i'm on the road. if it is 1:00 in the morning i'm on ctc dialing into washington. so i don't think it is very accurate portrayal. and i do not think it is particularly important to spend a lot of time on it. i think we're more engaged in the world than we have ever been. we are more strategic -- >> more confusing world.

>> much more complicated world. >> what does the dashboard look like? what does the dashboard of the secretary of state look like when you see from asia to africa -- >> looks more like an airplane panel, yeah, both sides. [laughter] look, i'm not complaining about it. i think what is happen something i think result of year of things we looked at and advocated and for and confusing an difficult moment. but i don't think we should be intimidated by it. i think we need to embrace it and envelope it and capture it to the best of our ability and we're working to do that. there is enormous amount of -- you know the workings of the state department and i saw a couple of folks here who have been there, it is like an iceberg. you see the top top whatever percentage, 20% or something like that. there is a huge amount of daily

enterprise and monthly, yearly, strategic engagement that you don't see. and that frankly doesn't get written about. an example of that, i mean afghanistan is not on the front pages but i will tell you that our efforts to work the election, to know the election was the critical transition moment began the day i came in and even before when i was a senator. and, as i came in, we worked the relationships so that as things got difficult, i was able to go over and work with dr. abdullah and work with dr.gani and so we have a stable policy in afghanistan where there is now a unity government and something that nobody thought was possible. that was a strategic outcome. iraq, similarly, it is not an accident we have a new government in iraq. and the president was absolutely

correct to hold off getting immediately committed to the isil effort until we knew we had a government in iraq that we could work with and we knew that wasn't maliki. but the united states couldn't just crash in, hey, you're out, here are the guys that are in, that is not our, playing into all the worst stereotypes that brought us to the difficulties we're living with today. so we put in place a clear strategy, working with all of our friends in the region, particularly the sunni because the sunni countries have been so angry about the way maliki was building a shia army and linking to iran and creating a sectarian divide. and that's why it was dysfunctional. so we worked first to get the sunni speaker to decide not to run again, to get another person who could run, quietly behind the scenes. >> sound like a lot of micro work. >> it is a lot of micro work. and our ambassador steve and assistant secretary of state

bret mcgirk who practically lived over there during this period did extraordinary job of diplomacy. and we worked it. we worked with barzani in erbil to commit because the kurds were angling towards independence and -- independence, to stay with it. we had a kurd president and with a sunni speaker and kurd president it was possible to -- and ayatollah sistani's comments were very critical to moving maliki were, came out of a coordinated effort. the bottom line is, iraqis made the final choice. we couldn't. so -- >> we can check that off as perhaps a success at the moment. i remember some years ago, i was in your committee room when you were chair of the foreign relations committee with richard lugar, i don't remember who was ranking and who was chair, but you were both cool on either side. and david petraeus was testifying.

>> we actually talked to each other? >> you talked to each other. and on this day, david petraeus was testifying in his isaf role as head of afghanistan and you and richard lugar quizzed him about whether what we were doing within afghanistan fit within a strategic framework for the united states where our strategic interests were furthered and both you and senator lugar made the point that there is difference being in silo of afghanistan and what the other broader strategic issues are. i'm interested in whether we're running risk thinking about national today of chasing rabbits and forgetting strategic -- how does iraq and iraq solvency fit a strategic plan? how does afghanistan fit the strategic plan? isis, where does it fit within the kind of broad strategic plan? >> very straightforward. >> yeah. >> let me say to everybody, we're living, the cold war was easy compared to where we are today. and the immediate --

>> is putin trying to make it easy for you again, bring it back? >> i hope not. [laughter] that is a different, no, because he is doing it very differently and in way that is very challenging to the ability to be able to avoid conflicts and begin to harness the energy of the world and move in a similar direction. the world we're living in today is much more, look, a lot of countries have economic power today that they didn't have in the, you know, in the last century. we wanted that. we have about 15 nations today that 10 years ago were aid recipients from the united states. south korea is an example. today, south korea is a donor country, doing what we have urged countries to do, which is accept global responsibility. so now you have more countries with more economic power in a globalized world and therefore -- they are feeling their oats.

they're going to automatically react and say, well, wait a minute now. do we really want the behemoth united states, superpower of the world telling us all the time what we have to do? and so you have to approach these things a little differently. it requires more diplomacy. it requires more dialogue. it requires more respect for people, more mutual interests. much more of the world than henry kissinger describes in his wonderful book "diplomacy" where he talks about the state interests and balance of power. and manymuch more, ways, back towards the latter part of the 19th century, 18th century, dealing with countries. countries are flexing their muscles and standing up for their own interest and they have greater economic independence and ability to do it. and then you see the "brics," brazil, china, india you, standing up and saying russia, we want something, a different access in a sense. so we have to work harder at it.

and my warning to the congress and to the country is really, this doesn't come for free. >> are we getting a good deal? >> american power needs to be projected thought fully and appropriately but if we're not, you know, i will give you an example, prime minister modi from india came here the other day. he came here after going to china and going to japan. both of whom gave him double-digit numbers of billions of dollars for infrastructure development. china, i think, did 30 billion. japan did somewhere similar a little more. we couldn't even do a one billion dollar loan guaranty. the united states of america. now everybody here ought to be shocked by that. we are behaving like we're the richest country on the face of the planet. we're still critical to everything that happens in the world. and we are not sufficiently committing the resources necessary to do what we need to do in the world.

