the republican party them home? >> i think the number one thing is men think it's a good thing when government hasn't done anything bad to you. and there is the challenge for republicans is that women want to get something done and women have two major, major concerns on their minds. incredibly concerned about this economy and the impact it's having on their families and a belief that no one really understood their kitchen table economics and the second thing was the mounting security concerns about the instability. isis, ferguson, ebola. people, women in particular thinking new crisis after new crisis after new crisis of things i've never heard of affecting my family. >> why did that keep them home? >> because i think they felt no one spoke to them. no one gets my life. no one is doing anything for me.

>> first of all, let's not make too much of this. a majority of the people who vote yesterday were female. it was 51-49. >> but it was less than we -- >> a point or so less, but it wasn't like there was a huge shift in the gender balance in the electorate that voted yesterday. women have a tendency to place a higher priority on issues like education and health care and i think any politicians, republican or democrat who hopes to appeal to women has got to have something intelligent to say about both of those issues. we don't have as many people as we need to be able to articulate a position on education. it's not coincidence that the last republican president was very, very good and talked a lot about education. lamar alexander talks a lot about education. we don't have as many as we need to paint a compelling picture. >> good point.

>> by the way, i would say the last two republican presidents -- >> good point. >> george bush senior -- we may disagree with their policies but they articulated strongly on education. >> and the president before as well. in tallahassee and presidential suites around the country, there were men and women who were thinking about running for president surrounded by family and consultants, digging into the results yesterday and wondering, what does this say about my chances? what can i learn that might make me the next president? who do you see as being the early winners and losers in 2016 based on these results?

who can find good things in this numbers and who should be worried? >> he's the expert on republican primaries. >> i also want to talk about secretary -- >> i don't know that it's >> i don't know that it's particularly productive to -- what we learned was, there is no one faction of the republican party that is large enough to produce a presidential nominee. you can't run from one particular slice and hope to win the nomination. whoever wins it will demonstrate an ability to join tea party, libertarian, social, conservative, all in one coalition and get enough of each of those groups to build a majority. >> given the numbers i talked about earlier, is that more likely to give someone who has gotten things done outside of washington? >> it all comes down to the quality of the candidate, i think. candidate quality really matters. what is more important is the caliber of the candidate and

their ability to lead and create a vision for the country than where they come from. >> i agree with what he is saying. if you think about 2012 for week ended with people declaring they were not witches and that there was legitimate rape. in 2014, it was really dramatic. we have is our frontrunner secretary clinton who is considered a supreme quality candidate by the voters. we have a woman candidate who really speaks to women's lives. she always has mobilized women voters and can be very effective. if democtrats need to communicate that we have an economic plan and we will fight, fight, fight until the economy is back on its feet for ordinary

people, i cannot imagine anyone better to nominate than a clinton. i think 2016 is really good and i plan to be on vacation all of 2015. >> i live in virginia, and when i was walking out of the voting booth yesterday after really not deciding who i was going to vote for until the last minute, i realized i wish more people had a choice like this. gillespie and warner, that is the reason why we're so close because it was one of the places where people had two good choices. this is an electorate that is really down on all of its institutions, we have lost faith in them. we are really down on washington and politics. secretary clinton is an institution.

how in an era when people are looking for change and freshness in a new way of governing in this new century, how does someone of her background breakthrough that, how do she make herself the change agent that i think the next president is going to have to be? >> i disagree with you sincerely a little bit about this change notion. it wasn't a true change election. if it were, republican governors would have lost, too. it sent a message, get something done for a change. that is the change that people want. hillary clinton in her own record and in general clintons communicate a different kind of notion. it is competence, qualifications, getting things done every and the ability to

compromise to do that. that is the history there. people have very positive memories of the clinton years, perhaps more positive than they were at the time. secretary clinton herself has shown an ability to work with the person that beat her in the primary. tom delay, she authored the foster care bill for children. last night was a mandate about get something done. >> in a few minutes we will be taking questions. if you line up at the microphones -- do you agree with what she is saying about secretary clinton? >> there is no question that secretary clinton will be a very formidable candidate. i don't think anyone believes she won't be. i will tell you that it is exceedingly difficult for one party to win three presidential elections in a row.

history suggests it is a very unusual event. it occurred in 1988 with george h.w. bush. keep in mind that ronald reagan was a far more popular president than barack obama. making the case that you are the candidate to follow an unpopular president for a third consecutive term for one party is going to be a very challenging case for her to make. >> besides the history, what else goes against her? because we defy history all the time. >> i think people think eight clinton presidency and a barack obama presidency would be very different. nobody questions her qualifications or experience. back she was part of the obama administration and a key component of the national security foreign affairs team that people now disapprove of obama for handling. it's going to be real tough for her to separate yourself from an

administration in which she served. >> i'm sure we have much smarter questions out there than i have been able to come up with. smart thinkers? >> you talked about the democratic issues coming mentioned minimum wage and legalization of pot. is that part of the democratic agenda now? >> it should be. >> why? >> because the voters are in favor of it. our drug laws are a nightmare. this is an insane policy. we should be legalizing marijuana in this country. >> or changing the severity of the sentencing? >> we should be doing both. the majority of americans support legalizing marijuana. >> with regard to how the

election outcome in the senate might have some impact on the president in terms of his judicial appointments, and specifically if a supreme court justice decides to retire over the next two years, how do you think that's going to play out, both in terms of who he might nominate as a replacement and how the senate might deal with it? >> i was going to say, in some ways i think honestly -- my expertise is nothing more than i would have read in "national journal." i think many democrats hope that everyone stays healthy for two years. >> the quick answer is it's going to be a very different nominee who can get confirmed now than it would have been before.

>> any more questions out there? i want more from the audience, please. could each of you quickly mention the biggest warning sign you saw in the results for your party? what was the biggest red flag for your party? >> i would say two red flags. well, how many? -- irish whiskey for the coffee yet? a couple of things. one is turnout. we had unparalleled turnout, but i think we have vastly underestimated and don't have enough respect for the turnout operations of republicans. it doesn't look like ours, but we don't tend to respect it.

we underestimated it in 2004. >> i looked at the rnc micro-targeting effort. >> it is very real. the second thing is we are not going to win anything if we are not ahead on the economy. the number one thing we need to do is lay out our economic plan and agenda for the future that ensures that everyone in this country can have a chance for themselves and their kids. >> the congressional committee put in place is light-years better than it was two years ago. we have learned, we have

adapted. >> my column today will be on this. everybody, be sure you see it this afternoon. >> which is why no one political party has a lock on everything. the other party adapts and figures it out. the biggest warning sign yesterday was exactly what we have seen coming, the exurb of march of demographic change. it will be 2% less white four years from now than it was yesterday. we got a third of the hispanic vote. we have got to do better with hispanics, with asians. we have seen that coming. it is simply the challenge that we have to meet successfully. math is math. >> i appreciate your comments about the female voters.

i'm curious if you can shed some analysis on the female candidates that one last night. >> and don't pretend to be an expert, so correct me when i get it wrong. it seems like the year of the republican woman candidate. there are two things that i think, or three things that i think happened. republican women made it out of republican primaries better than they have in the past. democratic primaries are about 58% female. republican primaries are about 45% women voters. our primaries include some of the voters that are most in favor of women candidates -- african americans, liberals. the republican primary traditionally has included some of the voters who are least in favor of women candidates. what you saw is republican women having a hard time getting out of their primaries.

whether it was utah or iowa, they got out of their primaries. i agree, ernst was able to use her gender and bracket for independent women in her state as well. she is a real model for future republican women. last night was the year of the republican women. i believe we now have a record number of women in congress and a record number of republican women in office. >> a new member of congress is 30 years old.

