don't -- 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.

12% -- i don't want to blame the millennial's for the election. i am curious why voter turnout is so weak. the gap is growing. democrats trying to make sure these voters who showed up at the midterm, it doesn't appear that work. i'm curious about why. lena dunham was on tv, doing this rock the vote. there was this focus on getting out the vote. it didn't help at all. >> i want to ask about new hampshire. new england in general. the polling seem to be right relative to other races.

>> i will answer. i can't leave it hanging. we were talking before the panel about being cautious about making too much of the exit poll estimates of demography. it is a poll. we will have other ways of looking at this coming from the census. but i think if there is a cap, it has more to do with the fact that there is been a higher turnout among younger people than a change in the way the midterms have gone. new hampshire was one of the handful of states where there was understated shaheen. well was interesting to me, to the extent there was, you didn't see the understatement of republicans. it happened to be less in new

hampshire, massachusetts, connecticut. which is interesting. not in maine or vermont. i don't know. one theory that a smart pollster ran was that massachusetts and new hampshire has a lot of homegrown polling. locally based outfits that only poll massachusetts. it's interesting. if you look at, it's always dangerous to judge by one survey. it is nearly irresponsible. the folks who did came out looking good. my former partner charles

franklin who runs the marquette university law school polling, who have is the governor's race right there. we can pick others. there are a lot in new hampshire and that maybe part of it. >> a follow house raise lover, house democrats took an unexpected drumming. there are younger members of the caucus. we've heard indirectly they are worried about the future of the house democratic party. what do you see as what could possibly happen as a result? what direction is the house democratic caucus chair going? >> the gamble was clearly not in contention. the cycle did matter. the hope is democrats can make a few gains.

or maybe just mitigate the losses. in 2016 they could make up the difference. i talked to one member and the person cap saying we have lost 70 seats in six years. that is a staggering number. i think the reality is hitting it is going to be without foreseen ways democrats are going to have a hard time getting the gamble back before the next redistricting map. i'm sensing restlessness when i talk to people on the hill. leader pelosi said she is running again. i don't foresee any challenge to her. there is a younger generation getting restless. they have been there for a long

time. the freshman class from 2012 is very ambitious. you have the next tier, and then you already have coming up a group that wants to be in leadership. you have three generations impacting each other. you don't see it publicly in how they execute, but it will be interesting in the next few years how these forces collide. >> we are going to go to q&a. i thought we should go around and round robin about what this election was about. what is the big story? was it about the economy? >> it was about president obama. there was so many stories before the election, the election about nothing.

president obama was the shadow was cast over the entire election. underneath that umbrella, there was the economy. or how people felt about the economy. there was the foreign crisis. it all kind of fit under the umbrella of president obama. >> i think that is true. i'm grappling with not many people have ebola, isis have been delayed. 10 million people have health insurance. i can't say that killed president obama. the reality in what is the step in politics, the other thing is i was in louisville with senator mcconnell. we were asking what his agenda was going forward. he talked about tax reform and

trade agreements. i don't think i heard that during the campaign. it is disconcerting the campaign was not about issues to the point where we asked what are you going to do? we should have known what your platform is once you are running. we shouldn't be guessing. the third thing, a lot of the big issues didn't,. you want a campaign to be about some ideas. barack obama says climate change is one of the biggest problems in the world. i didn't hear that from the candidates. the republicans say spending is huge. medicare is a big part of that. is there some plan on medicare? these are big issues in the election was supposed to be about it.

did you hear anything about that on the campaign show? that shows some racial challenge in the country. i didn't hear any proposals to deal with it. the election was about who was going to win. it felt like it was an issue with the big issues were delayed until later. i'm not sure it should have to be that way. >> i think it is obama. it is anger. the american public has been disappointed by the government time and time again. ebola was a tiny thing but it was one more thing that went wrong. cable news blew it up. it's all these forces. i don't know if it is possible to lead but the public is not feeling good about obama now.

>> i will go back to what we were talking about when we started. the president's agenda defines what we talk about in washington and defines what politics is about. it is not ebola or benghazi, not these little stories we get obsessed with. the bigger picture, six years since the economy crashed and although the economic indicators are coming back, ordinary people feel like things are not good. are things headed in the right direction, 67% say we are on the wrong track. that is what helped shape perceptions of how the president is doing and what is driving politics. >> let's open it up to you all for questions. do we have a microphone? excellent. >> i'm a former policy director on a couple of statewide campaigns.

i want to ask you, why is it that someone like me who writes of these things about what we should do on this issue finds the press release is about the poll? the number of horse race stories versus issue stories is surprising to those of us who work on the issues. what drives that being the thing that becomes more covered and talked about, given that we find pop that problems with polling? >> candidates, there is an incentive are generally generic in their policy proposals. there is little that is outside the box. the more specific you get with your policy proposals more likely you are attacked by the other side. to read a democratic proposal

say we are for working families and better wages, ok. what does that tell you? to reporters it is tough to make news of that. >> the reality is for me, media is a business. stories about in-depth polity details don't get the same amount of attention. that is one of one of the core challenges. the candidates talk about what they think the media is quite a cover. when i tell someone i covered elections, it is not what is the problem america. is hillary running? i would like to write stories about policy details. the interest is in the horse race.

should the balance be better, perhaps. i don't think there's anything wrong with coverage of the horse race. >> the candidate will comment a roll call and we will interview them. we talk to them for an hour. every single one i ask, a vague question, what do you think about foreign affairs? all they want to talk about is their issues. they don't want to talk about the facts they will have the power to declare war on someone. we often discuss policy in-depth. sometimes would put it up for the public. if something catches my ear we will put it on video. we often do that. the videos get watched sometimes.

sometimes not. we will still write it out. we had a candidate at what she would do. a press release is sometimes hard for reporters to make interesting because it can vague. often we asked direct questions and try to nail them down. we give it best we can. >> i wanted to chime in last. i have the chief answer. covering holes and polling is my beat. that is what i do. the reason i have this job, for people to read huffington post, that is what they want to click on. given that we are in the internet age, we have a good idea of what stories people click on and read grade they like to read about the horse race. which they? people like you in this room. 10-20 percent who really liked

reading about all it takes. they want to know how their team is doing. he wants to know if their team is going to win. it doesn't address your question, the hard question. how do you get disengaged people? the people who don't vote are not engaged in politics. they are not clicking on policies stories. they are not following it. how'd you get americans who don't engage in politics to engage? that is a hard question. we are chasing our audiences. >> two of my there were stories was education in the north carolina senate race and we teamed up with a reporter to look at the role of health care

in minnesota, which is interesting. >> you had mentioned the democrats lost 70 seats over six years. the sec conference lost 70 games, why do the democrats keep their current leadership? >> there's no challenger. she has the vote. she has california delegation behind her. at the end of the day, there is no challenge. >> we will argue the president drives the results.

pelosi became speaker because bush was unpopular. they lost seats because obama's agenda is unpopular. >> from a few phone calls in the past 36 hours, much of the caucus is angry at president obama. >> thank you. >> the spending this year was huge. turnout wasn't that great. are campaigns finding it harder to reach voters because the media is so segmented, and has either party done much to increase participation, or are they missing half the voters in off years?

