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 party if you didn't

have a majority and they were the shareholders in government so you participate sometimes and they've become one-party voters. our system is almost parliamentary today in terms of voting blue and voting red. they used to vote for the name on the back of the jersey. ow they vote for the jersey. it's the best way to put it so what happens and they come to washington they behave like a parliament system so instead of the minority party or the opposition party and to say no to everything and that's got to be broken, so the good news coming out of the elections on tuesday we have three states now that have runoffs with the top two from the primaries. two democrats, two republicans, california, louisiana, washington state. they tested 2-1. so there is some movement out there even in the state democratic districts or are some

republicans we have to cater to. my plan is that it gets people to vote on occasion instead of having to just stay and be punished in the primary. and until you break that i think that it continues to get bad. > if i had the power to make the changes, i would change the way we create congressional districts in this country so that it was done in a way that was not so blatantly partisan. both parties engage in that kind of behavior. it just so happened that the last in the 2010 election they ave them an advantage in doing so i wouldn't go so far to say that it's a threat to democracy ut it diminishes the ability of the legislative process to work. >> and you take the voters out of the equation. >> absolutely. the old saying is the politician

chooses the voters instead of the voter chooses the politician. and that is one issue. the other issue is the money issue. i wish i had an answer to that. i have almost come to the point where i think the minimal of what we should expect in terms is that itd politics all be very transparent. so we ought to emphasize greater transparency so people at least know where the money is coming from. >> the fact is that when he lost the seat in georgia he was the last white southern democrat in that group. they are basically gone now. >> we have another question. >> i live far away. way out in an police.

. annapolis but what is amazing is that over the last six to eight weeks i've seen more than a dozen bumper stickers on cars and i wonder whether this is unique to maryland because he happens to be at hopkins for whether this is a serious movement because as i understand, he's planning on being the candidate for the republican nomination in 2016. >> how many ron paul revolution sites have you seen out there? >> not many. >> they are all over the place. >> republicans are a racist party. at this point what we see, we saw tim scott win in south arolina. think he is very articulate.

he gets on talk radio a lot and the social conservatives are an important piece of the coalition. the social conservatives drive the nomination process in the party caucuses so we are going to see our candidates at this point competing for that. auditioning to take the lead in this thing. michele bachmann was one of the leaders last time and rick , torum and i think carson depending how well he can organize in iowa can come up on the map at this point. but how serious is it? those people are more enthusiastic than the other people and you never learned to discount them. >> i haven't seen very many ben carson stickers, but i have seen the sponsored trigger feeds. he's prolific to get his name out there essentially for running. >> you can provide other names. you don't discount anybody in this business. >> don't forget rick santorum.

he did fairly well in 2012 against mitt romney. >> i think santorum and huckleby both occupy a space that doctor carson would try to enter and that would make it increasingly difficult for him because santorum and uckabee have a head start. >> i will add a question to the governor on the democratic field that's governor martin o'malley for his interested in running for president and if hillary clinton runs he might be in the primary together but are his chances hurt at all by the fact that this democrat is not able to win in maryland and is surprised? >> i doubt it that his chances would be hurt. in on ongoing basis. i think it is a big country. i just can't see that factor

being something that in a generalized sense that would be generalized nationally and i don't know what he's going to do if he's going to run for president or not. i think that he certainly wants to at some point in his career. >> he is underwater in his own state, could they be a viable candidate? voters in the presidential primaries don't vote strategically. they vote right from their heart. >> another question here. >> i'm with the hispanic outlook magazine and congressional correspondent. two years ago i covered the nomination conventions of both parties covering the hispanic delegations and it was interesting because both of them had organized the afternoons differently. the evenings were pretty much the same, but the democrats all met in the caucuses. they had the women's caucus and latino aucus and the

caucus and the black caucus. they had everything according to the identity group ethnic politics and i think people got really tired of that in this election that the woman's vote and the obsession with the war on women and i am offended by it. not all women to vote the same and not all latinos vote the same. we saw 34% turnout for the republicans, the latinos in this election. do you think come 2016 we might see the democrats move away a little bit from this ethnic monolithic voting block thing? because i think it is harming it. >> i guess that's directed towards me. well, i'll tell you what i want o democrats to do in 2016.

i want them to form a strong and robust, easily understood, clearly articulated economic plan that focuses on getting the jobs created an opportunity expanded into those things. i hope the 2016 presidential race will focus primarily on bread and butter economic issues and that's the kind of things that pulls all constituent groups of their gardless particular individual identities. >> we have time for one last question. >> i'm from strategic applications international. first thank you for your time i appreciated how candid you've been and how you have shared. it has been lovely. governor strickland, i wanted to target a question towards you. with that relationship going the

relationship going in to the 2016 election into the un opening of the sustainable development goals that will be released by the summer or fall, do you think there's any hope that it would gain traction among the american people as a conversation for part of the election and what we can do as major cities of the world to help with the u.n.'s sustainable development goals and our own impact in the world as a nation? >> my answer is i would certainly hope so. and i think we can do that, eeping in mind our own self-interest. it's a big world. it's an interactive world and we are impacted by everything that happens regardless of where it happens in this world and i think we have a special obligation as the only really the only major superpower both economically and militarily to provide leadership on the issues such as the sustainability matters that are

before the u.n. >> i want to thank you both former senator thomas and senator strickland. [applause] >> to do samantha power will be speaking at the american enterprise institute in washington, d.c. she is expected to talk about peace keeping missions and the u.s. role in supporting the issions. >> this weekend, tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span, more reaction to the mid determine elections on c-span. sunday evening at 8:00 on q & a, taves smiley on his latest book "death of a king" and tonight at :00 on c-span 2, author ronald rosbottom on german occupied

paris in world war ii and jeff chang on the idea of racial progress in america and edward wilson on what makes us human and different to other species. tonight at 8:00 on american history tv on c-span 3, medal of honor recipients reflect on their service in vietnam, world war ii and afghanistan. d the social prejudice ims faced. find our television schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. ail us at comments c.org. here are some congressmens we

received from our viewers. >> i just want to tell you how much i enjoy q average. at 5:00 everything stops at my house. i turn off my phone and get my cup of coffee. it is the most enjoyable hour of television. >> i enjoyed listening to him and the comments that was done today. he was very accurate and he was on point. he was not using his own personal enwindows. -- enwednesdayos. i greatly enjoyed it. i hope you have more guests like that. he was right on target this morning. >> i'm calling to say that i think like many people c-span is colve -- is wonderful and as to criticisms, i almost have none. the reason i almost have none is i think you do a tremendous job

of showing just about every side of everything and the way people look at things in d.c. and elsewhere. i take my hat off to you. thank you very much. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3,400. email us at comments at c-span.org. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> senator chris murphy recently returned from southeastern europe where he visited serbia, croatia, albania and montenegro. he talked about the trip at the johns hopkins school of advanced studies. this is an hour.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> good morning. i'm vali nasr, the dean of johns hopkins university's school of advanced international studies, and we are very honored today to host senator chris murphy, the united states senator from connecticut as a keynote speaker here at sais. senator murphy recently returned from a visit to the balkans where he visited kosovo, serbia, croatia, albania and montenegro.

today he will share his impressions of the visit with us and why the united states needs to reengage in this very important region. senator murphy's remarks, at a critical time for the balkans which continues to quote with the tensions associate with the breakup of yugoslavia. at the same time countries like serbia and albania hope to broaden the regional scope by seeking membership in the european union. and the added fold up for interest such as russian money and the foreign fighters from the balkans to the middle east reveals the region most strategic importance and geopolitical position is in flux. as a number of the senate foreign relations committee and the past number of the house for -- foreign affairs committee, senator murphy knows all of these issues very well, has dealt with them for some time. senator murphy also serves on the health, education, labor and pensions committee, and the joint economic committee. prior to joining the senate in 2012, senator murphy served hree terms in the u.s. house of representatives and eight years in the connecticut general assembly. finally, i would like to thank sais center for transatlantic, activities on the balkans.

