that has always been a matter of interpretation, always a question of who we are going to say gets protection and who does not, which interests are so .aluable we have to think about why that is the case. as long as we are going to talk about section 230, just one final note -- the goals of section 230, written in the statute itself, include to ensure vigorous enforcement of federal them and a lot to deter and punish trafficking and obscenity, stalking and harassment by means of computer. that is in section 230 itself, and that's what a lot of people seem to forget. it's not just about letting intermediaries do whatever they want. there are certain values and goals embedded in the idea that we would do well to ask if they are being served today. >> i would love to keep asking questions, and i will, but i want to ask a chance for the audience, if anyone has any

pressing thoughts they would like to address with the panel. right here in the front. the flaw in the current law? there is defamation, intimidation -- whenever we have a high profile case, there's a from people who think they can solve the problem or people who were injured who want a new law specifically for that issue. >> why do we need a new law in this case? do you want to start? rights work did not start with any high profile case. years ago when average people were being affected by this.

this has been something that is happening private citizens for years. this is not some high profile case we are responding to out of a sense of now that has happened to someone famous we care. we care about this because the experience of victims has been that none of these laws work. if the image is out there, if it was not necessarily by someone trying to harass, and many of them do not, just to give you a concrete example, just a couple of weeks ago, the highway patrol officers who have arrested women for drunk driving and taking the phones, taking naked pictures off their phones, sharing them with each other, he did not even 100 find out about it. find out how many times they get

.urned away by lawyer's there's no money there, no reason to pursue this. for all these reasons, we are responding to an issue where thousands of victims have come forward and said that they cannot get any relief from the law. they are not going to second-guess -- i do going to second guess the victims because they are the ones experiencing this firsthand. >> but if law enforcement is telling women, "it's your own fault this happened to you," they are wrong. i know you agree with that, but that is not only just morally understandingulty of what it means to, you know, take your own photo or share photos in an intimate setting, but it is also -- probably indicates that they do not understand the laws that do exist. >> they might not be too effective in enforcing any law. >> right. by no means -- i hope no one gets the impression -- -- i do not know anyone who thinks criminal laws are the silver

bullet to this problem. there is no super bowl it. we're asking tech companies to rethink their internal policies, asking people to engage in educational programs, inform people about the practice, and we are engaging with law enforcement and others because we want them to understand the stakes. by no means is it a silver bullet, but much like in the 1970's and 1960's when domestic violence was not considered a crime, with sexual assault was largely not considered a crime, especially if it was your husband who assaulted you, there is a social and legal importance to recognizing that this is a harm that should be addressed by the law, at least in theory. >> i was going to point to if we have a range -- we have a range of laws on the books that might be useful in different cases. whether it is a privacy tort, invasion of privacy, public disclosure of private facts, going after it from a hacking angle, whether it is a copyright remedy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, there's a mosaic of laws out there that are the way society has expressed that it is wrong to

intentionally cause emotional distress to another person, and there are laws against that sort of thing. it's not going to mean that every single instance of this kind of exposure of a private photo is covered. to be gaps where a case does not fit into every cannot fitct of or into every single aspect of a current law, but if we try to craft a new crime that is expansively enough defined to cover every single instance of an exposed photo, we are absolutely going to sweep in other kinds of content, other kinds of expression, and that law is not going to survive first amendment scrutiny. we arethe challenge facing. there's no silver bullet.

>> many have said that facebook has gotten better at doing this. twitter has not done it yet. it's kind of insane for a social network that has been around since 2007. i hope they are taking it more seriously because they can do a lot. twitter is not the public internet. they have their own rules. they are allowed to change them to make it easier for people who are being harassed or people who see others being harassed to call out the offenders, and they have not done enough. >> going back to our case example for the day, a lot of images were circulating for a long time on websites like 4chan and sort of blew up when had ait reddit, which

thread which really made some of these images go viral, which made these shut down. .t was sort of a question for the users to use the way they want to, and it's difficult to say a website that is based on the idea of people having open forums to share and discuss what they would like also needs to be responsible for the making judgment calls of when it crosses the line, so what are some of the difficulties with that? perhaps you might want to jump in here. >> on setting while back the biggest problem with the internet is the people on it. i to that point, though, would say i'm glad you brought up twitter as an example to dovetail with the point about intentional emotional distress. that's why i think we need to rethink the emphasis on emotional distress. when people are engaging in , all theseities different types, not just some

of the cases, but it was actually a pretty large number of these cases -- why are people doing this? because they think it is funded -- funny. because they think it is entertainment. not to cause emotional distress. why do we hold that is the one thing we would penalize? ? y is this person any better why if he is doing it for profit, if he is getting ad revenue that the why would we say it's totally fine to do it for that but just do not hurt her feelings? that seems like an odd emphasis to make exception for the public nature of this humiliation. >> don't you need to have, as you of a prohibition -- have to think -- maybe i misunderstand, but you have to have some reference to an improper purpose. you're not saying, like i don't think, like the arizona statute, which is clearly unconstitutional, that you

cannot post a picture of someone without their clothes on -- >> that's not what the statute says. >> and is not what you are saying. the difference is you, too, have to focus on the improper purpose . >> if purpose is meant by causing distress, no, it does not have to be focused on that. some and does why something, the motive for why someone spies and you in your bedroom -- why would that matter ? they do it because they think you are funny looking or because they think you are arousing should not matter. we look at different categories and we are back to the theme of jennifer lawrence calling this a sex crime. think about the way sex crimes tend to be worded. we think a sexual assault in terms of consent. there are certain forms -- and again, this is true of our identity information and about our other forms of privacy. do we only criminalize disclosures of medical records when you intend to distress me with them? that is not even part of the

statute at all. same thing when it comes to social security numbers. i just thought it would be funny to put your social security number out there. i did not mean to hurt your feelings. no one cares. when it comes to certain types of intimate information, the motive for why someone is doing it should not be the point. it's the lack of consent to do so. i think that is something that is becoming clearer to us as a society, that we has serious deep problems with sexual consent understandings in this country. of howsee this in terms many sexual assaults are committed every year, but also that we seem to take it as a given whether a woman especially consented to the use of her body for sexual entertainment or enjoyment. i think it's time we started to rethink that. any other questions? >> i believe this was referred to as a hacking, but wasn't this really an instance of phishing rather than hacking?

>> social engineering is still hacking. it's the easier kind, often. >> it involves folks being able to give their passwords, not necessarily a hacking of the icloud. >> it's unclear exactly what went down. apple has come out and said that their systems were not hacked. which is to say that apple writ large was not hacked. they did not rule out that individuals through sophisticated techniques, whether it was social engineering, whether it was phishing were able to get passwords for individual accounts. >> two things about apple as they are not generous with specifics about their products. everyone who is looked at things like touch id on the iphone thinks that is great. their cloud security -- they have had issues with it. >> to that question, does that

matter? is that a significant distinction? we talked about how there's a difference between this case where you have perhaps a where doesf cfaa -- the dissection of how the image was gotten come into play? >> i think back to what marianne was saying, where if you think or the is the fulcrum , then whether you have hacked into someone's account or have a photograph that was sent to you or you have access to that account gotten in a perfectly reasonable way -- all of those would matter and would .ave to be evaluated i mean, there is a much larger debate here about the role of consent.

generally, with respect to information, on the internet, was an active international debate with the so-called right to be forgotten in european -- there's various european laws where if you no longer consent to have information that has been published about you, you can ,ort of withdraw the consent have the website delete information that may be floating around about you. again, not to beat a dead horse, there's a familiar landscape in a sense for the first amendment debate, which has sort of been in the background of this consent, privacy, information debate for many years. what will it do to the free flow of information if you have to show that you have consent in a piecem for passing on

of information? this is related to this idea, i think, that the people should own the information about them, should own the information about them. should be a property interest, even, and therefore, people have to come to them if they want to publicize their areas things about them. that has serious, very difficult could call free speech or first amendment issues because it is very difficult to evaluate whether consent has been given in many circumstances as to find out how you demonstrate consent, and it would have a very serious impact on the sorts of things -- you know, can you tell people you saw me at this -- i would use this as an example about owning information. i saw this thing in the rayburn office building. if i own that information, you cannot. it is an extreme example. nobody suggests we should have such a law, but that is the issue, i think, with respect to sort of balancing the free flow

of information on the one hand against reasonable requests for a showing of consent with respect to some information on the other. >> i think that is right, and it's one of the reasons why am actually optimistic about this particular type of material because there seems to be a fairly easy way to fix this. you want to disclose some but his image, ask them to sign a form, you can disclose away. make it easy. we have something like that when it comes to modeling releases. we have it when it comes to medical records. if you want to submit this information, and you think it is consensual because that is the only principled stance to take, make sure you have documented evidence. we can fix this. this is not nearly as hard as things like the right to be forgotten or a general question about what people can say about you. it's very specific and can be resolved through paperwork. i saw one more hand right here. that there are already takedown regimes for child pornography and these other protected what have you, would

it be that much more burdensome to require search engines, facebook, other tech companies revengetakedown pornography? do you think it would possibly impede the goals of small tech businesses? couple of things you really have to keep in mind when you are talking about some kind of takedown regime. first and foremost, what a notice and takedown regime does ability, aerson the mechanism to tell, say, a website host to take down someone else's content, takedown something that was uploaded by another person. this is a mechanism that has been helpful in taking down, you know, infringing copies of movies and songs, but at its heart, it is giving a person ability to say, "take what that other person has uploaded."