>> barbara comstock won a huge victory yesterday in a swing district in northern virginia. >> what is happening? >> you have better, more qualified, more capable females that are running and doing well. i hope that in the future, not all republicans females will start an ad with the word castration in it. [laughter] >> but she carried it off well. >> she carried it off beautifully. it was a hell of an ad and a hell of a campaign. >> if we could just pull back a little bit, i'm so interested in how vastly changing the populace is and how it is affecting all our institutions and leaders of any institution. for a pollster you are at the edge of change in how you identify and pull quality

information out of people. tell me how the polling industry has changed the last few years and where you think it is going. >> i will be glad to answer that question. i want to point out one demographic change we have not discussed today which is also huge, and that is the rise of unmarried voters. 42% of all births to unmarried women. we talked about education which is something we have to bipartisanly work on. in places like omaha, it is already true. there is a sea change going on out there and it's going to demand a lot of changes in policy.

>> and a disproportionate number of those people stayed home. >> we would have won a lot of those senate seats because unmarried women voted 65% democratic. married women voted republican. this is a huge change and getting that turnout to vote is very important. both of us have more gray hair than we want to admit. on our side we try much more a combination of cell phones, online, over the telephone. we are in the field for longer times, because it is much more difficult to reach people. >> what do you think polling will be 10 years from now? >> our industry is in the midst of the same kind of transition

that occurred in the 1960's when we moved from door-to-door interviewing to telephone interview. we had the same kind of complaints then. not everyone has the telephone, for example. if there is a survey that doesn't include cell phones, you should not pay attention to it, frankly. i'm not exactly young person anymore, and i don't have a land line. the idea that you can do is significant survey without a significant portion of cell phones is fanciful. we will be at 50% very soon here in our samples. then ultimately we've got to figure out how to go to online data collection. that has all kinds of challenges regarding randomness. you can have panels, but you still have to opt in to the panels. 10 years from now most of our data i think will be collected through some version of online data collection, but we have a lot of methodological challenges

to work out. >> this is really interesting. i thank you guys so much for helping us out. >> thank you. [applause] >> john boehner cash and -- not toed, not to only -- unilaterally change the immigration system. thehem as, the speaker said republican-controlled congress will act in the case to ask a pipeline, make changes in the health care law, and encourage businesses to hire more veterans. both the house and senate return next wednesday at 2:00 in eastern. -- waitinged him action house, temporary spending

gave the senate will vote on judicial nominations and a childcare development block grant program. both parties will elections for the 114th congress. the house on c-span and the senate on c-span2. here are a few of the comments we have received from viewers. >> called to tell you how much i "q&a." phones, and it is the most enjoyable hour on television. move myself, humans accurate, and on probate and not use his personal, and i greatly enjoyed

it can and i hope you have more tests like that. he was right on target this morning. >> i'm calling to say i think c-span ispeople wonderful, but as to criticisms, i almost have none. i'm a very partisan person. the reason i almost have none is i think you do a tremendous job of showing just about every side of everything an look at things in the cns rep. d.c. ande - -i- in elsewhere. >> you can send us a tweet. join c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. now back to the national journal's day after conference

with a look at adjustments lobbyists were making after the election. speakers will discuss whether the change in senate leadership will change how to work to get your agenda passed to the conversation is about a half an hour. i'm taking the stage with appears -- and pierce.- bill the panel will be moderated by the senior writer for "national journal. >> i want to first thank all panelists this morning coming out, child to help everyone process that has exploded on the scene here. i think the first question that

i want you guys to address, it seems an odd one, will this make an appreciable difference in terms of the street and that will be going on and how it term?s your turn -- >> the hard work of government relations does not change. you will see an administration that is activated by this election. this see a lot of activity on the regulatory front. we have seen that divided senate needs plenty of work for democrats and republicans. it does not matter who is in control. aboutl be -- i am excited

mitchew approach that mcconnell is going to take to the senate. to see how that actually lasts. i think we are in for some interesting times, and appetites now, and once people remember how politics work and how to send it works and how to institutions work understand we are still in washington. the fact is we are in an environment that has a lot of potential. chemistry, capitol hill, let you are looking at is the potential for activity, and the window of time in which that will currently is a short window, but manages to seem with the administration want to work

with republicans. this is basically a four-employment program for k street. pretty much see that as the way it is going? is yes, because of the possibility julie that legislation will be passed, that will create the activity. everybody will worry about their legislation passing. the other activity that goes on the matter that is to look into the future, that maybe we will not do anything over the next few years, but it might set the inundwork them to happen 2016. let me does continue, and in some areas, lots and lots of smoke, but not much fire at the end of the day. lots of snow. activity.g to be -- so far really need

this administration and republicans' guns ideas -- that's not what about the filibuster. if obama sits down and negotiates, we have a great opportunity. i am skeptical frankly, but i hope it works. is not the person who invented for the truth, and i hope you have an open process, and i hope we have that in the senate. uncertainty.tes that on the clients looking for, and the morning after, do you

have to do a lot of handholding, phone calls? ask it is interesting, the idea after the election, and analysis i'm not that might happen. now know that that answer is. we recognize that a lot of the continue tod progress and may accelerate in the absence of activity. the ad what the potential side,unities are on the there will be an opportunity for that of the next couple's. client phone calls? teamwork throughout the night to a memo wasysis and sent out to our clients. really, if the focus right now for our clients and for everybody in this room is what ?appens in the lame-duck

a lame-duck is when everything gets scrambled and crazy, and if you are not in the room," and up on the cutting you may end up as some tax pay-for. it is a matter of are they going to do a cr, and omnivorous, either going to be policy riders, rich tax provisions go forward, we will go retroactive more 2015? types managers, because at the end of the year cuts,d not to pay for tax because it is free money. these are the things our clients are asking now, and we are and areng sure their interests protected in this two environment. >> i think because we this result is not surprising. is surprising was the number and

looseness of virginia and some of the things that happened. these people are not necessarily panics. makes a good point which is figuring out what this number that wehich is good thought, what impact that will have on the lame-duck session. the new members push the old members to not do a lot just to a a minimum, so it is three-rent cr, something longer than that? that is where we are right now, looking at those issues and again that is out. health care, probably not a lot in. that is next year. >> the bigger problem, only a little bit of panic are the folks that lost champions for the cause and the constituent companies. i think that is the only bit of

uneasiness. everyone else is what we thought would happen. >> you had mentioned the possibility of reconciliation. do you want to talk about -- >> absolutely. there is a sense of given where the senate is and the numbers are good and more favorable than we anticipated, the fact of the matter is looking at next year as we can accomplish in the senate with 51 votes from mitch mcconnell and going through a budget reconciliation process. whether it makes us both through the chambers task is an unlikely proposition but in the short term, but we anticipate its clients like mine are concerned about setting markers for things like medicaid cuts on the tax side, so it's an opportunity for the lobbyists to engage and it will create a lot of anxiety the next six to seven months. whether or not it takes shape at

the front as a different conversation the idea being that it will set a marker for the future debates when we get it beyond. >> the biggest marker that will be sent is that we want to make this political from the get-go. and if the reconciliation happens, there isn't going to be something obama will sign. it just won't have an answer that means the marker is out and we are going to campaign for two more years. >> i think most people assume tax reform, the energy, there is going to be a lot of activity. is that what you are assuming even if it isn't a big bill, which everybody wants a lovely large solution to tax reform and even if we are just talking rifle shot, is this your assumption this activity is going to be trade were where do you see the action coming up?

