but right on target this morning. >> i'm calling to say i think like many people, c-span is wonderful but appearance to criticisms, i almost have none. and i'm a very partisan kind of person. the reason i almost have none is i think you all do a tremendous job of showing just about every side of everything. and the way people look at continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. atail us at comments c-span.org. send us a tweet. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. house speaker john boehner talked about the midterm elections and republican plans for the next congress.

republicans expanded their majority in the house of representatives. this is 15 minutes. >> i missed you all. >> that is what the president said yesterday. >> he did? i hope you did not believe it. >> never do. [laughter] >> good. i'm going to start by congratulating my friend, senator mitch mcconnell. as you know, mitch and i have worked very closely together over the last eight years and i don't think i could ask for a better partner or do i think the senate could have a better majority leader than mitch mcconnell.

also, i express my gratitude to the people of ohio's eighth congressional district. you know, my mission is the same today as it was in 1990 when i was first elected to build a smaller, less costly, more accountable government here in washington, d.c. and right now i believe that means continuing to listen, to make the american people's priorities our priorities and to confront the big challenges that face middle class families starting with the economy. you have heard me talk many times about the many jobs bills that the outgoing senate majority has ignored. those bills will offer the congress, i think, a new start. we can act on the keystone pipeline, restore the 40-hour workweek that was gutted by hire more heroes act that will

encourage our businesses to hire more of our veterans. again, this is just a start. i'll be going around the country outlining my own personal vision for how we can reset america's economic foundation. the energy boom that is going on in america is real. i think it provides us with a very big opportunity, but to maximize that opportunity, i believe that we need to do five things. that is fix our broken tax code, address the debt that is hurting our economy and imprisoning the future of our kids and grandkids, reform our legal system, reshape our regulatory policy to make bureaucrats more accountable and give parents more choices in a system that isn't educating enough of america's children. now, finding common ground is going to be hard work, but it will be even harder if the president isn't willing to work with us. yesterday we heard him say that he may double down on his go it alone approach. listen, i have told the

president before, he needs to put politics aside and rebuild trust. and rebuilding trust not only with the american people, but with the american people's representatives here in the united states congress. now, this is the best way to deliver solutions, to get the economy going again and to keep the american dream alive and well. this will be the focus of our new majority. i'm eager to get to work. >> mr. speaker, as the president moves forward on immigration and acts alone on immigration, is that going to poison the well for any type of cooperation between this new republican majority and the white house? >> listen, you all heard me say starting two years yesterday that our immigration program is broken and needs to be fixed. but i have made it clear to the president 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. it's as simple as that. >> mr. speaker, you mentioned obama care and the 40-hour workweek, in that your "wall street journal" op-ed, you talked about obama care. how do you walk this balance without this being the predomen or is itinant issue , when freshman coming in who haven't voted for obama care or tweaking it to go for a full repeal? >> obama care is hurting our economy. it's hurting middle class families and it's hurting the ability for employers to create more jobs. and so the house, i'm sure at some point next year will move to repeal obamacare because it should be repealed. it should be replaced with common sense reforms. that respect the doctor-patient relationship. now whether that can pass the senate, i don't know. but i know in the house it will

pass. we will pass that. but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do other things. there are bipartisan bills that have passed the house, sitting in the senate that would in fact make changes to obama care. you know, there is a bipartisan majority in the house and senate for repealing the medical device tax. i think there is a bipartisan unanimous majority in the house and senate for getting rid of the ipad, the independent payment advisory board, the rationing board in obamacare. how about the individual mandate, there are democrats and republicans who believe this is unfair. just because we may not be able to get everything we want doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to get what we can. >> you mentioned different issues there, votes in this congress goes back into obama care and the numbers gets into the 60 and 70's in terms of roll call against obama?

>> there are bipartisan majority in the house and senate to take some of these issues out of obamacare. we need to put them on the president's desk and let him choose. >> mr. speaker, you heard the president say that he basically gave you a year waiting for you to be able to deliver on immigration reform and that in this post-election period he is ready to act, and then he would pull back the executive orders if you could have legislation that works. could that be a catalyst for you to actually get something done? >> no, because i believe that the president continues to act on his own, he is going to poison the well. when you play with matches, you take the risk of burning yourself. and he is going to burn yourself -- himself if he continues to go down this path. the american people made it clear election day, they want to get things done and they don't want the president acting on a unilateral basis. >> mr. speaker, how do you expect the president to trust that you really want to work together when out of the gate, you say that you want to repeal

his signature law that you know has no chance of getting a veto proof majority. how do you expect him to trust you? >> my job is to listen to the american people. the american people have made it clear they're not for obamacare. ask all of those democrats who lost their elections on tuesday night. a lot of them voted for obamacare. my job is not to get along with the president just to get along with him, although we actually have a nice relationship. the fact is my job is listen to my members and listen to the american people and make their priorities our priorities. >> mr. speaker, the "wall street journal" is out with a report saying that president obama has sent a secret letter to iran's supreme leader on fighting isis, your reaction, sir? >> i don't trust the iranians. i don't think we need to bring them into this. and i would hope that the negotiations that are underway are serious negotiations. but i have my doubts.

>> if, having heard your reiterated threat, the president said suddenly, fine, i will take no executive action on immigration. could you guarantee him that he will hold votes on legislation next year? >> i have made my position very clear. it is time for the congress of the united states to deal with a very difficult issue in our society. this immigration issue because a -- has become a political football over the last 10 years or more, it's just hard to deal -- it's just time to deal with it. >> can your party presidential nominee be forced to run if you -- >> this is not about politics. this is trying to do the right thing for the country. >> mr. speaker, isn't the idea of repealing obamacare third or fourth line in your op-ed today, isn't it in a sense poisoning the well from your angle? >> no. >> when you go to the white house -- >> no.

our job is to make the american people's priorities our priorities. they don't like obamacare. i don't like it. it's hurting our economy. the president said i listened to what happened tuesday night. really? >> how do you know it is hurting the economy? the economy, though, how do you -- >> well, if you spent as many nights on the road as i have over the last two years, you would hear from employers of every stripe, large, small, medium, every industry and you listen to the employers talking about the concerns they have of what it means for their workforce, what it means for their employees and you see them hesitate in terms of hiring more people, it's pretty clear to me. >> mr. speaker, you have a new crop of conservatives coming into the house who have suggested among other things but women it needed to -- that women need to submit to the authority of their husbands, that hillary clinton is the anti-christ and that the families of sandy hook should get over it.

the hell no caucus is getting bigger -- >> no, no, no. >> how do you deal with them differently than you did in the last congress? >> i think the premise of your question i would take exception to. yes, we have some new members who have made some statements, i'll give you that. but when you look at the vast majority of the new members that are coming in here, they're really solid members. whether it's the youngest woman to ever serve in the congress to another african-american republican from texas, we have done a very good job of recruiting good candidates and we're going to have a very good crop of good members. >> on immigration, for example, you tried to act in the last congress and your conservative members yanked you back. >> no, no, no. >> how can you work with the president on an issue like this? >> no, i would argue with the premise of the question. what held us back last year was a flood of kids coming to the border because of the actions

that the president had already taken. and let me tell you what the american people from the right to the left started to look at this issue in a very different way. that's why i made it clear, the president, if he continues to go down this path of taking action on his own is inviting big trouble. >> that but of kids was -- that flood of kids was the last six months, what about the 18 months before that? >> i could regale you with all of my challenges of trying to get members on both sides of the aisle to deal with this. they were numerous. but hope springs eternal. >> thank you, mr. speaker. harry reid, the republican party has done what it said out to accomplish by firing harry reid. is he no longer an obstacle of getting the agenda of the republicans through this congress?