the potential for abuse of these systems is very high. when you look at something like the copyright takedown system, there are a number of safeguards built into the system based on what you have to include in a notice. it has got to include the ability to -- you have to identify yourself, including contact information. you have to attest that you are the legitimate owner of the copyright. the person who uploaded the content originally has the ability to push back and say, "no, this is actually my content ," or "i have been making a fair use of this copyrighted work" or what have you. the site puts the information backup online and leaves them to fight it out in court. it's not a simpler mechanism as saying give someone an easy form to fill out, and the information comes down, and you are set. a lot needs to go into figuring out how to construct this takedown mechanism so that it is not so vulnerable to someone using it to say, "i don't like with that person said, so i'm

going to file a takedown request and abuse the system." one of the real challenges we have to think about and we talk about questions around nude images is that there is a sensitivity and a privacy interest that the person depicted in the image might have. if it is your photo that has been posted without your consent online, you will want to, you know, file a takedown request and get that taken down. if you have to identify yourself in that request, that could cause privacy concerns, but if it is some appeal strang to abuse the system. if you have uploaded your photo under a pseudonym and you're happy with the photo being out there, but you do not want it connected with your real name, and someone else is trying to abuse the system to get the content taken down, your ability requires you to disclose who you are. there are some comfort kate's issues, thinking about the vast range of nude imagery that is available on the internet. some of it is this kind of nonconsensual posting, but there is a lot of it that is uploaded

anonymously or sued anonymously, .- pseudonymously we really have to take that into account. >> just to follow up a little bit, i think a notice of takedown regime is worth exploring at this point. the existing notice of takedown schemes, particularly the , which is the one in section 512, does require -- the burden is on the aggrieved .arty it does not say google or facebook or twitter has to take .tuff down you have to respond to the copyright owner's identification of the infringing material, which i think is very important and has been very contentious,

so they are working that out in the court, but they have more or less come to the resolution that it is the obligation of the aggrieved party to find -- and it's not a trivial obligation -- to find the material and send the notice in, at which point the process kicks in. there are all sorts of protections. you do have to be careful about allowing something to be abused. if it is too easy to submit a takedown notice, people will be using it for purposes that have nothing to do with the harms they are trying to protect against, but all those, i think, are -- the devil is in the details. the copyright takedown regime, if one wanted to go in that direction for these sorts of problems, i think would be worth looking at carefully. hundreds of millions of

copyright infringing files are taken down weekly. in that sense, it has removed an enormous -- i know the copyright industry has gone crazy about it because they have to go find the material. they don't like that, but on the jobr hand, it has done the pretty well. it has provided a process at is always scale important when you are talking about the internet. whatever we're talking about, we are talking about millions of it, and that scale has allowed the automation of takedown, but yet, protecting the people who have uploaded and giving them an i did not post " it" or it's not infringing or whatever there argument might be. that will be worth looking at carefully and see how it could on thised to work problem. it might be a useful avenue of approach. >> you mentioned search engines. we should be careful about going too far. some but he like youtube can ed, but also,id

they have a known universe of copyrighted material that they get from the entertainment industry that they can use to match against this. there's no such thing when it comes to people's private photos. trying to do a general search and match -- webmail sites can do automated screening against child put out for free because there's no such thing as -- there's no consensual anything there. that's why they are illegal, and there is a hash database national by the association of missing and exploited children, and they can compare the hash of the image, the mathematical shortcut to it, to what is in that database. doing that for the broader -- that's not going to work. >> just one clarification -- child put out if he is not quite

that easy because it's not always easy to tell whether the person depicted is in fact a minor, so they do have to engage in some judgment calls and some investigation. not necessarily more onerous than figuring out whether or not consensual.s unfortunately, we have broken a promise to keep it to about 60 minutes, but we were close. wonderful conversation that i'm sure could continue for hours, but we appreciate all of you coming. thanks very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> today house speaker john weiner talked about the midterm elections as well as ongoing efforts to repeal the health care law -- today, house speaker john boehner talked about the

midterm elections as well as ongoing efforts to repeal the health care law. >> the second paragraph of your op-ed talked about this. how do you walk this balance without getting sucked back into , or is it the predominant issue? you have new freshmen coming in who have never had the chance to vote no to obamacare. do you try to tweak this in some way or vote for a full repeal? >> obamacare is hurting our economy. it's hurting middle-class families, and is hurting the ability for employers to create more jobs. i'm sure, at some point next year will move to repeal obamacare. it should be repealed and replaced with commonsense to the out of respect doctor/patient relationship. whether that can pass the senate i don't know.

we are going to pass that, but that does not mean we should not do other things. there are bipartisan bills that that would the house in fact make changes to obamacare. there's a bipartisan majority in the house and senate for repealing the medical device tax. a bipartisan's majority for getting rid of the ipab. a lot of democrats and republicans believe the individual mandate is unfair. just because we may not be able to get everything we want does not mean that we should not try to get what we can. >> doesn't that siphon this intoess right back obamacare, and the number gets up into the 60's or 70's of

votes to repeal? >> the house and senate wants to take some of these issues out. we need to them on the president's desk and let him choose. >> is that going to poison the well for any type of cooperation between this new republican majority and the white house? >> you have all heard me say starting two years ago yesterday that our immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. i have made clear to the president that if he acts unilaterally on his own outside of his authority, he will poison the well, and there will be no chance for immigration reform moving in this congress. .t is as simple as that >> just some of the comments from house speaker john boehner earlier today on capitol hill. we will show the entire briefing tonight at 8:00 eastern time here on c-span. the house and senate will be

back in a wednesday at 2:00 eastern time awaiting action in the house as federal spending of fiscalmainder 2014. the government is currently operating on temporary spending through december, and in the senate, members will be working on judicial nominations and a child care development block program. also next week, both parties will be holding leadership elections for the 114th congress, which begins in january. >> this weekend on the c-span networks, friday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span, more reaction to the midterm elections. on saturday night at 8:00, a debate on the future of the internet. sunday evening at 8:00, author and television host tavis smiley on his latest book "death of a king." at 8:00, ronald ross bottom on journaled -- german occupied paris. then author jeff chang on the

idea of racial progress in america. sunday night at 10:00, when are of two pulitzer prizes on what makes us human and different to other species. friday at 8:00 on american history tv on c-span3, medal of honor recipients reflect on their service in world war ii, vietnam, and afghanistan. prejudicethe social immigrants faced during the 1800s. sunday night at 8:00, the 25th anniversary of the fall of the berlin wall. find our television schedule at www.c-span.org and let us know about the programs you are watching. call us, e-mail us, or send us a .weet join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> earlier today, the american enterprise institute held a discussion on the results of the midterm elections, focusing mainly on the republican takeover of the senate. panelists also talked about what

this could mean for the future of the obama presidency. this is about an hour and a half. >> good afternoon. i am a senior fellow here, and i would book -- i would like to welcome all of you and our c-span audience to this election watch. i would like to thank the aei staff. they do enormous amount of work to make sure these events run smoothly. i would also like to extend a special thanks to our new assistant. she has been with us only a few months, and she has had a baptism of i or in election issues. let me begin by congratulating my fellow panelists. we have been at the business of elections for a long time. we do politics the old-fashioned way, studying individual races and historic voting patterns.