and with that i would like to now turn the floor to senator murphy. [applause] >> well, thank you very much, vali, for the very nice introduction to thank you to my friend dan hamilton, although what he does at the center for hosting me here today. thank you to all of you for joining us here today. know that washington is focused on the country's focus is in other places these days come that we're getting ready for an election for days away. getting ready for halloween this evening so it's wonderful to see such a nice turnout here to talk about a subject that i know the center and sais institution spent and in those amount of time thinking about and working on. not just over the course of the last 20 years but leading this conversation about how we reinvest over the balkans over the last year or so.

bill shankly, the famous scottish footballer, once said, some people think football is a matter of life or death. i assure you, he said, it's much more important than that. i saw this firsthand during my trip recently to the balkan region. on tuesday, october 21st, i landed in belgrade, serbia, the first stop on a five country trip to the balkan region. my travels, as chairman of the senate foreign relations subcommittee on european affairs, would bring me to serbia, montenegro, kosovo, albania, and croatia. within a few hours of landing in belgrade, i was handed the frame for my trip. at a soccer match between the serbian national team and the albanian national team, provocateurs piloted a small drone over the stadium during first half play. hanging from the drone was a simple flag, portraying a map of the imagined territory of greater albania, a fictional

state unifying all albanians living in the balkans. the atmosphere of the game was tense to begin with. albanians complained that serbian authorities weren't allowing albanian journalists into the stadium, and serbian fans shouted inflammatory taunts at the albanian players. the drone was the last straw, and it prompted a melee to break out on the field, amongst a confusing melange of players and spectators turned hooligans. the game was called off, isolated episodes of violence and vandalism rippled across the region, a historic visit between prime ministers was postponed, and the entire world was reminded of two things. first, football is still sometimes more important than life and death, and two, the ethnic peace that has settled on top of the balkan region over the past decade is still thin and brittle.

it was only 15 short years ago that congress was consumed with the question of the balkans. war had broken out in europe. allegations of genocide and mass atrocities rang loudly throughout the community of nations. america debated with passion over the right response, and ultimately president clinton dispatched american planes and troops, troops that are still there to this day. september 11th turned our nation's attention to other parts of the world, and, quite honestly, american involvement nd interest in the balkans has receded consistently, year after year, over the course of the last decade. so today, i want to argue that the balkans -- we are right to be much more focused today. we are right as a nation to turn our attention to the emerging power of china within the asian theater.

but my argument today is going to be simple, that the are still at this moment some relatively low cost, high reward interventions that we can make n the balkans. but that our window of influence may be a narrow one. i'm going to lay out three primary reasons why i think we should reinvest in the balkan region, and outlined several specific recommendations about how we do it. the first reason we should reinvest is a pretty obvious one. we should not simply take for granted that the ethnic, religious, and political peace that has largely held within the region since the conflicts of the 1990's is permanent. that a flag at a soccer game could result in two prime ministers postponing an historic diplomatic meeting tells you all you need to know about the about the nature of this fradges aisle piece of the region.

i met with prime minister vucic the morning after the match, and he was full of fire and brimstone, warning that this incident was going to greatly set back ethnic reconciliation efforts. i heard a similar concern during my trip to albania later in the week. to be sure, major breakthroughs have been achieved, who could have guessed, five years ago, that serbia would be on a path to normalize relationships and ultimately recognize the existence of kosovo. and despite the fact that prime minister edi rama's visit to belgrade has been put off, the visit of an albanian leader to serbia is still a momentous event whenever it occurs. still, memories of the war are fresh, and potential flashpoints lurk everywhere. peace cannot be taken for granted. second, as our nation's attention appropriately turns to the fight against isis in iraq and syria, we should pay close attention to the growing number f foreign fighters being

recruited in the balkans. up until recently, there has been no tradition of islamic extremism in places like kosovo or albania or bosnia. and even today, extremist mosques are outliers, exceptions to the rule. muslims in the balkans are serious about their religion, but these are secular states, and secular cultures, where people define themselves much more by their ethnicity than their religion. but money from terrorist funders has begun to creep into the balkans, and some estimates suggest that over 200 young men from kosovo alone have already been recruited into the ranks of isis. his happens in part because of the epidemic rates of unemployment and poverty amongst young people. in most balkan nations, including kosovo, upwards of 50% of young men are without jobs. this disconnection and disaffection leaves the region ripe for isis recruiters, who promise handsome sums of money to young men that have few, if any alternatives, to provide for their families. and isis is apparently

developing a safe haven inside syria for these men, with reports that an albanian community exists somewhere inside or near the conflict zone as friendly harbor for foreign fighters arriving from the balkans. uckily, our friends in the region have recognized, perhaps a bit late, this threat, and are mounting a credible response. i met with the impressive new president of kosovo, and i thanked her for recent enforcement actions that rounded up about 15 terrorist recruiters within kosovo. with u.s. assistance, law enforcement in the region is getting better at finding and arresting the bad actors, and this will make a difference in the fight going forward. the third reason for increased u.s. involvement is the most important. and the most relevant to the conversations we're having here in washington about the new order within europe and eastern europe. to put it bluntly, as the u.s. pulls back involvement in the region, russia is sitting on the

doorstep, ready to take our place. i returned from my trip to the balkans more worried about increasing russian influence within the region, and what that might mean for our interests there. don't misunderstand what i'm about to say. i am not making a cold war, neo-imperialist argument, where any position on the chess board occupied by russia is automatically a loss for us. in fact i said over and over and when i was in the region that we don't view geopolitics the same way russia does. these are countries that should be able to have a relationship with russia and the united states and europe, and that we should be careful not to play the same zero-sum game, you are with us or against us argument that russia makes in the region. but i do believe that we will be better off with a secure, non-corrupt, democratic governance in the region, and i am skeptical that such will be vladimir putin's legacy. if he is able to win more influence in the region.

in belgrade, you can literally feel the growing russian influence in the city's air. drive around and you'll see billboard after billboard with the russian and serbian flags wrapped together in an embrace, with a small, barely visible gazprom logo in the bottom corner. on the day of my visit, the city was preparing for a visit by president putin, and vucic had organized a soviet style military parade to coincide with putin's visit. as the deafening sound of mig fighter jets, ostensibly rehearsing for the upcoming parade, zoomed over the top of belgrade's skyline, no one seemed alarmed by this rather extraordinary display of foreign military power. and if you ask ordinary serbians what they think of russia, they will almost universally tell you they view russia with some affection. this is, of course, natural, considering the history of russian military support for serbian independence, dating back to the fight against the ottomans, and extending to

oday, when a friendship-slash-alliance with russia reminds serbia's neighbors that it has a unique relationship that it could lean on in tough times. coming off of a decade a war that ultimately rejected the notion of a pan-serbian state, old rivalries die hard. serbia, still infused with a sense of humiliation over its defeat, sees its relationship with russia as a means to flex its muscle in the region. russia is actively probing ways to extend its influence inside serbia. it still hopes to build the south stream gas pipeline through serbia, increasing the dependence of serbia and the entire balkan region on russian energy. and even more dangerous is talk that russia seeks to expand its military partnership with serbia, perhaps co-locating russian and serbian troops somewhere in serbia. serbia, for the time being, believes it can straddle a relationship with the u.s. and europe on one hand, and russia on the other hand. there is no denying vucic wants

an economic future with europe. he would not have supported and helped implement the historic agreement normalizing relations with kosovo if he didn't think it was required to stay on a e.u. path. but in other areas, he sided with putin, most recently when he rejected requests from the e.u.to join in the u.s.-e.u. sanctions against russia over its invasion of ukraine. now serbia should be able to have a relationship with russia and a relationship with the european union. but i left belgrade seeing some alarming parallels with ukraine. and these are apples and oranges, but former ukrainian president yanukovych sought to have it both ways too. but in the long process of application to, and negotiation with, the european union left russia with