>> you might want to ask mitch mcconnell about that question. listen. >> do you see him as still being someone who has power to thwart. >> of course, you know how the senate works, it requires 60 votes to do almost anything in the senate. and so clearly he is going to have some power. but if you look at the, let's take the 46 jobs bills that are sitting in the united states senate that have been held up by the democrat majority in the senate, almost all of those passed the house on a bipartisan basis. and i believe that almost all of them enjoy bipartisan support in the united states senate. if you're doing, as you have heard me say this before, i tell my colleagues all the time, if you're doing the right things for the right reasons, you don't have to worry about anything. the right things will happen. next. >> will you compromise on the 30, 40-hour workweek -- >> on the next "washington

journal," analysis unlimited elections and the future of the democratic party with jonathan cowan, president of third way. and republican strategist john feehery on the future of the republican party and the last few years of the obama presidency. "washington journal," starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> here are a few of the comments we have recently received. >> just calling to tell you how 5:00i enjoy q&a at everything stops in my house, i turn off my phones, get my cup of coffee and it is the most enjoyable show on television. >> the guests were informative, i enjoyed listening to him and the comments today, he was very accurate and on point.

he was not using his own greatly innuendo and i enjoy it and i hope you have that, he wasike right on target this morning. >> i am calling to say that like many people, c-span is wonderful but as to criticism i almost have none. i'm a very partisan person but the reason i have none is i think you do a tremendous job of showing every side of everything and the way people look at things in the ec and elsewhere. i take my hat off to you. >> continue to let us know what -- orink, call us at e-mail us. conversation,n

like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. the 2015 c-span student cam a is underway. open to all middle and high school students to create a short documentary on the three aanches and you, showing how particular branch has affected you or your community. there are 200 cash prices -- prizes for students and teachers. today, stuart rothenberg, the publisher of the political report analyzed the election and analyze what results mean for republican legislative priorities in congress. his remarks were a part of a conference on the midterm elections. this is 15 minutes. >> good morning, david.

>> good morning everybody. how are you? show some life, please. i have to feed off of you. it is a pleasure to be here and welcome again to what should be an interesting day. you see an old guy a pair with a microphone and i see a lounge in the sands hotel in 1955 and me as a part of the rat pack. [laughter] i do not have a lot of time and i have a lot to cover and a lot of interesting people after me who you want to hear. so i won't run through what happened, why, and look forward. i will touch on two or three things that folks litter the day will going to more detail on. -- later in the day will go into more detail on. what happened actually we had a wave election but by what if i had to you going to credit me with the statistics i would've checked to see if they were right. i just figured what the heck. you are right. what happened? we had a wave election.

senate will be nine senate seats i believe at the end of the day after the louisiana runoff, probably nine senate seats will flip to the republicans taking them from 45 to 54. the last house numbers suggest a -- suggested somewhere in the mid teens. there are a whole bunch of recounts, some races are too close, too close to call for weeks probably but somewhere i don't know, you want to say between 13 and 17. that's probably somewhere in there. a handful of governorships all went to the republicans. so it's a terrific night. now, there were plenty of surprises. there was one or two races -- i'm still stunned by them, but the overall outcome should not have shocked you, stunned you, left you, your mouth open in unbelieving. a very smart person who i

sometimes don't, don't always but sometimes agree wrote this in september, september 8, september 8. i'm not expecting a substantial -- now expecting a substantial republican weight in november with a net gain of at least seven seats but it wouldn't be shocked by a large again. the combination of a piper -- unpopular president and a midterm election can produce disasters results for the president's party. given the president's standing, the public's disappointment with the direction of the courage, the makeup of the midterm electorate and the 2014 senate map i'm expecting a strong breeze to the backs of the gop and, and if there's a strong breeze most of the race is now regarded as competitive will fall one way, toward republicans. this doesn't happen all the time but it's far from unusual. right now this cycle looks much like 2010 when democrats with reasonable profiles got crushed

in republican leaning in swing states. with the president looking weaker, the news getting worse, democratic candidates in difficult and competitive states are likely to have a truly are in some albatross around their necks but that was written in september 8 by someone i often, not always, agree with. me. [laughter] now, if i could see that on the horizon, i think most people could see it on the horizon. it's not like i have all of these superduper insights that other people don't have. thank you. what we saw was why did this happen? mood. most midterm elections are about mood. it's different from presidential elections which are much more about the two individuals running for office. their qualities, their backgrounds, their preparedness, their agendas. midterm elections tend to be referenda on the sitting

president, not on congress which is why we people look at the congressional job approval and say, well, congress is unpopular and republicans control the house so maybe election will be about the house. well maybe, but no. because it's never about that. i'm not saying the next election couldn't be that way but, you know, this is the black swan theory. we don't have those kind of elections. midterms tend to be about the president and when voters are angry, disappointed, frustrated, uncomfortable, worried, anxious, nervous. those elections tend to send that message to the president's party. that's exactly what happened. so we had mood. we had the senate states that were up. republican recruiting was quite good. they had strong candidates this time. and then there was turnout. it's a midterm election to its fundamentally different from a presidential year. different people vote. so i looked at the house national exit poll the other day. i made this point on the "newshour" but i will make it again. comparing the 2014 electorate to

the 2012 electorate. this electorate that turned out tuesday, i know this comes as a shock but not everybody votes, and what's important to me as a handicapper is who votes. not what the national public opinion is. so i compared 2014 to 2012. the 2014 electorate was more male, older, less liberal, more republican, wealthier, and more of them said that the country is headed off on the wrong track than the right direction. probably shouldn't surprise you that those voters then voted more republican. but there's even more than that. in 2012 the exit polls and do -- said do you approve or disapprove of the job barack obama is doing as president? and the exit polls, presidential exit poll in 2012 was approved 53, disapprove 46 to shock a lot of us that the national posted -- polls did not show an obama job approval rating in the low '50s. it showed him in the mid-to

upper '40s but when people voted that's who voted. this time you approve or disapprove of the job barack obama is doing as president? 44% approve, 55% disapprove in a different electorate with a different mood and get delivered -- it delivered a different opinion about the president of the united states. so we had a wave election because the country wanted change, that everybody wanted change. there are people in who think the president is doing a great job, the country is headed in the right direction? this doesn't make you wrong. they just make you different. than the people who voted. ok? it's simply a matter of opinion. but it's important who votes the -- and what their opinions are. ok, so what does it mean now going forward? can't have much time. i think of already over but i started late. what does it mean going forward? well, i have rarely found a

politician who won an election who didn't think that was some kind of mandate or affirmation of that person's agenda or priorities. i've heard so much cockamamie analysis in the last -- not analysis. i get press releases from every group claiming that they are the reason why either the republicans won, or very creative press releases, or why they're the reason that democrats didn't do even worse, ok? and it's rare you get a politician who says, you know, this wasn't about as at all. is just about the president so we don't have a mandate to do anything to what to expect? i expect coming out of this election republicans will over read their quote-unquote mandate. now, not all republicans will do that. many including many in the leadership understand that their mandate is more like a negative mandate.

don't do what the president wants. do something else. but there are going to be -- i think the house and senate republican leaders are still going to have problems with the rank-and-file. now, the republican majority in the house is bigger and that may give speaker boehner more freedom, but don't kid yourself. i know there was all of us talk about how the senate, the establishment guys won the primary, so mcconnell knocked off bevan, the tea party guide. thad cochran won in knocking off, defeating chris mcdaniel. lamar alexander defeated a tea party guy. pat roberts defeated a tea party guy. so yes the establishment won, but in the house the chamber and the republican establishment didn't fight as much in these individual braces, and the electorates are different in

house races than in senate races. and so, yeah, paul brown is leaving from georgia, a very libertarian, antiestablishment, anti-his own party establishment, republican congressman from georgia these been replaced with larry loudermilk in georgia. and michele bachman is leaving but tom amer, an male version of michele bachman is coming in in minnesota. [laughter] and so there's still this problem and john boehner love to -- is going to have to tread very carefully. over in the senate i have three big question marks, and their names are dan sullivan in alaska, ben sasse of nebraska and tom cotton in arkansas. they are all smart and personable an interesting and thoughtful but i'm not exactly sure where they fit in this question of what is your role as a legislator. this is increasingly an important question, to put on republican side. how do these people were elected -- who are elected officials see their role? is this to come here and part of

a diverse institution and, representing constituencies, and therefore, we need to compromise and compromise could? -- good? or is a we've been compromising the last 50 years, conservative republicans, we elect presidents, even our own party, they tell us they will shrink government and instead it gets bigger and we get medicare part d and we get federalization of education and we are tired so are not compromising. what our cotton, says and sold in going to do. the reason i picked those three is all three were endorsed by the club for growth, economic leverage in the the club is enthusiastic and the club intends to support candidates who view principle over pragmatism. i met with all three. i could see them going either way. i don't know how they're going to behave. it will be interesting but if they joined a ted cruz, mike lee, kind of, let's call them, this is a neutral term i've just come up with in the last eight seconds, let's call them again totally neutral, the troublemaker caucus in the senate. let's call them that. [laughter] that would make things very difficult for mitch mcconnell.