>> you're saying american power in the world is living on fumes? >> no, it's not. we're doing better than that. and if you look what we've done. we're leading in everything in the world. this narrative about the united states disengaging and the president not being committed is just, one of the reasons why i'm here today because --. >> there is a difference between the argument about disengagement and then going to brazil, russia, and india, and talking to leaders in something doubt in america. there is a doubt, it is palpable. how do you fix that? >> that all came out of one thing, which is somewhat confounding, which was the syria issue or challenge at that moment. people seem to be thinking that it is wiser to bomb friday and i have to do some damage than it is to develop a chemical weapons out of a country. we did the unprecedented.

we got wanted percent of a declared a chemical weapons out of the country and destroyed. israel is safer today. >> that was your idea question mark next it was shared by a number of people -- that was your idea? >> to be shared by a number of people. you have a world in which masses of numbers of young people, 65% of countries throughout africa, the middle east and south central asia etc. have populations under the age of 30, 35. 50% under the age of 21 and down you go. if these kids are left to the no devices or their own, which is what is happening, the madrasahs will fill their world, radicals extremism of one kind or another something is going to , come along and say the world is disappointing and we are a

better alternative. how else do you get kids to strap on a suicide vest and think things are better on the other side? that's happening. and the fear that i hear from my counterpart in many parts of the world is that the void is and -- is not being filled. we talk about democracy and extol the virtue of our way of life but are we backing it up and doing what is necessary to bring power and electricity and the other thing is all of these people have mobile devices. they are all in touch with everybody in the world but they don't see themselves being able to reach it or reaching it. and i thought, always, the dream that america touched with the most was their ability to be able to reach the brass weighing -- brass ring. we have to help them do that more and that is a long-term strategy. i will share a conversation with

you. a foreign minister in africa has a 30% muslim population and we did it come when: we went out to dinner he said they were fighting. -- frightened. i asked him how are you dealing with this muslim population and he said the extremists have a strategy. they come in and pay money in the poor areas of town, get the young kids, take them out, indoctrinate them. then they don't have to pay the money anymore. those kids become the recruiters or emissaries or unfortunately the implement doors. -- implementers. but what he said to me that was most important is that they are disciplined and they don't have a five-year plan they have a 30 year plan. we don't even have a five-year plan so we have to get our act together and that's what the president is trying to say. that is what he said at west point when he talked about the focus on terrorism and that's

what he is saying in our engagement with asia, the tti p.. 40% of the global economy in asia and europe and the united states we are focused strategically on how to play the long game here. and a long game is raising the standards of trade. >> are you playing the long game in asia and the short game in the middle east? >> no we are playing a long game , in the middle east. >> josh earnest made an interesting comment about the relationship and we said that relationship transcends individual leaders and it was an interesting comment. what is the long game in a case like israel. there has been a lot of talk. jeffrey goldberg my colleague -- >> colleagues -- >> i read the article -- he had spicy words thrown out there but the broader question is what is the american long game in the arena that keeps ripping itself apart? >> the long game, which

everybody knows from the investment i made much of last year find a way to bring the parties to make peace in the middle east. we still believe it is doable . but it takes courage, it takes strength. both sides have to be prepared to compromise in order to do it. here's what i know and i think all of you know this viscerally and intellectually. and i've asked this question of people in the middle east one of -- middle east. one of the greatest challenges for israel obviously is not to be a binational state. it wants to be a jewish state. to be a jewish state you have to resolve the issue of two states. if you don't and you are a unitary state and people have equal rights to vote and participate as citizens is israel going to have a palestinian prime minister? i don't think so. i don't think so. not going to happen.

so therefore what is the solution here? how do you move forward? and what we are trying to do evenhandedly and hopefully thoughtfully, strengthen israel's ability to the three of -- to be free of rockets were it not strengthen to make it be free of rockets. -- rockets. not strengthen, make it be free of rockets. to end this perpetual conflict in a way that provides the complete security of israel that has the right to be free of tunnels coming into its country, terrorists jumping out with handcuffs and tranquilizer drugs, no country would tolerate that. >> do you think that it's time for you or the president or someone to be a little bit more evocative in terms of defining what you think a deal would look like? >> no, i think we need to work quietly and effectively and come -- condemn anybody that uses

language such as what was used in this article that does not reflect president, that does not reflect to me. it is disgraceful, unacceptable, damaging, and i think neither president obama nor i -- i've never heard that word around me in the white house. i don't know who these anonymous people are that keep getting quoted in things but they make life much more difficult, and we are proud of what we have done to help israel through a very difficult time. president obama is the one who to iron dome. he made it happen. president obama has consistently -- he was supportive of israel's right to defend itself in the recent war. but at the same time, the president wants to try to nurse the parties together to resolve these differences. now in iraq, if we didn't get