plenty of time to use a panoply of sticks and carrots to lure yanukovych back into the russian orbit. serbia isn't getting a full invite to join the e.u.anytime soon, and this leaves plenty of time for russia to increase its leverage over belgrade and to ultimately force it to choose, mother russia or europe and the united states. that forced choice, in kiev, resulted in chaos. we shouldn't let it happen again. in montenegro, russian ties are not as strong, but their intentions for gaining influence are no less than in serbia. we have a good ally today in prime minister djukonovic. is intentions are clear. he wants his country to be a soon as possible, and he wants full membership in the e.u. but russia sees this glaring nato gap on the adriatic, and hasn't given up trying to step in and fill the role as montenegro's protector. russia would like nothing more than to have a proxy in the middle of nato's balkan arm. it's an open secret that putin has made several multi-billion

dollar offers to site a military base in montenegro. so far, there isn't any interest, but that kind of money, for a small and economically struggling country, is hard to keep passing up, over nd over. and russia is finding other ways into montenegro. like in serbia, they are funneling lots of money to buy media outlets and to influence n.g.o.'s. and they are becoming major landholders. i visited a major american luxury housing developer in the resort town of budva, and the majority of multi-million dollars units that he was selling were to russians. there is so much russian money along the coast that as you drive along the road, many of roadside signs that you see are actually in russian. all of this influence is paying off. polls show a decreasing enthusiasm for montenegro to join nato, even while the majority of the parliament supports the move. disturbingly, it is hard for montenegro to turn a blind eye to russian money and influence. so, to summarize, what could happen if the united states continues to allow its influence and presence in the balkans to fade?

first, there is a chance that ethnic and political tensions could boil over again, resulting in another global flash point. second, foreign money could incentivize the radicalization of certain elements of balkan islam, leading to more foreign fighters leaving the region, and coming back to, places like kosovo. and third, russia could see the balkans as the next front in their expansionist aims, and seek to blow holes in the erritory of nato and the european union. luckily, it is not too late to do something about this, and america still has significant advantages and assets from which to draw. most importantly, it is important to note that we are generally very well thought of in the balkans. albania reveres america. bill clinton has a street named after him in pristina. and even in a place like serbia, our great embassy there has done really important work to improve our image in the post-war era. but also we have some relatively low-cost cards to play.

all of these countries want a closer relationship with both europe and with the united states. we don't need to convince balkan leaders to walk next to us, we just have to actually execute. so, let me leave you with a few specific recommendations for how the united states can reinvest, both diplomatically and economically, and militarily, in the balkans. first, with russia seeking to maintain influence over serbia today, belgrade needs to know that the u.s. is leaning into our bilateral relationship, not out of it. a high level visit from the obama administration would be an important signal the u.s. values this relationship. that would be a relatively easy thing to do, with disproportional benefit to the pretty minor cost. but the other steps aren't hard either. as russia plows more money into serbia, the united states is withdrawing aid.

usaid, which funds efforts in serbia to improve democratic institutions and the rule of law, has seen major cuts in the last few years. we should reverse these cuts, restore the money, and let belgrade know that we are going to be a partner for years to come. and the united states can play a much larger role in helping keep serbia on a path to the e.u. this is serbia's intent, without a doubt, but in the case of kraine, the e.u.mismanaged the application process, giving kiev too many excuses to turn away to russia. now with good reason, the u.s. doesn't like to get involved in the weeds of the e.u.accession process, but we can't afford to sit on the sidelines on this one. the e.u.'s inability to close the deal with yanukovych ultimately drew the united states into a major international crisis. as a friend of both brussels and belgrade, the u.s. can play a more active role than we have in helping to keep the e.u.process moving along constructively. second, i believe nato should offer membership to montenegro as soon as possible. russia is trying to muddy the waters as quickly as possible inside montenegro, and we shouldn't just assume that

montenegro will continue to spurn russia's security offers if nato continues to spurn montenegro. the reasons to keep montenegro out of the alliance just don't hold water any longer. yes, the country has a long way to go when it comes to the rule of law and freedom of the press. but this is an incredibly young nation, and modern democracy takes time. and it's worth asking the question whether they'll get there faster as part of nato's umbrella or putin's. finally, we shouldn't fear upsetting russia over a nato invitation to montenegro. in fact, we should fear the opposite. if russia's aggression in ukraine chills, or worse, ends, nato's open door policy, then we are simply encouraging russia to continue to engage in this kind of regional bullying. the best signal to send russia right now is that nato is open for business and growing, along the lines and rules that it traditionally has. third, we should increase our partnership with existing nato

allies in the region. i will give you one specific example of how we can do this. in croatia, a dependable ally of the united states, they still rely on russian hardware, particularly, russian helicopters, within their military. the croatians want to move away from russian choppers and start buying u.s. made blackhawks, but they need the u.s. to help them locate a couple used blackhawks so they can save some money and begin this transition period. if we had the will to do this, were a true priority, we could find a way. and we should. finally, a simple idea for a region that by and large, savors its connection to america. exchange programs are in great demand in these countries, primarily because of their inability to access our visa waiver program makes travel to the united states very difficult. in pristina, i met with a group of students who had spent just a mere few weeks in the united states, but they were so enthusiastic about america that

they were practically appendages of our embassy there. if we were to take scant resources to make a commitment to double exchange programs, for balkans students to come to the united states, through great programs like open world, over the next five years, it would make an enormous difference. in small nations like these, having a small, vocal group of pro-u.s. voices, who can speak about the real america from first-hand experience, will pay enormous dividends. so these are some practical, reasonable, and i argue low-impact, low-cost steps the united states can take, in fairly short order, to reassert ur presence and our priority over and in the balkans, and it's a region that congress and the state department used to know really well. but other crisis caused us to lose a little bit of focus. russian eyes becoming transfixed

on the balkans as their potential next project. it is a difficult region to understand. in the end, i think that is why a lot of member s of congress any e not to focus there onger. it is certainly not that inscrutable. it is worth our time and attention. into this region to turn away now. in that proud of nations and found people in the strong connections and the united states not least of which to connecticut. the good news is today as we sit here now a little more u.s. effort in the efforts in the balkans will go an awful long way. thank you very much for having me here today. [applause]

>> my name is dan hamilton. i direct the center for transatlantic relations at johns hopkins. we are also part of a consortium of all of our fellow universities in the studies, so if we have colleagues here from the other universities i want to welcome them as well. thank you so much for joining us. we have been working a lot on the balkans over the years and hat many of my colleagues in in the government are doing that. we have to do a little advertisement. of course we have a book on the balkans. the title is important. "unfinished business." after investing so much energy and time in this region, there to retrench ation and look obviously into the huge challenges elsewhere. and i think that the senator has provided a good list of

practical things to do. but to start off the conversation, senator, you know, as you said a balkans or a complex place and a lot of shifting dynamics and variables. but in the context of what you were saying maybe the ultimate variable is still the united states itself. so even what you say are the low-cost initiatives, i wonder if you could reflect on what you think the appetite is in the united states either in the administration or in the ongress to provide the type of support that you're asking for, the type of focus, energy, time, when there are so many other challenges in the united states. how do we do this? ne of your suggestions for montenegro obviously was directly involved in the senate. so it isn't just a question about the state department and the administration.