>> there, also in individual pieces. will there be a move to get rid of obamacare, maybe, we will see. but there will be a legitimate chance to reform pieces of obamacare. if it is done in a bipartisan manner there is an opportunity for certain pieces to be done on a bipartisan manner i think that and taxes would be the focal point. >> and i think that building on what jeff said regarding health care, a lot of pressure will be on the congress to repeal it and we may see the bills. but i think that jeff's point about that is it isn't going to work, so will we see the piecemeal pieces of legislation to repeal? the challenge for republicans is by doing it in a way that the

president won't sign, will they antagonize the president to your point, michelle, on the other pieces they would like the democrats and republicans talk about if the president moves on immigration for the executive branch that would please indulge. they could poison the well if both sides do want to work together on health care by sending a stream of things he will not sign and he will veto. we will have to see. >> but we don't know is what road republicans will take. we won't know today or for a couple weeks. the road they could take is messaging, doing everything we can to show that we can't govern and we can't work with this president and, therefore, we would love to govern but we just can't, so let's look to the president and things we can get him to say we are trying. on the flip side, you can look at opportunities and to say things like trade, taxes, pension, obamacare off ramps, opportunities to look at things you can get 60 votes on the

senate and could appeal to democrtats. that takes a lot to have that conversation but again i don't know that we know which path republicans are going to take. they say i wanted to take that track. the political person in me says let's take the other track and wait until 2017. but there will probably be a combination of both of those things in play, and i don't know how long it will last. >> then you have the regular pattern of bills that need to be reauthorized. can we work on a higher ed reauthorization bill and are we going to do a telecom rewrite? transportation infrastructure, these are things where there are opportunities to lead and you can see the movement on them. >> if the president is planning to move forward without congress because he has expressed his frustration several times and

take them out of these equations, what does that do in terms of is the focus shift to the regulators and how do you handle that? >> it would be across the bow as well and i think that that basically is saying i am not really interested in giving it a bipartisan line just going to move forward. that's something that is very clear could happen and something happened to all of us up here today to. >> it's the president's fourth quarter. he's going to finish strong and he's going to put a mark on this country. he the country. he has the ability to use his agency to change the way that americans live over the course of the next two years, and i think that you are going to see a much stronger and forceful approach when it comes to issues like climate change on immigration and other matters.

and so congress is going to spend a lot of time going, what is he doing? how can we stop it? and that's when the sort of battles begin, but ultimately, right now he has the power to do a lot of things and he's going to use it. >> on the point about regulation, for at least 10 years, probably 20, folks in this business have realized that when you pass legislation and it is signed, that's not even almost half of what we do that is ultimately important. that is the regulatory process. it is ongoing. you have to be involved in the regulatory process. if you're not, you're going to miss a lot. i do health care, and there is so much that is still to be done on the affordable care act, from a regulatory perspective.

we're getting far enough away from passage that some of the regulation is starting to come around again. it's incredibly important to pay attention to the regulation and what more needs to be done. i suspect the president is going to be aggressive across the board when it comes to regulation, whether it's regulation that he has the clear power over, or areas where it can push the envelope. having also served in the administration, you have a huge amount of power and discretion when it comes to regulation and congress. it's much more difficult for congress to actually do something to stop or change regulation. >> staying on health care just for a second, you mentioned there will be votes to repeal. once we move past that, what are you most optimistic in terms of

the tweaking, medical device taxs little stuff like that? >> the opportunity for actual progress will depend on -- does the white house say, bring it on, let's move past it, and then get down to doing what we need to do, or whether that activity so poisons the well and the president gets really ticked off. and whether the pressure on leadership is so great to not compromise at all, to just continue, continue, continue with these votes. i think at this point, we don't know. >> the other thing about it is, everyone assumes were going to go to dynamic scoring. how does that affect all of this? and does it all of a sudden become -- what sort of role does that play? >> dynamic scoring is basically magic at the end of the day.

that is a slow walk in terms of opportunity people have talked about. i think it takes a lot longer to use that as an effective mechanism. >> if i'm a democrat, i would demand that republicans pass with any repeal that they also have ready to go a replacement bill. i think that's going to be, because of scoring and all the other things, extremely difficult for republicans to produce the legislation that they agree on that catches all the people who are currently having insurance as a result of the aca. how are we going to make sure they don't fall through with your replacement?

that's the huge challenge. >> the notion of being realistic when it comes to putting the toothpaste back in the tube when it comes to health care. i think republican leadership has realize they have to be able give that red meet to folks and to talk about the four or five things that could really catch the president i in terms of rings he would be willing to do, things like the 30 hour workweek, opportunities were there could be changes that would not necessarily damage the integrity of the affordable care act. >> as everyone knows, today is not just the day after the election, it is the first day unofficially of 2016. you have a very short window before everything is about 2016. does this mean a lot of your

actions are completely frontloaded? do you feel the pressure to move early? >> we will see. march is a big tsunami of events. if they all are acted on, aftermath of the campaign starts and we will see. what role does it have on the highway bill reauthorization? will they try to do something permanent? has all of it just moved to the summer to give more time to work on it? this odd year is going to be a big year. >> we also have the dynamic

of senate -- it will play a tremendous role in putting pressure on something they're not quite ready to do. >> i think the assumption is that there are about three that we can count on having a 2016 agenda in mind. does this make your life that much more complicated? >> i think for republican staffers, they're going to see what is actually achievable in this congress, and then it will pretty much be set in terms of what is doable on the agenda by next august. does that change the work that we do day in and day out? no, that is just sort of persistent.

yes, we have 734 days before 2016. it's a lot of noise. it's a lot of distraction. it's something for the commentators to talk about, but in terms of setting public policy day in and day out in washington, that will continue to move forward. >> we have two democrats and two republicans up here. how difficult is it when the other team winds up in charge? >> does it affect the agenda? sure. but you need democrats to pass anything. it really doesn't affect much. we have become a bipartisan shop, so it really hasn't affected us at all. at the same time, i like to be part of a team that sets the agenda and i'm disappointed that we are not anymore.

>> you talked about losing champions, but just in general, do you foresee -- >> there are a lot of changes in the senate. it is really musical chairs and where people land, it's going to be interesting. some folks have never held the gavel before, and our earnest public policy folks who are excited about the opportunity. others are far more political. this is why we love what we do. no matter what we predict our -- or project will happen, something wild and crazy will happen because politics is always stranger than fiction. you are dealing with human beings, and they do very human things.

i never cease to be amazed that you think something is going one direction and you can have a u-turn. >> just ask anthony brown in maryland. that was the one race i said that if something crazy is going to happen, it is here. hogan won by over 100,000 votes. it was amazing. the one that will be interesting in the house is not due to the election, but due to the term limits, which is darrell issa and the oversight committee. then what does the senate to? -- senate do? do they follow that pattern? this is where republicans could exercise a good deal of

authority in a potentially good way or bad way. they can do real oversight investigation. it's not perfect, it never is. having someone look over your shoulder is not a bad idea. but if it is purely political in nature and doesn't seem to have a purpose, then it is annoying and not productive. it will be interesting to see where that goes. >> a sort of expect that under republican leadership they're going to shine a very bright light on the administration and implementation of dodd-frank and the affordable care act, and really highlight issues. i think we can expect that democrats will be equally as activated only instead of focusing on the administration. they're going to shine a light on industry. so expect to see senator ed markey, senator blumenthal, hyperengaged and sending letters and suggesting investigations into different business

practices. and increasingly what we have seen is one senator using their convening power to change corporate behavior. i think we will see this only grow in the months come. >> we have less than two minutes here, so if you have questions, we have mikes up and i will be looking at twitter. we talked about how this depends on republican leadership and also the president. is there anything you're looking for in today's press conference that's going to make you nervous or that you're hoping for when obama gets up there later today? >> as i was saying earlier, it's like a period of great grace.

