talking about the potential increase -- >> i could speak for denmark today because we met with them today and secured their permission for me to actually talk about the commitment they were willing to make but i wouldn't speak for other countries. obviously canada is involved here. they've been helping on the humanitarian side. they're flying air strikes over iraq. very, very capable, effective military. glad to have them on board. as for this particular mission set, again, let the canadian government speak for itself. >> is there on your part an ask out to all coalition partners? >> we have approached many coalition partners, especially those that we know have skills this kind of training and tried to solicit their interest in it but ultimately as we've said all along, this has to be something that each country has to do on their own or not do on their own and those are their

decisions to make. there's -- we're not trying to force people into it or anything like that. but we certainly are encouraging those members that we know have skills and the capabilities to contribute to do so. >> you said that coalition allies will be sending several hundred additional trainers to iraq. but that number didn't make sense to me because that's pretty much what the pentagon is going to send over there are you saying 700 plus what the pentagon sends? >> yes. on a have allies agreed cap, like this much and no snr >> not that i'm aware of, but you have to speak over the individual nation what they're willing to contribute and not willing to contribute. >> you said the pentagon will be training 12bury gadse. >> coalition members will be assisting us at the -- in this training, 12 total. >> no surprise, britain training some troop out there randomly?

>> i can only speak for the united states military. what i can tell you on this mission, it's a coalition mission. so 12bury gadse is the -- is 12 brigades is the plan, we'll have through put of 12 brigades. it's what they've laid on us for 1267812 total. the trainers that will be training those 12 brigades will not just be american trainers. they'll be international trainers. trainers from coalition members. denmark is agreed to contribute and other nations have as well. >> just to push the point a little bit, the british defense chief said they were going to be sending additional advisors to erbil. is that something separate or is that under the 12 brigade thing? >> i'm not going to speak for every individual nation, they have to speak for themselves what they're willing to

contribute. the british have been terrific allies throughout this effort. in so many different ways. but i'll let them speak for what their role will be. i don't think they can take it any farther than that. >> the iraqi finding of the initiative, is it fair to say that the u.s. expect ice rackis to pay the bulk of the expense of this additional training, especially given the culpability that the u.s. has been throwing at -- >> the expectation is, the requirement will be, that the iraqi government contributes funding to this effort. i do not think i would characterize it as the bulk. >> this week the pakistani army chief traveled to erbil, offered to train forces inside afghanistan.

>> that's something that the afghan government needs to speak to. the degree to which they find that helpful. we've said all along, pakistan is a key partner in the region. any opportunity that can be had to increase cooperation and coordination with the pakistani military is a good thing itch wouldn't comment from the pentagon on that proposal. i have not seen reports of that roposal. the mission is going to change in afghanistan at the end of the year. it will be more of a train, advise, and assist mission, under nato auspices. we are working closely with our nato allies on the sourcing for that for the united states it begins at about 9,800 troops early next year and then that will taper off over time as the training concludes.

but there will still need to be a significant international commitment to the training and advising of afghan national security forces post 2014. and there are many nations involved in theafert, primarily through nato auspices. i would not speculate about the role pakistan might play. that's for the pakistani government to talk to. >> the army chief is traveling to, i think next week or late they are month, d do you know what he'll talk about here at the snenk >> you should ask the pakistani government what he's going to say. i don't have anything to announce in terms of schedule with respect to that. you should talk to the pakistani leadership about what their expectations are for the trip. >> you had told david it was going to take a couple of months to set up training sites and sick months of training. it's been about a couple of months since we started the syrian training. where are we there? will this affect the syrian training? are there going to be troops

going in to advise and assist iraqis that had been designated to train the syrians? >> there's no connection with this program and the train and equip program we are trying to get established far moderate syrian opposition. no keck. completely separate. you said it's been a couple of months since it started, it hasn't started yet. it's going to take three to five months in order to get the vetting process squared away and that's not done yet. chairman dempsey himself said the vetting process hasn't even begun yet. we have more work to do on the syrian side but there's no connection between the two. >> but it's been two months since we announced it do we have the sites yet? we keep getting little bits of information -- >> for the syrians? the saudis have come forward and offered sites. we have a team there that are working with the saudis on exactly where those sites are and their suitability. i don't have anything to announce with respect to that. the turks as well.