it is really what is the mood and how do you think that we could reengage in the way that you're suggesting? >> we are focusing on other parts of the world whether it be the middle east or asia and the way that we have organized the state department is required our great assistant secretary of state to focus much of her attention in ukraine over the last year she made a very well ceived trip to the ball can region several months ago several of her deputies and officials in the department of defense had been there recently and so the question had been in the state department have been some difficulty acquiring enough oxygen with which to address the crisis in ukraine and the crisis in the balkans. i think that there is a growing interest at least in the senate to think about this region

because i think we are starting to try to think about what the lessons are from ukraine. i don't want to draw direct parallels here because i don't think that the russian influence in a place like serbia is as nefarious as it is in some places north, but some small investments into preventative maintenance of the u.s. bilateral relationship in places like serbia and montenegro can go a long way. so comblnk there is going to be some growing interest as we reconvene in the senate think about how we avoid another crisis like kraine and there is no doubt putin is feeling friskier than ever when it comes to countries on his periphery and there's plenty of evidence to suggest that he has some designs when it comes to the countries in the balkans and so i think hat ukraine gives us the

fertile territory to make this argument to the colleagues that now is the time to do something necessary to prevent another crisis from occurring. >> thank you. >> we are quite engaged in gauging the issues and i have to colleagues working on this all the time. one of my colleagues just came back from bosnia and has a piece in the huffington post about the situation there, but why don't you join in the conversation here and there is a microphone ight here. >> senator, thank you very, very much. i think it was a forceful nuanced presentation and i basically agree with every word that you said and i would like to take it a little bit further. i think the united states, to

use lyndon johnson's terms we can walk and chew gum at the same time and you are right. this isn't a zero-sum thing. we can concentrate on the middle east, central asia and china and still have a lot of capital both physical and financial left over for the balkans. i think that your itinerary was superb. you didn't have all the time in the world. you couldn't hit every country. two the two you didn't hit, i would like to put in a plug for including both of those countries in the agenda that you have put forth. we are very heavily invested in bosnia and we were the country hat put an end to the horrible combinations of war and foreign intervention from 1992 to 1995. we still have a lot of street redibility in the country. believe it or not, even some serbian areas of the country.

and i think that beneath the headlines from a week and a half ago, which the headline quote on quote of nationalist being reelected, there is a lot of reform and i would hope the u.s. embassy which is doing great work could reengage on the constitutional reform especially n the electoral law and that's key. macedonia, and of course it is key because there are ties to russia not just serbia. i think we have to have them succeed. and secondly, macedonia. if we can get the name issue settled, both sides the greeks and macedonians have not been as tactful as they might. it's an emotional issue but it solveable, and they would get in immediately if they passed over for publications with flying

colors and this also has montenegro for the people that say how can we have a round of ne tiny little country i think it is faulty logic, but the fact s that it would be immediately around the tube. we have also the amazing goodwill in both countries greece and macedonia and if we don't solve that, then i'm afraid that some of the problems within macedonia itself would be 30% of the country integrated to some extent but not nearly as much as it should be, it could spill over so rather than ask than ask you a question because i think that your presentation was so fantastic i would like to put in a plug for while we are doing it extend the activism to the two countries. >> i am in wholehearted

agreement. the other thing that is worse than the round of one is another round of zero. we are slowly shutting the open door and clearly there are some difficulties with countries like georgia that make it difficult to extend full membership, but we need to make it clear to everyone to our allies in the region and to the adversaries that the same rules still apply in nateo. we took for granted for a long time the progress that was being made, and that is largely starting to recede in terms of the quality of the democracy and the rule of the law. that's what i worry about for the region at large. my presentation was overly pessimistic because you can tell a whole different story about the region. you can talk about the progress that a tiny country has made between serbia and kosovo, a relatively long period of stable governments, has a relatively optimistic view

of the region. but as europe starts to get less enthusiastic about the specter of another bulgaria and romania chills ambitions to invest in the process as nato sends mixed signals whether we are serious about expanding, then the imperative starts to wane. the reality is that a euro atlantic transatlantic future is what drove a lot of the country is to get serious about the democratic reforms. so as an overarching theme one of the reasons i think that they have to extend the offer to montenegro is because someone at some point in the alliance has to show that there is still an ability to join because that is what will continue in part to prompt the reform and right now europe is going to have to figure out a way to be more creative in terms of using

europe as a carrot. it is not a carrot. for many of those leaders that are more attached to the gain they get out of the sacrifices they would have to make to join europe, but europe still has cards to play just in a different way than they are doing today. >> one of our other colleagues is an expert in the balkans. dan, i wonder if you can participate here, right here? >> if i can stop tweeting for a moment. tweet and speak. >> i want to see you do that. >> chewing gum and walking at the same time. >> senator, you know, one of the things that has to be done before we can say that the balkans is finished is to completely normalize the

relationship between bosnia and serbia. that needs to be recognition and diplomatic relations. europe and the united states tends to think that it should be put off. i'm wondering what your view is. should this be put off or what is true in particular. without this, you're not going to make the progress you really want to make. >> i don't think that it gets any easier as time passes. this is an easy thing for vucic and others to just push on down the road, but if there is a belief that this will be easier two or three years from now, i'm not sure that is the case. i was very impressed with the dialogue and the general acceptance of the direction that

the normalization was going to take in every meeting that we had in bell grarksde there was very little resistance to the movement that was needed going forward and similarly in pristina. if there is an easy excuse right now to explain the lack of progress on implementing the agreement, which is a lack of government in pristina. when i was there i chose not to meet with them and i at first a strong message of kosovo isn't serious about putting together a collision government of then it is starting to harm its relationship with its friends, visiting delegations and curtailing their visits because of the political uncertainty. but i was generally impressed in the way people talked about the dialogue and the inevitability that i sensed when

it came to the normalization but i do agree with you we need to deliver a stronger message sooner rather than later to belgrade about the full recognition because it likely won't get any easier if people perceive this to be the new normal kind of halfway to the full stage of recognition. >> we can open it up now for some more questions and comments from others. we have the mics, if you can say who you are so the senator has a sense of where you're coming from, that would be useful. yes, right here? >> good morning. i would first of all like to thank the senator for his engagement in the region and i think it is useful and happened in an interesting eriod of time.

i have two remarks and one question. one remark is involving the roblem with the ukraine. there are some essential differences. i understand that there is sort of a russian -- but at the same time serbia's country has pretty much engaged with the session. while they stated at some round tables, it was not only about serbia but it was actually correct and noted that the disengagement from other places like brussels or washington might actually lead to some undesirable or propertyatic development. -- problematic development.

you are aware of what happened but the thing is we probably showed you in belgrade the meetings of what we were doing in this past month in march of this year until now on the limitations of house we had some progress even without the thoughts and other topics. o, my question is what is your feeling both here discussing and roviding some alternatives and there is obviously the need for more engagement so what is your feeling about the residents engaged and did you get the chance to discuss this when it omes to the energy investment? >> it is clear -- i think it is a really good point. it is clear that our focus

e.u. only be on the because it is not as certain as the timetable. i still remain certain that there is a willingness in brussels but it's going to take a while to get from here to there so that means that we've got to have an even stronger bilateral relationship. so while i was there we talked very specifically about some ways the u.s. companies and government can engage with belgrade as you know for instance there is a major debate happening about the major steel facility. there is a u.s. company that we think can provide a very - fairly substantial answer. our policy can't simply be too -- to tell countries like serbia they can't do the period stop. we've got to provide some alternatives and we will have

that ability as a country that as figured out how to put ourselves on a path dependence developing our own resources. we can deliver that kind of technological assistance to our friends. i try to make it very clear how important this issue is and i frankly wish that our representatives in the state department and at the white house would make that case even stronger. i feel very strongly about the importance of moving south only long the process in accordance ith the e.u. larbgs but the united states and europe needs to tell the country what the alternatives are. it is robustly moving in the pipeline projects that will have of the branches delivering the technology to allow the development and this is in the

case in serbia but other countries offshore energy resources from a potential fracking, the united states needs to be more of an active player. i think i said this a couple times, but your comment makes it worth repeating. i really don't want to overplay this parallel but in part my criticism is in the way that the e.u.has handled many of these processes and i think the european union has been existing in a world where previous to the last several years which there is no alternative to the e.u. well, there is an alternative as russia seeks to create stronger relationships and so they have to be smarter. brussels has to be more flexible in the way that it approaches these processes. so my caution here isn't necessarily that there is any insincerity in belgrade.

