peacekeepers come up short, the slowness to deploy, failure to protect civilians. what cannot see what is impossible to see is the counter factual. what would any of the more than a dozen countries where you and peacekeepers are deployed today look like without a peacekeeping presence? and omissions do their jobs, as in syria lyons -- as in sierra leone, they make their selves obsolete. they draw down, troops come home, dr. parades, in spite of having risked their lives, they come home to anonymity. yet this what if question is one we must ask ourselves with every mission. what would have happen in south if no you in peacekeepers had u.n.present -- no peacekeepers had been president, or if the u.n. had not opened its gates to or if the yuan had not opened

its gates. what would the central african republic look like today if no african or european union peacekeepers -- no u.n. peacekeepers, had come to civilianstacks all by -- of civilians, being massacred with abandon. the violence and suffering would likely have been much worse. the one in question does not let anybody off the hook. not peacekeepers, not that countries that fund and support theekeeping and authorize admissions. nobody gets off the hook. it does remind us of why this effort was so worthwhile and why american leadership is so critical. it is because places like sierra leone and south sudan and the central african republic are better off than they would have been without peacekeeping does not mean that the institution is where it needs to be. nor does it mean that we are

satisfied with peacekeepers filling parts but not all of their mandates, or peacekeepers standing up to protect civilians some of the time rather than all of the time. we are not. when the stakes are as high as they are in these conflicts, inn shortfalls can result atrocities committed, communities uprooted, and communities being split along ethnic and religious lines, getting it right some of the time is not good enough. becekeeping must consistently performing and meeting our expectations. we will keep working with our partners to bring about the kinds of reforms upon which the security of millions of people around the world may well depend. thank you. [applause]

>> good to go? >> good to go. >> if you can hear us, marvelous. i want to make sure we get at andt a little bit of time not have any of the throat

clearing questions about how good you look today. that was veryhing interesting to me as a former congressional staffer, on peacekeeping. >> thanks for that. >> you are welcome. >> you want congress to react that money. time, how much are the chinese contributing? >> the chinese share of peacekeeping has doubled. it is up around 5% now. 27and you want us to go to percent? >> you are all numbers. >> i am old. the share now that we are billed for is 28.4%. 72.6% -- 71.6%t is others. but we are paying a large share.

>> you should have stuck with what i said before. that sounded better. that is going to be a hard case to make. there is a lot of bipartisan support for particular missions, whether it is the serious/israel syria/israel line, which is now active -- it used to be just sheep, and now it is all nusra. south sudan, of course, the united states -- i think it is true that when you raise the issue of peacekeeping in the abstract, people blanched a little bit. if you can disaggregate it and look at the protection of civilians in the central african republic, and muslims as well -- i think we have a lot of support. very specificme and persuasive cases.

a couple of the ones you just mentioned are really tough. peacekeepers, i think you -- not outline delivering peace, but keeping peace prevailing. obviously, the peacekeepers -- not a peacekeeping operation, but you mentioned the around alnal forces qaeda. how do we manage these situations where peacekeepers are more than -- should they be taken out? >> many of them would like to not be present in those roles. withshing the conversation the american people, with congress, is so important. the truth is, we do spend a lot of time rightly drawing attention to the ways in which they fail this environment.

with no anti-ied equipment, with , with extremists in your neighborhood -- there are no obvious candidates to take their place, if they -- if we cannot reinforce the efforts they are making. list of options, allowing vacuums to persist or civilians to be slaughtered wholesale -- we are in a situation now where we are trying to change the training, change the capabilities, change the mindset. there is a lag between the missions of the kind you have described and i have described in the traditional mindset that many of these broad. we have been in this evolution as well from the 1990's. now, as i said, the huge -- theage of conflicts huge percentage of u.n.

peacekeeping being performed not in conflict areas, the exception is when there is actually peace to keep. if there were a door number two, i think we would all walk through it. instead, what we have are these peoplect coalitions of who are willing to put themselves on the line in service of international peace and security and protection of civilians. we cannot hope to wish them well and hope these tensions resolve themselves. >> are these contributors all going to be game for the notions that they could be in the sorts of conflicts now? >> let me give you an example. with each country, it is a specific dialogue. we need a new contact on the rules of engagement they need to

other reasonor no than the major of the environment they are operating in. example, mali,e 30 peacekeepers have been killed this year. and you have african companies wanting to walk away? no, they want more robust rules of engagement. i do recognize that if you do not deal with a crisis in the neighborhood, coming to a community near you, you have a lot of political will. you either have a shortage of , and some capable and experienced forces, or you have a huge amount of will and some issues of equipment, being able to sustain themselves. we have to close those gaps. >> if you would be kind enough to identify yourself. she is coming.

she is right here. >> hello. >> and identify yourself. >> first of all, then you for all the discussion. my first peacekeeping mission in 1960, in the congo. the life of the secretary-general. the countries in the congo had so many peacekeeping missions. they payof that did themselves? country like the congo, i think the answer would not only be alsong, but it would that they look to the international community to support their security forces

who are operating now side-by-side with the peacekeepers, taking on some of these armed groups. there are exceptions like in cyprus. you had a developed country where they do contribute a very substantial share of the peacekeeping. congo, ier point in "se the phrase "stagnating about years of peacekeeping missions in congo that produced no dividends, at least in terms of overall change. maybe civilians were safer here because there might be a peacekeeper in the neighborhood, but when you look at the net crisis, it looks like more of the same, year to year. this is an example -- they are using a forced intervention where you had three african armies willing to be part of this -- south africa,

which are raring to go against armed groups. they are also using uavs to monitor the border and see whether arms are coming across or actors in the region are getting involved in problematic ways. i think there is actually something different that has brought about meaningful changes for the past year and a half. when you look in the congo, it is harder to say. >> young lady back here. >> i am caroline. i study peace and conflict resolution in africa. tendency forn a african countries to want to consolidate peacekeeping efforts, and want to find larger units to deal with issues. one of the more recent is the

overarching protocols within security governance, these larger themes. we have also seen them come into a conflict resolution role, in congo. i wonder where you see the .a.r. and the african ga conflict resolution in the region. >> to distinguish that group a little bit and a little bit of there was a security reform peace. piece. i should've said at the beginning, i hope it goes without saying that the political processes, the mediation and the national reconciliation, that that is the first order priority, of course, of international efforts. the best you are going to do

with the security forces is, hold the militias at bay and hopefully defang them and protect civilians. unless you have that parallel peace at work, where you try to give rise to what gives conflict in the first place, you are going to say -- plate welcome all. that is what we have seen in the congo over many years. without getting into the technical aspects of what the regional effort is seeking to achieve, i think what we have to thesearallel improvements, and this aggressive attitude on the part of the peacekeepers, is way more regional ownership of what is happening. in an interesting and noteworthy development, they have stepped up not only in that region, but also in the central african republic. countries are stepping up to provide peacekeepers that have not before.

they are looking to expand the forces and make sure they have the training capabilities they need. worth goingly not so deep into the specifics of what the regional effort is right now. there would be no solution to congo on the peacekeeping side. it is going to come through a political process. is a deterrent to the armed groups, where they feel like they need to surrender their weapons or face something on the security side. find a place where their constituents can find a home. you have to walk that at the same time. >> she has a plane to catch and i do not know how she is going to get it in 45 minutes. >> thank you so much. thank you for coming.