you don't have to actually do anything for at least the next couple of weeks. so i'm hoping to hear that they say all the things we want to hear about getting along and trying to work together. again, i think that even if we may have different interests in what we want to get accomplished among clients, we do want progress. i like the idea of governing and i would like to see our congress and white house govern. that's what i'm listening for, or is the fight going to start tomorrow? that's what i'm listening for. >> i'm hopeful that we will see mutual decency and thoughtfulness and respect. i think if this election is about one thing, it's about the economic insecurity that americans feel, that one out of two people still

think we are in a recession and figuring out ways to work together to address that is going to be key moving forward. >> i am more focused on friday's meeting at the white house, republicans having a dialogue with the president. i hark back to the grand bargain days of 2011 when we all had little bit of optimism that these folks would all be in a room and come to an agreement on something historic and significant. we all know how that story went, it fell apart for a lot of different reasons. what is interesting to me is whether that meeting there's the fruit of real dialogue between republicans and democrats. that's something we will have to wait and see. >> i think folks in this administration have been prepared for this for some time. they have known it was going to happen in some number.

i think you will hear a very good tone out of this. the question is what happens when the extremes of both parties collide. >> we will put it out to questions that anybody may have out there. and also, i have the very helpful twitter feed. somebody has asked about infrastructure with legislation, maybe tied to tax reform. are you pretty optimistic about that? >> that will be the first vehicle. in march, that's the deadline and that will be the first vehicle. the question is will it become the catch-all vehicle. there is no doubt that there's great bipartisan support for making sure we pass the highway

bill. >> namely seeing efforts to do something about the repatriation tax. >> what about trade, as far as what is the best possibility for some kind of trade agreement moving forward? does anybody have a sense of that? >> that is definitely a place where you're going to have to thread the needle and find the middle and pass something with significant votes on both sides of the aisle, in both chambers. >> i think the house republicans are going to need to do some real soul-searching in terms of what they want their trade policy to be, in that the tea party has been somewhat divided,

and will they give the president tpa -- i don't know, not without significant restrictions, and what does that look like? then we're back to tension. >> someone was asking about tax extenders. is that a lot of what you're going to be looking at instead of a huge, grand bill or whatever? is this something that's going to be a big focus? >> that is everyone's goal. the question is, can we get to it?

everyone is going to be focused on it and people really want to get it done. it's a great opportunity in a bipartisan way. >> where do you find a $500 billion though? >> the idea of that lame duck conversation is the hope is there would be a dialogue, being able to pick and choose which ones should be made permanent and which ones should be thrown away. i think the house started that process and the senate went forward in their own direction. retroactive we are going forward until we have that dialogue. >> does anyone foresee a flurry of senate confirmations in the lame duck? >> if we can get it done, yes. i think there will be a big push by majority leader reid to get

as many nominations done as possible, because it only gets harder. what that means for time will be what that means is floor time will be consumed with nominations, and it makes it difficult to work on other issues. >> yes, a nomination to some degree expresses a policy position or whatnot, but ultimately these are people the president wants working for him, whatever the job is. unless there's something really awful, i think the senate should essentially pass most of the president's nominations on.

it could be a sign if they're willing to say -- go ahead and vote on them. >> were going to do a live and in-person question. >> someone in the first panel talked about the disconnect with voters, in leadership and education policies, especially k to 12. and in state elections in common core issues in particular. do you see congress working on the margins? specifically, can you talk about the house bills that passed with bipartisan support and whether it has any chance in this policical climate? >> i think there is a real opportunity for education reform

in this environment. the last time we did no child left behind, it took a bipartisan approach. with k through 12, it takes years and years and years, several congresses, to rewrite and get right the authorizing legislation. i'm hopeful that we make progress on this point, not only k through 12, but also higher ed. >> i think were going to have a chair of help in patty murray who will be an advocate and will really want to get something good done and get it done in a bipartisan way. >> i think the alexander-murray combination will be helpful not only in education, but also pensions. >> i think what's interesting about the election is for the first time in history the congress has 100 women in it.

if you look at republicans and see the challenges they face in the war on women, there are real opportunities for republicans for women to engage on things like working families that are relatable on the labor front. >> we are out of time and we must released our panelists. but thank you so much again. [applause] >> speaker john boehner says the house will vote on repealing the affordable care act when the new convenience in january. the speaker plans to also try for legalization to repeal parts law.e speaker boehner held a briefing

today with reporters. we covered that and you can see c-span.org. well, the house and senate return next wednesday for the lame duck session. awaiting bothon houses. in the house, federal spending for the remainder of fiscal 2014, the government is operating on temporary spending through mid-december. senate let members know that when they return, they'll vote judicial nominations and a child care development block grant program. both parties will hold leadership elections next week. follow the house here on c-span the senate on c-span 2. weekend on the c-span networks, friday night at 8 eastern on c-span, more reaction the midterm elections. on saturday night at 8:00, a debate on the future of the internet. sunday evening at 8:00 on q a, author and television host smyly on his latest book. collegeay night,

professor on german occupied paris during world war ii. saturday night, author jeff of racialhe idea progress in america. sunday night, edward wilson, of two pulitzer prizes, on what makes us human and species. to other friday at 8:00, on c-span 3:00, recipientsnor reflect on their service. and saturday, at 8:00, on lectures in history, the social facedice immigrants during the 1800's. sunday night, the 25th anniversary of the fall of the wall. find our television schedule at c-span.org and let us know what the programsut you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. comments@cspan.org. .r send us a tweet

the 2015 c-span student cam is under way,ion open to all middle and high school students to create a five-minute to seven-minute documentary on the theme "the three branches and you," showing or action by law the judicial branch of the federal government has affected or your community. there's 200 cash prizes for totalingand teachers, $100,000. for the list of rules and how to get started go to studentcam.org. >> next, back to the national journal's day-after conference, tuesday's election results. charlie cook called the election outcome a perfect storm for democrats, with seven democrats states, andats in low democratic turnout. [applause] the shortest was

introduction i've had in a while. thanks, marty. no. love it! i've always wanted to say charlie cook is someone who needs no introduction. anyway, i'm teasing. marty.ou very much, and greg ward and all the great people at united technologies. had a chance to do a bunch of events for them. and they're just great, great to work for, a great company. i long for the day when i can house with an a elevator and my own helicopter. in this lifetime, but i can always wish. you are all observers -- i'm trying to figure out how to do this. i'll stand -- okay. anyway, you are all observers of an experiment in sleep deprivation. and i finished up at nbc in new york at 2:45 this morning. went back to my hotel. column fored my

"national journal" for friday. and then friday's magazine. then showered, shaved, packed. because i've been up there since friday. i took the 6:00 train down and so i have had a 15-minute nap. so -- because i finished the while i was on the train. so anyway, so we'll see if i any coherence whatsoever. stream of consciousness. this is not the polished-or-raition that i'll be -- polished oratory speech giving in a few weeks. one, we have been talking for some time that what you were seeing for senate democrats was the equivalent of a perfect storm. together.s comining the least important of all of them was a numerical exposure. 21 seats up. republicans only had 15. but that was the least of the senate democrats' problems.

the second was much bigger, the geography. and most of the folks in this audience know that democrats had up in romney states. and republicans only had one an obama state. but more importantly, six of those democrats in romney states state's that romney carried by 14 points or more. upfront,th, we knew, it was going to be ugly. the third, the turnout. that increasingly in presidential elections, the turnout is big. it's broad. it's diverse. looks pretty much like the country. in midterm elections, the turnout tends to be older, wider, more conservative, more republican. and part of this is that when -- okay. the old marty and i, and the older fifth this this room -- in this room, when we seniors,ing up, the people 65 and older, were a pretty democratic voting group. grew up during the great

depression and franklin roosevelt and the new deal and that. and they're gone now. for the most part. olders now are a lot more likely to remember four unfortunate years under president carter and eight years during president reagan. they're more likely to remember years2 years than the 12 under franklin roosevelt. so this is just a different pool of seniors. votes they -- because they more often than anybody else, they drop off the least in terms and soerm elections, they're -- you know, there's this gap between what happens in elections and in midterm elections, it's getting and wider. obviously it doesn't mean that republicans will always do well in all midterm elections, that's not the case. if enough bad things happen to republicans, of course we're have a bad election. take 2006. between hurricane katrina and iraq, of course they can have a bad election.