so i think there's still lots of questions. i'm rather skeptical that the republicans that now, they will be able to get on the same page. it will on some things, -- the will on some things, certainly, and it will be interesting to see the relationship with the president. finally, and then i will stop, did the president get the message? probably not. you know, there are some, bill clinton got the message after 94 i think and he made it abundantly clear that he was upset that people didn't like

him and he wanted to be where people were. i think this president is very confident that he knows where the country should go, moscow, -- must go, and he is right about that, and just the koch brothers spent a lot of money and a lot of people didn't vote. so i don't expect a lot more flexibility out of the white house. i think congress will continue to be, i think washington will just continue to be the place where it's difficult to get things done. some stuff will get done. lord knows we have got a lot of -- not got a lot of stuff done but the economy has come out, it's not growing fast enough, i agree, governor, but it has improved from a couple of years ago but is so going to take a lot of effort to get things done, a lot of energy, a lot of enthusiasm and a lot of goodwill. and i'm just going to say let's keep our fingers crossed the thanks, now i turn this over to you, david? >> yet. >> all right. now here comes david. thanks. [applause] >> in this part the heads of the senatorial campaign committees talk about what went right and what went wrong. this is one hour.

[applause] >> good morning everybody, does ?his sound ok hello everyone, good morning. thank you for that nice introduction. thank you everyone for being here. this will be on c-span two so we are excited about that. both guys here, two that i have had as sources for many years and who are well respected in their respective fields and important to both cq and rollcall. keep your introductions brief. rob is a veteran strategist.

the director of the republican senatorial campaign committee and has been a purple strategist before that, created the hispanic leadership network, worked for chuck hagel and is a veteran of 14 campaigns. the deputyntly director of the senate campaign committee. he has been the national political and field director for the hillary clinton campaign for president. stint he ledecond the very successful team during 2005 and 2007 as political director. he is a former minister which might have come in handy. [laughter] thank you for being here, i will start just with the news.

we have two outstanding senate races and i am curious what you are hearing, start with a alaska and then virginia. is the state where ballots that are postmarked election day have 14 days to get to the counting centers. meetounting centers don't every day. they meet when they hit a threshold number of ballots in their possession and they meet and count them. was up 3000ens votes and lost by 3000 votes. we knew we had to be prepared and we knew the polling was bouncing all over the place so we pre-positioned legal teams for 20 election with a theory that it is hard to get into alaska for probably easier to get out of.

there andbetter to be hay and i can night of hotel rooms to make sure your teams are on the ground. we had folks who helped on the recount -- four whatever it is and some smart legal minds up to make sure everything is where it is. we are uptight a significant enough margin that we should win. hopefully we'll see how the process plays itself out. our candidates feel good about their position and with such an aggressive campaign on both sides, a lot of patent is not turned in early and a lot of early voting occurred so it was not like there was a big bulk of like the ted stevens

campaign. if you look at it, sullivan ran a much more moderate campaign. game meansve ground there should be a richer mix of democrat and republican votes as opposed to 2008 when the senator got 60% of the votes that came in after election day. meaning by the time they got to the counting centers. we feel pretty good. , mark warner was up last i checked with most of the precincts reporting, so what are you expecting? think the remaining votes have come in and as the canvases started to happen, most of the canvassing will be complete today. we expect senator warner to hold the lead. it is difficult to turn 16,000 votes into a win for the other fully expect that over the next couple of days, ed

will realize the same thing, and not opt for a recount. >> these are candidate driven events and whatever ed wants we will back 100%, both politically after theially, if recount this they determined to take a step forward we will take it with him. >> you i have heard stu rothenberg predict that he thinks the republicans ultimately have the nine seats. how do each of you view that louisiana race? d-maryland got what she got. the enthusiasm was not there for her. rouge is a good place to be from if your bill cassidy and he is deep roots in that community and has treated over

25,000 sick and uninsured at his clinic. a good he has run campaign and he has the resources and did not come out of that climate beat up on the republican side. we do not have a lot of that triage that we have seen in previous times. he is an extremely tough politician worried suzy terrel and andrewsficantly stormed back in the last month to win. republicans think there is a slide to victory they will fool themselves and if they do not start budgeting right now for a serious contest they may wake up with seven seats. louisiana has a very active history of runoff elections. there are after every general election in the state is a great 2002

example of what can happen. as late as one week before, suzy -- the other dynamic that i think is a little bit different and counters the conventional wisdom that the african-american registration level is as high as it has ever been. including pre-katrina. nexthallenge over the several weeks is to do everything we can to inspire our base, african-americans, young voters and women to turn out. the one thing we can agree on is that mary landers is an incredibly tenacious and tough politician. >> a little plug for rollcall. spread showing our rollcall on the road project. we have so many photos from mary

landor. she is fiber and and happy. >> there are not many candidates doing cake stands and line dances that say louisiana is its own wonderful place. she fits right in. philosophical point of view to voters look at this as republicans of arty one so is turnout going to be an issue? >> you can make that argument and say the democrat base was depressed and will be more depressed, i think we have to run our own races. our a committee perspective ground game will be the number one thing we focus on and other folks will hopefully covert the tv and the other stuff. focusing on the ground game and getting things out.

we call it a runoff but it is really a brand-new election. with the tell them that just because they showed up six weeks ago doesn't mean they will show up. it is not for the majority but a senate seat is a terrible thing to waste and we have a shot right now so let's go get it. investing hours and hours and money to get there. jobs continue on for a little while but i am curious what election night was like for you and we were talking about how you each are on the losing side previously. that thatve a sense was how it was going to play out tomo you hear tom carton -- cotton wins in arkansas and knew it would be a tough night? in 2006 when we

reclaimed the majority running against and a popular president and i was there for the first .alf of the 08 cycle there are two things that are true, winning is better than losing. the second thing is that we knew going into election weekend that over the course of the previous week, the numbers were marginally moving against us in a uniform fashion. night andinterviews a it became very clear that in particular, undecided voters and independent voters that had not made their decision -- even with $120 million? of ads? or $100 carolina, million in colorado you still had undecided voters that were about thetatement

election and it became clear they were moving in one direction. we had hope that we could stem the tide but it became clear to us that that was going to be difficult. had neil in louisville and he was declared the winner over allison lindemann grimes and then gave a victory speech, he did not wait until you had the majority. how did that layout? ? were you confident you would get i don't think i have put it through the prism of when mcconnell spoke. when you have a room full of volunteers who want to see you, you want to respond to them. they can spend, a day, a week, a year working for you. you want to be considerate to them.

i think it was more that he was in front of his team. i think we felt good and we felt sure, kentucky moved quick but then new hampshire moved bizarrely and very quick. i don't know why it move that quick and should not have been called so quickly but it was a tight race all night. we started to say, what kind of night are we going to have? the 5:00 exit polls plus the information we were getting from across the country, we felt like we were having a good night. in kansas we felt really good about where we were there and that was a take pivot point. colorado we saw government going into the day. in north carolina we felt really good. the way the state was shaping up