>> thank you all. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> turning now to virginia republican ed gillespie has conceded the u.s. senate race to markratic incumbent warner, and says he will not seek a recount even though state law entitles him to one. senator warner is shown leading by nearly a percentage point after more than 2 million ballots cast. -- mr. the code gillespie's concession speech from earlier today. [laughter] [applause]

[laughter] >> thank you all. thank you. thank you so much. thank you all. thank you. thank you also much. thank you all. is soh short notice, it great to see so many friends and so many volunteers and supporters making time on a weekday. with and i are happy to be you today. we just wanted to give you a little update on where things stand, and it stands this way. as you know, the canvassing is just about completed. official tally is now a votes,more than 16,700 larger than it was on election night.

obviously, it did not move in the direction we hoped it would. i called mark warner this morning to congratulate him on his reelection, to thank him for his public service to our commonwealth, and to wish him and his family well. conversation, and i hope he does well in his continued service for the commonwealth of virginia and the country. this is obviously a hard-fought race, and i am proud of the campaign we have run, and i loved every minute of it. [applause] maybe not this one so much. issue-driven, policy, focused campaign, the specific

proposals to create jobs, raise take-home pay, lift people out of poverty, hold down health care costs, and reduce energy prices. we were outspent by more than two to one, and in the end, the shift of 9000 votes could have changed the outcome of this election. and if i believed there were any conceivable way to find a viable recount, i through a would fight as hard now as i have for the last 10 months of this campaign for our policies and principles. that iran because i love our country and our commonwealth, and it would be wrong to put my fellow virginians through a recount, when in my head and in my heart i know that changing the outcome is not possible. he had heard from supporters and voters with concerns about some irregularities, concerns about their ballots.

we forwarded them to the republican party of virginia to make sure every legitimate vote is counted, and that we protect against any such irregularities in the future. even factoring in any of these or analysiscounted, of past elections in the commonwealth which have been even closer than ours, and in consultation with our legal team, i have concluded the numbers just are not there, and it is time to accept the decision of my fellow virginians. after 11 months and 66,000 miles traveled, kathy and i are blessed to call so many of them are friends. i could not have come this close without the efforts and hours of the mighty, mighty geforce. [applause] kathy and i love you all, and we

surprised a lot of experts tuesday night. but you are not surprised at all. you had faith all along, and kept working hard even in the face of being told it was hopeless. i want to thank all of our volunteers who were here from the beginning. but i am just as grateful for all of those volunteers who supported others in our nominating process and came on board after our convention. partyf them were tea voters who were initially skeptical of my candidacy. but after getting to know one another better, it was clear their concerns are my concerns and my concerns are there is. aree patriotic americans often wrongfully marginalized, if not demonized, in the media, and it is wrong. i hope our campaign helps foster an even greater working traditional between

liberty movement and tea party republicans going forward, and our party continues to rally behind our nominee is, no matter what door they have come into the process through. we could not have gotten this close in this election if we did not take a positive message to voters who have not traditionally supported republicans, campaigning in every corner of the commonwealth to every segment of the electorate. our campaign material was translated into seven languages, and we went to places republicans too long have written off and democrats too long have taken for granted. we went to ethnic festivals, black churches, islamic centers, homeless shelters, food banks, and the recovery community. i'm after getting to know one another better, it was clear that their concerns are my concerns and my concerns are there concerns. and those efforts paid off. as a party, we need to carry them forward.

i am going to begin rolling credits, so be patient, because we have a lot of people to thank in this process. team, i am so happy to congratulate my longtime friend, barbara comstock, for winning in the 10th congressional district. and in the seventh district, a new friend i made in the course of this campaign, dave bradford, who will do a great job representing the people of the seventh. they will be effective leaders for the people that elected them , certainly does for our commonwealth. i want to congratulate another longtime friend, suzanne shelti, and another new friend, mike edwards, running such impressive races in the eighth and 11th

districts as well. has one of the finest congressional delegations in the united states congress, and it was a joy, a pure joy, to run forbes,tman, rachel, bob, and morgan griffith. they are all strong voices for us in the united states congress. former congressman eric cantor and retiring congressman frank wolf were generous in their support of our efforts as well, and i want to thank them not only for their support of our campaign, but their service to our country. want to thank tommy normand and all our delegates and senators for their invaluable help along the way. i have so many friends and great surrogates and advisers. mark and suzanne were tireless. we decided early on not to have a campaign chairman for this campaign, but mark pretty much served as our campaign chairman.

a lot of campaigns have one. they tend to have a title, but not do a lot of work. he was the opposite. he did not need or want a title, and worked tirelessly on our behalf, and gave us great advice. i am lucky to call him my friend. our party is stronger because of his principled leadership, and virginians are lucky to have someone of his integrity in the state senate. [applause] think the snyders and the a grade for the miles they logged and their friends are -- friendship. we are so happy for them as they expect their new baby. the finance team did a great job. steve smith. pat mullins and the staff at the republican party of virginia, who were shoulder to shoulder with us throughout

this. stepsll be missed as he down as chairman of the republican party of virginia. and i want to thank the rnc and their victory staff, led by josh daniels. the tip of the spear was the ad for senate campaign. ourtip of that tip was campaign manager, chris leavitt, who is tireless, smart, committed, and unrelenting. chris, thank you. [applause] our political team was the backbone of our highly if ground game. the field director and regional directors were fantastic. we did a lot of outreach, as i mentioned. our coalition team was wonderful. helped us make so many new friends and go places we had not been before as a party. i want to thank our coalition directors for their hard work.

we were a policy-driven campaign. and i appreciate the hard work robinson director ryan , brendan paddy, and others, for a positive agenda, the ed gillespie agenda for economic growth, which resonated across our commonwealth. we raised a lot of money for a campaign that nobody thought had a chance. [laughter] our finance team, led by italy's ise and including rob nelson and caitlin collins, did a fantastic job. i appreciate the hard work of our communications team, paulding tucker martin, logan, garrett hawkins, and miriam roth, and social media director eric wilson, who helped us build a community of support. my friend bill found the time even though he was in the midst of a slew of governors races

around the country. last but not least, i have to thank my right hand man, kyle. we traveled 56,000 miles together and did not kill one another. [laughter] we went whatever the campaign sent us. i the end of it all, sometimes we were not sure. at warner campaign headquarters or our own? kyle, thank you very much. [applause] [laughter] finally, i think my family. cassie was my most effective surrogate on the campaign trail. we are blessed by a wonderful marriage, and i am a very lucky man. [applause] she is with ed, as you can see,

and i am with her. kerry, molly were supportive and understanding throughout this campaign, knowing it was going to take me away from our very close family at times. losing is never easy, that it is made easier by knowing there for me, and -- knowing they are there for me and i will have more time to be there for them. it would have been nice to become senator, but the best thing i have ever been called is dad. [applause] and so, in fact, kathy and i are leaving from here for peering's weekend at our daughter's college. weekend at our daughter's college. thank you all. and molly, dad and mom are on the way.

god bless the commonwealth of virginia, and god bless the united states of america. thank you. [applause] >> president obama met with congressional leaders today, inviting 16 top lawmakers to the white house for lunch. the president pledged to judge ideas in his final two years not by whether they come from democrats or republicans, but by whether or not they work. betweent obama set house speaker john boehner and current senate majority leader harry reid. he said he congratulated republicans were running very strong campaigns, and the election results showed

americans are frustrated with gridlock and want washington to start getting things done. on the c-spand networks, tonight at 8:00 eastern, more reaction to the midterm elections. on saturday night at 8:00, a debate on the future of the internet. and sunday evening, tavis smiley on his latest book, "death of a tonight, and amherst professor on german occupied paris during world war ii. saturday night at 10:00, author jeff chang on the idea of racial progress in america. 2d edward o wilson, winner of pulitzer prizes, on what makes us human and different to other species. tonight at 8:00 on c-span 3, medal of honor recipients reflect on their service in world war two, vietnam, and afghanistan. and the social prejudice immigrants faced during the