just the last couple of weeks they agreed they would contribute to the training of moderate syrian opposition and fighters. and i don't know exactly where they would do that the turkish government would have to announce that but there have been at least two nations now that have come forward and said they would be willing to host this training. all very helpful. we have teams that are talking to both government tots try to nail down the particulars on that what we have said from the very beginning, that the long pole in the tent would be the recruiting and vetting process and that process hasn't begun yet. >> i have questions about russia. the ewe yaincran government is saying russia sent dozens of tank into eastern ukraine. have we been able to confirm that? have we seen any evidence that that's happening? do we have a response? >> i don't have any independent operational reporting to confirm that report. that these formations have crossed the border. what we do see is continued presence of significantly capable and ready battalion

tactical group, russian battalion together call groups across that border. they are doing nothing to decrease the tension in the region. so not helpful. continue to say that it's in the been helpful. but i have no independent operational reporting that tells me they crossed the border. >> can you step back one second here. if congress doesn't approve the pack taj -- package, the $5.6 billion package sent today until january or february, nothing goes. it's in congress' hands. >> we need the support of congress to authorize the request. yes. >> you're in a continuing resolution right now until december 12. you can't use the continuing resolution stuff on this. this is part of a supplement ral ." you think if it drags out just so members of congress know they

need to get this thing passed before troops can go other there. >> we need the authorization and funding that comes with it in order to conduct this mission and the secretary obviously is urging congress to pass it as soon as possible. >> should they expect or be steeled even though they're not in a combat role. >> we've already had a couple of u.s. deaths associated with this conflict. nothing we do is without risk. we do the best we can to mitigate it. the safety and security of our people, are top priority to us. but part of being in the military means being able to assume some risk in what you're doing. i don't want to speculate here that we will or will not. we're going to do everything we can to try to minimize the occurrence.

>> just to follow up on that can on these ate a little sites, an march is the seen -- anbar is the seen of a good deal of problems. >> there's several factors going in here. obviously we're mindful of the security situation there. so when you do site survey you look at geography. the advise and assist mission, we are going to now try to put advising teams with what we consider expeditionary, so again force protection is going to be site survey there.

a lot of your ability to actually conduct training and to assure a good through put of trainees is going to be dependent on the actual site and its suitability. one of the things we'll look at on these sites is the ability to acome date aircraft. what kind of aircraft. we're just new starting this process. again, i don't have any more detail on exactly where these are going to be. >> they won't be going out into the -- >> to the advidsors, at the same evel they are right now. the training mission, that's a separate one. hands on training for iraqi brigades. but they will be at a fixed training site. again, for which we have taken

suitable force protection measures. >> just one more question. the story has launched all over the world, the intel you've done by the former navy seal regarding the shooting of osama bin laden, what is the pentagon's reaction to that? >> our reaction is that, first of all, there's an expectation that when you join that elite group of individuals and they are elite, they are the best of the best. they do an amazing -- an amazing and amazingly dangerous and complex job and have done it well for the past 17 years. we all have enormous respect for what they do and what they've done for the united states. there's an expectation inside that community, a code they ascribe to that they will not seek recognition for what they do and they will not seek financial gain from what they do.

and i can't speak to the motivation of the individuals conducted ther interviews or chronicled their accomplishments in books. it's fair to say that it doesn't comport with that code. the other concern that we have is the divulgence of classified information. much of what they do for a living is very, very sensitive. so the man for the which they do it needs to be held close system of the -- so that we don't endanger future operations. we don't make it harder for their colleagues that are still in uniform, still very much out there on the front lines. that we don't make it harder for them to do that job or make it more dangerous for them to do that job. when very concerned when

anybody, regardless of whether it's a special operationor or not, anybody in uniform has access to sensitive or classified information and then when they're no long for the uniform decides to share that information publicly is a drn to us. it should be. it should be a concern to the american people. pride andkes away our esteam for the job those individuals continue to do. there's an obligation that comes with it, not to be candid about what they do. does that answer your question. i'm not going to speculate about ctions we may or may not take. >> nauble -- [inaudible] >> i just said we're not going to -- we don't talk about classified or sensitive information. there's no way that i'm going to answer specific questions about the raid that ended up killing