knock stuff over. so there's the turnout dynamic. fourth and obvious one is the political environment. you know, president obama's the wholeing lousy, six-year itch thing. all these things. coming four factors together, to a certain extent, we knew that republicans were have some pretty real, pretty significant gains in this election. but then, you know, how far was this going to go? and to be honest, i thought this was going to be, you know, at end, four or five. at the higher end, six or seven. we'reow, right now where sitting now, it's seven seats, which we'll get republicans to fit the two. but there looks like a pretty good chance they'll get to eight and even nine, depending upon, finish of the count in alaska, where they've got all the dogsleds that have the ballot boxes in,

because it takes them a while to do that. dogsleds.g about the but alaska is a slow-count state. on then wha what happens december 6 in louisiana. is, if you look at these -- look at the states and montana, south dakota, west virginia. those were the three democrat easy.eats that were everybody knew where those were going. three moreu had democratic seats that were also in these romney-plus-14 states, know, alaska. pryor has already tipped over. it's gone to the republican side. so far of their gains have been in romney-plus-14 states. and then we know in the four were we alls

watching -- my thought was, wave,for this to be a republicans need to pretty much win either six out of six or of six of those states.lus-14 then they need to win three out of four or four out of four of states, which they had done with iowa, colorado. iowa, udall in colorado and hagan in north carolina. away washat slipped new hampshire. so that fits the test of a wave. no question about it. then republicans -- i kind of figured, well, you know, they year,lose one in a wave but they couldn't lose two. well, turns out they held on to vulnerablef their seats with mitch mcconnell in kentucky that ended up as a blowout. he didn't -- you know, nobody knew it was going to be a blowout. loaned his campaign $8 point. at one there was some doubt.

it blew itself out later on. the other two, with kansas. one.his was an interesting kansas roberts, where his numbers were awful. aboutg as that race was pat roberts, wow. he was in deep trouble. when republicans sort of switched gears and paintd from trying to greg orman as an evil human being and switched to something actually worked better. he's going to vote with democrats! that's when roberts kind of came in and why this thing really got really, really close. and in the end, roberts was able win. and last night, nbc -- it's kind of always fun. they ought to do is skip the studio and just put a camera out in the hallway, studio.the but early on, before any of the wasas vote was counted, i talking to david the axelrod. he was making the argument that, look, clearly republicans are

having a really, really good night. so inconsistent for republicans to have that good a an incumbentdrop in a state that ought to be theirs, kansas. yeah,remember thinking, but, boy, these are just unique circumstances with robert's civil warand the taking place in the republican party. axelrod wast exactly right. then we had -- lost my train of thought. okay. then obviously georgia, where, au know, we knew there was possibility that somebody could win without a runoff. but i think most people assumed a runoff.going to be and for tom purdue to win was a bigrunoff, that surprise. so republicans go 3-and-0. that obviously hit the wave test. so clearly, it's a wave. it ahe question is, is tsunami? i heard a certain cable network, around the throwing tsunami word.

but to me, wave, yes. good-sized wave, yes. but when we think of the 1980's, landslide, 1994 the newt gingrich landslide, when democraticbout the wave in 2006, when you think of 2010 --blican weave in wave in 2010, the hallmark of these kind of races is that upsets occur, real upsets. test was going to be, do republicans win some place where they're not supposed win? and virginia, if ed gillespie warner, which, you know, obviously it's still being counted, but, you know, margin for --a hey, that almost happened. mike mcfarland against al monican minnesota or webb against jeff merkley in oregon. to me, that would have been the, certifiable great, big

whatever, tsunami, metaphor you want to use. that's where that would have been. but so some of this was expected. but i think when you look at some of the other races, in the house, things were going on that we didn't expect. mean, we knew the republicans would likely have a turnout advantage. saw was ae significant drop-off. heckn, there were just a of a lot of democratic voters that, for whatever reason, chose not to vote. and whether they were upset with president obama, whether the democratic candidates didn't them a reason to turnout, you know, whatever it was, our editor david wasserman was looking at the counts last night. had someying that you shockingly low democratic vote a lot of these districts that caused huge problems for democrats in know, new york state specifically, all the way

over to california, where you had democratic losses or near five, six you know, districts out there, where the democratic vote was just really, really, really low. going on there that was sort of within the democratic side. and obviously there was more than that going on. but we had -- it was just some places, thereme were some very weak tops of tickets. and, for example, how many of you live in maryland? percentage. anybody here think john delaney was going to have a really tough race? i kind of heard that there was a race going on. and that he was having to spend money. that thing was really, really, really close. goode was behind for a part of the evening. and it gets to the maryland's governor's race. going toif you were say, what's a real, real

surprise? to me, the maryland governor's one.was we knew it was closing some. that brown was week. thank god for the internet when late. change our ratings but to be honest, did i think that larry hogan was going to actually win? no. but i thought, well -- we thought he's gonna make it pretty close. well, shoot. he won! now, why was that? i think there were two reasons. i think there was a general lack of enthusiasm for thirdn effect was a martin o'malley term. so i think that was maybe a third of it. was thathirds of it the lieutenant governor, the nominee, he was given exactly one thing to do as lieutenant governor. and that was the maryland health website. that got screwed up so badly that, you know, i think it's those two things together. but boy! that was really something.

but it seemed like in sort ofar, mid-atlantic, virginia, maryland, up through new york, happening.eird was we're going to be shifting mountains of election results for the next couple of weeks, so we'll, you know, kind happened.out what okay. real quickly, some implication talk. republicans, if it which i don't, think it will, there will be 52 seats. if it goes to eight, 53. they'll geto nine, to 54. they're going to need every bit for, a, holding on in there,here you remember where is my cheat sheet? this is where the sleep kicking in.is there are 21 republican seats up

i'm trying to read upside down here. i knew the statistic before i sleep-deprived. yes, 24 republican seats up. only 10 democratic seats up. going to -- and six of inse republican seats are up obama states. goingy need a cushion into 2016. but even between now and then -- i mean, think about it. okay. let's pick the middle number. republicans are at 53. okay? let's see. potentially marco rubio, ted cruz, rand paul running around the country, running for president. some votes, tor the new majority leader mitch mcconnell's chagrin. then you'll have republicans that are in some pretty challenging situations for 2016. and there's probably a limit to

sign up for. you know, mark kirk in illinois. state that in a president obama carried by, you points. how conservative a legislation will he will willing to sign on? pennsylvania, where obama won by five. ron johnson, wisconsin, where obama won by seven. kelley ayotte, new hampshire, where obama won by six. even rob portman where obama won points.three to how kind of a limit far out there those folks are going to go. and then you think of, well, okay, and the house and the work cut out for exotic and many potentially problematic members so thatonference that

only things that go to the floor have the support of a majority of the majority, so of the house,ut almost by necessity, is going to be maybe very conservative. then comes over the senate, up to threeght have or more missing members. or then these moderates these other members. well, i left out the moderates or members in tough districts, so that's another obstacles for republicans in terms of getting things through. and then how do we think that -- do we think that harry reid and to just, you going know, play dead and let things roll through? gosh. i don't think so. so, you know, i wouldn't just sort of assume that because gotten ans have majority, in a majority -- you know, by a couple of seats, that going tocongress is start becoming a productive

entity. got --w, today we've this afternoon, the president is having a news conference. there will be meetings later in the week or on friday. interesting to see what the president does, because expect -- remember, democratic the 1994 disaster, when president clinton art of basically said there's new way. i mean, i'm going a different direction. reconfiguredetely the direction and started moving towards the center. hold my breatho for this one. part of it is i don't think the feels any culpability, any responsibility whatsoever for what happened. think he deserves a heck of a lot of it. so.i don't think he thinks so for him to say, oh, i need to do things differently, i'm not that's in the president's dna.