i'm sure the prime minister is dedicated to a european path, ut that has to be a european recognize the differences in these countries that seek to pursue it. >> if i can follow-up on that because i think the energy point is quite critical you are proposing a number of ways europeans could get organized or sort of approach and support. but the united states could also be a major energy actor in europe, but that would again require action here to allow that to happen and i wonder what your sense of either the different kind of legislation or changing procedures so the u.s. would actually be actively engaged in the energy actor itself. >> this is a whole other topic for another hour. this is a fascinating moment in the united states today.

e have this asset which is largely crude for the benefit of the american economy. this robust deposits of natural gas and oil that has been part of the story why the u.s. economy is growing in the last quarter not 3.5% while all of our friends around the world ooked with envy. i don't think the united states should ever view our energy resources the same way that russia views theirs. i don't want energy to become a ool or a weapon. to ave had debate about how simply enter the energy policy with national security policy hell do we at least help our friends if not setting aside about how to nish our enemies or our

adversaries. the reality is right now if we were to move ahead with the export of natural gas it isn't likely that we would end up on the european shores. croatia has been talking for some time about a facility that could perhaps provide a pathway to the balkans but the price right now in the international market would send most of that as to asia rather than europe. why doesn't the congress talk bout if it is appropriate to have an energy policy now that essentially wants an export license is approved since it into the international market. is there an ability to target some parts of the world that have little other option than to rely on russia today without going down the road that russia has, which is using it as a fairly daily and weekly tool to try to influence our relations are neighbors. i think it is remarkable the united states is not having this

discussion, especially when it is a way to unite republicans and democrats. we generally are attracted to trying to help some of our friends. that requires changing u.s. law to allow for the targets export of u.s. natural gas and a change international markets.rthe send are going to message to a country like serbia, you cannot build downstream, notwithstanding a conflict zone in ukraine. we have to be open to alternatives. wait for the microphone please. my name is edmira.

i'm a member of the parliament of macedonia. i would like to complement the senator for the excellent presentation which covered as was saidnd earlier, i agree with everything that was said. briefly mention a few aspects where u.s. assistance in developing offering has been importance. i would list the partnership and cooperation with the u.s. embassy and u.s. presence in supporting macedonia's government and the plan to introduce a complex and sensitive power-sharing agreement. for that reason u.s. assistance and interest and focus as part of the western balkans has to

continue and become even more stronger. it is certainly the support that we have been receiving by both strengthen iri to our democracy and improve the quality of our notions of parliamentarian is him -- amentarianism. another there will be hour or more of discussions, not to mention the importance founded on helping the country to establish a functioning model of integrated education in a country that has been extremely

andrized along ethnic religious lines. >> these are really good examples you should be an advocate to make a difference. is there something that is missing. missing,ing that is and this is my question, the senator mentioned that the u.s. needs to engage itself more to help serbia so by trying to draw an analogy, i would like to ask whether the senator sees the possibility of u.s. engagement and perhaps drawing the framework of enabling macedonia to bolster negotiations and start negotiations on eu membership which is a model that has been promoted and supported by the government. would you see a possibility for something like that similar to -slovenia,a

negotiating membership and overcoming a lateral issues? >> i think we have to make that decision in coordination with our allies in brussels. served inbably best focusing our time and try to settle the name issue. even if you begin the negotiations you have to figure that out before you get to a final agreement. i think you are making a powerful argument for why the u.s. has to be continued to be involved. they have made real progress in the relatively small amount of money we are spending goes a long way.

as you watch the state department lose that fight on an annual basis, we have to at because thate line money is what allows for countries like macedonia to continue making that progress, you noted the agreement and i want to note some concern about the implementation of that agreement. in my state i have a large macedonian-albanian population with lots of friends back home who are frustrated about the lack of process in immigration. this is something i wish i had been able to raise if i had been in macedonia.

professoruniversity and i have read your fascinating blog and your lecture was excellent and coming back to the alternatives that you mentioned in your blog that you got promising information from both the croatian prime minister and on the unwillingness to sell the croatian part of the leading energy company to the russians. have you heard any idea on the alternative? primer for people who don't know the issue, this is a national energy company that is effectively owned jointly by a

hungarian entity and the croatian government effectively controls by this hungarian entity, there is a long-running dispute between the two major ownership entities and there has been expressed a willingness or desire on behalf of the hungarian wing of the ownership to sell. right, the issue here is the creation and construction of an alternative. they would like nothing more than to get their hands on a major history you should network of gasoline, primarily within croatia. i mentioned in my blog and by e-mail that i did hear unequivocally from the prime minister, the president and minister of defense from everyone i met with in croatia

that there is no appetite for selling the croatian portion of and asmpany to gasprom, to a recent solicitation of offers i do not believe gasprom put an offer on the table so they are distracted by other crises right now. the u.s. does need to play a more active role in helping to find this alternative. it may be that an alternative needs some kind of international financing from the eu or the united states. the amount of money at stake is a large one and it is not clear if some -- if there is a vehicle in the united states to finance a purchase, but the state department has been encouraged to play a more active role.

there is also the potential process of mediation between croatia and hungary over the dispute of control. i wish croatia was more willing that mediation process, so far i don't think we have heard back from them on the selection of a mediator. there is no reason why you could not at the same time double track a mediation between croatia and hungry and the pursuit of an alternate investor. right now, i few that croatia views this as i nary that they would rather -- as binary, that they would rather pursue an investor. the senator is on a tight schedule and i promised to get him and you out on time. i want to thank senator murphy for joining us and his great team. thank you to our team as well for putting this all together.

we will try to get his remarks if he will allow us to distribute it as well so you can find it on our website a bit later, otherwise thank you all for coming and we look forward to seeing you again. please join me and thanking senator murphy. [applause] >> today on c-span, post

election and from the american enterprise institute, then house speaker john boehner on the republican national institute. then later, today's washington journal. on the next "washington journal" the midterm elections and the future of the republican party. and republican strategist john feehery. john

>> amherst college professor and author ronald ross bottom. chang on, author jeff the idea of racial progress and sunday night at 10:00 the winner of two pulitzer prizes on what makes us different from other species. 8:00, metal of honor recipients reflect on their service in vietnam and afghanistan. saturday at 8:00 the social prejudice immigrants faced during the 1800s. and sunday night at 8:00 the 25th anniversary of the fall of the berlin wall. usd us on c-span.org and let know what you think about the programs you have been watching. at comments@cspan.org.

american in surprise -- enterprise review, panelist discussed what a takeover of the senate means for president obama and its effect on the 2016 presidential race. this is 1.5 hours. good afternoon, my name is carla bowman and i am a senior fellow and i would like to welcome all of you and our c-span audience to this election watch. i would like to begin by thanking the conferences staff and they do a lot of work to make sure these events run smoothly, and i would also like to extend a special thanks to heather sims who has been with us for only a few months. let me begin by congratulating

my fellow panelists. we have been at the business of elections for a long time and election watch began at aei in 1982. we do politics the old-fashioned way studying individual races and historic voting patterns. we are not into modeling or aggregation. although there were a few misses, the panelists generally made very solid calls in the senate, house and gubernatorial races. we expected take gains in the legislatures and we learned that the publicans have the highest number of state legislature seats in 100 years and democrats the lowest numbers since the civil war. let me say a few numbers -- a few words about the polls which is what i do here. while most predicted that the gop had a good night and the ofrages did a good job

predicting the numbers many of the individual polls were widely misleading. as edward leavy said on half post this morning, the polls missed this mark by a mile. public polls consistently understated republican candidates and almost every contested statewide race including an unusually high number of polling misses. for example, none of the polls addicted take close race in urging it where ed gillespie is still contesting. it is becoming harder to poll nationwide using traditional sampling techniques. designed polls have a response rate of around 9% and polling statewide is more treacherous. whether the business as we know it would be around in 2020 is not clear but a lot of soul-searching should be done. nightit polls had a good