osama bin laden. what matters is he's dead, he's gone. that's enough. >> there's a man whose claim, confirming to thes prehe was the shooter. he's confirming it. was he a seal and -- was he a, a seal, and b on that raid, can you as an dirble >> i cannot. part of sensitive operations entails the identification of units and visibles that participate in. the i am not going to go there absolutely not. louie, last question. >> you're going to train 12 brigades. how many do you intend advise nd assist. >> that's all -- that kind of detail is being worked out. yf a good number for you. on the advising mission. thewhat's more important is

terrain. they're going to be in more expeditionary geography, i don't have a detailed number of exactly what brigade or division. it's not just brigades. the advisor, for that brigade, division level, i think it flalk waits based on where you are in baghdad. it's a mixed picture. they don't just get permanently assigned to one unit. they move around. >> going back to the sunni tribes. just before they came in here. i spoke about the outreach to the city, a prarlell effort a planning effort, to train and equip. as many as 5,000 sunni tribesmen. is that an american planning effort or an iraqi planning effort? >> i think it's both. i think this is something that we're again, to justin's question, i think we're working

our way through that with the iraqi government right now. >> the u.s. could be planning -- >> ypt to speculate one way or another right now. this is something the prime minister made a priority, we support him in that effort. we know, you might remember we were encouraging mall key to do - maliki to do outreach to the sunni tribes. the details of that, we're not ready to have a discussion about. thanks, everybody, have a good weekend. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> c-span veterans day coverage begins tuesday morning at 8:30 eastern in "washington journal" with an interview with american legion executive director verna jones. then at 10:00, the annual u.s.o. gala featuring general martin dempsey. and live at 11:00 from arlington

national cemetery for the traditional wreath laying ceremony at the tomb of the unknowns. after noon, a discussion on mental health issues and this later, this year's medal of honor ceremonies. >> next a discussion on the mid-term elections outcome. a panel of political reporters dememmed 36 governors races and the new makeup of state legislatures around the country. they talk about some of the major state and local ballot initiatives, including marijuana legalization, genetically modified foods and legal protection for the unborn. this event was hosted by governing -- by "governing magazine." it's about an hour and 10 minute . >> good morning and welcome,

everyone, to "governing" magazine's briefing on the impact of the state and local elections. paternack. there has been much discussion about the republicans taking control of the senate and gaping the largest majority in the house since world war ii. but this morning, we want to focus on what's going on at the state and local level. the governors' races, state legislate slive elections and those -- state legislative elections and those local measures that will have an impact across the country this year and for years to come. to help us make sense of that, have a panel of "governing" staffers and political writers. starting with aaron greenblatt. and lou, a frequent political contributor to "governing" and governing.com. later we'll be joined by

carolyn, the senior editor for governing.com to discuss specific issues at the state level. right now i'd like to start with the governors' races. you've been predicting race rankings for more than a year as you have done in several previous election cycles. this republican wave we saw at the congressional level extended to governors' races this year. how did tuesday's results compare with what you were expecting to see? >> there was always a chance it was going to be a g.o.p. wave. but it very easily could have been an anti-incumbent wave in which both democratic and g.o.p. governors lost. if i had to choose one probably before the election it would have been the anti-incumbent wave. there were 12 contests which were toss ups prior to the election. if i had to be pressed down i would -- i probably would have

said a couple of democrat, a couple of g.o.p. governors would lose. it was not like that. of those 12, 10 went to the g.o.p., one to the democrats, d one still up in the air, alaska, who is in first place right now. it clearly was a g.o.p. wave. because part ting of what i would have predicted before the election, it would have been more of an anti-incumbent wave, that's what it has been if there's been a wave. in 2002, a mid-term election cycle, as this one was, there were 36 races and then on election night, 20 of those 36 flipped parties. some -- it was largely open seats. there were i think a few incumbents lost. so 20 -- to get to 20, you have to have a significant number of both parties losing seats in the

governors' races. and then in 2010, eight years after that, there, too, were a lot of open seats. eight years after the first one. there were a lot of governors who served two terms and were term limited out. that year it was 18 out of 36 races flipped parties on election night. both -- folks in bother parties lost. using that sort of model, i kind of felt that we'd see some from both parties lose. we did see one g.o.p. governor lose in the state of pennsylvania and possibly a second. but the striking thing about it to me at least is how many of the g.o.p. incumbents who were vulnerable, very controversial, in the all that popular in their states and who had really credible democratic opponents who were scoring pretty well in the polls. how many of them survived.