we are not into the modeling or aggregation business. i listened yesterday to our session from two weeks ago, and although there were a few misses, the panelists generally made very solid calls and senate, house, and gubernatorial races. we said we expected big gop gains, and we learned this morning that republicans have the highest number of state legislative seats now in 100 years, and democrats the lowest number since the civil war. let me say a few words let me say a few words about the pots. while most of them predicted that the g.o.p. would have a good night, many of the individual polls were wildly misleading. mark blumen that will and levi said this morning "the polls missed their mark nationwide by a mile." public polls consistently understated republican

candidates in almost every statewide race including a remark bli high number of misses. for instance, none of them predicted what happened in west virginia where ed glest pi is still awaiting the output. polling statewide is treacherous. whether the business as we know it will be around in 2020 is not clear, but a lot of soul searching should be done and this is not a particularly introspective business. the exit polls had a good night and we can learn a great deal from them. let me goo over a few of the findings that struck me. we talked in the session before there one oar the sour public mood. people don't trust this economic recovery and that was evident in so many of the questions on the exit poll

ballot. only 1% said the economy was in excellent shape while 70% said it was still in bad shape. nearly half of voters expected their life for the next generation would be worse. only 22% expected that it would be better. democrats have been counting on what they call the rising minority electorate to propel them to victory. the share of the youth vote this time was down and republicans made gains among those who did vote. the share of the non-white vote slimmed. greg abbott in texas, like george w. bush and rick perry did well with hispanics, capturing 3 -- 44% of their vote. the gender gap was dwarfed by the marriage gap at 41 points. and an analyst said single women, another core democratic group, gave their party the

smallest margin in exit polls going back to 1992. wilmington whole were more democratic than men but less so than in the past. men were solidly republican. republicans won the women's vote in southern contests in ansas, arkansas, texas, maine, mississippi, in both south carolina races, west virginia and women split their vote inive. independents gave the .coma 12-point margin. a third of voters said they supported the tea party. i looked closely at the health care question on the exit poll ballot. voters in 18 senate contests were asked to check a box indicating whether they thought the law did not go far enough, was about right and went too far. in only two states, oregon and maine did more than 30% say it didn't go far enough. in all of the other states, 45% or more said that the health care law went too far. in 10 states more than 50% of

voters said it went too far. the exit poll consortium asked whether most illegal immigrants in the u.s. should be offered a chance to apply for legal status or deported to the country they came from. only in arkansas did more people say that they should be deported than given legal status. voters in 17 senate contests were asked if their state should legally recognize gay marriage. at the low end, 25% of louisiana said yes. at the high end, 70% of those in new hampshire did. this was the issue that produced more diverse responses than any others. voters in six senate contests were asked whether the use of marijuana should be made legal. voters in two states said yes. only a third of voters in texas said that ted cruz and separately rick perry would make a good president.

39% of our cans said that hillary clinton would. 50% said mike huckabee would make a good president. 28% in louisiana said bobby jindal would. 40% in florida said jeb bush would. in wisconsin, 46% said that paul rein would make a good president. that's a quick vumry of some of the exit poll data. we have a piece up on the website that goes into these issues in more detail. now we're going to turn to our panelists and we're going to begin with michael broken to talk about house races. michael, you said, if i remember creekt -- correctly that at the beginning of the obama is estimation, the republicans in the house had 179 seats. tell us where they are today.

>> yeah, the republicans had 179 seats at the beginning of the obama administration. they are up to, if you look at current leads, 25 1. some of those leads may evaporate as california in particular takes a lodge time to count its votes. they've taken as long as five weeks. a week ago sunday, brazil cap laltse its votes in five hours. and california which believes to be a more advanced state, takes five weeks. in any case, it appears republicans have won more than they won in 2012, more than the 242 they won in 2010 and almost certainly more than the 246 they won in 1946 so you have to go back to the 1928 cycle to find a time when republicans did better in house elections. norm was covering that for cbs radio. [laughter] part at's there -- it's

of this is baked into the cake by demographics. you know, in 2012, mitt ram any, who many of you will remember, carried 226 house districts. carried a majority of the house districts. washed the electoral college. why is that there are marginal favoring of republicans in the house seats in this cycle but the primary reason is demographic. democratic voters, as i've been writing for the last couple of years, particularly heavily democratic voters, blacks, his pan nicks some but not all states and gentry liberals, i think we know who we're talking look there. we're only two miles from georgetown, are heavily clustered in certain central

cities from sympathetic suburbs, universities towns. republican voters are spread more evenly around the rest of the country. romney carried 226 house districts for republicans. unfortunately that's not the way we choose presidents and in comparison, john kerry, who got a slightly higher percentage of the vote eight years before, kerry only won 80. so it's a basic demographic thing, nonetheless, i think it's interesting that republicans gained seats in this house cycle. looking at the exit poll it looks like the overall vote was 51-47 for republicans in terms of percentages. that may be off by a bit. we'll wait on california, they're out there on the beach or something not counting the votes, to see what's going on but that's their -- let me insert a word here about the polls.

you mentioned the error mar individuals. i did a blog post for washington examiner.com on this. i looked at the seriously contested senate races. i don't know if that holds in governor or house races, which there isn't usually a lot of polling. what i found was that in incumbent democrats, the polls were pretty much spot on to the number of votes they got. interesting the -- interestingly, the two that increased were two female candidates, kay hagan and gene shaheen but basically the polls were pretty much spot on on democratic incumbents. among republican incumbents, of which there were only two in seriously contested races, the pollings were about eight points low for mitch mcconnell, about 10 points low for pat roberts. those are both heavily reinstates and we know that republicans in polling are more likely than democrats to express dissatisfaction with anywhere party's politicians,

with their party's members in congress, but the rule that that suggests is that polling is pretty good at getting the party -- giving the percentage for the party that is doing badly in a wave election. it's not so good at projecting the party that is doing well from a wave election and yeah, this was a wave election, folks. >> got its starts in polling with peter hart many, many years ago. >> yes, that -- but it was after the 1928 cycle anyway. [laughter] my second point is that it's interesting that the republicans lost two seats with incumbents that had particular problems. florida, two, nebraska, two. they came close to losing another in west virginia, two, where a candidate was an outof stater in a state that doesn't have many out of staters, west

virginia. but basically republicans gained or were ahead in 19 districts currently and for what looks to be a 17-seat gain. a majority of these gains, and they came within 4% in another 10 indict -- district. a majority of these gains came with seats that democratic districting plans or very heavy democratic majorities. arizona, california especially, where you had a supposedly nonpartisan redistricting commissions in both those states but the democrats successfully gained they want. illinois, where republicans gained one seat in heavily upscale north shore suburbs of chicago and gained another seat in the rather downscale, more blue-collar part of the state opposite the mississippi river in and st. louis. maryland, where there's one near gain.

john delaney, the drarblingts had to pour a lot of money into that race at the last minute. and a new york state. and it's -- one of the phenomena we see is that when a wave is working against a party, the house seats will be at risk in states where they redistricted. because a lot of times you create 53% districts and when things are bad for your party you're down to 47 in those seats. we saw in the previous census cycle, republicans lost seats in states where anywhere redistricted in 2006, 2008. so redistricting doesn't lock in everything forever. when opinion is going against you, the tide can run out on those things. people who predict the republicans will inevitably hold the house until 2022, look at the returns for 2006 and 2008 before you make that prediction. they're doing well now. the number of split

congressional districts voted for president in one party, congress minnesota -- congressman for another was 26 in the 2012 election, the lowest number since 1920. we had nine democratic congressmen representing districts carried by mitt romney. republicans won six of those nine seats. so we don't have very much -- e have -- republicans captured a few democratic districts or are ahead of them in districts that were more than 55% for obama but very few. although you have odd results like louise slaughter almost losing, been in the house for 30 years. senior democrat in upstate new york. let me look at a couple of demographic groups off the house exit poll. my len yults -- this --

millennials -- this group was -- they're the wave of the future. the republicans missed their chance to pass a constitutional amendment barring the vote to anybody born after 1980. and -- [laughter] the democrats' advantage is down to 54-43, 1130eu7b89s. -- points. in 2008, barack obama won 13% more among millennials than he won among voters generally. that differential margin was 9% in 2012. it's 7% in this election. it's -- you know, it becomes much less important in the thing -- obama's popular vote margin in 2008 almost entirely came from millennials. it was ive thronet 7% of the whole electorate.