1800s. sunday night at 8:00, the 25th anniversary of the fall of the berlin wall. let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. us, or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. next, a look at tuesday's midterm election results. roll post at a conference yesterday. a perspective on the trends seen on election night, and what the trends could mean to committee assignments and the republican agenda. >> i am the politics editor at "roll call." this panel is simply titled, what happened? joining me is the deputy of -- deputy editor of the rothenberg

report. and the founder of the newly relaunched politics in stereo. i am joined by the nbc news senior reporter, previously a reporter for time and "the washington post." you can follow him on twitter at harry bacon junior. i am joined by the senior editor of the huffington post. -- followllow them him on twitter at "mystery pollster." you can sign up for the huff pollster newsletter. and a writer who focuses on the house. you can follow her at roll call. she is also a producer with c -- with cnn and nbc. more importantly, she is one of the star players of the bad news

babes softball team on the press side. female members of the press take on female number's of congress, and it is a great fundraiser for cancer research. and absolutely great pitcher. i have a couple of questions prepared for our panel. start thinking of your sage questions now. democratsght, after took this huge drubbing and the president was largely held responsible, or at least a lot of blame has been put at his feet -- is there anything congressional democrats could have done to avoid this political slaughtering? >> i feel like every cycle, stu and i come to the same conclusion about the campaign committees. and things go right, the committees get more credit than

they deserve, and when things go wrong, they get more blame than they deserve. to me, that does not mean they have no control over what is happening. i think this was a fascinating election because we finally have an answer to the question of, how much does local politics matter, and can a well-known politician with a family name and a family brand in a state -- can that overcome the national trajectory of an election? we have an answer now, a pretty clear answer, and the answer is no. the national trend, in the states of arkansas, louisiana -- louisiana is not quite done yet. but those family brands that were supposed to save these democratic members were not enough -- were not enough to get them reelected. in terms of specifically what can democrats control, i don't think -- i do not buy into the inevitability of the sixth year

of a presidency being terrible. i think there are choices and decisions and administration makes up to that point. i think a good example is president bill clinton's second midterm. that was a disaster for his party. when you look at the specific democratic members, they made a choice with their votes. and republicans did a good job highlighting those votes come up with a few million, tens of millions, one hundred million dollars of advertising, highlighting the votes democratic members took in favor of the president's agenda. i remember in the 2010 cycle was congressman joe donnelly, who was running for reelection in indiana's second district. there was an ad he aired. he was running against the problems -- the narrator said, there is a problem with the washington crowd. the washington crowd.

as the narrator was saying that, there was one picture. the picture had john boehner, president obama, and nancy pelosi. a democratic member of congress running for reelection, running against the washington crowd, with the two leaders of his party. i thought that was stunning. joe donnelly made the decision that in his competitive district, in the competitive environment trending against his party, he was going to not only distance himself from the president, laurent against the president. and he survived that wave and ended up catching a couple of breaks in 2012 and being elected to the senate. --hink democrats could have these vulnerable democrats could have made a strategic decision to run more adamantly against the president. look where they ended up with their current strategy.

not knowomething we do the answer to, but could have been something that might have affected a few of these races. >> harry, what do you think? >> i really think the fundamentals seem to make a big difference, in terms of the sixth year, how unpopular the president was. in virginia, one is the governor. he develops this political brand of his own. he goes into these rural communities and does really well. his voting was very similar to terri mccullough. his personal brand made no difference in terms of the national environment. you had alison grimes in kentucky, who famously would not say if she even voted for the president. her numbers were exactly the same as the president. she won by three more points than he did. she hadn't voted obamacare. she was young. she was a woman. her dad had been in politics.

the candidates ought to get away from the national environment. not at all. very, very -- none of the numbers were the same as obama's in georgia. what they could of done in this environment. i might disagree a little bit. i am not sure the democrat candidates needed to be so anti-obama. at the end of the day, the president house approval rating has to do with how you do. this notion that you can step , that is the president not believable anymore. it may have been more useful to think that the president is going to be an anchor. arkansas, the data shows the rate of uninsured people dropped tremendously as of the health care law. looking back, maybe those candidates should have said, the health care law is working, instead of trying to run away

from it, because they lost by so many points anyway. >> mark, what do you think? >> i agree with everything i have heard so far, and i want to echo what terri said. the political environment in any given election for a national candidate -- for a senator, for a number of congress -- is largely defined by not just to the president is, but by the policy. the president sets the policy agenda, drives everything politics are about. in races for u.s. senate, these tend to be elected officials in your state you pay the least attention to. they go away for six years. your mayor, your governor gets a lot of attention. you read about the president. the senator pops up. you engage with them every six years for a couple of months. very very hard, and i would argue less than possible, to

make those races local. you saw that vividly. my colleagues on the numbers .eek beat illustrated this scott clement at "the washington post" had a piece yesterday. he took the exit poll and looked at two columns. democraticf the senator, the incumbent -- they ran a little bit ahead of obama's approval rating. but not much. three, four points. the one who ran furthest ahead was warner, which ended up being just enough. the new york times yesterday, they took the county level vote for all the -- i think there are six southern states where there were senate races. five included democratic incumbents. four of them lost. he plotted that against the vote for obama in every county, and

it was a perfect diagonal line. they were successful. it is very hard. it is hard to sit up and say, they should have done this or that. they clearly saw the reality facing them. if they embrace president obama in their state, they were going to go down. they tried in different ways. some of them more in retrospect. more retrospect were successful than others. moderated aer, i debate at a victorious -- look serious complex in west virginia. it is the treasurer of a state that has a lot of economic struggles. this is the wealthy bastian. people from all over the world travel there, and they take a lot of pride in that.

a strange thing going on in west virginia -- there were a lot of state -- new orleans fans there as well. >> a lot of steelers fans as well. state --w orleans in westo their workouts virginia. they having knowledge that. they have a video of the greenbrier you can watch in your hotel room. it is all these luminaries that stay there, all these presidents. they have photos of movie stars everywhere you go. it dawned on me, and i could be wrong in this historical fact -- i think the last president who stayed there was eisenhower. thought,s later, i what if president obama had come here to play golf? it is his favorite activity. it is probably a 40 five minute flight.

he could have played golf. i do not think anything would make west virginia like president obama. he is reviled there. end rahall -- at the very of the debate, i heard from both sides that president obama's approval rating in nick rahall's district was 27%. if he were to come and play golf there, they would hate him less, and it might have made it easier for nick rahall to be there. mandate saying he had a to do that. but if there have had been some kind of outreach just a little beenif president obama had the first president in 60 years to say, as is a great golf course, it would have brought a little pride to the state. that was my observation. i do not think that race was ever winnable. i think it would have made it less hard. -- there is country seething at president obama.

when iowa -- we saw what was happening with bruce braley. it was not just that he was not doing well. it is that the seats below him are going down. i talked to democratic operatives and said, bruce braley is the most disliked man in democratic politics right now. and the person said, no, it is president obama. he created an environment that made it that much further. i think a lot of people made tactical mistakes. i think there were mistakes along the way. i think at the end of the day, that is what it came down to. it has been five years since the supreme court ruled on the citizens united case. what do you think now about the expanded role of money in politics? what is the big take away? >> we have seen a lot of campaign finance news. on this$4 billion spent midterm, the most ever. free hundred million people live in america. that is only $12 a person.

will vote in the election, so $44 a person. that does not seem like a lot for a person. in reality, of course, most people are not getting money -- not giving money at all. we saw a really big change this year. the amount of campaign donations went up again. the amount of money spent in politics went up. the amount of donors went down. in 2010, there were a hundred thousand individual donors to the campaign. ofig drop in the number individuals giving money, even though the actual money went up. i saw this year they are really getting the picture of what campaign finance looks like in this new environment. we saw in 2004 about 96% of money spent in politics was by groups that this close how much

they spent. this year, about 65% were. dark money,0% was meaning you could not track what the donation was from. that benefited republicans a lot. in terms of campaign commercials, about 23% of the commercials the democrats ran were funded by dark money in some ways, by an undisclosed owner. about 48% of republican ads, and this is millions and billions of dollars, was in ads where the donor is not required to say where the money came from. in kentucky during the cycle, you could see that. somebody asked about mitch mcconnell. people kept telling me, mitch mcconnell is really caring. i thought, interesting. i have heard he is strategic, but caring, i have never heard that before. but then i watched tv, and

mcconnell, he had an independent group running all these ads. the independent group in kentucky was spending a lot of money saying, grimes-obama, in this aggressive way. to run allas able kinds of positive ads the past month to show him bringing money back to the state, and how nice he was, smiling in a way that if you are around here -- >> he was surrounded by cute dogs. see.u can the spending allows -- we had campaign finance a few years ago, and the goal was, if you do a negative ad, you have to say, i am perry bacon, i approve this ad. you do not have to do that anymore, because the outside group can talk about how bad the opponent is, and i can run positive ads. a big change. cover of the things we that i love is house races. i know you love covering house races.