. and in georgia they were pulling us all over the place and we weren't sure exactly where we were. we knew we were close to 50 but were not sure if we would get there and then we started to see turnout and said, we will be ok. is this that what you are seeing during the day? one of the interesting things and it is important as a toocrat that we take time make sure we're analyzing the election and that we are not over learning the wrong lessons. one of those dynamics that is the elections that was not won or lost based on turnout. i think stu's comet about the wave election are the most telling because in colorado for example, contrary to what most people would think, there was a

smaller gap, a better gap between republican ballot returns and democrat ballot returns. there were 70,000 more voters between 1834 that returned ballots. democraticrolina, counties turnout nine points higher than republican counties. we increased the african-american percentage of the vote from 19% to 21%. a two point increase for 2010. largest counties we increased turnout by 16%. the challenge is that it does not matter in a wave election. there will be a lot about the fields,nd republicans could have carried a commodore 64 on a wagon and it would not have changed it. [laughter] i'm guessing. it would not change the fundamental dynamic, so we made

a decision early on to invest on the ground in the instance that this would not be a wave election. what is important for me to communicate to democrats is that we should not walk away from .hat commitment this is step one, not the final step. every midterm will not be a wave election. we need to continue to build the groundwork especially in states where we are not engaged in the presidential election, but ultimately wildly increased if you lookin fact at the 13 dates that increased turnout, 10 of those were senate races. i think it is important for us to a, to assess and ultimately to make decisions about how we continue to bill that ground game. landscape looks

better for democrats. >> of the 10 races that we most frequently talk about, the president lost 10 of those races. in nine of those races he was defeated by double digits and in five he lost by 20 or more points. this is not a national electorate, where we are talking about a lot of other states. lose the governor's race in maryland by 10 points, one of the bluest states in the margin,by a smaller then you lost a purple state that is competitive. it is a reveal that there's something larger going on than whether it your technology was good or whether you knocked on 10.2 million doors. that is why i think it is

important for us that we do not give up on the doorknocking, the phone banking, the voter registration egos ultimately in us close election that focus will pay off. i think we need to make sure we're analyzing everything and not coming to our rash termination about what worked and what we should do in the future. >> so what paid off for the republicans? hopehoing what guy said, i we continue in the party which is in the off year candidate improvement is critical. that is something i was unprepared for. i have been around raising money and i have been around campaigns but the raw recording, finding and whoes that can win can campaign and are curious

enough to ask the questions, who would go through training, there are two bars. the low bar was, did we avoid saying super alienating things, the high bar was, could we go into a straight -- estate controlled by an incumbent senator and present a legitimate case to change horses. tillis getsna, thom one hour of free debate time because hagan didn't want to show up. i think if we had a weaker candidate, other states you saw the republican saying let's talk ite and debate these issues, was our feeling that we trained him up and invested a lot of time. there has been a cultural change that started in 12 and i hope will continue which is that we invest heavily in the

grassroots, the technology hind the door knocks but that also the door knocks. and thankl learning you for your team to continue to grant interviews to the press to tell us how to be better. that was a huge sea change i have seen. it felt like every election cycle we got further from the grassroots. led to the rnc and all the work they did, open analysis and the rnc our partners and said let's do what we do best which is talk to voters. i think that is what worked. i think our candidates were very nimble on the issues. jumped foreign policy

before the american people behind september-october, we were pleased and glad to have so many ex military and who aretary candidates comfortable explaining the benefits of american and withnal security, but also ebola and the veterans prices -- they were very nimble and how they spoke and quickly adapted to these issues. i think the campaigns in the and get kind of that plan april and that is what they execute on. missnk you can opportunities and campaigns are very nimble on that front. >> you look excited to jump in. no, i think that part of the challenge in this election is that there were multiple periods republicans were

able to easily nationalize the election. from the crisis over the children at the border, to the veterans administration, to ebola, to iso-, there were multiple times where it was much easier for them to nationalize the election. to continue making it personal to the president. in a lot of states it did not work. the reality is that the states where this battle was played out were largely red states and a couple of purple states. unlike governors races, where you were looking at illinois, massachusetts, maryland -- these are deep blue states. the reality is places like minnesota, oregon, where these could easily have become races did not come races. in new hampshire, the fundamental change -- in 2010,

the electorate in new hampshire was republican by three points. this election, the electorate was democratic by one point. the entire change in the election is that jeanne shaheen had made the electorate four points larger. if not, senator shaheen would have lost by four points. in 2010, al franken, the fact we avoided oregon, the factor that we changed the electorate in new hampshire demonstrates it did not work, but in the red states, continuing to talk about nationalizing the election, but

on isil, immigration, v.a., the health care website, it became too much for us to overcome. >> i want to get back to something you said about the candidates and recruitment. it did not materialize out of thin air. there is a real primary issue for the republican party, and it was mentioned the troublemaker caucus. ted cruz was on the team, did not get as involved in primaries as he could have, but how much of that is that factor ahead, or how worried are you about that about republican recruitment in the future in the primaries, and particularly people who are encouraging primaries from the right? >> i think when you talk to recruits, on both sides, the first thing a recruit says is can i make a difference. if i go to washington, do i step

away from -- if you're talking about running for the senate, they are successful in some other venture in their life. why would i step away from something i'm successful to go to this place? can i make a difference? one of the questions is, what does the primary look like? i sometimes wish i could spend more time worrying about what the democrats were doing in 2013 and half of 2014, because we spent a lot of energy getting our class through a process, beating incumbents or recruits, and a lot of money and brainpower. it made it tough for us as a committee, so when we went into a full-blown election mode, we were heartened by the process in a professional sense, not an ideological sense, but i think primary does bring out some good.

i can point to campaigns that were better, definitely better post-primary, they were tougher, had gone through the process, but the problem is when you have fringy candidates who stand by their ideology, who are easily picked apart by democrats, yet spend hundreds, if not millions of dollars defeating them, it is frustrating. there were folks who were significantly flawed candidates, who set aside ideology, and every primary night they were saying i cannot wait to get this guy, politically speaking. [laughter] as you look at 2008, 2010, that is how they won.

some candidates were to ideologically driven. i'm not a referee. that is a big issue. stepping forward we have to analyze and say as a committee, we pushed and pulled and did certain things to get people across, was that successful, should we continue it, should we go back to a laissez-faire attitude on primaries? i would make a recommendation that we never apply an ideological scale to anybody we met with, and we met with all of our candidates. we invited everyone in the primaries to come up. everyone in georgia was invited because we figured better candidates -- some folks chose not to come. there was no litmus test on ideology, but only if they can

win. that is what i would invest in. with regard to recruiting, there is always an evolving process. it started in the red states, but by the end you saw blue-chip candidates in all states, and that is what allowed us to be successful. is it a wave historically speaking? it will be argued it was a wave election. it was a good when joni ernst won that primary. thom tillis winning in that primary and not having to go to a runoff in the purple state. we were able to spread outside of our six bright red states where obama got 42% or less and we are able to field these candidates based on the sense

that the primary process was more in control than less under control. also as a committee, we were going to stand behind them and train them and help them get the funds they need to run a full campaign. >> when you look at the 2016 field, you might have a rematch. what are some of the races you might be excited were you to have this job in 2016? >> we are looking at each other, because neither one of us will have this job. one of the interesting dynamics of the next election cycle is that it is the inverse of this election cycle in terms of the map. there are i believe seven republican-held states in states that the president won, played out in an election that looks less like a midterm election. when you look at pennsylvania -- there will be several races

played out in states where the democratic presidential candidate is likely to win and it will be a small handful of races in places where it will be a competitive race. it is just a fundamentally -- every senate map is not created equally. and you look at the three senate classes, in two of the classes, the president won the election. unfortunately, it was not this class. in this senate class, the president lost the election amongst the aggregates of states, which has to do with the map that the president just has to do with the makeup of this particular set of states. one of the interesting things about this election is that there were a number of blue states that went south in 2010 and did not in this election. the good state of michigan, for example, where we eventually pulled out about $3 million because their candidate was the

fifth or sixth choice to run. if they had had a better candidate in michigan, the race would've been different, much more competitive, we would've had to invest more resources there. in oregon, another example of a state where other races on the ballot were much closer than the senate race in part because the candidate there was subpar. the key for us by the time we were going into the last 2, 3 weeks of the election, was not let what was happening in the red states and in a couple of purple states spread to the michigans, oregons, minnesotas, and, from our perspective, new hampshires. the reality of our polling in last three or four weeks of the election consistently had scott brown within two to four points of senator shaheen. the problem was in every one of

those polls, shaheen was at 50%. there was a hard-core 49.85% of the voters that were voting for jeanne shaheen because they liked jeanne shaheen. it was making sure the wave was not a tsunami that capsized races that in a normal election cycle we would win, but in the 2010 election cycle for example, in michigan, where democrats lost everything, we ended up winning by double digits. >> were there any surprises for you? you did not think we would get that close in the race or races where they ended up turning against her favorite at the last minute? >> i think you want to start and say where were we in february, january 2013, and where did we end up? competitive and winning big in

iowa, north carolina, still states that are purple if not blue. yeah, the cotton race opening up caught everyone off guard. and you look and say, what happened there? but also the fact we did so well in the blue and purple states as opposed to the red states makes us feel like what we were doing, the investments we made made a lot of sense, but the biggest surprise was virginia. i think ed -- a-plus campaign across the board. your publication today, we always just wish that outside groups believe what we believe, and we were so stretched and following the signs behind our campaigns and what we made our investments in, because the dncc had a lot more money than we did.