the democrats' margin was a lowest turnout in the offyear from younger voters as was typical, is about 1.5% of the total electorate. that would be a little higher in a presidential year with the same measures of support but what it says to me is the millennials at this point, white millennials voting republican on ballots are a mildly more than average democratic group rather than a wave of the future that will vote 2-1 democratic forever and make the republicans a permanent minority party. they're up for grabs by both parties. asians. one of the most interesting things here, the asian folk came in at 50-49. not sure this is as of much national significance. it was 67% for obama. remember that we're talking about house races. asians are clustered. a majority of people who come as asians in the sense us

definition are in hawaii and california. you had a close republican nearly winning the hawaii first congressional district. that's an asian majority district. that would inflate the asian nationwide percentage in a way that may not be indictive of anything outside of the particular individuals involved in that hawaii race. i noted also in california districts like california 27, the democratic nominee, no serious opposition, got 57% in a 63% obama district. one of the issues in california that's come up that affects asians is that the democratic super majorities in the legislature wanted to put on the ballot a proposition to repeal the ban on racial quota preferences in higher education in california that was voted in the 1990's. this was -- if you analyze the

electorate in terms of whites and nonwhites as the very able analyst ron brownstein does you would expect non-whites to have solidarity. then the asian members with a lot of asian constituents started getting hundreds and thousands of phone calls. these people want their kids to go to u.c. berkeley and ucla. they don't want the places they know that quotas of preference will work heavily against them. and that ballot proposition didn't get on the ballot. i would like to know the asian percentages in maryland and massachusetts with governorships -- no exit poll in maryland or massachusetts. i would like to know what the asian percentage was in the close senate race in virginia. again, we don't have numbers on that. hispanics, we mentioned hispanics briefly. 63-35 democratic nationwide,

down from 71% from obama against mitt romney but they're very different in different states. california, where there were no serious statewide contests except nonpartisan rails for ummit of public instruction. 76% democratic, 69% in new york and those two states although s about 1/3 of voter registered in the country. wn in texas, john cornyn won hispanics. 49-48. greg abbott run for governor, 44% hispanics. that was a state where a lot of liberals hoped that the "non-white" vote was going to put them over the top. the hispanics there are not behaving like black voters in texas or other states. you see them getting 41% for david purdue in georgia.

52% for pat roberts in kansas and i did a little interpolation from the exit poll in colorado that suggested to me that mark you tall, the democratic senators who loss carried his span i said by less than 10%. that figure is very dicey but what it cuzz tell me that the democratic candidate was not winning by the numbers the exit polls showed in colorado. so that's the overall setup. legislatures. the hispanic votes is up for grabs in a lot of places and it varies substantially by state and the attitude they're in. legislatures, as carolyn said, the numbers are not entirely tab lated but it's the highest republican number in 100 years. democrats ehloest number since the civil war. it appears that the last

democratic legislature in what i call the 14 scourn states is the kentucky house with a tie in, i believe, the west virginia senate, but i think it's interesting here. democrats are disadvantaged in many states, including those carried twice by obama -- obama like florida, pennsylvania -- pennsylvania, ohio, by clusters -- clustering. they win the gentry and black districts and lose almost everywhere else and that pattern continues to flow in the elections. by my count currently, democrats are in control with the governorship majority in both houses of the legislature in only seven of the 50 states. they started off the obama era in control of 27. those states and basically those states although to -- amount to only 16% of the u.s. population. 12% is in california.

6% are in other eastern -- otherwise you have hawaii, oregon, connecticut, delaware and rhode island and vermont. so the strength of the democratic coalition, the obama coalition, it elected and re-elected president obama. the weakness we see on display last night. >> thank you very much, michael. before turning to our former colleagues -- throwing john fournier, we're live tweeting the event from our handle. use the hashtag election-launch 14. jon, the governor's -- governors' race rass? >> thank you. i'd like to start out a bit just to show some contrast with the house races. much of what michael said was correct, the republican wave was strong and it washed over especially red states and swing states, washing out democrats who were holding those seats. the governors' wave was

stronger than we thought and actually got into some very blue states. first, the senate. the seven most republican seats went to republicans. they were all held by democrats. six very deep red states plus north carolina and then two swing states, iowa and colorado. looking at that, susan collins did win re-election. she's in a state that president obama won by a significant amount but you have very few people left in the senate sitting in stailingts that are not of their party. susan collins and mark kirk in illinois are in very significantly democratic states. john tester, joe mansion and heidi high camp sit in significantly reinstates. that's down a lot. in the house, michael mentioned that six of the nine democrats that held obama seats lost. the top four were really dramatically republican

districts. that leaves colin peterson as the most republican seat that the democrats hold. just by comparison, not so long ago, 1992, there were about 90 democrats who met that definition in very significantly reinstates. there were probably 15 republicans who sat in very democratic districts. did republicans do well in swing districts and red districts? yes, they edged into some districts which are significantly democratic, maybe not quite as democratic as the jim mathison seats. but dan matthews, bruce brailley seats. maybe jim costner waiting on a recount. the snyder district in illinois. those are pretty democratic districts but we don't see the dramatic ability to hold seats that belong to another party. what we saw in the governors' races were a little different. i think they were the most

uncertain. there were a lot of significantly close races that were within the margin of error in the polling and i you would say, probably looked like because governorships were held much more by republicans that you weren't likely to see many gains. coming into the election we had 29 governorships that were republican. nationwide, 21 for democrats and 22 of the republican seats were up for re-election as well as 14 democratic seats. the republicans gained a couple of seats here. we knew they were going to lose in pennsylvania. that was a case of a particularly unpopular republican governor. it looks like and maybe henry has been following the last election results in alaska but looks like in alaska the republican governor will lose to an independent but not of the ordinary sort. one who ran with a democrat on the ticket but also was endorsed by sarah palin. you can make of that what you want. but republicans did really

quite well and the three states that they broke into with varying degrees of enterprise that are dramatically democratic. of course they took the massachusetts governorship, the illinois governorship and probably the greatest surprise for all of us -- we're showing some closing but the polls certainly weren't showing this level -- under our nose. several races in our backyard that we didn't watch as closely as we might have in maryland where the republican larry hogan is going to be the next governor. those seats, just to give you a sense of where they stand. massachusetts voted for barack obama by 23 pockets -- points, maryland by 26 points and now held by republican governors. governorships in general have the ant to define themselves more locally against the national trend. it can be more about personalities or state policies but i think there was a very

significant push in both parties, partly because of we've seen unified government in a lot of states. red states are trying red-state policies, blue states are trying blue-state policies and there was some big argument about this, especially on taxes. on the democratic side, certainly the tax issue was significant in maryland, massachusetts, and illinois. didn't put the republican over the top in connecticut but certainly that issue was strong for republicans. and then on the flip side, democrats believed that they would find some way to pin overtax cutting on democrats in places like kansas. i would say in the north carolina senate race, which was not a governor's race but certainly tom tillis was pinned with the policies that he'd been involved with and enacting when he was in the legislature and in wisconsin as well where both collective bargaining and taxes were there. all those states had on the ballot republican policies and

republicans prevailing. a couple of other points, very large wins for two hispanic republican governors, in nevada and in new mexico, and again, as carlin mentioned, more consolidation of gains in state legislative races. republicans gained both portions of the house in nevada. arkansas got a larger majority and republicans will again have full control and really across a board, a number of these governors who are re-elected are going to have stronger majorities in anywhere l.s.u. -- legislature. wisconsin, michigan, ohio, kansas, texas, and the list goes on. and a number of democrats who are reelected will face divide legislatures because republicans have taken parts of the legislature or legislatures in colorado and minnesota. the last point about governors is to talk about governor ed

gillespie. he, of course, did lose his senate race but many people have noted that he is well setup to run again. i think he would have been had he lost by five points or seven points. running a good race, i think people felt he was one of the more policy oriented substantive candidates on the stumplet but also, ed gillespie also a student of norm warrenstein and part of a fraternity which might run turned pan banner of the political spawn of norm. with that, i will turn it to >> john is the country's leading absentee andly and mail voting. can you say just a little bit about what happened with mail voting in colorado? vermontturnout in the governor's race.