and we can learn a great deal from them. let me quickly go over a few of the findings that struck me. first we talked and the session before this one about the sour public mood. people do not trust the economic recovery and that was evident and some of the questions on the ballot. only 1% said the economy was in excellent shape while 70% said it was still in bad shape. expect for voters future generations that it will be worse. the share of the nonwhite vote slipped. great abbot in texas did well with hispanics capturing 44%. points in gap, 19

this election was dwarfed the marriage gap at 31 points. reported thatr single women, another core democratic group gave their smallest margin in exit polls going back to 1992. women as a whole or more democratic than men and men were solidly republican. the women's vote in texas, arkansas, kentucky, maine, mississippi and both south carolina races, west virginia and split their votes in iowa. gop a 12nts gave the point margin. very closely at the health care question. voters in 18 senate contests were asked to check a box when i

felt the law did not go far enough, was about right or went too far. in only two states, oregon and maine, did more than 30% say it did not go far enough. in all of the other states, 45% or more said the health care law went too far. in 10 states more than 50% of voters said it went too far. asked whether most illegal immigrants in the u.s. should be offered a chance to apply for legal status or deported. only in arkansas did more people say they should be deported been given legal status. 49% to 45%. voters in 17 senate contests asked if the states should legally recognized gay marriage. there was a wide range of responses. at the low-end 25% in louisiana said yes and at the high-end 70% in new hampshire said yes. issue that produced

more diverse responses than any other. voters in six contests were asked if the use of marijuana should be made legal. otis and maine and do hampshire said yes. looking briefly at 2016, only one third of voters said that ted cruz and rick perry would make a good resident. ns said the lida -- hillary clinton would and 50% said mica could be what. -- mike huckabee would. wisconsin, 42% said scott walker would make a good president and 46% said paul ryan would. that is a quick summary of the exit poll data. it goes into these issues in a little bit more detail. now we will turn to our panelists to talk about what is

most surprising to them on election night and we will begin with michael brown. you said that at the beginning of the obama administration, the republicans in the house have 179 seats. tell us where they are today. had 179 seatscans at the beginning of the obama administration. if you look at currently needs at 251, some of those leads may even as california takes a long time to count its votes. they've taken as long as five weeks, a week ago sunday brazil tabulates its votes and five hours and california which believes itself to be more advanced takes five weeks. in any case, it appears that republicans have one more than the 234 they wanted to thousand 12 in more than the 242 they

wanted 2010. back to the 1928 cycle to find a time when republicans did better in house elections. cbs is covering that for radio. baked into the cake by democrats. -- 2012, mitt romney who many of you will remember carried 226 house districts. he carried a majority of the house districts. marginal effects in favor of republicans on the districting lines in this cycle but the primary reason is demographic. democratic voters, as i have , blacks, hispanics

and some but not all states, and gentry liberals were only two ares from georgetown, they heavily clustered in certain central cities, some sympathetic suburbs and university towns and they get huge percentages there and republican voters are spread more easily around the rest of the country. so mitt romney carried 226 house districts and unfortunately that is not the way we choose a president. kerry got an, john slightly percentage of the vote and carried only 180. it is a basic demographic thing. it is interesting that republicans gained to seats in this house cycle. looking at the exit hole it looks like the overall vote was

51-47 four republicans in terms of percentages. that may be off by a bit. we will wait on california, they are on the beach or something not counting the votes to see what is going on, let me just insert a word here about the polls. errorntioned that margins. i did a blog post for washington examiner -- washington examiner.com, and i don't office holds for governors races or house races, but i found that in incumbent democrats the polls were pretty much spot on with the number of votes they got. the two that increased about three points were two female candidates, kay hagan and jeanie chiffon -- sheehan.

the polls were about eight points lower for mitch mcconnell, 10 points lower for pat roberts. those are both heavily republican states and we know --t republicans and pulling polling are more likely than democrats to express dissatisfaction with their members. thathe numbers suggest polling is pretty good at getting the percentage for the party that is doing badly in a wave election. projectingo good at the party that is doing well in a wave of election and this was a wave election. he got his start in polling with peter hart many years ago. >> yes but it was after the 1928 cycle. [laughter] my second point is that it is

interesting the republicans lost two seats with incumbents that had particular promise. nebraska two.d they came close to losing another in west virginia when the candidate was an out-of-state or that does not have many out-of-state earners -- out-of-stateers. republican gains were ahead in 19 districts currently and for what looks to be a 17 seat gain. majority of these games came within 4% in another 10 district. the majority of the seats came in the democratic districting clans weather was amid democratic majority. arizona and california especially we had supposedly gone partisan districting but the democrats successfully gained them. illinois where republicans gained one seat and heavily

andale north shore suburbs another seat rather #oh, -- in the rather down scale blue-collar part of st. louis. delaney for a lot of money into that race at the last minute. weis one of the phenomena see that when a wave is working against the party the house seats will be at risk in states where they are districting because you create 53% districts and when things are bad for your party are down 47. saw in the previous sentence cycle that republicans lost since in states where they redistributed to 6008.

andstricting -- in 2006 2008. redistricting does not lock things in forever. look at the returns for 06 and 08 before you make that prediction. the number of split was 26sional districts in the 2012 election, the lowest number since 1920. we had nine democratic congressman representing districts carried by mitt romney and the republicans 16 of those nine seats. we don't have very much. republicans captured a few democratic districts or are ahead of them in districts that were more than 55% for obama but very few although we have some odd results like louise slaughter almost losing was

betting congress more than 30 years. of me look at a couple demographic groups off of the polls. group are thethis wave of the future and the chancecans missed their to pass a resolution barring the vote to anybody born after 1980. and the democrat advantage is to 54-43, 11 points. 2008 barack obama one 13% more in millennial's than he won among voters generally. margin was 9%ial in 2012 and 7% in this election.

important,much less obama's popular vote margin also entirely came from millennial's. 7% of the equivalent of the whole electorate. the democrats margin among millennial's with a lower turnout among younger voters which is expected is about 1.5% of the total electorate. that would be higher in a presidential year with the same measures of support, but what it says to me is that the millennial's at this point voting republican on balance are a mildly more than average democratic group rather than a wave of the future. they are up for grabs by both parties. asians, one of the most interesting thing here the asian

vote came in at 50-49. i'm not sure if this is of asthma national significance as was suggested. and a are clustered majority people who come in as asians or identify themselves as such are in hawaii or california and a close republican nearly winning the fourth congressional wouldct in hawaii, that inflate the asian nationwide percentage in a way that may not be indicative of anything outside particular individuals in the hawaii race. i noticed also in california districts like california 27, the democratic nominee with no serious opposition got 57% in a 53% obama district. one of the issues that is caught

that affects asians is the democratic super majorities wanted to put on the ballot a proposition to repeal the ban on racial quotas and preferences in higher education in california from the 1990's. was, if you analyze the electorate in terms of white and nonwhite, you would expect nonwhite solidarity and apparently the california democrats did. members with a lot of asian constituents started getting hundreds and thousands of phone calls. these people want their kids to go to uc berkeley and ucla. they know that quotas and preferences will work heavily against them and the democratic thatarity had broken up proposition from the ballot. i would like to know asian percentage in maryland and massachusetts, no exit poll in

maryland or massachusetts. i would like to know what the asian percentage was in the close senate race in virginia, again we don't have numbers on that. you mentioned hispanics briefly. 63-35 democratic, nationwide that is down for him 71% obama against mitt romney but they're different in different states. california where there were no serious statewide contests except for the nonpartisan race, they were 76% democratic, 69% in new york in those even out to about one third of eligible hispanic voters in the country. they help hold that 63 number up. johnxas as he pointed out running for reelection. abbott running for governor, 44% hispanics. that was a state where a lot of