they were outspending us, 2-1, 3-1, and we came from a fundamental position that either it can be decided in or could be decided in october, and when it was not decided in june, we were trying to save our money for the back end. our folks say labor day is the day when people start looking for elections. columbus day was the day when people start to really focus. we were trying to forward our cash, but they were spending so much in the movement that forced us to move more money, more money, and so that was a challenge that left us with the cupboard bare, indications it was double digits for warner, single digits the last couple

weeks, and we were able to put a small investment in there, that we never had the wrought dollars we wanted to. we had to move some dollars into states that were pretty bright red for some folks that we just had to make sure we were safe. but that was a surprise. if there's somebody who you look and say pitched a perfect game as a candidate, it was ed. ed ran an unbelievable campaign. >> how do you view the 2016 map? >> "instability" is one word, because you have some incredibly talented politicians who will win the senate seat if they are in the senate seat. there are some folks talking about doing things when they grow up, so i will leave it to them. if you read the papers, there are folks in key states saying they may run for president. that is the one thing i would have a question about.

you look at the places where we are going to have to compete, and we have great candidates. rob portman in ohio -- i would not want to go against him -- rubio, ayotte, ron johnson, people who really are at the top of their game and run a good operation. i can already tell you at the nrc we have already met with those incumbents and started putting together their battle plan, and they are interested in how we set up our incumbents' and challengers' budgets, and we had sessions with them, saying, is this working? wow, you are investing that much? we did not do that last time. in talking to your campaigns, the tv budget is this big, you are mandating they put that much in there.

you can say tough states, but you can look at them and say you cannot do it. >> you have already met with the class? >> pretty early on both sides. >> are you worried about primaries in those cases? >> anyone who thinks the republican primary is in trouble. candidly, i looked at those people who came out the weekend before the election, and there was all these messaging questions. if i was a democrat, i would get ready for a primary because in this campaign finance system, a very dedicated liberal or conservative and spend a few million dollars in a primary and create havoc. if you are at the white house, you have more control of the process. i saw a movement that is getting restless when i see the weekend before a whole battery of

message questions. i wonder if they are saying we are not liberal enough. we will see. i am saying there is a restlessness in the wings of the party and now they can be funded. >> as a journalist, i am pro havoc. you see any of your senators having problems? >> you never take anything for granted. this is my fourth cycle recruiting candidates. we have mostly avoided divisive primaries. we have avoided primaries that cost us in the general election. you never take anything for granted, but there might be wishful thinking on the other side about pat leahy or patty murray getting challenge because they are not progressive enough. you look at the class itself, because there are so few democratic seats -- this is the flip side of 2010 that is coming

in. if you survived in 2010, which was a tough election year for democrats, it is because you have strong operations. you are in touch with your state, i would not predict there are going to be too many primaries on that side. >> do you regret coming back to the dncc? >> no. i did not take the job because it was a sure thing we were going to win. i took the job because there was a reasonable chance we were not. i think that anybody who is in this profession only doing it because you want to be assured success probably is in the wrong line of business. my disappointment is not personal, although i would rather win. my disappointment is for the 21-year-old organizer who is knocking on doors for the first time in mountain home, arkansas. my disappointment is for the

people that care fervently and believe strongly in our party. my disappointment is that the race was not close enough at the end because of the wave for the success stories that i think will be told over the course of the next year -- maybe this is my ministerial side shining through, but, no, i am very happy that i stayed. i'm unhappy about the outcome. but our senior staff will be over to my house for chinese and beer tonight, and i could not have asked for a better group of people to work with. i could not have asked for it better slate of candidates to work for. and i have no regrets about coming back. >> and will save the question about what you are doing next for the very end. we have not talked about obama

and that was and it almost influence. i remember covering him in 2008 where you had every mayoral candidate wanting to be the one to introduce him at the rally wherever you work because they knew he would help them. and this ended up being the complete opposite six years later. was that turnaround surprising to you or was it inevitable in january 2013? >> you saw the same thing with bush, and some of the comments, whether purposeful or not, i will let reporters figure that out. it struck the that they were not helpful to the guy's cause, i would say it helped us more, and you wonder how these things, bringing up gtmo in october, what are we doing here?

you challenge -- and i sit at a previous session that are best story was president obama reminding folks what they did not like about this administration. getting in front of these stories, they did not. that helps us, and it set aside my opinions, i would say poll-wise, the president in october, you saw his approvals dip just enough that it made us feel good that this midterm was going to be about the president and our messaging that we set up, which was bumper-stickerized in the coverage because we just use these voting stats. the voting stats were tied with how this impacts you, not just that this incumbent -- that is hard to do.

but those incumbents were tied to the candidates, and if you want to talk about obamacare, economy, foreign policy, whatever. that was always -- that we put these campaigns and messaging through. i think that was an important factor in this campaign. i would say it was not the only thing because if you look at our campaigns, we actually, our candidates, and how we were coordinating them, was talk about what our candidates word going to do. cory gardner talking about wind power, national gas increasing teachers' salaries. tom cotton talking about federal issues like social security, but it was not a national debate say how they were going to honor their commitments to the

seniors. so we were finding issues that were local and very timely and relevant for people in those states and talking about them. there was this overarching national conversation going on about isis and other things that helped feed into the election. >> is that what you did? >> a slightly different perspective on the advertising itself. over 2/3 of all senate ads that the republicans ran were about the president, which is a remarkable statistics meeting hundreds of millions of dollars were spent on this election. when you are doing that in states in this map, it has an outsized effect. it did not have any effect in minnesota or oregon. it did not have an effect in michigan. it cannot have an effect in new hampshire. it had an effect in large part, not primarily, in red states that the president lost by

double digits. the president did everything we asked of him. we dropped 2.4 million letters from the president to obama voters in the last week of the election. we did radio scripts, robo calls, mail, we tried to efficiently utilize what the white house was offering, and i have no qualms with what the president did for us. he traveled around the country. they raised about $25 million for senate democrats, which was a historic number for the committee. they made for lists available, data available, but the reality is a map is a map is a map is a map, and it is not the sexiest part of election because it is a story that has been told for two years. the other thing that is often

discussed is about the president's travel, and the reality is the election will not be won or lost if the president visits a hotel when you are spending hundreds of million dollars on television. we polled in colorado, one of the most important points rob has make, people assume in washington that is impossible for someone to be undecided in october. the thing you always hear, how is somebody undecided in october? the reality is people are living their lives, right? single moms are taking their kids to school, parents are taking care of their children, and their parents. people are worried about making the doctor's appointments, getting their kids to little league, they are worried about

getting to work on time and fighting traffic. everybody is not as -- america is not coming to a ballroom at the liaison hotel at 8:00 a.m. to listen to the two guys talk about elections. >> or watching on c-span. >> that is not the way that most of america processes information. there are an enormous number of undecided voters who decided the election, and this is the important point that i want to make. first, in colorado in july when we polled, amongst undecided voters, the people that were going to decide the election in colorado the president's favorability rating was 40%. we are constantly striking the balance of how do we efficiently use it. it is not reflective, and this is the thing, not reflective personally of the president. it is reflective of a midterm electorate, of a map that is