of going got that sort on. will there be a shakeup? athink there will be sort of moderately small shakeup in the white house. the again, i think president has people that he's comfortable with, very comfortable with, maybe too comfortable with, and i don't think he's going to be pitching of people out the door. as mucht might not be change as there ought to be. so, you know, i think the next of years are going to be really, really, really interesting. towill be really interesting see, you know, how much patience has withh mcconnell harry reid and democrats. i would have thought that democrats would be maybe changes in some leadership. but, you know, we're hearing some people say nope, nope. in,mer is on board, locked

which okay. okay,little surprised but because i do think that, on the hand, harry reid, the senate fund superpac, you huge part of sort of the financial advertising apparatus for democrats. you can't say he didn't do everything he could in that respect. though, thatink, the argument that we've heard for the last week or so that senator reid, in protecting, shielding his members from casting tough votes, that he may have done them a disservice, that markpryor, begich, that mary landrieu, that hagan probably could have used some opportunities to split with the president on some big-ticket high-profile issues. that would have helped them out.

in my column for tuesday -- yeah. yesterday. wow! okay. a friend of mine reminded me of a quote from the late democratic signer, frommike rick's home state, where he said something to the effect of, you run, if you don't want to into burning buildings, don't become a firearm. thing is, that's part of the job of being a member of taking tough votes. and so on the one hand, these democratic incumbents were not given the opportunity to create some distance and were running, 97% support levels for the president because nothing particularly contentious came up, on the one hand. but on the other hand, policy happening. i mean, we've got big problems facing this country. let's face it. wasn't voting on them. some -- but it looks

like democrats are going to stay right there. anyway, we're going to be through this for a while, trying to figure out what in the heck happened, because has one simple explanation for what happened, i'm sorry. biggerhings are sort of and more complicated. it's going to take some time to do that. to take someosed questions. and i'm also supposed to look at what i should do -- where did it go? do is raffle this "national journal" ipad off. could.y didn't tell me i and it's -- okay. we're supposed to have some questions here. i'm not a technology person. ipad, but...e an let's see. oh! oh. this is nice. i would not want charlie cook's week, travel and sleep schedule. gosh! i am as bad as i thought.

let's go down -- i'm looking for a question here. i did see some interesting comments, though. and it was some quotes. well, that's all right. okay. well, there are microphones here and here, while i am looking. a lot that steve -- he my favorite people. somebody quoted a line of his that i didn't get a chance to hear that was great. steve, on gop nominating normal candidates, when you don't nuts, you don't give squirrels anything to eat. wow! did steve really say that? no wonder the tea party times hate his guts. but anyway -- [laughter] -- that was my favorite. let's go. ahead. [inaudible question] >> the question is, the republicans did so well yesterday -- what.l you move six inches. hear?rybody

corbett was the only incumbent lost.ican governor who picked up massachusetts, arkansas, illinois and maryland. a couple days ago that their surveys are indicating republicans are going a number of state legislativlegislative seats andn a couple moref chambers. what is your view? do you think this is showing now trend at the state level for republicans to be more historicallyan they have been? >> good question. playing on the governor thing before we go over the state house thing, yeah. situations were different. we talked about maryland. then in massachusetts, where got martha coakley -- up her screwing presumably final statewide bid. withith pennsylvania, governor corbett, you know, it goes to show how -- you know, we watch from washington or,

you know, anywhere. we can watch senate races, house races, and the dynamics in these races are largely -- you know, linkage across state lines and regions and things. good,think we get pretty not perfect obviously, but pretty good at figuring out what's generally likely to happen. are soernor's races difficult, because they're just sort of indigenous issues, local issues. even if you know what they all are, you don't know how to weigh them. and, you know, a lot of times governors, a new governor will they'll do some tough, unpopular things. their numbers go in the toilet. then presumably in year 2, 3, it starts coming back up and they get reelected. and that happens a lot. but with corbett, they just sort of went down, stayed down. and, you know, i've had friends from pennsylvania say, well, maybe it was the penn state

where the penn state themists thought he threw under a bus, and the critics thought he didn't do enough early enough as attorney general. you know, and the thing is, for heck do us -- how the you figure out how much to weigh these things? but to your immediate point, yes, i've got e-mails from the legislative leadership group. it was a really, really good night. but this is where that timing in, i talked about comes because there are far more state seats up and governorships up in the midterm election cycle, which is the good cycle for republicans. it really puts democrats in a disadvantageous position, because their good presidential years -- there's not as much. then when you think back to what happened this past time, republicans had horrific

ights in 2006, in 2008 -- mean, republicans were in deep trouble coming out of 2008. if you're a party and you ever want to have a good election yearbest you're going to have is one that ends in a zero, because that redistricting. and republicans got this huge boost in the 2010 year. to do, youe able know, to democrats what doing to thembeen for generations. now, obviously there's more to it than redistricting, because there's population, residential patterns and all that. but i think we are seeing a pattern where democrats have some real, real problems in as long as thens most enthusiastic democratic just sort of are vote in midterm elections. and so it's a feast and situation, presidential midterm. so i think democrats have got a real problem on the state

legislative, gubernatorial level, which has obviously huge congressional implications. so i think your point is very taken. it's going to take a few days before we know exactly. but it's safe to say they had a that levelight on too. that's the thing. when you're having a good night, if dog catchers were democrat dog, then catchers would have had a really bad night. and people that had never even been to washington on a school trip, you know, got sucked under of what was going on in terms of democrats in washington. great question. thank you. sir? >> i'm with u.s. news and world report. the republican pollster talked how hard it is for a party to win the white house three times in a row. atmosphere of the 2016 given, on the one hand, that, along with obama's unpopularity, on the other hand, thedemographic advantages democrats seem to have in presidential years? >> well, whit is one of my

favorite pollsters. so i think it was an excellent point. number 1, you're absolutely right. we had?e five times since the end of world war ii where a party has the white house for two consecutive terms and only one did the party win a third consecutive term. reagan's approval ratings back in 1988 were there good. infiniterats, in their wisdom, nominated michael dukakis, and sort of the rest is history. for 2006, there are a couple of things we don't know. obviously the history argues that republicans ought to win the presidency in 2016. is, willig question they have repaired their brand? they have repaired some of problems with minority voters, young voters, women voters, self-described moderate voters? to be honest, with this year, maybe a little bit.

but i would argue that some of just basically stayed home. it will be very interesting to seeh, for example, to whether latino turnout dropped disproportionately, for example, that immigration hasn't gone through and all that. republicans addressed their brand challenges? that will obviously make a difference, on top of obviously whoever the republican nominee is going to be. on the other hand, though, what kind of shape is the democrat brand in? that's where i'd love to know, is president obama's approval ratings in the summer and fall of 2016? the affordable care act -- you know, is it closer to even up, rather than upside down where it's been? and, you know, what's the economy looking like?