>> vermont governor's race is going to stay in the democrats hands, but it is much closer than we anticipated. 2% margin.ss than a vermont has a strange practice or unique practice in america do not get 50% of the vote, there's not a runoff, but the legislature decides. the democratic legislature in vermont will likely select shumlin again. all throughout new england, republicans did quite well in race.vernor's they fell short in some places but did quite well. and absentee voting, we don't have all the numbers in. i've always been someone who is thatous and i think caution has been borne out by overpredict about early results that come in. of saw a lot prognostication. partly those results are sort of selective. you select various times. sometimes it's true that a party really gets motivated to spend more of its resources on

bringing voters to the polls. so i'm always skeptical about that. we don't know -- i don't know the final outcome of how much early and absentee voting there time.is we think turnout is down, but i'd feel more comfortable to wait until the california numbers come in. it is likely to be lower broadly, but to give you an exact number, you've got to give us a couple more weeks for the lead states to come in. >> now we'll turn to henry andn, now at the ethics public policy center, who is going to talk about what interested him most in the senate contest. surprise senate didn't me very much. i missed two senate races, as to my compared preelection prediction. one was kansas, which was simply epic polling fail across the board. the other was north carolina, which was pretty close and went wire.o the

simply i did some bad math and a little bit of the republican wave. it was pretty clear going in that -- both in the state polls and the national polls -- that to be yet another election where senate seats were dependent, not independent variables, which is to say that people across the board were not whetheronsidering person x versus person y was whether r versus d was better. are someess, there interesting things that i think we want to take a look at. thethat relates in part to polling fail question, and then i want to spend a little bit of for on, what does this mean 2016? with respect to the polling fail, my means for this, kind of theou know, old clint eastward western, the the ugly, thatnd

there were only a couple of races you'd put in the good uglyory and most in the category. but from the republican's the city mouse's versus the country mouse. if you take a look at the final polls, whether the r or the d, and the key senate states, and compared it the actual margin, the polls actually weren't that bad in a lot of states. final rshire, the shaheenas in favor of by .8. it actually was shaheen by 3.2. even though they underestimated the amount, the margin was pretty right. purdue winning by 3%. he won by 4.9. they're still counting votes that are likely to tilt democratic. but the final margin was sullivan by 2.4. not an epica was polling fail. the final percentage for warner 48.5. as far as the polls prediction.

49.2 for that. my guess is there were a lot of of ed who never heard gillespie, who simply voted for the republican, because that would account for the wave and of the warner prediction. where you find big errors are four states really. see if you can figure out what the difference is and why i might have put it in that category. iowa, a 6.2% difference. final poll.n the ernst wins by 8.5. polls hade final orman up by one. kentucky, mcconnell ahead by 7.2. he ended up winning by 15.5. arkansas, where cotton was supposedly ahead by 7, he won by 17. city mouse versus country mouse. the states where you had the errors also have incredibly small populations in we would consider

metropolitan areas. take a look at colorado, where virtuallyg fail was none. it had gardner up by 2.5. 2.9. to you he's up by more democratic votes are still coming in, because even though not california-esque, they're slow in democratic countings. 85% of the vote in colorado is cast in metropolitan areas. that with kansas, where less than 50% of the vote is cast in what we would consider metropolitan areas. and that's including topeka as a area, considered to be a small area outside of kansas. of the vote, and that includes a lot of places that we based on oursider, experience, metropolitan areas, or sioux city. you go even further. total, it's 50,000 than 30% ofe, less the vote is cast there.

kentucky, if you include suburbs, it's around 33% of the vote, 34% of the vote. where there were significant the pollstersons, completely failed. and that raises a question of not the differential response is not r versus d but country.us take new hampshire. that's both a more yo urban state -- 61.5% of the votes were cast in the three areas ofsidered to be part manchester or boston metropolitan areas, but unlike the ruralr state, counties tend to be more democratic. the strength for the republicans area.the metro the strength for the democrats, in the rural counties. and that is a state where you margin switch in favor of the democrats rather in favor of the republican. i'd like to throw that out as a possible explanation for the fail.g if you take a look, the swing

was much greater for republicans nonmetro areas than the metro areas. colorado i've divided into different areas. you've got denver and boulder. morehere's still democratic votes coming in. but right now, gardner only 2012 byver romney in about 2%. extrapolatedeen statewide, it would have been a 50/50 race. theide of that, in nondenver metro area, he gained over 3.3%. rural areas, even more. in ski bunny, colorado, on the other hand, there are seven if i told you the ski resorts, you would recognize them. the counties, you never would. gardner ran behind. it was a rural issue, not an across-the-board issue. thing is true in other places as well. iowa, it's less obvious but the prevails.nction

then the question is, what does this mean for 2016 if what we're not a uniform swing swing?ocalized and is this a turnout question? well, i've done two states, iowa, and colorado keeps moving up. youthe differential, if compare 2014 turnout to the 2012 turnout, is not very great. slightly higher as far as the percentage of people voting areas versus urban areas, in 2014 versus 2012, but enough to explain the difference. the reason joni ernst won is not republicans were an unusual share of the electorate. is reason why cory gardner the new senator from colorado is because he won persuadables and of them within the denver metro area, not because of turnout differentials. if that plays out in other states, that would suggest that argument that they lost because their voters

didn't show up is kind of like know, theican -- you flip side of the republican argument of vote fraud, that it's a convenient excuse to mask a message failure with rather than an actual explanation. what does this mean for 2016, win the popular vote, republicans need to get about 2% romney, minus two, plus two to romney. that's about a narrow popular win. in the senate seats, only three states met or exceeded that. ran exactly 2% ahead of romney in new hampshire. gardner right now is 2.6 ahead in colorado, as i mentioned, as more democratic votes come in. a couple of down by points. and only in iowa did joni ernst run comfortably ahead of that margin, running six points ahead of romney. electoral, to win the college, you need about a 2.5% statebecause the marginal

that would put a republican those, only two of those states, in the senate or exceed thequal shift in the popular vote that elect a republican president. the only places in the country are in theee that talkedrs races that john about. schneider runs about six points ahead of romney. and maryland, hogan runs, i think, seven or eight points ahead of romney. and with joni ernst. between whatence governors were running on and what joni ernst was doing versus what the standard republican playbook is might be really look at, if you are a republican strategist trying win in 2016 and might be very good for democratic strategists if you're trying to take the win out of the -- the

wind out of the republican sails. >> now, norm, what does it mean for the lame duck and the next congress? >> thanks, carlin. spent much of election eve olson's twitter feed. i would suggest to all of you who are here and who are watching, if you really are an henry.n maven, follow a couple of comments on the house. as michael said, republicans are to have the largest margin since the 1928 election. slogan is we're going to party like it's 1929. [laughter] house race that i watch closely was statin island. would michaelas, grimm's margin exceed the counts indictment? [laughter] and the answer is he fell short. 13, 20 counts in the

indictment, so... so much for anti-incumbent wave that we have out there. for the stunned democrats coming one to washington, the bright spot, now they can get legal marijuana in the district. [laughter] couple of just bullet points. aboutked the last time the democratic turnout machine. it last time.n i think it's just worth repeating here. veryut machines can be sophisticated and very great. but you still have to get voters out.ant to turn and i mentioned the old joke about the company that did the most dazzling advertising campaign ever for a dog food. completely.ed when they analyzed it, it was because the dogs didn't like it. [laughter] if your voters do not see a reason to vote, you can call them. you can offer them

transportation to the polls. you can tell them you'll take the mail-in ballot and stick it in the mailbox, and it will not much. very that's what happened this time. and of course the turnout for was, in almost every category, lower than it was in suffered ahey drubbing that was quite historic as well. one turning to the future, of the things about a big wave and a victory that exceeds and that is, incredible across the board, is that it poses an additional to you for -- challenge to governing. the conservative, activist base believes that everything they stand for, every way in which the process has been vindicated. they are now in the driver's seat. the idea that now you will compromise,product, give anything to a president who is been forced to the canvas

treasonous. so it poses a real challenge to talking aboute and compromising, but the word compromise actually didn't come into the lexicon in soon-to-be majority leader's mitch mcconnell's statements. he's going to have to give in, because now we're on top. and that's going to be a little difficult to deal with. the same time, we have an even more starkly polarized ideologically-driven congress we had before. another house race of great interest was in georgia. conservative democrat who has managed to escape more than everysituations indiana jones movie combined, but didn't this time. and that will also tell you something about the broader nature of our politics. white democrat from

standing in the house of representatives. reflects even, it the broader trend over the last three contests, that the robust blue dog coalition that was there before the 2010 elections is down to not quite but close to a trace element. and on the republican side, of boehner a group loyalists, like tim of wisconsin, and if you look at replacements, they are much more over to the tea party side. and they're not starting with any sense of affection or loyalty towards boehner. have a larger caucus. he's already working to make sure he can head off a chang. be the -- a challenge. he will be the speaker next time. it's a question of how many are on the floor against him, but he will win comfortably. is not going to have any

more leeway than he had before to tell his republican caucus, know, we're bringing this to the floor even though a very substantial number of you do not like it. to make for some difficulty. of course, on the senate side, most of there democrats who would be compromises and working across the board. they're not all gone. be back.er likely will we have joe mansion, angus king, caucus within will the democrats but will try very hard to provide a bridge for of those bipartisan bills moving forward. but they're going to be fairly and far between. oldalways keep in mind the saw that used to be repeated all the young house member coming to one of his older colleagues and pointing to the other party and saying, there's the enemy. and the answer was, they're not

the enemy. they're the adversaries. the senate is the enemy. have veryand senate different cultures, very veryrent rhythms, different rules. and when newt gingrich and bob took the reins of power in the and had very much notion they were going to work together in sync and force bill within to his knees, three months, it was gingrich saying privately and then had far more he trouble with bob dole than he called dolenton and the tax collector of the welfare state, which improved relations, you can imagine. we're not going to see the same name calling between boehner and mcconnell, but it's not going to be that much easier for things smoothly through the house and then through the senate, including many of those the house thesed last time. one comment -- we haven't talked presidential consequences.