>> i want to speak to it a little bit. there was enormous -- as you heard -- the democrats spent an unprecedented amount of money on get out the vote and technology aimed at enhancing those things. the question is implicit, while that didn't work because turnout was down. in the states where they spent that money, it was up. i'm looking at a map that was produced from my friend michael mcdonald at the university of florida. it was up in north carolina, it was up five points in wisconsin. where there were big races, and a lot of money being spent, advertising, get out the vote, there was higher turnout.

it wasn't presidential level. i don't think anybody who had the money spent on them doing this was claiming they could replicate presidential level turnout. the people that sell this are perfectly willing to say they may lose a pointer to their way. it comes back to the last question. getting people engaged who are not in an election is a tough thing. >> the campaigns are about two things. mobilization of the base and persuasion of the middle. a lot of the effort was spent on the mobilization of the base. there's only so much you can do when people aren't excited.

you can contact them and send them as many e-mails, you can call them, you can text them. if people aren't excited, money isn't the issue. the spending begets more spending. when one party goes into a district and starts spending the other party comes in to respond. the television rates get higher and higher. i bet it was more expensive to air an ad in cedar rapids van las vegas because those because those were where the races were. there is a larger question about how the campaigns and parties are struggling with television advertising being less efficient, where'd you, how do you contact people online? they are focusing on digital.

the dccc was proud in the final days they owned the local webpages of local media. both parties are becoming more sophisticated. i don't think anyone has the key or the right answer to how to reach people and motivate them 100%. >> may be time for one more question. >> joel packer with the raven group. you mentioned the telesis race. education is something president obama mentioned yesterday working with republicans. polling has shown it is a high priority for the public. didn't plan any other races? >> are you asking me?

>> in that particular race it played because thom tillis was passing in education bill. i would be hard-pressed to think of many others where it took a leading role. house democrats might have used it to help drive out the male voters. can you think of any other examples? >> the pennsylvania governor's race with tom corbin. he was tied to changes, so that was the other one where education comes to mind. >> i can't think of a single ad. they're really just were any dominating issues like that. it was scattered.

>> can we give our panelists around of applause? [applause] thank you everyone. >> in this next part, panelists look at the makeup of the new sworn in in january including new leadership, new committee chairs, and how republicans and the president may handle the new issues. this is one hour. >> thank you. this is my 10th one of these. this is my favorite part. this is my favorite panel every year. let's get to it. we have two institutional experts, and two policy experts. the policy experts know about the institution and the

about the policy. david drucker, a veteran of roll call has been the senior congressional correspondent for the washington examiner. we will turn to him as our go to guy. to his right, megan scully has been part of the defense team for the last three years. to her right, roll call senior senate correspondent. he has been doing various things for the last seven years. to my left, emily etheridge, and our policy expert for this discussion.

as david ellis explains, it has been backward looking for the morning to understand what just happened. now we do the immediate event -- immediate pivot. if you want to talk lame-duck i'm sure we can do that. if you haven't already, your program, this is especially useful. it has a great baseball program that explains who the players are in the new year. that is fully want to talk about. we will do the house first. the house is getting rid of that discussion first. there was not the cataclysmic turnout.

you are familiar with the leadership, the top leaders. tell us a little bit in your own estimation how does having the largest majority since herbert hoover was president what does that do to the life of john boehner and kevin mccarthy? >> when you win it's only good because when you lose it is always bad anyway. they won big. what a lot of people were not aware when they were looking at the house playing field they had the seats in 2010 and only lost a few i think it was about 18 in 2012 they were playing in the purple or blue turf. so the pickups across the board were in the seats where you're more likely to have people that probably think of themselves as governing in the election so it's going to make it easier for

john boehner and his team to get to the 218 then it was so far that we could usually get to 200. if you couldn't round up those you had 20 of the 200 that said i don't know if i want to be stuck out here. and he was back to 180. it is a consequence of lending for leadership, they were pretty safe after the shakeup after the summer because of cantor lost. the alleviated tension that had built up. the leadership team had been in place for so long. something needed to burst one way or the other. the alleviated some tension, had a big day on the far end, on the

high end of their forecast. the leadership team slides into the next congress. >> no change to john boehner? >> nobody really wants the job. [laughter] the guys who wanted the job lost his primary. nobody can round the votes to beat john boehner he hadn't done the work. the way you win these races is you work with your colleagues, raising a lot of money, put in your time, even if it is quick, then you go to them. you don't say i would be a great leader if you give me a chance and i am new. it doesn't work. he doesn't have much to worry about.

none of them down to every elected member of the leadership. >> we will do the micro view from the senate side. we have word from nancy pelosi that they are going to spend the next two years separating the minority. that will being the generational push to get rid of all of the median age of democratic leaders. like something will give. their idea, i'm putting my cells in their heads. i don't really know what is going on. my thinking is, 2016, hillary on the ballot. we win big, it pulls the house across the finish line. i don't know i see it that way even with a hillary victory.

that is their thinking. there has to be a full-scale rebellion. they lost on a mass nobody thought they could. even though they were losing, they raised a ton of money. they probably did all they could. they picked up pretty big but still picked up three seats. i think we're going to have another shot. >> what is the big picture, so every newly elected public and senator on television yesterday was asked the same thing, do you support mitch mcconnell. they seem to be given the same talking points. as far as i know no one else is running. >> david and i were in the same airport terminal in bowling

green, kentucky. senator mcconnell was still in campaign mode. he was talking about the potential of republicans taking control of the senate, was asked whether or not he had any concerns about senator cruz having told one of the leaders of the conservative flank a likely 2016 contender. mcconnell was asked, because crews had told something to the washington post, but was noncommittal on supporting mcconnell. he was after that concerned him. he said no. that was the end of the answer. when he was asked to elaborate, essentially he is going to be the leader. he is going to the majority

leader. there is a vote that will be taking place a week from today within the senate republican conference for their leadership in the next year. there has been now signed -- no sign of any fig leaf of a challenge to senator mcconnell. i don't think anyone expects one because it is not like this is going to be a narrow republican majority. they are going have 54 seats when all is said and done. that will be a lot of these people elected, there were a number who were conservative but in some sense, they are not necessarily -- many are driven by government interest from a conservative perspective, but not necessarily people who want

to burn the place down. >> i thought nobody wants the job. why would anyone want to do what mitch mcconnell is going to have to do when he is going to have a block of confrontational types with their avatar in chief in ted cruz, and this is one of those numbers everyone is going to commit to memory, six first term republican senators running in obama stays. >> one of the things we are going to have to absolutely look at is, the way the senator is going to be operating in the next two years, and the way that the senate is envisioned to