sawe republicans recently the number of women in their conference dwindle. what did these elections due in terms of diversifying the house republican caucus? do you think that will affect the course of speaker boehner's leadership? >> this is all about abby and what kind of new opponents she is going to have at the softball game this year. because women and women's issues , and republican dealing with women, has been such a hot topic, i looked before the election to see, what are the races? will there be more republican women in this congress them at the beginning of the last congress? republicans started from a little bit of a deficit. jo ann emerson left congress two years ago. down one. shelley was running for the senate, switching to the other side of the hill. rachelle bodman is retiring. in order for republicans to gain more women in the caucus, they

have to get 3. it looks like there will be 4 republican women added to the house. there will be barbara comstock in northern virginia. and mimi walters of california. that would be 4. they would beginning one. right now, arizona's second martin mcnally is ahead by about 30 votes. there is a chance -- there is still a lot of votes to be counted in the democrat and republican counties. women, evenhose though the number of women are still low in the caucus, those women will be getting a lot of attention. the 30-year-old, the youngest woman elected. republican woman elected -- i think she is going to have a high profile in the party.

in terms of other diversity -- there was an african american elected in a tech that -- a texas district, who defeated democrat pete gallego in a district that is majority hispanic. i think he will get some attention. comingcarvalho will be to congress. and we will see carl demaio, who a san diego city councilman. that race is still too close to call. republicans, there is an opportunity to have some diverse members outside of the typical theywhite male stereotype have. >> we are talking about a house republican conference that is probably 10% female. >> the republican caucus and the , my friend andus

competitor david wasserman has done great breakdowns of the deterioration of white man in the democratic caucus, and the increase of minorities and women in the democratic caucus, compared to republicans. i would encourage you to check it out. >> i thought we could go around real quick and talk about our biggest surprise from tuesday night. would say louise slaughter, the fact that we do not know if she is coming back to congress. not mentioned to me once this entire cycle, but democrats or republicans. they spent two weeks trying to catch surprises, and that came out of nowhere. like, is this the kind of thing you guys are keeping under the radar, and you did not want to give it away? they are like, we did not see this coming either. he is goingaryland to get out. it is not called yet.

seat, awas an open redistricting race, it was a reflection of the maryland gubernatorial race. there is a point tuesday night when anything seems possible. tristan hollen ends up leading by 20 points, but at one point he was up by 2. i would say louise slaughter and john delaney. >> i think my panelists may have the same answer. show of hands. how many of us live in the d.c./maryland/virginia area? a sickly everybody in the room. how many of us would have predicted a week ago we were talking about a potential recount in virginia and a seven-point man or nine point in maryland? the two biggest surprises were right in our backyard, and most of us -- certainly, i did not see this coming, and i probably should have. since we were misled by the

about botht's talk of them. maryland is one of these classic cases, like harkening back to harry truman. quotes "trustworthy, independent" media. at the beginning of the month. the "washington post" poll was in october. there were some internal polls that had the candidate darren 2 a week out,n and five ahead the final week. a lot of us, me included, looked at it with a grain of salt. under member thinking, i should look at this more closely, but i have eight senate races, 20 other people to focus on. so that one is kind of classic.

virginia, similar. virginia is tougher, because there were a fair number of late calls. -- late polls. this gets back to more systematic issues about the polling. there is a situation where it should not have been a surprise to anybody, and was not to me, that gillespie was going to finish closer in the end than most of the polling had him. hasek incumbent challenger situation, where an incumbent with a whole lot of money who can dominate the election, and a challenger, particularly in northern virginia, which has always been crucial, was not going to be able to spend money until toward the end, with voters who engage at the end, who would consolidate republicans. i think it surprised everyone just how close it got. for me, the surprise was how well warner seemed to be doing in the polling in weeks three, two, and one. i was expecting to see it closed down to three or four points.

it was surprising it did not. and even more surprising when we ended up with the nailbiter that we did. >> we are going to come back to polling and a little bit. i want to give these gentlemen the opportunity to respond. >> not so much the polling, but the margins that republicans in arkansas, louisiana, kentucky, iowa -- the marginal republican victories were not surprising to me. to the point, why cover the race? look at the enemy. he lost by so much. on-the-fly, the margins we are studying -- when you look at the house races in new york house first district, with congressman tim bishop and republican leaves eldon -- that is normally very tight. bishop has been tweaking them out for the last decade. if you go up further the new york post 24th district, tampa bay, it was a race we knew was raking late.

republicans would have the money advantage in two weeks. 20 points.can won by just a complete collapse. the turnout was not there. another thing i was surprised by on the house side was, some of the incumbents that survive -- like and kurt hetrick of arizona. of arizona.atrick if you told me 13 seats and ann kirkpatrick survives -- i think that is stunning. on the flipside, john barrow of georgia, who republicans have been targeting since he was first elected over a decade ago, a white southern democrat -- i think he is amazing as a politician. have a harvard educated lawyer, and when you look at his abs,-- his ads, his southern accent

gets deeper and deeper. he has been a survivor. for him to lose by considerable margins is shocking. i think the only southern white democrat left is from north carolina. nick rahall and mark barron lost. arkansas.ion to see mark pryor lose by 18 points -- blanche lincoln lost by 21 points, and we covered her race completely differently than we covered mark pryor. >> we were told the entire cycle, mark pryor is no blanche lincoln. >> that is the perfect segue to the next question. stu rothenberg wrote a column this morning about the results and what happened. i am going to read a small portion of it about polling. you can read the whole column at rollcall.com. first, either democratic polling

has significant problems, or pollsters and operatives intentionally misled pollsters and handicappers about what was going on during this cycle. republicans had a tough polling cycle in 2012 and went through a process of public reflection and self-criticism. it will be interesting to see whether democrats will do the same thing. i should ask the pollster first. >> do you think the polling problem is more widespread than that? >> i think it's more widespread than that. the democratic pollsters and the media pollsters ought to -- i mean, moments ofhaving reflection for the last ten years. used to do what we used to do by calling landline phones. a situation where basically more than half of americans either don't have a or don't answer it when it rings. so in this moment of incredible challenge to the polling industry, i have my -- on the the other hand.on

if you took all the senate polls, as they did, and you aggregate them or average them, you would have, in the senate called -- just looked at who was ahead or behind. butyou would have had all one race right, and that was north carolina, and it didn't miss by much. our estimate was about plus-two for hagan and she's losing by a bit.e on the other hand, there was a of theent understatement republican vote, nearly consistent, not 100%. in most states and the senate, the governors side, if that meant if you repeated the same exercise for the governors, you part of -- the good news is, we had four races at the end that were half a point, half a percentage point that separated the top candidates and less than two points separated eight. in that situation, you're not going to be very -- you're going to miss a lot.

meanf a point doesn't much. and three or four of those were missed. but overall, there was an overstatement of democrats, an understatement of republicans, and that meant more of those misses were -- the missed republican winning. utterlye were some enormous polling misses. we talked about maryland and virginia. some context, four polling was off in nevada. had sharontion polls angle narrowly ahead. harry reid won by six. be a little high. there was a roughly six-point polling.the we all go, oh, my god, it's incredible. thehis the beginning of end? the error in arkansas was 11 points, the error. the finalence between polling ar average and the resut 11 points in arkansas, 10 in

virginia, almost 10 in kentucky, kansas, 17 in the maryland goafngovernor's race. about? that anytime you have a polling error, it's like an engineering learned.ke nasa usually it's not just one thing. usually it's multiple things that are all going wrong in the same direction. so, you know, clearly maryland, helped to have more polling and there was clearly a trend. at thensas, you can look chart and see the almost 45-degree line. blank. on cotton's number at the end. so there clearly was a trend there. have been more of a trend in kentucky that the polling didn't pick up. at the polling in theember, and looked at final averages as we did on can see, youg, you know, the republicans increase margins in almost every one of those states where democrats lost.