dotted by arkansas, louisiana, alaska. these are not democratic bastions. in a good number of states, besides the democratic senator, there is no statewide democrat on the ballot. there hasn't been an infrastructure bill. we dealing with a very lopsided map. keeping that in mind is important. the second thing is, going back to turn out, whether you are looking at colorado, iowa, or north carolina, which is where a lot of our time was spent over the last three weeks, the electorate got more democratic in party registration from 2010. think about that. it got more democratic in 2010. in north carolina in 2010, democrats lost everything. it was historic losses in the state legislature for the first time going republican in decades. a republican governor was elected in a race that was not close. four years later, in an

environment that is more hostile, kay hagan comes pretty close to winning a senate seat despite $125 million being spent, and she did that in large part because we turned out tens of thousands of more of the most disenfranchised people in the country in a state where republicans shortened the early vote period from two weeks to one week and eliminated a lot of the easily accessible voting sites for african-americans and for young people. and so it goes back to trying to learn the right lessons. this was not a turnout election in the sense that another door knock would have mattered or another $500,000 whatever mattered, it was a wave election, and decided ultimately by the undecideds over the course of the last month, maybe two months of the election. i think having that perspective, it is cold comfort, but does not

make me feel any better about the election. but i think part of success is not gloating when you win, it is about trying to learn from when you do not, and that is the lesson that democrats have to take. there is no question there are a lot of disappointed democrats. my message to them is take a few days, have a drink or two, get a little bit of rest, have a little chinese, assess what happened, pick yourself up, dust yourself off, because there is an election in two years. that is what i think we should be focused on over the course of the next couple months as we gear up for what is going to definitely be another election cycle. >> it is always happening. i will point out the one candidate the president did go to a ballroom to campaign with, gary peters, is now senator-elect gary peters. rob, what is next for you?

>> you know, i think i have four kids, and they are all very young. i think politics is a tough business, so i think my wife is assessing my next move. [laughter] she is weighing a number of thoughts, mostly of me being home for bedtimes and helping on drop-offs, pickups, which i'm glad to do. that is kind of the focus, just trying to get the family together. >> and disney world. >> and disneyland. yes, it was announced last time we were together that we would go to disney world. >> in california, disneyland is better. >> that is the arrangement we had before the election. [laughter] >> you got to get to the voters

when they are young. >> four little democrats -- [laughter] >> that would be a trick. well, my parents are college professors, scratching their heads -- most of my family is from new york, more radicalized than i am. in the early 1980's when i was -- so that is the short term plan. we have an orientation and we have these races that are going to close out. it is amazing how focused people can get and then you have election day and we have to really mind our knitting here and go in. >> guy, you been asked this question many times. hillary clinton has been known to call winning and losing

candidates to check in on election night. when was the last time you talked to her? >> what i am going to be doing after the election -- [laughter] first, i'm going to disney world with rob and taking care of his kids. i will answer your question. one of the great things about the last year in particular, separate from senate races, is the rapid expansion of marriage equality around the country, which has been remarkable to watch. my husband and i got married last september, and i owe him a honeymoon, yes, thank you. [applause] we are going to go on a honeymoon. that is going to be my first decision to make. i saw secretary clinton in colorado when she was there.

it was a great event, and she actually did a fundraiser for us as well in california, and we got a chance to talk about races. >> she gave you the full debrief. >> there's no question that i want hillary clinton to run. that is not a breaking news alert. ultimately, running for office is a personal decision. one of the things that rob said which is to come when after four cycles of recruiting candidates, the candidates do not really ask about winning and losing cause if we are recruiting them, is because we think they can win. what they are asking about is what impact is this having on my family? how does my life look different if i win? rarely is there a conversation about what happens if i lose. it is about talking to spouses

and kids about what life will be like during a campaign. it is about unfortunately we are in a modern era of research where everything about your life is exposed, which i think makes it much harder for recruiting, because i think candidates look at what is happening and say why do i want to put myself through that. a lot of our senate candidates, that is what we talk about, about why despite all the reasons not to do it you still should? i think for secretary clinton it will be a personal decision, and i hope she does it. regardless of whether i am involved in the campaign, i will be a fervent and vocal supporter of her efforts. >> we will stay tuned for that. thank you both for this enlightening discussion. a great panel for you today. next, tom davis and ted strickland.

[applause] >> more now from the rollcall conference on the midterm elections. this next panel look of a political reporting on the campaign, the accuracy of polling, and the unexpected results. this is an hour. >> so i am the politics editor at "rollcall," and this panel is entitled what happened. joining me today is nathan gonzales, the deputy editor of the rothenberg medical report and it including writer to "rollcall." nbc news political reporter and previously reporter for time and the "washington post" and he

covers domestic policy and politics and you can follow him on twitter. to my left is mark blumenthal, the senior polling editor at the huffington post and founding editor. if you would like, you can follow him on twitter @mysterypollster. if you would like you can sign up for the newsletter simply add pollster.com and then on my left is abby livingstone, who focuses on the house create you can follow her at rollcall addie and she's also been a producer at cnn and nbc and very importantly, she is one of the star players of the bad news softball team on the press side. the members of the press take on the members of congress and it's a great fundraiser for cancer research as well. so. and abby is a great pitcher.

i have a couple of questions for the panel and then for about 30 or 40 minutes and we will go to the q-and-a stood to go so start thinking of your questions now. the one thing i keep molding after tuesday night is after democrats took a huge dropping and -- drubbing and the president was largely held responsible the blame that's been put is for the congressional democrats could have done to avoid this political slaughtering. nation wide don't we start with you? >> i feel like every cycle we come to the same conclusion about the campaign committee that when things go right the committee's gets more credit than they deserve it when they go wrong they get more blame than they deserve. but to me that doesn't mean they have no control over what's happening. and i think that this election was a fascinating election because we have an answer to the

question of how much does local politics matter and can a well-known politician with a family name and family brand in the state, can that overcome the national trajectory of an election? we have an answer now and it is a pretty clear answer and the answer is, no. note the national trend in the state louisiana isn't quite done but the family brands that were supposed to save these democratic members are not enough to get them reelected. and, in terms of specifically what could democrats control, i just do not buy into the inevitability of the sixth year of the presidency being terrible. i think that there are choices and decisions the administration makes up to that point. and a good example as president bill clinton's term that was a

-- wasn't a disaster for his party. and when you look at the democratic members they made a choice with their vote and republicans did a good job of highlighting those votes with a few million, tens of millions, $100 million of advertising and highlighting the democratic members took in favor of the president's agenda. one key ad i remember in the 2010 cycle, the 2010 wave was congressman joe donnelly in the indiana second district and he was running against the problems. the narrator says there is a problem with the washington crowd as those -- as the narrator was saying that they had a president obama and nancy pelosi so a democratic member of congress running against the

washington crowd with the two leaders of his party. and even though i thought i was stunning but joe donnelly made the decision that in his competitive district and in a competitive environment training against his party, he wasn't -- he was not just going to distance himself from the president that run against the president and he survived and ended up catching a couple breaks in 2012 and being elected to the senate but democrats could have made a strategic decision to run more adamantly against the president and say that would hurt the turnout but look at where they ended up in the current strategies of that is something where we don't know the answer. but i could have been something that might have affected a few of the races. >> harry, what do you think? >> i would think, and i think the fundamental thing to make a big difference here in the

six-year how on the popular the president was you had the place where someone like mark warner in virginia, who won as the governor, built a political brand where he is the guide goes to the communities and does really well. not this time. his voting was similar to terry and tim kane and for that matter president obama. his personal brand that made no difference in the environment. you have allison grimes of kentucky who wouldn't say if she voted for the president and her numbers were the same. she won by three more points than he did. the democrats didn't pick her. she had not voted for obamacare, she was young, she was a woman. she was like the perfect candidate. not at all. the results were almost word for word and vote for vote they ran a few points ahead of him but not very much in both of those states. none were as sustained as obama in georgia and grimes rand three