do peoplehat, but how feel the economy is doing? because, you know, technically know,ng, the economy, you unemployment is down below 6%, yada yada yada. time, for a lot of people, as far as they're concerned, their personal turned around. so all of these are things that are going to sort of establish the kind of shape democratic brand is in. and so, you know, it's a great point. that we'll all enjoy chewing over for the next two years. but it's -- you know, it's obviously an important question. here. hi. >> i think it's really easy to pivot to 2016. but we have two years. we haven't seen a whole lot of action and commonality of opinions. >> you think? >> so my question is this, taking as the premise that the president publicly is unwilling to likely express, any element night.ability for last and then he has a minority in

the senate side, where people going to need to try to get something done in order to show some achievements for 2016. and if nothing else, to break up the boredom of doing nothing. see as some issues where the president and his democratic senate, the minority that he has, is willing to give, work, achieve? so it doesn't wind up being more the same do nothing. >> several of us were talking beforehand about mcconnell's victory speech, which actually sound like a victory speech as much as a -- it like thesounded election hadn't been held yet, in the sense that it was sort of what republicans need to do and to look for things to work that, which, you know, we hadn't heard a whole lot of that. we'll see how serious he is that. but, you know, do they look for some of the common denominator things?

and like infrastructure, i mean, huge.is obviously there are things that could be that aren't divisive but at the same time, wow, the big ones, they really are. i mean social security reform, the egg heads say, you know, you could do that in an afternoon. it's pretty simple what you need do. it's scary and painful to do medicare, oh, no! that's a lot more complicated. isi'd just say that stuff not gonna happen. i don't have any reason to think republicans in the long term interests of need toy desperately fix their problems with latino desperatelythey need to reposition themselves on immigration and, you know, i think if you were -- if strategist,ublican

i would say -- first of all, i would have wished the democrats it this past time, you know. the best case here for is immigration reform happens and they don't off to vote for it and tick their base. and start working on increasing those numbers. remember, in 2004, in the exit polls, president george w. bush got 44% of the latino vote. there's political scientists that think that actually the exit polls were off and it was closer to 40%. hey, that's a heck of a lot better than 27% that mitt romney got. sort of repair some of that over there. but i'm going to have to -- question i need to take up with more sleep. but i think we are going to hear it. about it will be, you know, what are they willing to do? do the more conservative

elements of the party, can they the to terms with infrastructure capital spending -- that's not big government. it's just sort of something that thatof needs to happen nobody else is going to do. they need to kind of get past that point. but thank you. my god. i've known that guy forever. hi, ed. >> sunshine press. a two-parter. democrats -- is the democratic "get out the vote" operation kind of atrophying or are republicans just getting a lot better at get out the vote? whichcond, this time, half of the money was wasted in the campaigns? >> great questions, ed. we used to use ed, back in the prehistoricr the era on campaign finance numbers. anyway, okay. first, i don't think the

democratic get out the vote operation is atrophied. i do think what's happened -- i think it's two different things. 1, i think republicans are starting to catch up and may in fact have caught up or some up.es have caught so i think republicans have closed the gap, but i don't atrophy.s democratic i think it's just republicans getting back in the game. but the other thing is, there's a rule of thumb, and i kind of doubt if it's ever academicen in research, but that a good ground game, a good field operation was maybe two percentage points. whether it's two or three or the thinge, whatever, about it is your message and your position, you have to be within that range for the ground game to pull you ove over the t. thing is, i don't think democrats were -- i mean, i deeper holeere in a than that, so that the ground, the field, was just simply not them, no matter what they do.

and you've got to think -- take udall.o with mark michael bennett put together in 2010zing operation when he was up for his first election. beforebeen appointed that, you remember. amazing operation. put,hen the obama campaign you know, theirs in, in 2012 in colorado. nothe thing is, there's reason whatsoever -- and the dsccas chairman of and guy cecil, as executive director, you've got to assume that mark udall had a fabulous ground game. i have no reason to think it wasn't. but i think they had other issues., other part of it was just maybe he was just in too deep a hole. me -- and part of it was maybe there was some strategic miscalculation about being overly dependent upon women and

productive -- reproductive of other the exclusion issues. and the udall and democrats certainly say that he talked about a lot of other lot of adsthey ran a on other things, but obviously it was tilted that way. but the thing about it is, implicit in the dependence that democrats have had of late on of women's constellation of issues, it almost implies that's all that women are interested in. well, um... no. you know? and, you know, if a the shoe was on the other foot, i think you'd probably say that republicans condescending women by thinking of them in such a narrow vein. it's not so. so there was some issues there. me, theink that -- to tip-off that udall was going to racea really, really tough was when, you know, ken boch,

up the last senate race when he was running against bennett -- remember, early on, looked like he was going to be the nominee against mark udall. was only, what, four, five, six, seven points ahead of ken buck? that when the republicans did a switcheroo to cory gardner, boy, it was, you know, clearly a superior candidate to buck. not looking forward to meeting congressman-elect buck a reception some place, because i probably haven't been to him. charitable but anyway, that was a sign that udall had some real, real, real problems. and a so, you know -- and so, there's always, you know, more than one or two things there. argue that colorado, the last few years, if you were put, you know, from the

most republican state to the coloradocratic state, was straddling the 50-yard line more than any other state in the that if democrats are having a bummer year -- that's a bummeral since term, a year -- then -- actually, this is your right. then, you know, colorado would understandably kind of drift over that way. half of the money was wasted? >> oh! of the say the last half tv money. and the question was, which half wasted?oney was let's face it. as inevision advertising, a lot of things, there's a law returns.shing and, you know, once you've seen -- i'm making up this a voter hasonce behalf0 ads for, by, on of a candidate, how much more

persuasive will the next 100 be? and the answer is generally not that much. and so i think what we're seeing candidates -- campaigns that are spending, you know, way morethan they need to, way than is optimal on television. know, the same time, you some of this other spending is level. of an embryo they're trying to figure out, how do you do it effectively? to use is that i like my daughter, who in 2012, was living in cleveland. zero foras like ground presidential races. had no cable television, antenna. ears, no she had whatever apple tv is have,hese young people

she had that, whatever the hell that is. she, youad -- and then know, drove to work. she was either listening to npr or listening to music, you know, on her ipad, whatever. and so that if you were advertising on television, her., you weren't getting that's the challenge. so digital was basically, you know, one of the only ways to get her. and, you know, we're sort of -- there's only -- again, i'm talking way out of my level here, but there's only like that much -- are you still over there, whit? no? there's a word. talking about sort of the inventory. there's only that much inventory right now available of digital marketingg, opportunities. sort of not there yet.

but i'd say, you know, a lot of is way over the top. of just -- in terms well, in terms of quantity but also quality. ofhink the quality television political ads is way, 15, 20 years from ago. i think there are a lot of media consultants in both parties that could -- i think a positive ad is much harder, a good positive is an effective positive ad a lot harder to do than a ad.tive there are a lot of folks that couldn't do an effective livesve ad if their depended on it. they're not filmmakers. they don't have a background in terms of constructing a telling a story, being persuasive. it's just slash and burn, which is easy. but, you know, sometimes some is nice too. yes, sir?