usually it was the republican up two points for every -- there was evidence of fundamentals in play. that is, democrats were capped races to a greater degree. and republicans, who were lesser whon, who were challenges, were gaining recognition ek were going up. so there probably was a little bit of an effect with undecideds at the end, going disproportionately with republicans. that same phenomenon was at work in the whole likely mechanism. there's no one sort of lever that they all should have pulled that they didn't. but i think there was probably a pattern where there was an assumption essentially that the 2010 turnout was the worst it could get for democrats. and it turned out, particularly six mostf the five or hotly contested statewide races, to be wrong. >> something we noticed a lot on the staff over the last cycle or the newfound use of polls

partisan warfare. you'll see independent partisan outlets releasing polls. do this as a way to kind of drive a narrative a certain way. i was wondering if you can talk about the role of that a little bit, because i know how much you about the role of partisan polls and some of the ways we cover, some of the ways our competitors cover. >> i'm probably the first on this panel who likes talking about polls in the least. >> and it's for this reason. stues, it's specific what wrote, which is no one is going to give you a poll out of the goodness of their heart. they are either trying to raise money off of it, change a narrative. they can be -- on the flip side, they can be wrong. they can be enormously helpful too. intarted to get tremors july. stop covering mike coffman in

colorado, a republican incumbent lot of trouble. it was like, you should shift southland in steve florida. he's in more trouble. it but anuite believe independent group put out a poll saying southerland is in trouble. ended uptherland losing. so i have to balance as a spun?er, am i being and maybe i am being spun and it's right. and what is the value to the reader? are so many scientific angles that go into it, the it was conducted. did it include english, did it include spanish, was the district need that. so it's a real balance of, you know, my loyalty is to the not going tom write it up just to write it up. and i get a lot of pressure from well, you're not being fair. why aren't you going to write mine? because i don't trust yours. a hard thing to say sometimes.

so it's a really difficult reporter, because it is a hard piece of evidence a race.the state of but you also have to use a little instinct and you have to use -- i just usually end up going to stu and nathan and do you all think? that's usually my final verdict. >> do you have anything to add the role of polling this cycle? thing, it'sadd one that i think after the 2012 -- call it the republican polling debacle. made af the pollsters concerted effort to change, making sure they had 25% to 30% cell phones this their samples. but i think something we saw was that when republican pollsters were going into the field and getting hot numbers, that is, numbers that bemed almost too good to true, i think there was a tendency to wait those back

between a 2010re -- 2012 elect rot electorate, because there was a fear of being wrong again. think that -- even some of republican polls that were published made it difficult to identify the margins we saw on election day. i think republican pollsters did a better job of identifying what type of cycle, what type of electorate was going to show up. 2012, i think democrats did a job.r 2014, i think republicans did a better job of identifying. 2016,'re going to go into saying, well, which pollsters are going to be the most accurate in identifying the trend? and i think that's going to be an open question. what i would say is underlying the polls is something i don't totally understand. the voters were over 16.

30.t 19% were under 2014, 37% of the voters are over 60. are under 30.em so i just at the end of the day, and i don't want to blame the millennials for the election, but i am cure yowses about -- curious about -- we ist of know that the gap growing in a very large way. i know the democrats spent a lot make sureying to these voters showed up in the midterm. atdoesn't appear that worked all. i'm curious about why. tvre was a lot of things on talking about how important the midterms are, rock the vote. lot of groups focused on getting the youth vote out. it doesn't seem to have happened all. >> i think that's a great point that we should return to about demographics versus the turnout question. i want to ask you about new hampshire brief, new england in general. polls seem to be pretty much right in the new hampshire senate race or, you know, at

races,elative to other right? how did people get it right in new england? >> i'll answer. but i can't leave it hanging, because it's such a great question. talking before the panel about being a little cautious about making too much of the estimates of demography, because it's a poll. we will have, other ways of looking at this census and voter files, whatnot. i think, if there is a gap more to do with the fact that there's been a higher turnout among younger people in the last two than antial elections change in the way the midterms have gone. new england -- >> good point. >> new hampshire was one of the handful of states, where if anything, the polling understated shaheen, not by a lot. but what was interesting to me, and this might be just one of those coincidences that happens ofn you look at a lot numbers, to the extent that there was a little bit -- that

you didn't see the republicans,t of it happened to be less or even in the democrats' direction in new hampshire, in massachusetts, to a lesser extent in in the northeast, which is interesting. not maine, not in vermont, although those its own weird because there were very few polls there. i don't know. one theory that a smart pollster threw out was that massachusetts and new hampshire, by connection, has a lot of homegrown polling. that is, locally based outfits only poll massachusetts or massachusetts and new hampshire. it's interesting. if you look at, you know -- it's always dangerous to judge a pollster by one survey. in fact, it's nearly irresponsible, because luck has do with nailing that result with one poll. but the folks who did, who sort came out looking pretty good, ann and the des moines register

poll in iowa was certainly a homegrown operation who got it right. i think my former partner, who runs the marquette poll in wisconsin, who had the there, andrace right we can pick others. there are a lot of those in new england and new hampshire that may be part of it. >> abby, as also a fellow house race lover, house democrats took unexpected in some ways, drubbing on tuesday night. going forward for democrats, there's certainly i think a lot of younger members in the we've heard indirectly that they are worried about the future of the house democratic party, right? do you see as -- what could possibly happen as a result of kind of nervous energy from them, and what direction is the democratic caucus going in this cycle? >> well, the gavel was clearly

contention this cycle. but this cycle did matter, because the hope was democrats a few gains ore it became clear this was a bad cycle and maybe just mitigate losses. and then in 2016, they could make up the difference. 17. were down they can make up the difference. and take back the gavel, when likely hillary clinton is at the top of the ballot. i talked to one member yesterday. saying,on just kept we've lost 70 seats in six years. that's a pretty staggering number. and so i think the reality is hitting that it's going to be, you know, without unforeseen and major changes in the political dynamic, democrats are going to have a really hard time getting the gavel back before the next redistricting map in 2021. i'm sensingknow, when i talk to people on the out aleader pelosi put letter basically saying she's running again.

sort offoresee any challenge to her, but there is definitely a younger generation that's getting restless. the group and leadership has been there for a really long time. 2012he freshmen class of is very ambitious. pelosihave like the group and then you have the next wasserman, schultz. then you have another group that wants to be in leadership. so you have these three generations just kind of impacting each other. and you don't really see it kind don't see a dysfunction coming out publicly in how they execute elections be veryf, but it will interesting to see in the next few years, you know, how these forces collide. >> we're going to go to q&a in three minutes. very quickly, i thought we should go around and kind of what thisn about election was about. what's the big story? what was this about? about the economy, about candidates? nathan, i'll start with you.

>> i think it was about president obama. mean, i kind of -- there was so many -- i feel like so many stories before the election, it's the seinfeld election. the election about nothing. i feel like president obama was shadow that was cast over the entire election. umbrella,eath that you know, there was the economy. orre was -- or the economy how people felt about the economy. crises.s foreign think,kind of fit, i under the umbrella of president obama. >> i think that's true. grappling withof the -- not many people in america have ebola. delayed aind of been little bit. ten million people have health insurance. so i can't see that those stories kill president obama. occasionally the reality in what is discussed in politics, not exactly in sync with each other. so i'm thinking about that more.

striking thing that's is i was in louisville with senator o'connell. we were asking him about his agenda. he talked about tax reforms and agreements being the big deal. i don't think i heard that the campaign trail. the campaign was not about really issues, to the point have to ask after the election is over. we should in theory -- we have to be guessing and speculating on what you're going to do. should become clear. the third thing is a lot of the big issues didn't come up. disappointing. you want a campaign to be about ideas. the barack obama says climate change is one of the biggest problems an urgentld and challenge. i didn't hear that from any of the candidates. a big challenge. the republicans say government spending is huge. is a big part of that. is there some republican plan of

hear?re that i didn't these are big, important issues. and the elections are supposed that the nation was transfixed about what happened in ferguson, missouri, in august. did you hear anything about that on the campaign trail? i think that shows some racial the country. i didn't hear any proposals to deal with that. it felt like the election was about who was going to win, and i get that, but it did feel like biglection in which the issues were going to be delayed until later. i'm not sure it had to be that way. quickly. abby, let's start with you. >> i think it's obama. anger.think it's also ei think the american public, since 9/11, has been disappointed by the government in big ways, and the financial crisis. thing butwas a tiny it was just one more thing that wrong, perceived. the internet blew it up and it's all these sources. if it's still possible to lead, but clearly

the public is not feeling good about president obama right now. >> i'll go back to what we were talking about when we started, president's agenda defines what we talk about in washington, defines what politics is about for most people. so my answer is no, not ebola, not these little mini stories that we get obsessed with. the bigger picture, we've had six years since the economy ofshed, and although some the economic indicators are coming back to ordinary people, aretill feels like things not good. are things headed in the right direction or the wrong track? 60%, 70% say the wrong track. if asked about the direction of to 70% say not good, in some version or another. shapes what helps perceptions about what the president is doing. that's what is driving all of this. >> now it's time to open it up to you all for questions. a mic?ave excellent.