points ahead and they don't know what they could have done in this environment. i would like to say that i'm i am not sure that a strategy would be so anti-obama win at the end of the day the president's approval rating had a lot to do with how you you do. this notion that in today's environment you can separate from the president and say i'm not sure if i voted for him or not and it's not believable it -- believable. it could have been useful to think about if the president is going to be an anchor why don't i say if you are kentucky or arkansas the data shows that the rate of uninsured dropped tremendously because the health care while walking back may be prior and grinds should have said the health care law is working as opposed to try to run away from it because they lost so many points anyway. it is not like what they did worked. >> mark? >> i agree with everything i've heard so far and the political

environment in any given election with the national candidate for senator and member of congress is largely defined by not just who the president is but their policy. it drives everything. in particular in the races for u.s. senate, these tend to be elected officials you pay the least attention to did go away -- to. they go away for six years and depending on where you live they might get more attention or not. the mayor or the governor gets governor gets attention and the senator pops up and they engage once every six years for a couple months so it is very hard, and i would argue next to impossible to disengage and make those races local. you saw that very vividly. my colleagues on the numbers geek beat illustrated this in the last 24 hours. scott had a piece yesterday

where he took the exit poll and looked at just two columns, the vote for the democratic senator and obama's approval rating at almost every instance they ran a little bit ahead of obama's approval rating but not much, two or 3 or 4 points. the one that ran the most ahead was warner, which ended up being just enough. nate took the county level vote for i think there were six southern states where there were senate races and five included democratic incumbents and lost all that warner and he plotted that against every one in a perfect diagonal line so they were successful and it is very hard. i think it should be hard for anyone to sit up here and say they could have done this or that to somehow -- they saw the reality facing them

which days if they embraced president obama in their state they were going to go down. they tried in different ways. some of them, you know, more in retrospect laughable or workable than others but it didn't make a lot of difference either way. >> anything to add? >> i might go anecdotal, but this summer i moderated a state at the greenbrier that is a huge luxurious complex in west virginia and it's the treasurer of the state that has a lot of economic struggles this is the wealthy bastion and they take a lot of pride and i was talking to someone who worked there. and there was a strange thing going on in west virginia. there are a lot of new orleans saints fans. >> there are also steelers fans. i confirm that. [laughter]

>> the reason is because they do the summer workout so they have adopted them because they've -- the saints have acknowledged that the greenbrier is there and west virginia is there and it's a forgotten state and as i continued to walk around they had a video that you could watch in your hotel room and it's like all these luminaries tuesday -- who have stayed there, all of these presidents. and they have photographs of movie stars everywhere you go and it dawned on me i think the last president that stated there was eisenhower and a few days later i thought what if president obama had come here to play golf? it's his favorite activity and he could have gone to play golf and i don't think anything would make west virginia like president obama. he is reviled there. nick held them to the end of the race but it was 22% and i just

thought if president obama had just, and played golf there, they would have hated him less. it might have made it a little easier to be there but instead i'm not saying that he had a mandate to do that but if there had been some kind of outreach just to say if he had been the first president to say this is a great golf course i think it would have brought a little pride, like the saints. that was just my observation, that it would've made it a little easier. i don't think that race was ever when the ball. shelley moore capito was like the michael jordan of west virginia. but it could have been less hard. and the hill is seething at president obama. the other anecdotes i feel ok saying now that when i a while we saw what was happening with bruce braley it wasn't that he wasn't doing well but the seats below him were going down. i talked to a democratic operative, and i was like its been most days like today and -- disliked man and it's like he

created an environment that made it that much harder and harder and so people made a tactical mistakes and i think that they probably made some mistakes along the way but at the end of the day that's what it came down to. >> so, perry. it has been five years since the supreme court ruled on the citizens united case. what can we see that the expanded role of the money and the politics. what is the take away? >> you've seen $4 million spent on this the most ever. if you think about the reality. 300 million people live in america. that is $12 a person. it doesn't seem like a lot for one person but in reality of course most people are not getting the money at all. and we saw this like a big

change we hadn't seen before according to the center for responsive politics. the amount spent went up, but the amount of the donors went down so in 2010 there were about 800,000 individual donors to campaign with 700,000 individuals. the numbers are getting money even though the actual money went up. we are getting the picture of what the campaign finance looks like in this environment. and we saw in 2004 about 96% of the money spent in politics was by the groups that disclosed how much space and. this year, about 65% for which meant one third of the money was spent meaning of the money where you can actually track the donation and that's benefited republicans a lot because it was

very number heavy that you saw in terms of the campaign commercials about 23% of the commercials that were the democrats were funded in some ways by undisclosed donors. about half, 48% of the republican ads in the millions of dollars was spent on the ad where the donor isn't required to say where the money came from. and i spent a lot of time in kentucky during this cycle, and you could see this. because i went up to the boaters and people kept telling me about mitch mcconnell is really caring and i thought that's interesting. i've heard he's a strategic. she's ambitious but he had never heard this. but then i watch tv and mcconnell, because he had one of these groups running these ads, the independent groups spent a lot of money saying grimes, obama, grimes, obama, in this aggressive way. and so mcconnell was able to run all kinds of positive ads that show him bringing money back to

the state and how nice he was and is smiling in the way that you can rarely see. if you are around him here. >> he had the adware he was surrounded by cute dogs. >> the spending amount allows -- remember we had the campaign financing a few years ago and the goal is if you had a negative ad you would have to say they can develop a terrible person. but you don't do that anymore because you can have the outside group talk about how bad he is while i run positive ads saying how nice and caring. it's a big change. >> nathan, one of the things we cover that i love is the house races. i am a house girl at heart. i know you love covering the house races. house republicans about recently solved a number of women in the conference of dwindle. what do they do in terms of diversifying the republican caucus, and do we think that will happen effect on -- have an

effect on the course of speaker boehner's leadership? >> this question is all about what's new opponent she's going to have in the softball game next year. [laughter] one of the things because of the women's issues and their dealings on the hot topic i looked before the election to see what what art thou races and will there be more republican women in this congress than at the beginning of the last congress and the republicans started from a little bit of a deficit of emerson at the beginning of two years ago. so they are down one. shelley was running for the senate, so she was just which into the other side of the help. michele bachmann was retiring. in order for the republican stupidity one of the congress it would have to gain three. and it looks like they will be four women added to the caucus. barbara here in northern virginia and mimi walters in california.

that would be full-time -- so that would be four so that would be gaining one. right now in the second district in the 30 votes there's a chance there's a lot to be accountable -- and a lot of votes to be counted in the democratic and republican counties. martha mcsally -- so we will see if martha mcsally is coming as well. so for some of those women even though the number of women are so low in the caucus they will be getting a lot of attention. she is 30-years-old and the youngest woman in elected and so she's going to get a lot of attention. mia love is going to have a fairly high profile in the party just they will get a disproportionate amount of attention. in terms of diversity, there is also another well heard in the 23rd district. it's pretty remarkable because the democratic peak in the majority and so i think that he

will get some attention. another latino, carlos in florida's 26th sixth district will be coming to congress and then we will see carl's who is an openly gay congressmen but that race is still close to call. in california's 52nd district. so republicans there is an opportunity to be -- the house promotes diverse members outside of the typical stereotype that -- typical old white male stereotype that they have. >> we should point out that even with the additions, we are talking about a house republican conference -- caucus that is 10% female. >> the republican caucus actually my colleague and friend and competitor had a great breakdowns on the deterioration of white men and the increase of the minorities and of the women

in the democratic caucus compared to the republicans. i would encourage you to check out his thing. >> i thought we could go around and talk about the biggest surprise from tuesday night. abby, why don't we start with you? >> i would say louise, the fact we don't know if she's coming back to congress, her name wasn't mentioned to me in this entire cycle by democrats or republicans to try to catch these sleeper surprises and that came out of nowhere. i called a couple of the republicans and this is the kind of thing you were keeping under the radar and you didn't want me to report it and give it away. and they said, no, we didn't see this one coming created the other. in the post-redistricting race it was in the maryland gubernatorial race and there was a point tuesday night where anything seemed possible. it is feasible i would say that

with what we were seeing, the crazy numbers, but i would say the least waters -- louise waters and john delaney. >> my panelists, how many live in the deep seeded area basically everybody in the room? how many of us would have predicted that we would be talking about the potential recounts in virginia and the six or seven points of the wins. i mean, the two biggest surprises were right in our own backyard and certainly i didn't see them coming and i should have. so, since we were misled by the polling, and since that is what i cover, let's talk about both of them. maryland is a classic case hearkening back to harry truman. as they wrote yesterday.