operate, we don't know how this experiment is going to work. the mcconnell doctrine appears to be a return to what we used to call regular order or some semblance of regular order where you process bills through committee. he got a laugh from the press. he held a news conference yesterday afternoon at the mcconnell center on the campus of the university of louisville. >> paid for by the united states government. >> he got a laugh line from the press when he said something to the effect of believe it or not the committees have to function. when bills come out of committee on a bipartisan basis as they traditionally would do in years

past, those bills should come to the floor. they've been particularly talking about bringing back the appropriations process and trying to pass all 12 bills, which hasn't happened in recent history. so, that comes with it difficult votes. it is the inverse to no avail obviously, senator reid attempted to do, to protect his members from casting difficult votes. it sounds like the new universe, those difficult votes are going to happen. 2016 will have to look at that. >> that is a good segue into the functioning of the committee system. maybe we should talk into the total revamp of nothing changes at the capital when a partisan

turnover happens like the committee structure. every ratio will be more or less reversed. it has gone from 55% democratic to 54% of all in. every race will be flipped on its head. 20 gavels change hands. some office space changes hands. staffers lose their jobs. for the first time since obama has been president the republicans get to set the agenda. who will be the people who do it? we go to the people who are not returning from the louisville bureau. david and neil were competitors covering the mcconnell reelection race. the bourbon bureau.

>> he likes manhattans with 2 cherries. >> what does john mccain like? >> i would hope it would be beer. >> it is a bitter beer. [laughter] >> hops. the pentagon and the white house, and the defense industry are watching as john mccain prepares to take the gavel of the armed services committee. you're going to see more friction than we have seen. carl levin, the longtime chairman. mccain is going to be aggressive. the isis operations, to individual weapons systems.

you're going to see a muscular committee. one that is doing a lot of oversight and digging. you have this interesting conflict within mccain himself, while he is a watchdog, he is also an old-school hawk. he may want to take the pentagon to task for spending money in ways that he doesn't find to be a priority or appropriate. you are not going to see him call for a decrease in defense spending. the pentagon will have an ally of sorts there. >> and to break the sequester. >> there are always moves to

break the sequester. i don't know you're going to come up with any kind of deal even with the two chambers controlled by republicans. we will see. he has been working for the past two years with carl levin to do away with it. they have not come up with a deal either party could agree to. >> he and jack reed get along. the new ranking democrats. >> for the first time as long as i can remember, to military academy men at the helm of the armed services committee. mccain is an annapolis grad. jack reed is a west point grad. they both have very different approaches. reed will be supportive of the white house. they both know and understand

defense. there is a mutual respect. they worked on the seapower subcommittee. they have a long history of collaborating. >> which one do you want to discuss first? you are the domestic policy czar. >> the health committee, health education, labor, and pensions. we have lamar alexander ascending to chairman of the panel and the retirement of tom harkin, who was the leader of health and a lot ways, devoted his career to help. alexander has been involved and cares about education, has positioned himself to oppose obama vocally.

which makes him interesting to watch, not only will he a those in obama policy, he has an idea of what he wants to do instead, and he pushes those ideas. he thinks them through and tries to make them work. he is not just a guy who says no. you're going to see a lot of his ideas coming through. if we return to regular order you can expect to see a lot of bills out of the health committee. he likes to legislate. in finance you have utah taking the helm harry hatch and alexander, they are old school. they come from a world where you would reach across the aisle and make a bill and write legislation. you have laws with hatch's name that have been around for decades. this is a similar approach we don't see as much.

these are guys that are two very important and eager to start getting things done. >> this is an interesting point you make. one of the things i've been saying in my head is for those expecting a confrontational tea party wing of the senate republicans to assert dominance, they are going to run into a team of chairman and elders who are not from that school. who is in a position of power in the senate now is formal power, is a tea party revolutionary? >> a lot of these members are still young in terms of their senate careers if you're looking at the tea party wing. one dynamic, if it affects behavior, the republicans have

until now been in a position of opposition, even in the house for they could pass things. they were always trying to hold back a democratic senate. senate republicans since 2010 have only been in a position where they could vote no. they can never put their own agenda on the floor. i think that attitude retention, because you can only oppose, basically said we were elected to stop the president, it is not like we can put on the floor and vote for anything forward thinking because we are not in control of the floor. let's oppose. i wonder how much pressure it might relieve and change their behavior when it is like we get to vote on our bills. we get to move them through committee. we get them on defense.

there is a chance it could relieve pressure on the house side. the frustration with the guys elected in 2010, in 2012 we had a schoolhouse rock vision of how this place was supposed to work. i remember a conversation about what has been your frustration. the senate won't even vote on our bills even to kill them. i can't believe it. welcome to washington. they don't like your bills. now they have an opportunity to legislate because they have full control of one third of the government instead of one third of one half. let's see how that impacts things. it is about equally conservative. it is a matter of where the tension to govern versus

philosophy meets. it will meet at times and there will be some tension. where the presidential candidates are running for president versus legislating, which will create tension. this new dynamic may make things more different. >> on that last point, one of the things we might seeing, because some of these new were members, many of whom may be running for president, probably will not have full committees, but they will have sub committee gavels. some of which could be rather interesting places for them to be.

for instance, to pull out one example of something, i was talking the other day with senator paul. i asked, what would you like to do at the committee level when you have a majority situation? he pointed to the possibility he was going to be the chairman of a subcommittee of the homeland security committee that has broad authority to investigate government waste and corruption. which pretended to me the possibility of investigations and hearings. if you are an administration official, or if there is someone who preps administrations for hearings, expect to be turning up at the senate a lot for hearings. that may be something that this tension gets relieved that may not be done through legislation. you can take out, take your shots of the white house and the administration through hearings and investigations and subpoenas

that you may not do through legislation. >> macconnell made that clear. >> think of the oversight. darrell issa will no longer be the chairman of that committee. all that you have seen in the house, that was more in the senate. and the house will do their investigations. it is a great way to make your point. even if they haven't stuck with the public, and you are making your message and remind people about what your causes of the time, because there were a lot of them, this is a use of people. you tie up their days. you make them come for staff meetings. this is one way they hurt the health care law, by bringing in

hhs officials testifying and not actually building a website or doing other things they needed to do. it's a good way to get the administration. >> you are going to see a bit of that in the last few months. almost every day the pentagon and state department officials were coming up to brief in subcommittee armed services, foreign relations, on nsa surveillance. anything across the board. it does tie them up. the amount of time people all the way up to the people are having to put into that. you will see that increase. >> through a quirk in how they chose their committees, john mccain might also chair the subcommittee on investigations.