>> thanks. i'm a former policy director on campaigns.atewide so i want to ask you all, as reporters, why is it that who writes upe, all these things about what we should do on this issue or that the pressds that release that you cover is the one about the poll? i mean, the number of horse race stories versus the number of issue stories is sort of surprising to those of us who the issues. so what is it that drives that as being the thing that becomes talkedvered and more about, and given that we find problems with polling, could or should that change in the future? >> i prefer to be the last word that. >> i'll start. i think that candidates, there is an incentive, and i don't know specifically what policy ipers you're writing on, but think candidates are generally their policyin proposals. there is very little that is outside the box.

youuse the more specific get in a campaign with your policy proposals, the more you there to be attacked by the other side. just to read a democratic we're for working families and better wages, i'm like, okay. you?n, what does that tell i think to reporters, it's tough to make news out of that sort of thing. [inaudible question] me.xcuse i was describing the ideal. me,reality is, at least for media is a business. stories about in-depth policy often do not get the same amount of attention. let's just be honest about that. of thehink that's one core challenges. like the candidates talk about what they think is media is going to cover. of the time when i tell someone i cover elections, the they ask me is not what i think is the most important problem in america. me, is hillary running? are the democrats running the

senate? write more stories about policy details. i think the interest is in these more -- there's nothing wrong with the horse race. i don't agree there's something theg with the issue and horse race. i would like the balance to be better myself but i don't think there's anything wrong with race.ge of the horse roll call wehever role are assigned to. ask policy questions. every single one i ask, you what a big question, but do you think about foreign affairs? because all they want to talk issues, and they seem to not always want to talk about the fact that they will to declare war on someone or authorize force. discuss policy very in-depth. sometimes we put it out for the public. up for a video interview, if something catches

my ear, we'll put it on video. the videos get watched sometimes, sometimes not. we -- stu will write it up. we had a candidate come in during the shutdown and wouldn't answer what she would do. stu wrote a column that's been it.ed frequently about i would say a press release is sometimes hard for a reporter to because it cang, be vague. but often we ask direct questions and try to nail them down. so, you know, we do it the best we can. >> i wanted to chime in last, have the cheap answer, andh is covering polls horse races is what i'm paid for. the reason that i have this job is that, for people who read the readngton post and who everything else we write, that's what they want to click on. that's what -- i mean, given that we're in the internet age, we have a very good idea of what reades people click on and and share. and they like to read about the horse race.

now, which is a. like all of you in this room. 20%,the 10% or 15% or whatever the number is -- maybe it's 3% of americans -- who really like reading about politics. those people usually are partisan and they want to know their team is doing. it's sports for them. it doesn't address your thetion, though, which is really hard question. how do you get disengaged -- the decide elections and a lot of the people who don't who, most all of the people don't vote, are not engaged in politics. they're not clicking on policy stories. they're not clicking on polling stories. it.'re not following and how you get americans who don't engage in politics to it, that is a hard question, given that we are all chasing our audiences who are in it. >> i should also just plug, we policy at cq roll call. and two of my favorite stories

of education in the north carolina senate race and the also we teamed up with cq reporter to look at the role of health care in minnesota, is especially interesting, given al franken worked on the loss ratio in obamacare. next question. >> you had mentioned that the lost 70 seats over six years. sec conference lost 70 coaches, every coach would be fired. why do democrats keep their current leadership? >> he has the vote. mean, that's what it comes down to. there's no challenger. ofaven't seen any evidence anyone willing to launch a challenge. he has the vote. californiaas the delegation behind her. day, iat the end of the don't -- there's no challenge.

suppose we will argue that the president drives the pelosi became speaker was george w. bush was unpopular. they lost seats because agenda hasbama's been unpopular. i don't think we would say that she has a whole lot to control. would also add, from a few phone calls in the past 36 hours, my sense is most of the democratic caucus is angry at president obama. so much angry at pelosi. >> next question? >> thank you. sunshine press. this year was huge. and yet the turnout wasn't that great. harderpaigns finding it to reach voters because the segmented, and has either party done much to

participation, get out the vote and voter id, or are they still missing half the voters in off years? to speak to it just a little bit. enormous, as i think you heard before we came on, at least the democrats spent an unprecedented amount of money on andout the vote and turnout technology aimed at enhancing both of those things. question -- implicit in your question was, well, that didn't turnout was down nationwide. one, in the states where they spent all that money, it was up. at a map thatg was produced off of data from my at the university of florida. it was up two points in colorado. it was up a point in iowa. it was up a point and a half in north carolina. it was up five points in wisconsin. where there were big races and a

money being spent on all sorts of things, advertising, get out the vote, there was turnout. now, it wasn't presidential level. whoi don't think anybody had the money spent on them doing this was claiming that replicate presidential level turnout. i think the most -- you know, the people that sold this, the salespeople are perfectly willing to say at best they might move things a point or two their way. getting -- it comes back to the last question. getting people engaged in outside ofo aren't, a presidential election, where it's about, you know, two very toughes, is a thing. >> so two things. mobilization of the base and persuasion of the middle. in a midterm, a lot of the tv a lot spentre was on the mobilization of the base. i think there's only so much you

when people aren't excited. i mean, you can contact them and send them as many, you know, e-mails and you can call them. you can text them. people aren't excited, you know, i think money isn't the issue. in another way, the spending begets more spending. one party goes into a district or goes into a race and starts spending, the other party in to respond. and the television rates just higher.ting i bet it was more expensive in than it was, iowa, in las vegas, nevada, because those were where the races were. senate race, the iowa house races. so the spending just kind of keeps going. there's a much larger question about how -- that the parties ared struggling with, with television advertising being less efficient, how do you contact people online? and i know the parties are, you

money onusing more digital. i know that dccc was proud that in the final couple days that they owned the local web pages local media, because with banner ads and everything. bothjust -- i think parties -- the voter files are becoming more sophisticated and everything. but i don't think anyone has the key or the right answer to how people and motivate them, you know, 100% of the time. >> any time for one more question? >> i'm with the community for education funding. race,ntioned the hagan where education was one of the issues. education is something president yesterday, maybe

on higher -- working with the republicans. there's been polling that shows a high priority for the public. was it your sense that it played in any other races as a deciding factor or any level of importance? >> are you asking me or -- well, that particular race, it played because tillis is the they house speaker, and were passing an education bill over the course of the summer affected his candidacy. i'd be hard-pressed to think of any other races where it took a leading role, although i think house democrats might have used out piecemealve voters. can you think of any more examples? >> the pennsylvania governor's with tom corbett. towas definitely tied changes. so that was the only other -- i race, but a federal that was one where education comes to mind. >> i can't think of a single ad. saw a few ads but not -- there really just weren't

dominating issues like that in these campaigns. it was very scattered. can we givehink -- our panelists a round of applause? thank you so much! [applause] >> thank you, everyone. >> and republican ed gillespie has conceded in the virginia race to democratic incumbent mark warner. he says he will not seek a recount. latest numbers from the virginia state board of elections show senator warner leading by more than 16,000 votes. that's nearly a percentage point. mr. gillespie's concession speech online, c-span.org. obama authorizing the u.s. military to send up to 1500 more troops to iraq, as of the mission to combat isis. he's asking congress for more to help fund the fight. the white house says troops will