this election was very good for decidesclinton, if she to run, not only because it puts a crimp in the potential campaign of my former student, martin o'malley, who isn't going helped by the fact that it was his administration and who weret governor repudiated in a big way in that nowe, but i think democrats are shocked enough that winning takes aidency in 2016 higher priority in this uniteedented effort to behind a candidate. see a significant boost for scott walker, for john kasich, who now becomes at least a factor on the national stage. ad keep your eye, not as presidential prospect but as a mate,s potential running brian sandoval, who won handily in nevada and is probably a more

attractive in many ways hispanic think,n candidate, i than susanna martinez, who will be governor but who has a few issues, including some of these tapes that have been released of her comments. a lot of interesting dynamics out there. ahead, terms of looking kevin mccarthy said before the thetion, anticipating republican majority in the senate, we've got to show we're not the party of no. want to come back in the lame duck session, take the budget issues off the table. long-termg to pass a continuing resolution. and at the same time, before the election, we had mcconnell telling poa lit koa, as he had funders at ones of the koch brothers enclaves, the budget to use process and especially reconciliation and appropriations bills where we to bring obama to his knees. he repeated this in more gentle the presserday at conference.

we're going to use the appropriations and budget process and especially reconciliation, where you only to pare back on obamacare, to cut back on the protection bureau, to bring back coal and do a number of other things. don't go together very well. you've got mccarthy against mcconnell. and mcconnell, who said no shutdowns. mcconnell against mcconnell. only imagine that if a budget reconciliation bill gets passed through on a partisan that does more than flesh thats to obamacare, basically defunds the consumer financial protection bureau and does other damage to the sec and dodd frank and that the epa from issuing regulations on climate change, obama will veto it. now, they may pass something else and send it to him. it, what keeps vetoing get?u

a shutdown. so we're not past that particular hump, even if the leaders know intellectually that it would be a catastrophic thing to do. there's another factor here that is important on the money front as well. see, i think, a continuing resolution that will year'sy take the current funding through to the end of the year, in december. that will be controversial. but with the numbers that are there now, they'll get it through, and the argument will be this is not the time to pick a fight. but remember that starting october 1, that two-year budget deferred sequesters ends. sequesters come back. you're going to have congressional republicans determined to negate it on defense. but some are going to be saying, the budgetn't add deficits now. so let's just take an additional discretionary

domestic spending. and that's not going to fly. at all clear that it's going to fly even to basered defense, with a that said we came here to cut government, not to keep it going. we move towards a budget, which now will be a budget talkingore than a point, that will have to be in sync with the house and senate, which is not going to be an easy thing to do. then as you move towards appropriations bills and you're talking about across-the-board cuts on top of before, thatd means more cuts in emergency cdc, n.i.h., the funding and medical research, the faa and air traffic control, not to mention the cuts in basic research and cuts in defense as ramp up against isis and with other crises around the world. going to be an easy time to govern or to pass bills, with just republican votes.

and those bills will very likely vetoed or, in many instances, senate.ered in the the filibuster will be turned around and used in a different fashion. other observations, at least one on foreign policy. thisve all seen extraordinarily embarrassingly public pissing match between the obama administration and the administration. some of it reflects a belief on the part of netanyahu that he can rely on congress, which will unquestioned backing. and that's true in both parties. but it's especially true with republicans. remember, netanyahu was almost public with his support romney in 2012, which has added to some of the problems here. this new republican majority in the senate and the more robust is likelyn the house

to lead the israeli government to be even more dismissive of the obama administration. suspect we're going to see moretensions there and friction before we're done, as we know we're going to see withions ahead, including the use of the budget process as the administration moves forward iran,egotiations with possibly towards a deal. and we'll see all kinds of a crimpto try and put in that. we will probably see a newly moveered republican senate with the house to provide more push tocated weapons or do so to the ukrainian government in kiev. and we're going to see, i think, more frictions there. and at the same time, john kerry in tong to be hauled testify in both houses, in committees, on benghazi and on all oaf these -- all of foreign policy questions, at a time when his challenges will be dramatically greater. in my column,ons, geopoliticale

of plummeting oil prices. if oil prices stabilize, you're drop offsee fracking pretty dramatically, because the cost and benefits don't match. going to see some of the drilling decline. that, by the way, will have implications for places like north dakota and louisiana, very good implications for california, among other things. it may change some of the political dynamics that we're dealing with as well. just two other points. we are going to see enormous frictions between the senate and president on confirmations. one of the questions is whether, this lame duck session, harry reid recognizing that judicial dry up.tion also there will be some district court nominees that have already approved byly republican senators that may go through, but mostly nothing will happen. and most of the executive

nominations will die as well. about obamarried using his executive authority, canof the ways in which you hinder that and hamper it is to keep people from moving into vacancies in those executive positions where they can act. and we are going to see a lot of investigations. of the most interesting people to watch will be ron johnson of wisconsin, who will take over the subcommittee on investigations. times, i'm multiple gonna go back to the old style of doing it in a bipartisan way, oversight instead of investigations. that will probably last a couple of weeks, maybe a month. but the pressure on him to do gotchathese investigations will be very, very great. done.l see some things we will see trade agreements. that's a slam dunk for republicans. radar for tea party activists. they don't much care if you get done. business likes it.

democrats are divided. headingnger labor, towards 2016. why not? there will be interesting prison andes for sentencing reform. for nsa reform where you'll see very unusual coalitions. paul and mike lee joining with widen and franken, for example. but john mccain and lindsey graham and others, we'll see tensions there on both of those issues. is a chance for a corporate tax reform. but we have to keep in mind, is dramatically cut the marginal rates and leave all the preferences alone. that is notrm revenue neutral is simply not going to happen. work some deal out will be interesting to watch. i do think there's a real of infrastructure

reform. john delaney has a bipartisan house, actually pretty strongly bipartisan, to create an infrastructure bank through 50-year bonds that now basically are almost cost-free. and they have repatriated used withom companies an incentive to buy a portion of those. ofyou don't have a lot additional government funding directly. and that could happen. to seeain, you're going substantial tea party opposition to anything that looks like it's expanding government. and we are going to get a crisis on the highway trust fund again to raisef the refusal gasoline taxes or to consider unlesser revenue source you can do something innovative like that. gethe bigger issues, for about it -- forget about it. we did not break the fever or a new or restored making.ipartisan policy

tribalism is greater. and with three to five senators, absent without lee mos leave most of t, andthere raising money building support in the primary and caucus states with basically appeals being far more to that, even narrower version or the electorate, and you can see where we're going with a marco rubiohave basically denouncing his own immigration bill as we head campaign.at and a bobby jindal saying common thing ever greatest to common core is the biggest threat to the american way of life. tells you what direction and approach we're going to see. electoral magnet pulling mitch mcconnell's caucus away from the idea of working where you give a little and you get a little. >> thank you very much, norman. thanks to the rest of the panelists. there have been

disagreements. but i'd like to turn to your questions. we have, i think, about a half hour left. if you could just wait for the microphone and ask your questions as a question. we'll take two questions from this table. the mic? >> i can speak loudly. >> well, okay. theou have got to wait for mic. right here. right here. >> my question is a simple one for the panel. thene has spoken to what election results mean for brand clinton. you might speak to that. >> let's get this second question on the table at the same time. >> thanks very much. mitchell, from the mitchell report. i was looking for my black armband, which i didn't think i to wear, buthave i'm going to put it back on now,

thinking about the prospects for the next two years. characterization of the the republican majorities, particularly in the chambers,in both be asts that there will preference for sticking it to the president and saying, you know, we had this wave because sostuck to our principles, the prospect of there being some cooperation between the white house and the congress is not good. hand, it seems to me that one of the ways to characterize this election is bettere republicans had