>> carl levin did that in the past congress. he could do that in going forward. >> which would be stunning. one other question about rand paul and mitch mcconnell, my understanding was mitch mcconnell doesn't want rand paul to take the senate seat. now they have reached an uneasy peace. >> on this point i'm not even sure if it is uneasy. they seem to be able to get along quite well. one of the things is you saw senator paul actively working to get senator mcconnell reelected. there is a political benefit in kentucky to being aligned with the operation of senator mcconnell, which is top-flight. there is a distinction i think,

one of the other things when i was talking to senator paul, something he has said, it's going to be a potential concern for him and senator cruz or whomever else may want to run for president, senator mcconnell is insisting the senate is going to work longer hours. there are going to be votes on friday. we don't know what voting on friday looks like in the united states senate. there is a problem with doing that potentally if you are someone running for president who is supposed to be at a luncheon in des moines on friday at noon and you have to cancel because the senate is voting. there will be this back-and-forth that will go on in that regard with the way the senate schedule works. to your earlier point, there are

two different characters. they are not always going to agree. i think that they have formed a strong partnership whose strength play off each other and know when one should defer to the other one. >> if we can start from the premise mitch mcconnell is going to at least at the start of the year, when this argument between the let's just send obama things we know he's going to veto versus let's do some, who -- what do you see happening first? >> i think there's going to be a

little bit of time where we take a few votes, also in the house to say no to all, so everyone can make sure constituents know i said no 12, first thing. we will do that for a couple of weeks. especially on health care, which is something republicans have been dying to take down. mcconnell keeps saying what he really means than having to say something else. he is going to vote to repeal the bill, which they will vote. and they will actually vote to repeal parts of the law. such as the medical devices, which is a funding mechanism. it doesn't impact people beyond medical devices manufacturers.

you can see this change where they are going to define full-time work as 40 hours. those are things that have bipartisan support. they would have passed the senate if harry reid allowed them to be voted on. he is going to let them be voted on. it is going to be taken up as law. some don't like this approach. they think it is improving a law that is inherently flawed. they are taking away the bad parts treatment, is saying let's talk these up as victories, change the law in some way. let's chip away at it. >> it might be a good sign if he agrees, especially the medical devices tax. it doesn't really matter that much anymore. >> it seems interesting to me in the last week, we haven't discussed this. islamic state, the march to war,

that is going to rear its head soon. >> he wants to ask for an authorization of military force, the first since the iraq war resolution more than a decade ago. the president said he would ask for an authorization. there are those in the senate, senator kaine who wants congress to debate that. house republicans have said no, this is not something for a lame-duck. we are going to kick it to the next congress. which is when you're going to see them have to grapple with this debate over how much string to give the president. you've seen democrats want a much more structured aumf.

we want something with a time limit, and then you see republicans, something that gives the president more flexibility. then just this specific operation. it is going to be an interesting issue to see the new members of the senate tackle. when they first come in, it is the first debate on this since 2003. >> is it your sense that congress gains have made the republican party on capitol hill more hawkish, more isolationist, or more against whatever obama is against? >> i think you will with the

threats that are coming up, you have russia and the tensions there. you have obviously isis. it kind of become more prominent the issue of war, the issue of spending. i think you will see them, particularly with john mccain and bob corker who are very vocal. >> does rubio fit in this discussion? >> yeah, i think so. i think you will see him. if you're running for president, you have to show that you have national security credentials and foreign policy credentials. you will see in particularly rubio try to assert himself here. >> if i may reference the rubio

would be certainly the likely candidate. but the other thing is perhaps -- there was a report a couple weeks ago about the potential lindsey graham for 2016. he was bored. but to the point of there will be sort of this jocking for a position on foreign policy matters. and senator graham from south carolina who david mentioned had really not erased for his own re-election. he's certainly in this camp with mccain. rubio seems to be in that group. i'm interested to watch is what the senator from new hampshire is who is up in 2016. and new hampshire was the one

place on the senate map where there was a close contested race that was supposed to be a close contested race and the democrat held on. scott brown is not returning to the senate. senator shaheen won re-election. she's always with mccain or often with mccain and graham on that sort of thing and she'll be an interesting one to watch there too. >> the three amigos. >> i think mccain tweeted out there will be a new member of the amigos. the isis threat has brought back terrorism and vladimir putin don't forget has made national security for republicans machine like it was before the rise of the libertarian wing.

if you look at who's coming into the senate or most likely dan sullivan you have more in the senate and there was one saying and it was evident on the campaign trail that house strategists were aware of was that the insecurity over the isis threat was palpable and that's why there were a lot of ads about it down the stretch and i think you will find that carry over.

>> so, this is a guy who during, it was not last year's snow-magdon, built a snowman in his yard and had a sign and took a picture of it, with a caption like now what, al gore? true.is is >> are there any others in the senate who, sort of in this category? and i won't even try to describe the category. ( laughter ) i'm probably getting myself in trouble. i believe -- i don't think it's a bias, but

that's me. that i think there's an overwhelming amount of scientific and, scientific evidence now that climate change beings are part of that. it's --think if i'm offending somebody, approach me afterwards. >> i'm going to take that and pivot off of it to the other half of what that committee does. >> oh, public works. relationship between who is perhaps the most conservative by voting senate, ande entire senator barbara boxer from is one of if not one of the most liberal members of the u.s. senate. the two of them completely disagree on climate policy and will. but when it comes to

inhoffrtation, senator says that there were few things that the government should be doing, that the government doing a lot of, one of them i national defense, another works projects. and so we have a highway bill hittingcoming up and its deadline here next year and it will be one of the projects will need to be done and by the new congress. one of the things the republicans and the white house will have to figure out and funding and the operation of federal aid highway programs, and on that one, inhoff and boxer have written bills before. i have fairly good confidence the particularly if amendment process is actually allowed to work in the senate that one of the big bills that will do next year is an inhoff-boxer highway bill and a couplebably have weeks of debate on that at some

point. >> i think that's an excellent point. editor gotter and assigned to write one of these new member profiles and i was assigned at random the profile of a freshman from georgia, who of the most, sort of he should have been elected four aars ago because he's equipment essential tea party type. same thing, the constitution says interstate commerce and highway bill. want nothing more than to come to washington and be the first transportation committee so that i can steer money back onto georgia. that's why i wrote this column this morning, about the five things i think will get done. a highway bill is one of the ones that will get done. with innovative funding mechanisms. of theur three quarters hour. jump in and ask some questions.

raised your hand first. >> hi, i'm peggy with cq years congressional correspondent with the hispanic outlook and cover mainly higher immigration. so immigration. it's interesting that now we republicans on the house committee who were immigration lawyers and have about certaintive pieces of immigration bill, including the kids act, which would essentially legalize dreamers. the whole controversy in congress over immigration has versusmprehensive piecemeal. so now i think piecemeal is going to have some legs. i would like to know what you all think.

it all, look, i think depends on what the president does with his executive saysization moves that he are coming. after the election we're now heer the election, unless meant after the louisiana run rof and i picked the wrong election. crisis the southern border with unaccompanied minors coming think has complicated things. if you look at how the campaign went, being against legalization was a great campaign line, and so i think that you can see security moves for measures. i think you could see piecemeal possibly for making sure people you're hiring, i'm forgetting the terminology here, making sure the people you're hiring are legally allowed to work in the united states. verification measures. workers.

something like visas or high skilled workers, might possible. i think though that anything has to do with sub set of the undocumented community that is currently in the united states to be very, very difficult, and if the president with ane ahead executive move to do this, you can just kiss it good-bye until administration and we'll see what they do. >> let's not forget that there groupsot of business including the u.s. chambers who want to sew a bigger immigration bill, something more than a small measure, and maybe something more than the basis of the visas, letting skilled workers come in. oft's something that a lot groups that are aligned with republicans want to see, and i compellingwill be a argument for a lot of the newcomers. and looking toward 2016

very big issue. mitt romney lost the hispanic think -- he got maybe like 27% of it. more than vornl bush had lost it by. something going to be that the presidential hopefuls mind.eping in they'll, whether they say have to but they'll make some state on that issue. >> hi, joel with the raven group educationity for funding. so emily mentioned lamar alexander. there's a whole slew of education bills that are stacked up, reauthorization of no child act, ethigher ed cetera. what's your prediction or sense of do you think we'll see any this congress and also how do you see alexander newpatty murray, the likely ranking dems getting along?