role.rve in a combat they'll train, advise and assist local forces. a live briefing from the pentagon at 4:30 eastern time. we'll bring that right to you on c-span. >> this weekend on the c-span tonight at 8 eastern, more reaction to the midterm elections. night at 8, a debate on the future of the internet. at 8, theevening latest book, death of a king. 8, ronaldt at german-occupied paris during world war ii. of racialon the idea progress in america. and edward wilson on what makes different to other species. tonight at 8, on american 3, medal ofn c-span honor recipients reflect on

their service. and saturday, at 8, on lectures and history, the social prejudice immigrants faced during the 1800's. sunday night at 8, the 25th of thesary of the fall berlin wall. find our television schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. 202-626-3400. e-mail us at comments@cspan.org at hashtaga tweet #comments. join the c-span conversation. facebook.on follow us on twitter. the republican national committee, reince priebus, says the operations and gop-raising that helped the take over congress should continue as they look ahead to 2016 and the presidential elections. he was a guest this morning at the christian science monitor series in washington, d.c. his comments ran about an hour. >> okay, folks.

here we go. is reincethis morning priebus, chairman of the republican national committee. groupst visit with the was in march of this year. we thank him for coming back. has had a lifelong interest in politics. according to a profile he wrote for the times, mr. priebus was the self-appointed campaign reagan'sor ronald presidential bid at the elementary school in wisconsin. have to tell us -- yeah. [laughter] >> it's true! it is true. >> it was a great profile jeff., our guest went on to earn his master's degree from the whitesity of wisconsin, whitewater. climes,armer moving to miami.

he ran unsuccessfully for the wisconsin senate. 2007, he was the youngest person ever to hold the job. he game general counsel of the republican national committee. 2011, becamey of rnc chair. january ofected in 2013. the chairman and his wife have two young children. the biography portion of the program. blogging.live in short, no filing of any kind while the breakfast is under us time to actually listen to what our guest says. no embargo when the session ends. to help you resist that selfie urge, we will e-mail several pictures as soon ends. breakfast if you'd like to ask a question,

subtlesend me a nonthreatening signal. we strive to operate in a faction, sopartisan we've invited mr. priebus's counterpart to have breakfast with us, and hope she'll accept soon. move to questions from around the table. thanks again for doing this, sir. >> i want to get to your questions quickly. i just have a few comments to make before we open it up. number 1, tuesday's election was a big night. it was a wave election. didn't squeak by. we won by large mar jibs. margins.- by large i said it was going to be a tsunami. and obviously some people was kind of that irresponsible or overly excited type of comment to make.

the wave we didn't think was inevitable. as recently as last week, theyrats were predicting would hold the senate. i think we have a handout going with some of those quotes for everybody. after tuesday, democrats are changing their tune. now they're telling you that the wave was so big that even the best ground game couldn't overcome it. that's not analysis. just a lamey excuse. all of you know it. the reason they're playing up that they don't want to admit that republicans actually beat them at their own game. number 2, if we had not been laser-focused on turning out low-propensity voters in states like iowa and colorado, we would victorious.n the ground game mattered. our unprecedented investment in mattered. i'll admit that the democrats'

bigger and more expense expensive. smarter, targeted, more efficient. and ultimately, more effective. we made important gains across demographic groups, because we voter engagement works. let's talk about hispanic outreach. georgia. david purdue won 42% of the hispanic vote. nathan diehl had 47%. african-american voters, look at in ohio.ch 26% of the black vote. exit pollscans, showed that republicans won 49% of the asian vote. 2012, it was 26%. to femalet comes voters, a few things. first, see how cory gardner attacksthe baseless from mark udall. second, mitch mcconnell beat allison grimes among women voters. wendybbott in texas beat

davis among women voters as well. finally, the takeaway. i think it's that republicans were given an opportunity to local, every level, state and federal. we had a decisive win across the board. to allowd's refusal votes in the senate in order to protect incumbents back fired actually it ensured their defeat. senate, it was a night of important firsts for the republican party. firstrnst becomes the female combat veteran in the senate and the first woman in iowa.ss from tom cotton will be the youngest senate.f the shelly capital will be the first senate fromd to the

west virginia. becomes the first african-american elected to both the house and senate. a the house, with ehave majority -- we have a majority bigger than most of us have seen times.life herd inoud to see will texas. the governor's races across america affirmed the leadership of conservative republicans across the country. and in the bluest of blue rejected the democrats. in maryland, in massachusetts illinois. even the president's home state, where he campaigned vigorously, elected a republican. i think that kind of tells you how big this victory was. wasn't just a rejection of barack obama and everyone to barack obama. it was also the acceptance of conservative republican leadership across the board in

states. republicans now control more chambers, 69tive out of 99, and hold on to more legislative seats than at any history of our nation. not only is that important for putting in place the right policies at the state level, it also means that we're going to bench forh deeper future congressional and senate races. atimately, this was all direct rejection of the obama agenda. president all know, obama said very clearly, and he went out of his way -- and i what is also perturbed by the strategy adopted be i whenrats across the board, he declared continuously that his policies were on the ballot. voters were, in response, very clear as well, that they want nothing to do policies of barack obama, and when hillary clinton to come clinton tried in for the last 60 days to be

the face of the democrat party, that didn't do anything to move the dial either. these were the president's were also and they the clinton's candidates. and they lost. remember, the clintons were campaigning hard. save their't candidates, even in blue states. i think in arkansas, tom cotton the winner at about 8:01 by the associated press. wednesday's press conference, i'm not sure that the president got the message. he was dismiss sieve. flip -- dismissive and flip. this isn't the first time. him at hiso take word when he hasn't followed through before. sure, he said he needs to let john boehner win at a round of golf. but that's not going to be good enough. he's missing the point. he needs to listen to the workcan people more and with speaker boehner and senator

ways tol so he can find support republican ideas, which in the ideas americans chose this election. in reding, we won states, we won in blue states, and we won in purple states. going to build on our successes of 2014 so that we can 2016. successful it's still going to be an uphill battle. i think we're going to have to be about perfect. but i think we can get there. and we're more prepared today before as a been republican party. >> thank you for that. i'm going to do one or two. then we're going to go to david, craig, nick,ill, sam, chuck, john, and zeke to start. so that should keep us going. been very enthusiastic in your description of the results of the election. as you -- as a number of your allow republicans are urging

view.riumphant halle barber said republicans election asake this some rousing endorsement. said, you had a great night. but remember, you didn't which it; the democrats lost it. are you still feeling the voters embrace -- how sweeping a mandate do you think you actually got from the results on tuesday? i think whenan, the president doubled down and claimed that his policies were wente ballot and actually on talk radio in georgia and said, if you elect michelle nunn, you're actually going to advancing my agenda and the forth.s that i've put i mean, he about sunk michelle nunn with those comments. it, michelleabout nunn was back on a trajectory

georgia close to even in the polling. and we were seeing it too. in,president came articulated his message, wanted the voters of georgia to know that he wasection bringing this country could be electing michelle nunn, and that race became a race that everyone was assuming runoff to anbe a outright win. and it wasn't even close. so -- >> about the election being -- quote, embracing the values of conservative republicans? you think it was more than just of him?ion it was embracing you? >> well, if you look at wisconsin. i mean, look at that state. accepted, state that maybe perhaps embrace might be a but clearlythe top, if you look at scott walker, hogan, charlie baker, what is that?