"nonwhite"pe the vote would put them on top. they are not behaving like lack voters in texas or other states. you see them getting 71% for david purdue in georgia, 52% for pat roberts in kansas and i did a little interpolation from the exit poll in colorado that suggested to me that mark udall the democratic senator who lost carried hispanics by less than 10%. that figure is very dicey and i don't offer it as anything definitive but what it does tell me is that the candidate was not winning by the 25-73 that the democratic poll showed in colorado. that is the overall setup. legislatures. is up foric vote grabs in a lot of places. it is not very substantially by

state and the attitudes they are in. the numbers are not entirely tabulated it is the highest republican number in 100 years and the democrat lowest number since the civil war. lastpears that the democratic legislature in what i call the 14 southern states is the kentucky house with a tie. what i think is interesting here is that democrats are disadvantaged in many states including those carried twice by obama by clustering. when those gentry liberal and black districts and lose almost everywhere else. that pattern continues to flow in the election. by my count currently, the cracks are in control with the governorship -- democrats are in control with the governorship

but lose with the electorate in all 50 states. they started off with the obama era in control of 27. basically, those the state's amount to only 16% in california and otherwise you have hawaii, oregon, connecticut, delaware and rhode island and vermont. the strength of the democratic coalition and the obama coalition, that is elected and reelected president obama, the weakness we see on display last night. >> thank you very much, before returning to our former colleague john we want to remind everyone that we are live tweeting the event. john, the governor's races. >> i would like to start out

with a bit about the senate and the house races to show the contrast. especially much of what michael said is correct that the republican wave was strong and it washed over especially red states and swing states, washing out democrats who were holding those seats. governor wave was stronger than we thought. i think it is useful to think about the contrast. and the sevente most republican seats went to republicans. they were all held by democrats and then two swing states which are iowa and colorado. looking what susan did with reelection she is in a state president obama won by a significant amount but there are few people left in the senate who sit in seats from states that are not of their party. susan callen's -- susan collins is from a significantly democratic state.

joe manchin and heidi heitkamp sit in significantly republican states. that is down a lot. similarly if you look at the host, it means the top four were really dramatically republican districts and that leaves peterson as the most republican seat that the democrats hold. just by comparison if you think back not so long ago in 1992 there were about 90 democrats who met that definition. did republicans do well in swing districts and red districts yes, they edged into some districts which are significantly am a craddick, maybe not quite as them a craddick as the jim matheson seats but maybe jim costa but we are waiting on a

pretty, those are democratic districts that republicans won but you don't see the dramatic ability of one party to hold seats up that belong to the other party. the governor's race was a little different. when we were here a little -- a couple weeks ago they were more uncertain, there were a lot of significantly closer races within the margin of error in the polling and i would say it probably looked that way because governorships were held much more by republicans that you weren't likely to see many gains. into the election we had 29 nationwide for democrats and 22 other republican seats were up for election as well as 14 democratic seats. the republicans gazed -- gained a couple seats here we knew they would lose in pennsylvania from a particularly unpopular republican governor.

alaska theke in republican governor will lose to an independent that not the ordinary sort, one who ran with a democrat on the ticket but was also endorsed by sarah palin. you can make of that what you want. andblicans did quite well the three states they broke into with varying degrees of surprise that were dramatically democratic states was they took the massachusetts governorship, they took the illinois governorship and the greatest surprise for all of us was that the polls were really not showing this level -- under our nose, right in our backyard that we did not watch as closely and in maryland where larry hogan is the next governor. just to give you some sense of where they stand, massachusetts voted for barack obama by 23

points, maryland by 26 points and illinois by 27 points are now all held by republican governors. is the governorships in general and had the ability to find themselves more locally against the national trend. i think there was a very significant push in both parties, partly because we have seen unified government in a lot of states. stateates are trying red policies and blue states are trying blue state policies. there were some big arguments about this, especially taxes. on the democratic side the tax issue was a significant one. certainly that issue was strong for republicans. on the flipside, democrats leaved that they would find some way to pin over taxcutting on democrats in places like kansas. i would say the north carolina senate race and where thom

tillis was pinned with the that he had been involved in an acting when he was in the legislature. both of those states had on the policies claiming there was overreach and the republicans were prevailing. >> across the board, a number of these governors who were reelected will have stronger majorities in their legislature.

florida, kansas, texas and several southern states. a number of democrats who were reelected will face divided legislature because republicans have taken part of the legislature in colorado and minnesota. the last point i want to make is to talk about governor ed gillespie. he of course did lose his senate race but many people have noted that he is well set up to run again. up told've been less set run again if you had lost by five points or seven points. many felt he was one of the more policy oriented candidates on also part of he is a fraternity, which i notice that might run under the banner of the political spohn -- spawn, it includes terry mcauliffe, martin o'malley and ed gillespie. >> jon i have one or two true

other questions. john is the country's leading expert on early and absentee and mail voting. can you say just a little bit about what happened with mail voting in colorado? and the turnout in the vermont governor's race. >> vermont governor's race is going to stay in the democrats hands, but it is much closer than we anticipated. a little less than a 2% margin. vermont has a strange practice or unique practice in america where if you do not get 50% of the vote, there's not a runoff, but the legislature decides. the democratic legislature in vermont will likely select shumlin again. all throughout new england, republicans did quite well in the governor's race. they fell short in some places but did quite well. on early and absentee voting, we don't have all the numbers in. i've always been someone who is cautious and i think that caution has been borne out by trying to overpredict about

early results that come in. you saw a lot of prognostication. partly those results are sort of selective. you select various times. sometimes it's true that a party really gets motivated to spend more of its resources on bringing voters to the polls. so i'm always skeptical about that. we don't know -- i don't know the final outcome of how much early and absentee voting there was this time. we think turnout is down, but i'd feel more comfortable to wait until the california numbers come in. it is likely to be lower broadly, but to give you an exact number, you've got to give us a couple more weeks for the lead states to come in. >> now we'll turn to henry olson, now at the ethics and public policy center, who is going to talk about what interested him most in the senate contest.

>> so the senate didn't surprise me very much. i missed two senate races, as far as compared to my preelection prediction. one was kansas, which was simply an epic polling fail across the board. the other was north carolina, which was pretty close and went down to the wire. simply i did some bad math and underestimated a little bit of the republican wave. it was pretty clear going in that -- both in the state polls and the national polls -- that this was going to be yet another election where senate seats were dependent, not independent variables, which is to say that people across the board were not really considering whether person x versus person y was better but whether r versus d was better. nevertheless, there are some interesting things that i think we want to take a look at. and that relates in part to the

polling fail question, and then i want to spend a little bit of time on, what does this mean for 2016? with respect to the polling fail, my means for this, democrats, you know, kind of the old clint eastward western, the good, the bad and the ugly, that there were only a couple of races you'd put in the good category and most in the ugly category. but from the republican's perspective, it's the city mouse versus the country mouse. if you take a look at the final average on the polls, whether the r or the d, and the key senate states, and compared it to the actual margin, the polls actually weren't that bad in a lot of states. new hampshire, the final r margin was in favor of shaheen by .8. it actually was shaheen by 3.2. in georgia, even though they underestimated the amount, the margin was pretty right. they had purdue winning by 3%. he won by 4.9.

in alaska, they're still counting votes that are likely to tilt democratic. but the final margin was sullivan by 2.4. even virginia was not an epic polling fail. the final percentage for warner was 48.5. as far as the polls prediction. the margin was 49.2 for that. my guess is there were a lot of people who never heard of ed gillespie, who simply voted for the republican, because that would account for the wave and accuracy of the warner prediction. where you find big errors are four states really. see if you can figure out what the difference is and why i might have put it in that category. iowa, a 6.2% difference. it was 2.3 in the final poll. ernst wins by 8.5. kansas, the final polls had orman up by one. kentucky, mcconnell ahead by 7.2. he ended up winning by 15.5.