>> you mention patty murray, it be interesting to see if she goes what we call the full and,and takes on the house is theater vest, which thing i'll miss the most about harkin. so harkin is not only the health chairman but also the chairman the appropriationings committee that does labor, health and education. murray could do both of those if she wanted, i don't think she will, but she'll come and help. so i think that murray has been long time.or a she and alexander have a working relationship, i think she's also proven herself to be very willing to get things done. she's a negotiator, a legislator. she likes writing bills and having her name on them. to see not be surprised such alexander-murray bills every few months.

ad the health committee has long tradition of passing bills. behind, doing a big authorization on that scale will be very difficult to get through one chamber much less both. i think you can see some action on student loans. maybe alexander has different priorities than harkin did. is ahool, early education big thing of murray's, she's a pre-koponent of the initiative. so you might do smaller education bills. reporter has been looking at them closely and you they'llsome areas where break off. but these grander authorizations that we've been waiting for for years, i don't expect to see them again. sir.s,

>> edward roader, sunshine press much we have not seen much commentary on what the effect elections is going to have on the democrats. do you see the democratic to thes moving farther left, moving farther to the right to accommodate the republican victors? how do you see them changing in each chamber? >> i'll go first, very quickly, which is no, i don't think to move to the center. theou probably are aware, last white male democrat from the deep south was defeated on tuesday. democratic caucus will be plurality but not majority. once again next year. arguably more demographically polarized itself the other three caucuses and it's now the house of thets are the parties

cities. certainly they're keeping their and pelosi.hoyer so i think they're going to stand pat the next two years. side, what hase happened is that you've seen a effect. the sort of many members of the the democraticf caucus in the senate were defeated on tuesday. and so, or quite potentially will be defeated come the of december in the other particular case. if that's the way it is, you're the democratshat who are in the senate are more more sort of liberal issues. would expect, and this is a guess that i have no real basis for, it's just speculating. but i would suspect that they pushing more liberal

approaches in terms of or approaches in terms of amendments and things as part of the process. mean they'ren't not going to be deal making too. so they'll be pushing their own agenda. but i think at the end of the day, the calculation is going to have to be made and i don't think, i think it far too early the calculation will be. bill started -- when bills start getting on the and you've debated forward a week, do you then vote for cloach -- cloture? >> i think that's exactly what they're going to do because good 2016oking at a senate map and they don want the republicans to look like they're the same way republicans didn't want to do the democrats any favor in

helping govern. because what do they get out of it, they get a republican majority that looks pretty themnsible and it helps sell themselves in states like pennsylvania and florida and new hampshire and illinois, to name a few of the states where republicans are running for senate.ion to the and i think the overall thinking, and this goes for house and senate along is going to be that hillary clinton is likely to be on the ballot for us and they going toy and we're kill them and we're going to be in the majority. let's just play this smart control ine back in two short years. and there's no reason to look at this any other way. if i were them at this moment, i any otherook at it way, putting myself in their shoes. >> yes, ma'am. >> we've spoken a lot about the

committee leadership turnover in senate. but as you mentioned before with chairman issa, there will be turn over in the house, so can you speak that? and do you this i the speaker chairmanship to kind of encourage bipartisanship and deal making rather than perhaps ameone who is bit of a fire brand? in. can jump one of the more closely watched will be house armed services with chairman mckeon stepping down. been aaditionally has bipartisan committee, they're one of the few committees who bill done every year and have for 52 years. >> knock on wood for this year. >> yes and looks like max thornbury will be the chairman that committee, although he will have a challenge from randy forbes of virginia. thornberry, he is a hawk, just like most democrats and republicans on that committee. challenge obama on isis,

overseas.ons but you'll kind of continue to see the committee operating in underme way it did mckeon. other, theresome will be an intelligence committee. i think there's about four members who were in the mix for that. jeff miller could take it, which would then open up an opening on veterans affairs, which will be watched committee early on in the next congress with everything that happened in the last few months there. i think we'll continue to see those committees act in the been acting. kind of oh posing the they can inon when areas that they can. >> onwe've got a four person rae to replace issa, which is a high profile position to build your

reputation. jordan, possibly micah. and also if you watch the ways ryaneans committee, paul is looking at moving over to head ways and means from budget, forh is a very natural set his interests. but kevin brady from texas also is interested in running that post. so it's going to be a little bit of a race there too. maybe david can talk about who boehner would like to see in the position. >> paul ryan will be the next ways and means chairman, we all know that. i think brady is trying to position himself to replace ryan runs for president and decides to step away from the chairmanship. speaker wantshe people in chairmanships that can govern. to causeare not going ,roblems unnecessarily

unnecessary political problems for the conference. so if you will tip the scales on committee where he needs to and i think all the names that were mentioned here the right names, and in part because they can get the job done, they've done the work in helping their colleagues, but they're not going to go on tv and say the speakerpid that then has to take a bunch us,tions from people like so and so said this what do you think. think there will be any shocking chairmanship, winningents or people races that you didn't expect. >> also keep an eye on the appropriations committee, because there's a lot of musical happening there in those subcommittees. that i wasg the one at another i vent this morning the hottold here's rumor of the day which is that republican the only

from maryland, a physician, is the leadership's, they're going to make him the head of the h.h.s. subcommittee, an and a good fite for him. but -- >> hasn't been very lucky for past two chairman of that subcommittee. immediate to wrap it up here. program isrt of the you all are welcome to grab a and make a phone call or two, but please come wek right at noon because have a big finish. sorry.ry, at 1:00, christina awill be back to panel of thefinal day, two of the smartest names governor tedformer strickland for the democrats and

former congressman tom davis for republicans. so lunch, and then back in the next 15 minutes. panelists.ll to the thank you. [applause] >> two former members of congress, republican tom davis, strickland, ted gave their takes on tuesday's election results and discussed thecongress has changed in years after they left politics. this is an hour. i'm join by former congressman tom davis of virginia, a