accident? is that just, oh, the democrats everywhere,sy everywhere on the ground they were no good? they didn't do well in maryland, were lousy in massachusetts, they didn't have their act together? docome on. the fact is, everything that was attached to barack obama lost. about every tough governor's race in america, where republican principles, were ontive principles the ballot, republicans won. pretty call that a sweeping victory. and whether it's a mandate or not, that's a different topic. i happen to think that it's clearly a mandate or it's that the message american people don't want to follow down the pathway of policies.ma and his that's clear. so that's number 1. when republican principles were put on the table, republicans won. way, democrats didn't -- whoever said that the democrats just lost, you know,

look, they put together one of the best ground games that they've put together in a midterm. i know, because we were fighting it for the last eight months. going to tells you in any interview that the reason the democrats ro lost is their ground game stunk, they don't know what they're talking about. the fact is, we were just a lot better than we've ever been. and like i've said before, i make one other thing clear. i also haven't lost my mind to think that we don't have a long way to go. like i've said a few times this and week, if you heard me, i mean this, it's sort of like how my wife was asking me i'm doing on a project around the house. and i tell her, well, i'm about done and i've got 80% to go. that's kind of where i see us at party. >> let me ask you one other question, and that is that there of a split --rt one of the challenges for the

party seems to be a split over tactics. the post and others have written about efforts by speaker boehner, and soon to be majority leader mcconnell to lay plans, look not obstructionist but like you can get things done. on the other hand, senator cruz the post that the first order of business in the new congress should be hearings on lookingt obama, quote, at the abuse of power, the executive abuse, the regulatory the lawlessness that sadly has pervaded this administration. party'sd you assess the challenge in keeping a sense of unity going forward in terms of objective? >> well, i mean, i think with 54 the senate and i don't know where we're going to get in 247, 248, maybe where it'snot sure going to go. but i think the unity is pretty achievable with those kinds of numbers. but i don't think it's a

problem, and everyone has a on whatt opinion direction the agenda in the go, butnd house should ultimately we're going to have two leaders that get along very well. look back you historically, i don't know if you're going to find two leaders more cohesive and on the same page than speaker boehner and mitch mcconnell. what ted cruz said, i think, is appropriate. in partican people put -- i mean, in part. it wasn't the whole campaign. people, ierican think, are sick and tired of the abuse as well. they want answers on the irs. they want answers on benghazi. they deserve to get those answers. so, yeah, i think there should of trying totion get answers to the american people. to, you know, democracy has be transparent. i don't think it has been over the last few years. >> david? >> the republican sweep in '94

didn't bring you a republican '96.dent in and you've still got a party ted goes all the way from cruz to jeb bush. given those divisions, how do andblicans get together find a presidential candidate capture the white house in two years? >> it also goes from elizabeth warren to senator mansion in west virginia. you never know. you get to every two years, chatter whether he's going to become a republican or not. a i mean, we don't have monopoly on diversity of sauce or something within our party. a good thing, actually. back at ouryou look toination process, we tend nominate senate right candidates. but so -- i guess historically i evidence of our coalescing rather

quickly around a nominee. some people argue with me about it, but i do believe that having proportionately -- created anlity artificially close election. and i think that by reorganizing our nomination process and it from a six-month slice-and-dice festival down to about 60 days is smart. i think you're going to see a faster nomination process. we're not going to have a 23 debate circus. to have some control. >> will they all go for that? >> i think they're going to go for that. pretty the penalties are debilitating that are in place. but we're going to have enough asates where we take care of many partners and television stations as cable possible.

thewe're going to contain process so that we don't end up debates that provide the temptation to candidates to break our rules. >> you mentioned -- is there any doubt in your mind you're going running against hillary clinton. >> i sure as heck hope we're running against hillary clinton. think what you just saw on tuesday night is about as flat performance that you could have ever seen from the democrat star.s brightest i mean, if you look at the races board that she was veryng in, she didn't fare well. and if your job was to unify the a ton ofd to raise money and to get a ton of volunteers on the ground, i would want know other opponent than hillary clinton to run against. >> jeff? 2012, thewake of republican national committee

a 97-page report. you don't like to call it an autopsy. it an opportunity. do you believe that -- and one must elmssages was, we embrace comprehensive comprehene immigration reform. do you believe that still needs to be an imperative of the party to 2016?ward and on the report as a whole, what still needs to be that report,from or should it just be shelfed? all thoseolved issues? up.et me back written after an appointed group of people interviewed and talked to people all over the country, activists, leaders. thousands of people. for theas written republican national committee, at my request. byt report was not written me or somebody in our, you know,

building. so it's a report for the entire review, andarty to i think that by and large it was a great report. to, atve been trying least as far as the republican national committee is concerned, follow the recommendations, when it comes to the mechanics, the ground game, the party needsnational to do in order to be a competent partner, which i don't think, in cases, that the national party has been over many years. there.hink we're getting as to the immigration issue, i pretty clear, you know -- comprehensive ofigration reform has sort become loaded language, because different tothing everybody that you ask. rand paul went to the hispanic march, i think, 19th of 2013 and said that we needed

comprehensive immigration reform. as you know, lindsey graham said the same thing. my guess is rand paul's version comprehensive immigration reform might be a little different than lindsey graham's version. ultimately, immigration reform is a subject most people in our party agree that we need to tackle. we've seen happen over the last several months is president has been using people as political pawns to people when it comes to immigration reform. reformised immigration when he ran for office in 2007. do wellit as a basis to among many voters. ultimately, when he had a and aty in the house, supermajority in the senate, he didn't get anything done. up on tv and says, you know, i've been working so

hard on this. these darnasn't for republicans, we would have been able to do it. deliver.dn't then he threatened executive amnesty, which is in our mind a threat, to reject the of the separation of powers doctrine, reject article 2 as far as what lies within the power of the president. then he got pushed back on executive amnesty. then he came back and said, know what? and obviously his poll numbers were in the tank over the summer. i better not do this to my candidates that are running in all these states that worried about getting killed in, so i'm going to pull back. then the activists that he's please get upset. so he says, now i'm going to threaten these guys and do it elected.et >> do you believe that the republican party needs to follow what was mentioned in the report to have comprehensive

immigration reform for the party successful? without regard to what the president has done. think he's -- what i think he's done is unified the country and electorate around one big principle. and that is that we need to secure the border. a situationreated that i think may have not episode thate that the country in a place where i don't believe most interested in comprehensive immigration reform, unless they're convinced border is secure. and i think it was because of president's haphazard political game that's created an environment that will not allow to move forward, unless people can be convinced that that border is secure. where we've come.

makes sense that there was a lot of talk about reform, which i think rightfully so, we're talking about border security get to anything else. >> todd? >> thank you, chairman. mentioned wendy davis in texas. to-domocrats made a big texas.all gam battleground alis texas more republican now than it was before this election cycle? further away, that democrats threaten to own the they house forever because take over texas? think whatthink -- i texas gop,g is the and i would say the republican theonal committee, took threat of battleground texas

pretty seriously. look at sec reports, the investing in texas for about a year and a half on the ground with hispanic engagement operations, regional offices, and i would say that texas gop itself is one of the best parties in hispanic engagement that there is in this country, along with great abbott.es like greg thatdo believe battleground texas did a lot of registeringere in re hispanic voters. and, again, i just think they up the party and if we don't start paying attention to recruiting volunteers and engaging hispanic voters in that it's possible the party could have a problem in years to come. you is thatill tell we don't plan on slowing down in

in texas.ment i already know what our budget is going to be for next year in spending on the ground in texas, and it's going to be because we we have to hold and get better in texas, because while i be a think it's going to problem in 2016, if we were to just forget about texas and think everything is going to be there, 2020, 2024, i don't want to see us, you know, either becoming a close state or a state that ends up becoming purple. >> are you going to be running for another term as rnc chair? your mind on up that? >> i'll probably decide the first weekend of december but to do it again. but i have the -- you know, that being said, now my wife is going see this. i mean, i've got to talk to -- i that seriousy had conversation at home, which

is -- yeah. guess it's going to happen tonight. [laughter] a text.get yeah, right. the thing for me isn't that i it again.ant to do >> we put ourselves on a four-year plan and i think we have a long way to go. for 2016. be ready granted we are excited and proud thinkre we've come but i we have to be about perfect as a national party to win a national cultural vote. i think the democrats can be good and win. we've got to be great. we have to do that, have a party that excesses over the boring stuff like the mechanics and the ground game. nobody wants to talk about these kind of things.