>> i want to ask you a question your favorite state. n's say let's send a senior senator back to fight our issues or -- >> that's a great question about louisiana. okay. i will take both sides of the document -- asen i often do. does mary landrieu pick runoff?pvotes, and with cassidy getting a lot to her than a lot of us thought would happen, she's got cut out for her. no question about it. that a case can be made that, for landrieu, the worst case scenario was if the senate were right on the edge. become a red-blue

vote versus, you know, who do to represent louisiana? so arguably she may be that.aged by i think there is a devious path to winning, if you're landrieu. what the hell? were senate democrats, this is what i would do. i would have somebody set up baloney organization called for conservative values or whatever. cassidy is a conservative, conservative.hat and he's not nearly as conservative as a lot of louisiana republicans would like him to be. overtime. know i'm okay. but i'll tell you the story

anyway. [laughter] in louisiana, in baton rouge, back in march, the school of mass communications at lsu, if any of kids.ve although elon university's school is also very good, where my son is. anyway, so i'm giving a talk, and this young man comes afterwards. and he waits till all the other students have kind of drifted away. and he said, well, i'm cassidyring for the campaign. and it's practically -- he's practically whispering. i mean, that's an exaggeration, but it wasn't with a loud voice. like he was confessing to having herpes or something. i asked him, why are you whispering? and he said, well, observe conss have a hard time. mean, he's not conservative enough for most republicans down here. and i'm thinking, that's why got an excellent chance of winning, because he's not over

the top. anyway, ifow -- but i were senate democrats, i would create all kinds of mischief of polling various things to show of us."'s not one he's not conservative enough for us, conservatives saying this, frontobviously it's a group. but when you saw -- and this is different, but it tells you an example of how this kind of stuff can work effectively. you saw senate democrats effectively nominate missouri. [inaudible question] rick.der, in indiana? yeah. oh. mean.ri i todd aiken. thank you. this is where the sleep kicking in.is remember they ran tv ads, and they had somebody.

i don't know who. he said, todd akin is too conservative for missouri. now, in a republican primary, patch.e in that briar they effectively moved the nomination away from the two republicans that might very well beat claire mccaskill and pulled where theye, affected the outcome of the primary. that showings how sometimes effective ine very doing some interesting little jujitsu thing. but look, chances are -- i mean, she's got an uphill fight. and i'd probably guess cassie has got a, you know, 70% chance, of winning that runoff. but i do kind of think that she's probably better off not senate on the line, because then that would have party vote, and that's not helpful to her. okay. getting the hook. it says "wrap up." okay. out the door,

much forank you very sponsoring this. and thank you all for participating. you had an impressive panel. i mean, just some really great people here all morning. you very much for coming to hear us. [applause] >> thank you, charlie. your i thin insights are alwaysy entertaining. thank you so much for joining us. just quickly wanted to thank paul pomerantz and the american anesthesiologists and marty hauser from united technologies corporation for making this possible. hope you all have a wonderful day! >> and house speaker john boehner cautioned president obama during a news conference today to not act unilaterally on immigration. could poison the

well when trying to pass legislation over the next two years. news conference, speaker boehner also said that republican-controlled congress will act on the health care law. here's a look. you mentioned, obamacare, the second paragraph the wall street journal talked about obamacare. how do you walk this balance intout getting stuck back that being the predominant issue in congress, or is it the haveminant issue, when you new freshmen coming in who have never had a chance to repeal to tweak thistry in some way to go for a full repeat? >> obamacare is hurting our economy. hurting middle class families. ability forting the employers to create more jobs. at so the house, i'm sure, some point next year, will move to repeal obamacare, because it should be repealed, and it replaced with commonsense reforms that respect

doctor-patient relationship. now, whether that can pass the senate, i don't know. but i know in the house, it will pass. it.we're going to pass but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do other things. bipartisan bills that wouldassed the house that in fact make changes to obamacare. and there's a bipartisan and senate the house for repealing the medical device tax. a bipartisan's majority in the house and senate thegetting rid of the ipad, independent pain advisory board, the rationing board and obamacare. how about the individual mandate? there are a lot of democrats and isublicans who believe this unfair. just because we may not be able to get everything we want that we shouldn't try to get what we can. think -- there's been three or four different issues, potentially votes.

doesn't that siphon congress back into this obamacare and the the number gets up into 60's or 70's's in terms of calls against obamacare? are bipartisan majorities in the house and senate to take some of these issues out of obamacare. to put them on the president's desk and let him choose. the entirewatch briefing online at c-span.org. house correspondent mark knoller tweets despite warnings that it would poison the water, president obama is sticking to plans to take executive action on immigration reform. also points out the president is scheduled to have lunch with 16 congressional leaders and key members to discuss the issue. both the house and senate returning next wednesday, at 2:00 eastern time, awaiting action in the house. theral spending for remainder of fiscal 2014. the government is currently operating on temporary spending december.

the senate let members know when they return, they'll be voting on judicial nominations. a child care development block grant program. also, next week both parties holding leadership elections for the 114th congress, which begins in january. >> here are just a few of the comments we recently received from our viewers. >> just going to tell you how enjoy this, at 5:00 on the west coast. everything stops in my house. i turn off my phones, get my cup of coffee and it's the most hour on television. >> the guest today was very informative, good opinions. to him andistening the comments that was done today. and-- he was very accurate very on point. he was not using his own personal innuendos. and i greatly enjoyed it. you have more guests

like that. on target thist morning. >> i'm calling to say that i people, c-spany is wonderful. but as to criticisms, i almost have none. and i'm a very partisan kind of person. i almost have known is i think you all -- that i think you do a tremendous job of showing almost every side of things and the way d.c.e look at things in and elsewhere. i take my hat off to you. thank you very much. >> and continue to let us know think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. us at comments@cspan.org. or you can send us a tweet at c-span hashtag #comments. conversation.n "like" us on facebook. follow us on twitter. heard this morning, we from stuart rothenberg of the

rothenberg political report. he participated in a roll call review of the midterm election results. here's a look at what he had to say. >> good morning, david. good morning, everybody. how are you? please!ow some life, [laughter] i've got to feed off you. it's a pleasure-- to be here. welcome again to what should be a very interesting day. old guy up here with a loungeone, and i see andhe sands hotel in 1955 me as part of the rat pack. that's why i'm using this. [laughter] lot of time, and i have a lot to cover. and there are a lot of whoresting people after me you want to hear. so i'm going to run through what happened, why, and look a little bit forward. some have touched on two or that folkss, groups later in the day will go into more detail on. what happened, absolutely we had election.

by the way, if i had known you were going to credit me with would havestics, i checked to see if they were right. i just figured, what the heck? no. right. what happened? well, we had a wave election. senate is going to be nine senate seats, i believe, at the end of the day, after the runoff, probably nine senate seats will slip to the them from 45taking to 54. the last house numbers suggested the mid-teens. there are a whole bunch of recounts. too close.are they'll be too close to call for weeks probably. but somewhere, i don't know, want to say between 13 and 17. that's probably somewhere in there. a handful of governorships all went to the republicans. night!as a terrific now, there were plenty of surprises. one or two races, i'm still stunned by them. overall outcome should

not have shocked you, stunned left your mouth open and unbelieving. very smart person, who i sometimes agree with -- i don't always -- wrote this, in september, september 8, i'm now inecting a senate wave november, with a net gain of at least seven seats but i wouldn't be shocked by a larger gain. combination of an unpopular election in a midterm election can produce disastrous results for the president's party. given the president's standing, the public's disappointments with the direction of the the makeup of the midterm electorate, and the 2014 expecting ai'm strong breeze at the back for there's ad -- and, if strong breeze, most of the races competitive will

fall one way. toward republicans. this doesn't happen all the it's far from unusual. right now this cycle looks much like 2010, when democrats with reasonable profiles got crushed and swingcan-leaning states. with the president looking weaker, the news getting worse, democratic candidates in competitived xet districts are likely to have a albatross around their next. written by someone i often, not always, agree with. me. [laughter] now, if i could see that on the think most people could see it on the horizon. it's not like i have all these powerduper kre secret insights that other people don't have. >> yes, you do. >> thank you. did thisaw was, why happen? mood. most midterm elections are about mood. it's different from presidential elections which are much more about the two individuals running for office, their

qualities, their backgrounds, their preparedness, their agendas. tend to bections referenda on the sitting president, not congress. when people look at the congressional job approval and say, well, congress is on top and republicans house, so maybe the election is going to be about the i'm not saying they like -- i'm not saying the next election would him be this way, and this is the black swan theory. beterm elections tend to about the president and when voters are angry, disappointed, frustrated, uncomfortable, tendus -- those elections to send that message to the president's party. republican recruiting was quite good. thishad strong candidates time. and there was turnout -- it was a