republican. the director at affairs government shop. he served two terms as nrcc congress in left 2008, or after 2008. >> and left undefeated and unindicted. >> always an important thing to point out. ( laughter ) >> congratulations. >> here on the left, not necessarily intentional, is strickland of ohio. he is a democrat, and he's currently the president of the center for american progress action fund. he's also a delegate to the assembly,ions general appointed by president obama. and he served six terms in congress before becoming governor. i will say we have one thing in that was we were all fellows at harvard institute of politics, which is a really great program. one of the most important things in the bio. right to the beginning, what were your

maintaining aways from tuesday's elections, and i'll start with governor strict land. >> i think the maintaining away thisat the people of country are dissatisfied with the way our government at levels is functioning, and they went to the polls and expressed themselves. republicans came out the winners, but i don't know that that was an indication that the feel particularly good about the republican party, any they apparently do at this time about the democratic party. expression of frustration, perhaps some anger. and a desire to have the government respond to the needs the country. >> how about you? >> typical mid term. the sixth year of a presidential term you typically lose a lot of seats. in the senate you lose seats because when a president comes in they bring people on their coat tails and six years later these members are up naked, instead of the wind at their

back, they've got wind in their face. and republicans turned out, they more motivated. the democratic turnout was abysmal, even in some of the key races, it hurt mark warner. one take away is if you're in you noticed michael grim was reelected by 10 points with a federal indictment over him. they also reelected two members the state senate with on them.ts so my undefeated and unindicted isn't going to help me in new york. look, there is a great said.ation, as ted republicans weren't elected because of who they were, they theylected because of who weren't and that is the president's party. but the depth of this republican victory was pretty deep. they control more legislatures than at any time in history, the at a high water mark in

house for republicans since 1928. i don't think you wash that away easily. there is going to be a challenge for them now in terms of governance. >> this might be an area where you two agree actually. governor strickland, you thoughts on the direction of the republican party right now? >> well, that's yet to be determined. i said that we don't know what the senate is going to look like the republican response until we determine how elected senators choose to affiliate within the republican caucus. are they going to affiliate with cruz wing of the party? or are they going to affiliate the majority leader mcconnell? i think that will make a big difference in whether or not there is actual opportunity for

administration and the senate to work together. have less hope for the republican house. that the republican house has been strengthened by even more conservative members than before the election. and so i think, from my a ratherve it's doubtful that there will be a lot of ability for the administration and the house to together. what does that mean? does it mean continuing gridlock?e perhaps. but we don't know yet. is a new situation. republicans did very, very well in this election. that the indication country has embraced the republican philosophy and the

agenda?an i think not. but i do think there's an opportunity now, if it's seized mature leaders and serious thinkers, to try to come do such things to forward.country >> i actually wrote the editors note in the guide to the new congress that you all should copy of. we put that out with profiles of all these new members. one of the things i noticed was that you're hearing this word, boehner, from beyond mitch mcconnell, a lot of the republicans in the senate, people saying that they the message from voters that they're tired of that gridlock. so if you were area where there could come together, where there's an tub for compromise, the policy.bout >> look, staring us right in the face are tax reform and

immigration, two issues that not party can lift on their own, because you make a lot of nasty thation as long the way could alienate groups. is there a potential for those things, it's not 50%. but i any there is an opportunity to try to work on that. i think the xl pipeline, see that on his desk very early. what we have to understand is that over the last 20 years since i came to congress in '94, the world has2, changed. are nowot the parties ideologically sorted, you don't more liberal republicans or conservative democrats. have been wiped out. single party districts most members now worry more about their primaries than the general. of the house seats are preor caned to elect one so ther the other. primary is the main event, for many of these members, november

a nothing more than constitutional formality that they have to go through. and primary voters are a narrow of the electorate. it's nowhere near a majority. but they are tough about compromising. the media models, whether it's fox or nbc, these are attracting on people hearing what they want to hear and they tend to carry a message that's polarizing. advent of the super pac's now between mccain that theand you add to supreme court decision and citizens united, the money has away from the parties now which had been a centering force in american politics. and now out to these interest groups which tend to be more ideological. and the financial pressure is onto please these groups as

well. so when they're taking names on a vote, members worry about pacs ambushing them in a primary because there's no relief. they have to raise money the way. the confluence of these factors make it hard for leaders to sometimes go back to their members and sell a compromise. you cone have two better leaders work with who are in mcconnellists and boehner. it gets so anything republicans vote for is something democrats can't vote for. opportunitye's some in the first six, nine months getshen the 2016 campaign full tilt. >> we're going to dive deep into tax reform and immigration in a moment. but first your thoughts on lessons but also what you think president obama might have out of tuesday's results. >> if i can make reference to to tomstion you directed earlier, what can be done

somethingo really get done. ans country needs infrastructure program. the country is crumbling. is a program that democrats and republicans used to agree upon, you know, a robust bill, anation infrastructure bill. seems to me that such an evident creates good paying jobs, helps somethingy, does that's going to position this country to move forward. the an investment in future, and it seems to me that area where there should be an opportunity to have quick agreement, it would be on an investment job creating bill to really put resources significant into the building of this country. talking about, you know, a small effort.

i think we need a major, major effort and i would hope that the president and the two houses of could agree on that. i think that would be booed for the country. of the other two issues, tax reform and could have awe long discussion about that and i hope we do because these are two areas that are important to the current situation, and right now doesn't look very hopeful. immigration is one of the issues, tom, where there is, i polarization.ble and i think it's going to be difficult to come to an agreement. it.et's get right into maybe we start with i graduation since you brought it up, congressman, first. seen many votes on immigration from both sides, the bipartisaned a comprehensive bill. most of those members that voted

it are still there. the republicans elected on tuesday are probably not going to support that kind of bill. is there hope for a measure like that ever passing? behow is it just going to the gridlock within the house on this issue. tough.house is these house constituencies are point.t this i don't think the senate bill has a prayer, i don't know if it the senate now that the senate has changed. but you could get a scaled down bill. are such things everybody agrees need to be done. that they are holding up things like high tech visas and stuff, holding them hostage to try to get some other things that are less popular. but there's no reason they move increment alley in a number of these areas. >> do you see the democrats as to accept that, that is a freight point. whole said they want the enchilada. >> i'm going to express a

personal opinion here that my thinking, i don't know about the president's or the leadership. me that this issue has been a troublesome issue for time., long there's been a lot of talk, a lot of debate. me that it may be time to bring this debate to an end, and it won't happen legislatively. i think it's highly unlikely future as weoo the can see until, you know, maybe there's a significant change in the makeup of the house of representatives, we're not get meaningful immigration legislation passed thethat's why i think president, as he said yesterday, as much action as he executivehis authority. i suspect when that happens i think it will happen, i suspect it will causes kind of an explosion within the

political world, as that action is debated. i think it's, from my point view it's the right thing to do, enough there's been talk, and i suspect that it will and then we'll have to see what the outcome is. that's the right thing to do or not, i think can disagree,ple and i understand the perspective over,'s get this thing you've got 12 million people hanging in the shadows, let's resolved, and i recognize that. and there may be history if he does something like that. you have to look at the other side of it. republicans have you this as very cynical, you wait until the election to do this, you're doing this as a ploy now, before we'rethis even convened and i do think it poisons the well on a lot of issues. that doesn't mean that you don't at some point go ahead and do