arkansas, where cotton was supposedly ahead by 7, he won by 17. city mouse versus country mouse. the states where you had the biggest polling errors also have incredibly small populations in what we would consider metropolitan areas. take a look at colorado, where the polling fail was virtually none. it had gardner up by 2.5. right to you he's up by 2.9. more democratic votes are still coming in, because even though they're not california-esque, they're slow in democratic countings. 85% of the vote in colorado is cast in metropolitan areas. contrast that with kansas, where less than 50% of the vote is cast in what we would consider to be metropolitan areas. and that's including topeka as a

metropolitan area, considered to be a small area outside of kansas. iowa, 50% of the vote, and that includes a lot of places that we would not consider, based on our experience, metropolitan areas, like butte or sioux city. you go even further. arkansas, the total, it's 50,000 votes or more, less than 30% of the vote is cast there. kentucky, if you include cincinnati suburbs, it's around 33% of the vote, 34% of the vote. where there were significant rural populations, the pollsters completely failed. and that raises a question of whether or not the differential response is not r versus d but city versus country. take new hampshire. that's both a more urban state -- 61.5% of the votes were cast in the three areas considered to be part of manchester or boston metropolitan areas, but unlike every other state, the rural

counties tend to be more democratic. the strength for the republicans is in the metro area. the strength for the democrats, in the rural counties. and that is a state where you saw the margin switch in favor of the democrats rather in favor of the republican. i'd like to throw that out as a possible explanation for the polling fail. if you take a look, the swing was much greater for republicans in the nonmetro areas than the metro areas. colorado i've divided into different areas. you've got denver and boulder. and there's still more democratic votes coming in. but right now, gardner only gained over romney in 2012 by about 2%. if that had been extrapolated statewide, it would have been a 50/50 race. outside of that, in the nondenver metro area, he gained over 3.3%. rural areas, even more. in ski bunny, colorado, on the other hand, there are seven

counties, and if i told you the names of the ski resorts, you would recognize them. the counties, you never would. gardner ran behind. it was a rural issue, not an across-the-board issue. the same thing is true in other places as well. iowa, it's less obvious but the same distinction prevails. then the question is, what does this mean for 2016 if what we're seeing is not a uniform swing but a localized swing? and is this a turnout question? well, i've done two states, colorado and iowa, and colorado keeps moving up. but the differential, if you compare 2014 turnout to the 2012 turnout, is not very great. it's slightly higher as far as the percentage of people voting in rural areas versus urban areas, in 2014 versus 2012, but not enough to explain the

difference. the reason joni ernst won is not because republicans were an unusual share of the electorate. the reason why cory gardner is the new senator from colorado is because he won persuadables and a few of them within the denver metro area, not because of massive turnout differentials. if that plays out in other states, that would suggest that the democratic argument that they lost because their voters didn't show up is kind of like the republican -- you know, the flip side of the republican argument of vote fraud, that it's a convenient excuse to mask a message failure with persuadables rather than an actual explanation. what does this mean for 2016, well, to win the popular vote, republicans need to get about 2% better than romney, minus two, plus two to romney. that's about a narrow popular vote win. in the senate seats, only three states met or exceeded that. brown ran exactly 2% ahead of romney in new hampshire. gardner right now is 2.6 ahead in colorado, as i mentioned, as more democratic votes come in.

that will go down by a couple of points. and only in iowa did joni ernst run comfortably ahead of that margin, running six points ahead of romney. even worse, to win the electoral college, you need about a 2.5% jump, because the marginal state that would put a republican over -- of those, only two of those states, in the senate race, do you equal or exceed the shift in the popular vote that is needed to elect a republican president. the only places in the country where you see that are in the governors races that john talked about. schneider runs about six points ahead of romney. in maryland, hogan runs, i think, seven or eight points ahead of romney. and with joni ernst. so the difference between what governors were running on and what joni ernst was doing versus

what the standard republican playbook is might be really important to look at, if you are a republican strategist trying to win in 2016 and might be very good for democratic strategists who look at if you're trying to take the win out of the -- the wind out of the republican sails. >> now, norm, what does it mean for the lame duck and the next congress? >> thanks, carlin. i spent much of election eve following henry olson's twitter feed. i would suggest to all of you who are here and who are watching, if you really are an election maven, follow henry. a couple of comments on the house. as michael said, republicans are going to have the largest margin since the 1928 election. their new slogan is we're going to party like it's 1929. [laughter]

my favorite house race that i watch closely was statin island. the question was, would michael grimm's margin exceed the counts of his indictment? [laughter] and the answer is he fell short. he won by 13, 20 counts in the indictment, so... so much for the anti-incumbent wave that we have out there. for the stunned democrats coming back to washington, the one bright spot, now they can get legal marijuana in the district. [laughter] a couple of just bullet points. we talked the last time about the democratic turnout machine. we reflected on it last time. i think it's just worth repeating here. turnout machines can be very sophisticated and very great. but you still have to get voters who want to turn out. and i mentioned the old joke

about the company that did the most dazzling advertising campaign ever for a dog food. and it flopped completely. when they analyzed it, it was because the dogs didn't like it. [laughter] if your voters do not see a reason to vote, you can call them. you can offer them transportation to the polls. you can tell them you'll take the mail-in ballot and stick it in the mailbox, and it will not matter very much. that's what happened this time. and of course the turnout for democrats was, in almost every category, lower than it was in 2010 when they suffered a drubbing that was quite historic as well. now, turning to the future, one of the things about a big wave and a victory that exceeds expectations, and that is incredible across the board, is that it poses an additional chang to you for -- challenge to you for governing. the conservative, activist base believes that everything they

stand for, every way in which they approach the process has been vindicated. they are now in the driver's seat. and the idea that now you will dilute your product, compromise, give anything to a president who has been forced to the canvas is treasonous. so it poses a real challenge to leaders who are talking about reaching out and compromising, but the word compromise actually didn't come into the lexicon in the soon-to-be majority leader's mitch mcconnell's statements. he's going to have to give in, because now we're on top. and that's going to be a little difficult to deal with. at the same time, we have an even more starkly polarized ideologically-driven congress than we had before. another house race of great interest was in georgia.

the most conservative democrat who has managed to escape more near-death situations than every indiana jones movie combined, but didn't this time. and that will also tell you something about the broader nature of our politics. not a single white democrat from the south left standing in the house of representatives. and, of course, it reflects even the broader trend over the last three contests, that the robust blue dog coalition that was there before the 2010 elections is down to not quite but close to a trace element. and on the republican side, you've lost a group of boehner loyalists, like tim of wisconsin, and if you look at the replacements, they are much more over to the tea party side. and they're not starting with

any sense of affection or loyalty towards boehner. he will have a larger caucus. he's already working to make sure he can head off a chang. he will be the -- a challenge. he will be the speaker next time. it's a question of how many votes there are on the floor against him, but he will win comfortably. but he is not going to have any more leeway than he had before to tell his republican caucus, you know, we're bringing this to the floor even though a very substantial number of you do not like it. so that's going to make for some difficulty. of course, on the senate side, the losers are most of the democrats who would be accommodating to compromises and working across the board. they're not all gone. mark warner likely will be back. we have joe mansion, angus king, who once again will caucus with the democrats but will try very hard to provide a bridge for some of those bipartisan bills moving forward. but they're going to be fairly few and far between. and always keep in mind the old saw that used to be repeated all

the time of the young house member coming to one of his older colleagues and pointing to a member from the other party and saying, there's the enemy. and the answer was, they're not and the answer was, they're not the enemy. they're the adversaries. the senate is the enemy. the house and senate have very different cultures, very different rhythms, very different rules. and when newt gingrich and bob dole took the reins of power in 1994 and had very much the notion they were going to work together in sync and force bill clinton to his knees, within three months, it was gingrich saying privately and then publicly that he had far more trouble with bob dole than he did with clinton and called dole the tax collector of the welfare state, which improved relations, s you can imagine. we're not going to see the same