engaged i don't know where isil would be today. maybe in baghdad. there would be a hell of a war going on there. iran a move in even more to protect the shia interests in the 80% shia country. what happened then with bush are also and the deterioration of isis command even more territory committed with the -- it already is unprecedented as the terror group in the amount of land, money and assets that it controls and it's already threatened europe, the west and others directly so you have no choice. you have to engage in a way -- i think we have engaged thoughtfully. we build a coalition for the first time ever that brought together five arab countries that have actually dropped bombs in syria against the sunni extremists unprecedented. >> i did not think it was possible. >> and we are carefully trying

to nurse this forward so that the iraqi army does the fighting. the iraqi army comes back is not an army that represents one person or one sect but that has a national identity and can bring the tribes to the table to reclaim the country. yesterday we made some gains. in the city south of mosul they took it back. this will be slow and take time. we've been honest with the american people and the world . it is not going to happen overnight but it's the best way to push back against religious extremism. and we have united all the countries in the region in that endeavor. we are flying airplanes into syria, and syria is not trying to shoot them down. we are targeting isis and trying to build a force that can have an impact on the decision-making so we can get back to the table where we can negotiate the political outcome because we all know there is no military resolution of syria.

so that's what we are trying to get back to. we reached up with the russians. there've been conversations we are trying -- >> we are at the end of our time. there are so many topics but i just want to finish, we really are out of time but on iran if i -- i run. -- iran. if i was thinking about walter isaacson's work, we've seen kissinger and walter and he wrote the book kissinger. if he was writing the book kerry , the opening chapter, i'm wondering if that entails the deal that you help put together on iran or not. yesterday susan rice gave the deal a 50/50 chance this is somewhat high here than i might have thought. if that deal with iran is not achieved what does the world look like in your world if we don't go that way because it seems there isn't a nixon goes to china moment to sort of

re-creates the sense that america can re-scope the international -- re-sculpt the international -- >> we are living in a different time. the nations were developed and assertive and it isn't a moment like that but that doesn't make diplomacy any less important. it's more important because we don't have the bipolarity that existed that those 70 years or so. we are working and a different format. the first thing that i would urge walter isaacson and he -- if he really wanted to do that was not to write the first chapter right now. [laughter] my, look, i'm directly involved in negotiating face-to-face. it?hat obscure give -- what odds do you give it?

>> i'm not going to give it odds. as i said to the president i'm not going to expect optimism i'm going to express hope. we have sent a very clear standard. there are four pathways. to a bomb for iran. the hidden facility in the mountain. the open enrichment facility and the heavywater facility and then of course covert activities. we have pledged that our goal is to shut off each pathway. sufficient that we know we have a breakout time of minimum of a year that gives us the opportunity to respond if they were to try to do that. >> we believe there are ways to achieve that whether iran can make the tough decisions it needs to make will be determined in the next weeks. but i've said consistently that no deal is better than a

bad deal. and we are going to be very careful, very much based on expert advice, facts, science as to the choices we make. this must not be a common ideological or political decision and if we can do what he said as the president said of -- set off as his policy he said they will not get a bomb. if we can take this moment of history and change this dynamic the world would be safer and we would avoid a huge arms race in the region where the saudi's, egyptians and others may decide that if they are moving towards a bomb, they have to move their, too. , too.re obviously it is a much more dangerous world and that is not a part of the world we want massive uninspected and unverified unverified, nontransparent nuclear activities. that is what we are trying to do. >> ladies and gentlemen, the secretary of state john kerry. [applause]

>> and q. thanks for a much. thank you. thanks very much. fauci talkedy about the ebola outbreak and the nurse that was treated at the nih. this is 15 minutes. >> thank you. welcome. i guess the first question is where are we? there is declining slope in liberia. just in the curve of the whole ebola virus, are we up, down? are we at the peak? >> we are still going. if you look at the list report -- latest report we have about 13,000 reported or suspected cases, and about 5000 plus deaths, maybe a bit more. if you look at liberia, which has been one of the epicenters, particularly in monrovia, the cases are, in fact, going down. if you look at particularly the burials and you can monitor

death and cases, one of the concerns we have about getting complacent about that is that ebola historically can go in waves. as it goes down in the city come in monrovia, then you can start to see perhaps upscaling in areas around the rain forest. and then there is sierra leone which was a bit beyond liberia which we are concerned we may see an uptick. although it's better news than the opposite, namely it's going down, we better just be careful before we say we are on the right track. a> online, there are various s e charts or maps that project what could go to you look at india, latin america. how likely do think that is? >> well, the reason we have is -- this extraordinarily devastating situation in west africa, david, what i refer to as the perfect storm. people don't realize that there have been, since 1976 when ebola was first recognized in the former zaire, current democratic republic of the congo, and

sudan, there have been since 1976 about 24 outbreaks, most of which have been in remote areas in which you could actually contain it. this is the first time that we've had an epidemic the size of which is much more than all contact tracing and aned. health-care structure that allows you to identify someone, isolate them, and keep them out. the only way you can spread ebola is by coming into direct contact. it is very unlikely there would be an outbreak in the country.