candidates and that one of the reasons that the republicans had is becauseidates "mainstream term republicans" paid greater a higher to getting equality of candidate than they've had in prior years, you to believed be pressure in largepublican party at not to be the party of "no" but to be the party that wants to stuff done so that when you get to 2016, the republicans of message.ome sort and i just wonder if you can speak to that. the next twory and years. >> yes. bem said the election will good for hillary clinton. i think in some respects that's right. o'malley candidacy cease to bseems to be over. the warner candidacy was over

some time ago and is not going to happen now. got problems as a candidate. the energy on the party increasingly is on the left. the party's wingers get discontented in a second term of presidency. that happened with the george w. bush administration. now.happening and it's hard to picture hillary as the new face. mean, the clintons theme song is "don't stop thinking about tomorrow." released in 1977. [laughter] that's 39 years before the 2016 election. another area where i would disagree with norm somewhat is i the governmentr shutdown, the mood changed among house republicans. had fewer house republican members saying we've got to go confrontation, we gotta defund obamacare and so forth. that lost appeal because they could read the polls, and it threatened disaster for the republican party. republican primary voters,

as gary suggested, i think have not to opt for the candidate who is the one that is loudest when he stands up on the yells "hell no." that may have an effect. it will be interesting to see if that plays out in the 2016 election. you can imagine people reaching wings, as norm suggested. you can also imagine people way i wouldthe argue cory gardner did and some of the other republican candidates. the republican candidates being newer to the scene, you know, starting off unknown with the problems, you also have an option of framing their candidacy in future oriented terms to an extent which is going to be difficult for a hillary clinton, who was in her first election in 1970 and became a national is now, you91 and know, sort of on the moderate wing of a party, arguably, which left, which poses more

problems for her. and that shows -- those are problems for her. there's challenges for republicans. it's not clear that any of the republican presidential able to dowill be that. >> norm, a quick response. then we're going to take two questions over here. somebody could bring the mic right up here. >> first, gary, let me say, dide were candidates who not make a big splash this time, like todd akin did. ernst,n you have a joni who basically has bought into 21 conspiracy theory and said that the united nations awaylotting to take private property and cars from couldn't live in their houses and travel says she packs her gun and if government right, she'll use it. and there are a whole string of other things. you have a tom cotton who said that mexican drug lords are conspiring with terrorists to them over the border to

kill people in arkansas, that me that youest to have candidates right smack in process.r of the cory gardner, who is an establishment republican in a lot of ways, was also one of the most conservative republicans in terms of votes in the house. that's not a moderate group to with. so you've got that factor. there is no doubt that you have that doesn'tent want to appear as the party of no. there are two ways to avoid that. to way is to say we're going compromise and give a little bit. the other way is to try and frame it so that he's the party of no, and the obstructionist. and i think you're going to see latter a push on the front. just one other point. mitch mcconnell said, election goingou know, we're not to repeal obamacare. it takes 60 votes in the senate. enormous pushback from the base. what did mitch mcconnell say the next day? of course we're going to do everything we can to repeal obamacare. so what you want to do, and that includes shutting down the

government, even if you don't ant to, if you end up with confrontation where you're using youbudget as leverage and have enormous demands to use it to force the president to his no, you have says, a couple of choices. takeilute your product and the flak from your base, or -- and ted cruz will be right out there, pounding you if you give anillimeter, much less inch -- or you stick to your guns and what results is a shutdown. so like it or not, there's some things where the dynamics may pull you away from what prag sensible would be positions. >> two questions here. then we're going to turn to that table. >> thank you. my personal opinion that. >> who are you? >> sorry. i'm berk rosen.

i'm really addressing what you said, norm, and that was not much is going to happen in the of compromise. and it seems to me that what structurally needs to be done is the leadership needs to divest the power down into the committees, which has been the problem now for the last 20 years. that would be the seeds of bipartisanship, because when marking upstart bills, by nature, by definition, there are amendments and a muchises and there's better chance of coming up with that, by the time they get to the floor, are bipartisan. view thaty, it's my the real solution to this is to just simply turn to your committee chairman and say, get work. give us an energy policy. give us a tax policy. give us a health policy. and instead of the top-down. now, is that -- would you agree that, as the first part of the second is,nd can you see that happening?

>> let's put this other question. directedestion is towards michael. largely around self-described independence. struck on the first wave of the exits that showed the 34%y id question was 29%blican, 37% democrat, independent. and all those correlated into the ballot test trends early on. and my question, michael, is, swingou seen a tick or where independents contributed in second midterms and how long did that carry over in the corresponding presidential year? >> committee structure and independence. certainly agree that we should have policy making andt at the committee subcommittee level and take it to the floor. in the senate, despite the a lotzation, you've got of problem solvers.

that is irrespective of ideology. lamarlake, corker, alexander, lots of them. you are going to get republics of senate committees that are going to get bipartisan support on the floor. them will go nowhere in the house, and that's a good part of the problem, because seere not going to bipartisan policy making emerge in the house. it's not in the current dna of the house. wasn't there when democrats were in the majority. now.there even less that's a good part of the problem. if it were the senate alone, you'd have possibilities here, that are a issues little bit below the radar of the big, tough national issues. a big problem getting them to the president for signature or veto. michael?nd >> look, i'll fundamentally agree with norm, when we have it's stillernment, going to be hard, at the end of the day, to get a lot of these things through. constituency out

there, and to some extent in the house, for a broadly speaking regular order. that is because, and if you look at democrats and harry reid and trying to keep a lid on there being controversial votes, it didn't really do democrats a lot good. a lot of the democrats who are in tough seats, who didn't have gettingvotes, were then tagged on the campaign trail as having 99% voting records with the president. may not solve everything. i think, at the end of the day, you've got to get something chambers and the agreement of the president. but i think there will be a lot both on the, majority and minority side. something that mcconnell has also an emphasis on a freer amendment process, at where hisn extent, side as well as democrats will have a little bit more chance to amendment side. >> michael? >> i think norm is right, in has got people, and i would name some democrats as well as republicans, inclined bipartisanship.

they have been kept in -- we call it joni ernst's position by majority leader harry reid over the last four years, basically prohibited from engaging in that. you've got people like current rankingchairman, future member ron widen, for example, who really hasn't been allowed to bring things. trial lawyers who tell harry reid to not put it on it doesn't come on the floor. one person we haven't mentioned is the president, who we could his press conference yesterday, continues to have an wellent disinclination as as a demonstrated inability to do bipartisan reforms. that is a problem. but i think there is some possibilities there. it -- the is where place where it can happen more easily than the house, as norm it.e correctly identifies but we've had histories under

clinton, bush, under under presidents bush and reagan, where, you know, the senate kind of does the side.mising the house massages its own view. do get things through. that can happen. it helps to have a president who rather than retardz the retards the process. chris's question, my understanding -- correct me if i'm wrong -- a three-point advantage for democrats and that id on the exit poll, seems -- is that wrong? >> it was 36-36, democrat-republican. 38.independent was >> and then it came out, what, six points democratic in the election which i a result ofrtly change of man, partly as a democraticurnout of

groups. independents, a lot of people say they're independents. they don't vote like independents. they vote all republican, all democrats. fewest number of split congressional districts 1920. a lot of people who are or at least are, were during the last two or four years, disgruntled republicans. it's one of the reasons why we often, although not quite in the polls, where congressionallal republicans are lower than congressional democrats. when you look at the innards of find outls, what you are a lot of people identified as republicans give negative to republicans in congress, where relatively few identify as democrats give negative ratings to democrats in congress. negative, but, you know, what it says, we're in a period of competition. won four -- no.

democrats have won four of the presidential elections, popular vote. won houses have majorities in eight of the ten elections. competition, on a fairly even playing field with the democrats having some the electoral college, the republicans in equal population district legislatures. and the fight continues. >> the number of pure the university of michigan's long trend line, starting in the 1950's, is about to 12%. okay. we have two questions at that table. then we're going to go over to room.ide of the >> barbara whitman. i'd like to elicit commentary on race.rginia ed gillespie believed in himself so much that it was infectious. at his house on saturday morning, having coffee with him and his wife before we went out to vote early. and it was so infectious that i him.t came to believe

and at any rate, what i'd like all think whether you that the fact that he couldn't convince people of that infectious spirit sooner, so that, for instance, as a fund-raiser for him, i had a time getting people to because they saidney that was a hopeless race, or validity toe's any the idea that having a 2.5% draw we a libertarian meant couldn't make it. >> the question from the gentleman next to you. if you could say your questions we'll try to move around the room. >> adam powell from the university of southern california. barone, you said that millennials are mildly more than thisge democratic in election. data of seen any survey millennial voters about hillary clinton specifically addressing fact thaton of the she'll be significantly perhaps a generation older than the republican candidate?