congress is if incapable of action. i think the end result is when congress can't do things, are bound to head on their own. the country has to move ahead times, and congressional dysfunction not with standing no matter which party has it. he would wait, give them a chance to see if the new leaders can the new deal in good faith with this issue. otherwise i'm afraid it going to goodn a lot of other things that can happen, that's just my own view. >> you did hear the president say over the course of the year, i'm waiting on the house to see what they're going to do with the senate bill, but then he got a lot of criticism for that. one hand it might cause a mini explosion, or frustrate or but on thewell, other hand maybe it just takes the issue off the table, and then republicans who are worried about primaries don't have to think about it again. >> the courts are taking some fores off the table republicans that may be helpful to them. whether they would admit it or

not. >> you mean gay marriage? >> exactly. but i think on the particular issue of immigration it's still very explosive at the grass roots level. his ability toat do is, you can also end up in where youtuationings withhold funding and the like. probably sitld down and write a bill, and i think most members could, but have to remember the political forces. if you don't think immigration an explosive issue, talk to my friend eric cantor who thought the constituents were in theen he was president's face, but when he starts vetting for a debt seal he's, the debt limit, and then you move ahead on they didn't want that collaboration. that's the dilemma that house republicans have to go up against. so i understand the frustration on both side. confidence in, with this holding this over them

that you give them an work, then io think it more understandable. >> obviously you represent considered a progressive organization. if the president did wait, if he said let's give the republicans a chance, are progressives going to continue to be frustrated with him? does that matter any more? >> i think the progressive community would be very frustrated. the president made a commitment, and i think it would be very to his standing among people if he does not follow through, as he said yesterday. i also think there's a political beension to this that cannot ignored. presidentialt election, the leadership of the republican party i think they neededaid that the work to expand their base. become more ofto a party that's reaching out to

constituency groups. this issue has the thential to diminish republican party as a national party in terms of winning national elections. the department graphics in this are changing, they're versible. we all know that. two years fromen now or four years from now, but eventually there's not to be a recognition within both parties, but i think especially within party, that this so diverse and that our be factored into parties. i think it's going to be really going forward for the republican party to have a

national win, to ever win the presidency unless they come to the reality, which is this immigration issue. that.gree with how do you come to terms with them. i think there are such things that could be done that would get the issue off the table. move ahead to other issues. >> if you were a betting person, either theo be president takes some action or congress actually takes some say?n, what would you >> i'm not saying the president shouldn't take action either. when congress gridlocks on an hugh and won't address issues fester, executives have the prerogative and sometimes the mandate to move ahead. it's a poor choice right now, right after an election, tore you withhold it to try elect some of our own people, and frankly this might have virginia and new

hampshire. going to -- when you have new leadership saying we want to work together, you give them a reasonable of time, you can are this whole thing together. think that if they were to do this and dangle this thing, moreive him a little space. i under the impatience, it's been years. bill in 2006, 2007, in the house and senate, very bills and we could never get to conference on it. >> the switch boards in congress so manyown, there were angry calls. >> so my betting on this is on both to some members side of the issue. so you dig in. but it an issue that's got to resolved. the status quote today is not helping anybody. reforms switch to tax and highway infrastructure.

see any agreement coming forward on these infrastructure investments or some sort of jobs creation program? you.r of >> not being in office, i can talk about taxes. ( laughter ) >> tell us what you really think. >> yeah. the truth is that the infrastructure of the country is in need of investment. i don't think anyone really questions that. the issue is where do the from, and how are they directed. and it's been a long time since had had a meaningful increase in the federal gasoline all know, as cars become more efficient and know why the resource is going in for the trust fund diminished. so that they're no longer

meeting the needs, and the trust is basically empty. a practical sense. i think we need to have a serious discussion about the federal gasoline tax. and there may be other ways that can get resources and we can public-private organizations and relationships provide funding and get the private sector resources heavily.more but as a beginning it seems to me that we ought to talk about we need and what nowhere nearnow is what the purchasing power of the was 10, 15 years ago. makes absolutes sense. you're a governor, you've really hit the map on this. a county executive. we get the map on how this stuff

works. difficult toll be get the any kind of tax increase out of the congress. a republican congress going into election.tial member the 2016 race actually began yesterday. way these things work. thelways baffled me that in president's still lugs package when he came into office he this. have more of but not revisiting that, i think agreement aamong a lot of republicans that we need theo a lot on infrastructure much we just built the silver line out to the dulles airport. chaired that on the airports, who built the thing. and we did tolls, andit through a public-private partnership. oh of course we found the people who oppose taxes also oppose higher tolls, you know how that works. the moneyate to get from somewhere, the infrastructure is krup blink in it a great jobs bill as we and you hope they find a way to come together on

that. bill schuster and the members who join these committees want it done. it's just getting it through the leadership and getting it conference on the republican side, everybody wants to spend the money, but nobody wants to raise it. areyou know what, there trade that can be done, and the president doesn't man want to, i the congress too ang are you because all of his appointees will now have to go a republican senate. at the en of the day it's going to force a conversation that we for the last four years, because senator reid is leader, his uptrols, he wouldn't bring anything that, now at least you president engaged with congress. we passed the welfare reform, the third time. vetoed it twice before he signed it the third time. prevail, cooler heads everybody has to stab their ground, but eventually you move

from your positionings toward center. >> tom, let me tell you a brief conversation i had with former gingrich. him, newt, when i was in the house and you were the speaker, i thought things cannot worse. but, newt, i kind of miss you. ( laughter ) >> i had the same conversation with bill clinton. ( laughter ) of themention transportation committee gave me a chance to plug our new guys in congress. but also some breaking news that the ranking member position, theh is pretty important on house side in transportation, difazio is seeking that challenged.is being these little changes matter when you're talking about billion a

bill in committee. so tax reform, there's also the issue of tax extenders and if they can get that done. >> they've got to get some tax extenters through. the interest groups still control both parties on those issues. i don't know if nascar gets their tax extender through, but find a way to get that through at the end, as they always do. reform, much more difficult issue. sidenk at least on our there's an agreement you gotta lower the corporate tax rate, but somebody's got to pay for it winners andve losessers in that. for efficiency sake and getting the economy moving that's a better way to do it than all superficial carveouts that seem to be producing any benefit. the interest groups really town when i comes to that. >> when it comes to the overall budget and spending, taif got to

the government coming right up. but thench there will be more issues with debt. is coming up.al >> how does the newly republican congress deal with that? president,send the if they can agree, the key for republicans success is to get senate to produce a package and put it on the president's desk. need to do.they last time the house couldn't even produce a package on its now you have the senate with a couple members running for president that don whatsarily listen to mcconnell says. >> and the promise of an open amendment. >> the world has changed, we had five and six-seat majority in we were still able to get budget resolutions packageand still put a together. those days are over. you have too many free agents about their primaries and pleasing interest groups out there that super pac's and the