the air quotes trustworthy independent media poll stopped at the beginning of the month. the "washington post" poll was in early october and i think "the baltimore sun" did one even earlier than that. there wasn't a lot of polling. there were some robo polls. now the internal polls were released by the hogan campaign and had their candidates down a week out and had in the final weeks of water that included looked at with a grain of salt. i remember staring at that and thinking we should look at this more closely but wait a minute i have eight senate races and 28 other pieces to write. so on i went. so that's one is kind of classic. virginia, similar. there were a number of polls and i think that this gets into the more systematic issue. involving polling that we may get to later.

but there is a situation where it shouldn't have been a surprise to anybody and that isn't to mean that he would finish closer in the end when they had a classic income than -- incumbent challenger situation where an incumbent with a whole lot of money would dominate the election in northern virginia which is always crucial wasn't going to be able to start spending money towards the end with the voters that engage at the end would see him and he would consolidate republicans but for me the surprise was how well warner seemed to be doing in the in weeks two, three and one. i was expecting to see it closed down to three or four points. and it was surprising that it didn't. and even more surprising when winds up with the nailbiter that we did. >> those are the biggest surprises and we will come back

to the polling was. it is almost to the point why do we cover the race he lost the prior race by so much. >> the margins were stunning and when you look at the house races in new york's first district, the long island district with congressman tim bishop that is normally a district that is very tight for the last decade but a very tight race and he won by ten points. when you go up further than the 24th district and the republican there is a race that we knew was breaking breaking at republicans -- breaking late. republicans for spending and they had the advantage and we thought things were tightening created the republican won by 20 points just a complete collapse that gets down to the states where the turnout operation just

wasn't there but the margins were. another thing i was surprised with on the house side is the incumbent. the incumbents that survived. like ann kirkpatrick. if you would have told me that republicans were going to gain 13 seats and that and ann kirkpatrick survived. i think that is a stunning. and on the flipside someone like john barrow from georgia, who the republicans have been targeting since he was first elected over a decade ago i -- ago. he is a white southern democrat. i think that he's amazing as a politician because you have a harvard educated lawyer and when you look at that it is a terrible southern accent but it starts getting deeper and deeper and he has been a survivor and for him to lose by considerable margins i think it's telling and i believe only white white males of the democratic left is good -- going to be david price of north carolina since nick rayhaul lost.

those are some of the things that were surprising to me. >> you mentioned arkansas. to see mark pryor lose by 17 points, 18 points, lincoln lost by 21 points and income bird of the race completely differently. >> we were told the entire cycle mark prior is no blanche lincoln mark pryor is no blanche lincoln. it was drilled into our heads. >> that is a perfect segue to the next question. sue rothenberg wrote a column this morning about the results and what happened and i'm going to read a small portion and you can read the whole column on rollcall.com. a plug. either the polling has significant problems or the operatives were intentionally misled reporters and handicapped about what was going on during the cycle. republicans had a tough cycle in 2012 of course and went through a process of public reflection and self-criticism.

it will be interesting to see whether democrats will see the same thing. so i think that i should ask the pollster first this question. do you think democrats will have a reflection after this moment where do you think the problem is more widespread? >> i think it is more widespread and the democratic and the media pollsters have been having moments of reflection for the last ten years. we used to do what we do by calling land line phones and now we are in a situation where more than half of americans either don't have a landline phone or they don't answer when it rings. so in this moment of incredible challenge to the polling industry, i have my on the one hand and the other hand. on the one hand if you took all of the senate polls as we did at 5:38 and so on and you aggregate than or average them then you would have in the senate race

called -- and just looked at who was ahead or behind you would would have the race right and -- all but one race right and that is north carolina and it didn't miss by much. our estimate was plus two and she's losing by a little bit. on the other hand, there was a consistent understatement of the look and vote, nearly consistent, not 100% -- the republican vote, nearly consistent, and i wondered percent, -- not 100%, in most states in the senate and that meant if you repeated the same exercise for the governors the good news is we had four races at the end that were half a percentage point separated the top candidates and less than two-point separated and that situation you're going to miss a lot. a half a point does not mean much. and three or four of those were missed. overall, there was an overstatement of democrats and an understatement of republicans, and that meant more

of those misses were the republican winning. there were some enormous polling misses. we talked about maryland and virginia. to put it in context, four years ago the polling was often in nevada. the pre-election polls had a sharon engel and there was a six-point error on the margin and we thought that's incredible. is this the beginning of the end. well, the error in arkansas was 11 points on the margin. the error. the difference between the final polling average and the results was 11 points in arizona and arkansas, ten in virginia and kentucky, nine in kansas and 17 in the maryland governor's race. so what is that about? any time you have a polling error it is like a engineering error it is not usually just one thing but its multiple things

that are all going wrong in this -- in the same direction. so maryland it would have helped to have its leader as a trend and in arkansas you can look at the chart and see the almost 45-degree line so there was a trend and there may have been more of a trend and kentucky. i think if you look at the averages around labor day, and then look at the final averages and as we did on the newsletter monday morning you can see republicans increased the margins of almost every one of the states. where the democrats lost. it usually is the republican number going up every two points for the democrat went up as the undecided went down so there was evidence in play that is democrats were cast in the race

is to a greater degree and republicans who were lesser-known challengers and gaining recognition or going up so there was an effect going although that didn't explain it all. i think that same phenomenon was at work in the likely voter mechanism. no to pollsters say this the same way so there is no one who can say they all pulled but they didn't. i think there was probably a pattern where there was an assumption that 2010 turnout was the worst could get for democrats. it was outside or the five or six most hotly contended races. >> something we have noticed a lot on the rollcall staff is newfound use of polls as partisan warfare. a lot of internal polls,

independent partisan outlets releasing polls. i do this as a way to draw a narrative. abouter if you could talk the role of that because i know how much you love writing up those kinds of polls about the role of partisan polls in some of the things we cover. the only person who likes talking about the polls the least. vote specifically what you . no one is going to give you a poll out of the goodness of their heart. they are either trying to raise money off of it, change a narrative. they can be wrong. they can be enormously helpful, too. in july, stop covering mike coffman in colorado. focus tod shift your keith sutherland in florida. i didn't quite believe it.

then an independent group without a poll saying in trouble -- it fit what i was hearing and seeing elsewhere so i wrote about. keith sutherland ended up losing and mike coffman survived. i asked as a reporter -- am i being fun? what is the value? there were so many scientific angles that go into it, the quality of how it was constructed, did include english, spanish? -- mya real balance loyalty to the reader and i am not going to write it up to write it up. i get a lot of pressure from people -- you are not being fair. -- i don't have yours. that is a hard thing to say sometimes. it is a really difficult balance as a reporter. it is a hard piece of evidence to show the state.

but you also have to use uptinct and -- i usually end doing in nathan and say, what do you think? >> to you to have anything to add on the role of polling? >> one thing that hasn't been talked about a lot is that after the 2012 republican polling of the top-tier republican pollsters made a concerted effort to change, making sure that they had 25-30% of cell phones in their samples. but i think what we saw this cycle was that republican pollsters were going into the field and getting hot numbers, numbers that almost seem too good to be true. i think sometimes there is a tendency to weight those back. there was a fear of being wrong again. don'tsed up in 2012, we

-- we can't afford to be wrong again. even some of their republican polls that were public, that that made it difficult to identify the margins that we saw on election day. i think republican polls should do a better job of identifying what kind 2012, republicans in a better job. we will go into 2016. and determine which will be the most accurate identifying the trend. that will be an open question. polls, 25% ofhe the voters were over 60. 37% of the voters are over 60.