>> anyone? yourhaven't seen that, but question prompts me to to go lok for it this afternoon. [laughter] i think that's a good question. i think it's something, if you're running her campaign, you about.e concerned you know, is she -- you know, she's -- you get the mood of ed upbeat, muchh more more sunny, optimistic. the democrats, i think, remind of murray's phrase in the 1965 in the new york mayor race, john lindsey, he is fresh and everyone else is tired. i think that's a danger for the possibly anarty, opportunity for the republican party. warner wasspie, mark 65% of the vote 8 years ago. a close election. in hiswent down to 49% one-point reelection victory. gillespie was

already a serious player in vineyards. he showed very well. warner got what he polled. the polls were dead-accurate on what mark got.r all i can say is, you know, he must have -- it must have been a heck of an election night for him, when you come down 16%. the obamahing about democratic party, doesn't it? >> yeah, it does. something about the obama democratic party in virginia, where somebody who terriblyink he had a close race probably would have done things differently if ed gillespie had gotten a couple three weeks out. i can imagine that mark warner would have run a different race out. weeks it shows the stability of the coalition in virginia, that it's now held up over a race,or's race, a senate two presidential races. virginia is not a red state anymore, not even a light red anymore. could gillespie have won?

perhaps. certainly with additional resources. but then again, if i were a strategist, and i had to decide whether to expend money three weeks out, and the of the washington market, and i saw mark warner probablyt 49-51, i wouldn't have put $2 million into the campaign either. $2h better to put those million into the races that you know you have a shot at that are probably much less expensive per vote possibly gained. >> okay. we havele over here, three questions. over here. let's put them all on the table. answer.can if you could ask your question quickly, because we don't have much more time. >> in a low turnout election, almost anything can happen. ofquestion is, on the impact early voting, what do you see as the impact of early voting on vote effort?he the republican effort was said to be exceptional. may haveratic effort

faltered a bit. gentleman next to him. >> yeah. the republicans will defend a 2016.re senate seats in the democrats. affect mitcht mcconnell's agenda? >> and then your question right here. >> oh. sorry. linda kilian. say, if you looked at the virginia exit polls, mark 56%.r's favorability was gillespie's was 49%. obama, in about virginia. likeecond thing i'd really to challenge your assertion on independent voters. i really think it's closer to 20%. and there's a lot of reasons we can't go into here, but look at colorado. look at the difference in the governor and senate race in colorado. pick six, ten, twelve races this

year. those were swing voters. >> okay. wants to take one question? henry? >> talking about the low arnout, i dispute this was low turnout election, that when you take a look at the states were actually competitive races as opposed to states like mississippi or were nowhere there competitive races, turnout was running between 70% and 75% of 2012 level. the turnout differences between democratic urban areas and republican rural areas were not significant. both partiesre were committing lots of resources, you saw voters that were rates pretty high for a midterm election and you saw partisans turn out.des democrats did not lose colorado because democrats didn't show up. the turnout national figures obscure a couple of things. one is that minorities tend to states thatted in do not have serious races.

hispanics tend to be concentrated in california and texas and nevada and new mexico, none of which had serious competitive races. african-americans are concentrated in a lot of southern states that did not have serious races. second, millennials tend to be more nonwhite. two things coincide. that young hispanics are in areas where they're not to turn out, and that depresses the so-called millennial votes. low turnout race. democrats did much better in wones where they could have than the national would suggest. it was up to the message, which whether it'sde, 10%, 15%, 20%, the people in the middle at this particular time. just address the senators who are up. there are 24 republicans up to 10 democrats the next time. it's really a reverse phenom. almost all the democrats who won in 2010 won with a very stiff wind in their faces.

and republicans had wind at their backs. states that in obama carried, blue states. them,ere's a dilemma for because they have to worry about primary challenges. far, too early, to accommodate the broader states, theyheir could face a problem. but they do have a problem with votes. these and where the new majority leader mcconnell has said he's return to the regular order and have a more open justment process, i'm waiting for the first bill that comes up. maybe it's the keystone pipeline or maybe it's a repeal of the medical device tax, in an open with democratsss step in with 20 gotcha amendments, i think we're going to be seeing the amendment tree filled, not perhaps all the a lot of the time to protect those vulnerable the nextwho are up

term. >> john, get out the vote. on earlyle things voting. i think there's been a little bit of a misunderstanding of in termsy voting does of turnout. early voting by itself, most research shows, does not increase turnout. it's certainly been used parties toly by encourage their voters to start voting earlier, but then, you day, you mighton not have those voters there. i think this cycle you saw using effectively in places, i think the opposition in-person early voting by some republicans -- i mean, i'm not for an extremely long a reasonable think period of seven to ten days in early voting is something not fear.s should on the -- look, i think norm's that is well-taken republicans have more ground to one obvious point is republicans are going to have 54 votes in the senate. to -- they're going

to need to retain the majority. are inany of those seats states that president obama won, wildlyw of them are in democratic states. they're in the states like ohio and wisconsin and places where certainly some of those republicans will feel pressure, a slams not as much of dunk as those six very red states that democrats faced in this election. quickly.l, >> i'd underline what john just said. the seats thatt are up this time. and you've got, you know, in states, states that were carried by obama, you've got up.n republican senators only one of those states that obama -- using the obama as an indexf 2012 get more than 53% of the vote. got's illinois where he 58%, where mark kirk is up. the upscale voters did throw out the democrat brad schneider and the republican bob dole,

2013. i don't think kirk is a sure though he's an obvious target. six of those seven states have republican governors, which republicans are capable of winning statewide. ranged fromrcentage 48 to 53. juicy anot quite as target for democrats as the year's lineupthis was for republicans. and you've got harry reid. reid has shown in 2010, and the gaming industry showed they and bringe votes out them out even when harry reid's job rating was terrible. conspicuously -- democrats 2014 indo that in nevada. and basically they lost both houses to the legislature for time in a very long time. but the gaming industry and the are capable of ginning that up for harry reid again. and, you know, we have to keep with our john ralston in the

journal. review >> there's a question in the back. are there any questions on this room?f the >> anna smith from the hungarian embassy. theyou explain to me phenomenon of general dissolutionment with the political establishment across the voting base, left and right, with a relatively low voter turnout? by my counts, the highest number uncontested races and the fact that about 90% of the house races were really not very competitive. in other words, why do you keep eelecting -- reelecting your own anders if you're so angry disillusioned with them? >> two points. one it's true there are a lot of saved seats. that's more because of the way living inmericans are democratic areas or republican areas. comes down when it

to the mix of competitive seats, we have always heard this story that we're going to have the election, where we throw out the incumbents on both sides and we're disillusioned with everyone. that really never comes about. these waves come about because one side is more motivated and the incumbents that are in danger of seats on the other are the ones that get knocked out. if it comes around the other way, it's in the other direction. but almost never do we have this bums outthrow all the of both parties, although we talk about i every election. republicans appear to have gained house seats or be i think, and only four of the seats are 55% or more districts. in straight-ticket voting, you with precisiongs and you don't waste money on hopeless races. what? know michael, again, may be the limiting case here. if you've got a really

anti-incumbent mood, strong enough that you've decided that you want to throw the bums out, a guy who ist under a 20-count indictment for tax fraud and who is otherwise known for threatening a reporter, to throw him off the balcony, and he wins by 13 points, what does that tell you? that voters in staten island first said, well, one of our guys. and seconds, probably that cynicism andh disillusionment that voters think they're all like that. be the oneappen to that got caught. so if that's the sort of mind mind-set that people can have these utterly convicting view in head, throw all the bums out, including polls who showed who wereer proportion willing to throw their own out, and then they vote in a very justrent way, maybe that tells us something about human nature. >> i want to thank all of you and thank my guys on the panel.

i just want to say one more very, because i'm feeling nostalgic. we've had election watch in this 2.om since 19826789 we'll be back for the 2016 race, here. won't be we won't be here. we'll be in our fabulous new building on massachusetts avenue. we hope all of you will join us for 2016. much!you so [applause] >> droid us tomorrow on "washington journal" for analysis on the midterm elections in the future of the democratic party with jonathan. a republican strategist on

the future of the republican party and the gop plans for the final years of the obama presidency. tonight on c-span, john boehner on republican gains in congress. political reports that nancy pelosi be seeking reelection to her position as house minority leader as democrats line a proposer, including a florida democrat who has come out publicly to say she will not vote for pelosi. election scheduled for november 18. the republicans will be holding , withleadership elections john boehner not expected to face opposition. he held a conference to discuss the midterm elections. this is about 15 minutes.