like, march to the beat of their own drum. hard for the speaker and it may be tough for leader mcconnell to deal with. assuming they can do that and get a package on the president's desk, whether or not it, they'll have done their job, and that will initiate conversations going back and forth. are some chances here, but we'll know very early. that's why i'm nervous about in order coming out too soon. i think that just ties the and majorityd aader's hand, just gives them reason not to do it. >> the democrats, are they going to want to go along with that? big question for reid is does thery to block everything republicans try to put through in the senate. >> you mean like the republicanto him. does he wants to work for compromise. for hope he works compromise without violating the

the partyiples that stands for. but talking about all these approaching are rather soon, the debt ceiling, extenders, all that. i'm reminded, and maybe you do this after you've been in and then you're out, you kind of reincome back on what your experience was. as a freshman member of congress i remember sitting in chamber, the night the debt ceiling was being debated. my freshman year i considered my best friend in the house a republican, rick lazio. so i was over on the republican side, rick and i were standing together and listening to this debate, this heated debate about ceiling. and rick leaned over to me and said, ted, i ought to vote for the rightse it's thing to do, but i can't. i ought to rick, vote against it because it probably would help me

can't.ally, but i but everyone knew it was going right?ifted, all the rhetoric was going to take place, the accusations, awe eventually we were going to vote to raise the debt we always did. and it's amazing to me athat eventually became such a it couldissue that really have resulted in this country going into default. previously in previous congresses had been debated, people expressed everybody knew what they needed to do at the end. and worry in a different kind of environment now. think unfortunate. >> speaking to governor engler earlier who was talking about business community, how they are looking for some certainty stability and -- >> i think on the debt seal, if the republicans get their act send an they will extension with some conditions, not unreasonable conditions, and

there and then dare him to veto it. at that point at least they can say we extended it. >> the president has never had to veto anything yet. had a veto pen as governor. >> and i used it. >> do you think that would do him some good? >> sure. >> when congress doesn't pass much to begin with at this point. >> yes, and the president has indicated as recently as that he will be willing to do that on occasion. he said the congress was likely to pass things that i object to, veto it. and i'm likely to do things the congress objects to' but that's of our democracy, and happened.ays but i think the president may be able to sign some things. mentioned the xl pipeline. i think i do know that that bill passed and sent to'

rather soon. i don't know what the president there.g to do but those kinds of matters will the president, i think, on a rather frequent basis during the next two years. and it will be interesting to see which bills he chooses to and which for reasons that are important to him he chooses veto. >> congressman davis, brought up the idea that sometimes this of compromise or power, you got about nine months, even though the presidential race started, all of a sue you're going to have a new leader of a fightblican party or for -- >> all the oh, general shifts to race.esidential >> so you're both from swing states and you're obviously ohio hasritical, virginia emerged as a swing state over the last number of years much sigh the 2016 presidential race this yerl, not necessarily your favorite although we're happy to hear yours, congressman

davis, i already know yours, governor. but in general, the landscape, what are the challenges? house of representatives today is structured in a way, it's republican advantage. democrats got a 1.4 million more vote for the mouse two years ago did, to theublicans house votes and they're 17 seats short. theblicans control seats in redistricting bill and you add to that sorting pattern and voting rights it advantage now 18cans much will are states plus the district of columbia that have voted democratic six straight times in electionings to theg 242 electoral votes of 270 you need. republicans, 13 states have voted straight ticks times, but that's only -- it's 242 to 102 starting off. republicans have to go through virginia,lorida and they just don't have any margin

for error. so you're going to be looking, puts your governor and your senator from ohio right center puts rubio and jeb bush center stage because they deliver key states. in virginia we don't have any republican statewide office holders, but you want to have somebody that can appeal to the urban elements in those areas. think you'll see somebody from one of the state on the ticket. it makes sense because the republicans rae have no marriage infor error unless they can coalition. and without immigration reform, it's going to be very difficult to do that. >> i'm guessing you like hillary clinton. i think like is a strong enough word. stronger wordse a if you'd like. candidates. lot of secretary clinton i think has done very well in ohio in the as did her husband, bill

clinton. sore of, i to be don't know, some kind of special appeal that the clintons have in ohio. and ohio has voted for the of most presidential elections. abraham lincoln, no republican has won the ohio.ency without winning and only one democrat has won the presidency would you winning john ken owe was kennedy. i don't know if you like that or not, but they spend a lot of money. and they help the economy of the state. so, and ohio is going to host the republican convention in ohio.and, >> i don't like it because during the playoff games i'm seeing more mark warner than rice harper because of all the t

ads. ( laughter ) is in theumbus, ohio running to possibly host the democrats. >> that would make it e for all the injury alists going to cover it. ohio.e to >> how do you see, is it true that it's a democratic in 2016?e and obviously the issue if hillary clinton decides to receive the nomination and she is a woman speaking. snabt me take the first at -- stab at that, because as somebody who did the campaign twice on the republican side, what we saw this year is the democratic base didn't really show up. to do is toas able invigorate people who had never politicaled in the process before. african-americans, students that came out in droves for him and the turnout through the roof and turned states like virginia around. question is, is this obama centric or democrat centric.

were alope this the 2010 mid materials, they were asleep this time. that coalition together narrowly in his gubernatorial win last night. can the democrats hold this coalition at this point together and excite these voters who ordinarily don have the same participation. you worry in politics sometimes, articles about if you're too centered you don drive your base out. something, hillary clinton probably holds that coalition together. parts of them like it, part don't. >> you know, the country needs a two-party system. i really believe that and i think tom's analysis is correct it comes to the house of representatives the republicans are in the drivers be for at least until the next redistricting and

beyond. the senate is a more evenly body.d that, the said country is changing, and we all know it. demographics are different. i represented for a lot of years white, rural appalachian congressional district. but ohio is a very diverse state, one of the most diverse states in america. is diverse, and the diversity is growing. said earlier, and i don't say this with particular joy, because i do think we need robust two-party system that's national in scope. but if texas were to become a blue state and it's moving in direction, it's not going to happen immediately, but it's moving in that direction, florida, virginia, new york,

california, we are getting to the point where the democrats thegoing to begin presidential election. alreadyectively having wrped up most of the electoral myes, unless there is in judgment, and i'm speaking as a me ifat and i, forgive i'm being unfair here. >> i appreciate the advice. but it so manies to me that, and i think the republican party will evolve in a way that keeps in contention. that's the best thing for the country, quite frankly. but i don't see that right now. think it's going to be really difficult for a republican under current circumstances, current positions

to win a national presidential election. >> we look forward to covering that. we are going to open up to your questions for the governor at the policy politics and less of an interesting thing to ask about. i think that we have somebody ith microphones. on't be shy. >> i'm doug crandall. eems like we lost the moderates in both parties. how would you fix it if you could? >> even the members that are moderate there is no reward for going over and voting on the other side. you lose your base. and i would make this observation when we first came to congress you were in the minority