people like scot walker in wisconsin. people like governor rick scott of florida. people like sam brownback in kansas. people like paul lepage in maine. these are candidates considered ally very vulnerable to very credible candidates on the democratic side. the only one who didn't was in pennsylvania. so clearly it was a specific partisan wave which is pretty unusual in my experience, at least in the past five or six cycles, seing that sort of thing. so i think i'll stop there. >> so picking up on some of those specific races that you mentioned, allen, what were the specific governors' races that stood out to you. >> it was unusual that there were so many competitive governors' races to begin with, especially with so many incumbents running. i'm going to go ahead and wisely correct the thoughts. he said the republicans have the

most house seats since world war ii, it's really since 1928. that's significant. democrats lost 7% of their house members but lost 29% of the land mass that they represented. the big districts like the maine second which is huge. if you look at the map it's all red with these little urban blue pinpricks here and there. there's a joker on the internet how g.o.p. offered more coverage than verizon. and it's definitely true. at the state level as well. they picked up, they have a super majority of legislative chamber, the most legislative seats since 1920. what's surprising, it looked like a lot of republicans would be vulnerable. they were elected in the last wave election in 2010. they were in democratic states in the presidency.

maine and florida. terry mcauliffe won last year in virginia a state like that. i was thinking about, it might be an anti-incumbent year but i think it was an anti-washington year and therefore anti-obama year. we heard this in the last couple of days. democratic governors kuo mi and others have offered that as their recrimination, that it was anti-obama. some of the democrats who were in trouble survived as well. i think some of the incumbents went on offense. rick scott had this joke the other day about a democrat and a republican and an independent walk into a bar and the bar keeper says, hi, charlie crist. he never let up on that he kept ging after him. and sam brownback, once he realized he was in trouble he, kept hitting paul davis, the democrat, on obama, never let up. certainly scott walker was very

aggressive and worked very hard. you know, i was thinking rick snyder survived but he looked like he was in trouble around labor day. he was kind of napping, went into hibernation for the summer. wasn't advertising. he got back in the game. it's one of those ones where everybody thought he would win and he didn't make any effort, then it looked like he would lose and he came back in the game. the republican governor in alaska looks like he'll use, sean parnell. republican in alaska. he thought he would win. he really didn't get his campaign going. then suddenly around labor day the playing field changed because the independent and the democrat formed this unity ticket. parnell thought it would be a three-way race and he'd win easily. that didn't happen. at the same time he got hit with a national guard scandal and didn't have a quick enough defense. by that time, the senate race in alaska was a $50 million race, in a state with so few people system of people were already saturated with ads.

there wasn't a way for him to define his new opposition. mike michaud in maine, he sort of had no program really. he had the problem of the independent, taking some of the anti-lepage vote, he didn't have a strong message. and it was -- he softened his image. he seem sod combative. he began toning it down quite a bit. martha coakley, poor martha coakley. she was a successful attorney general but she lost these two high profile races in massachusetts, lost to ted kennedy's senate seat. her answer to so many questions like whether illegal immigrants should get drivers licenses or whether they should build a casino in springfield, she she said i'm open to it. charlie was more open to it.

he didn't seem threatening. some of the democratic messages were just, the republicans are just so awful they cut education, they're extreme on social issues. the stunning race is maryland and again, anthony brown wasn't incumbent. he was lieutenant governor but he ran a kind of taking it for granted incumbent type campaign. he didn't have any kind of positive message and didn't get his voters out. you look at the five biggest jurisdictions. baltimore county, anne arundel, major population centers. he got 190,000 fewer votes from those five counties than o'malley got four years ago. so what -- you know, some of the democrats were good on offense. malloy, he kept at his opponent. saying he was a rich guy with a 116 foot yacht. he doesn't care about you. that ended up winning in

illinois. pat quinn tried the same thing against bruce browner he, kept in the game with that. he was tenacious. in the end, you know, his opponent was smart about going after suburban counties and there weren't enough votes in chicago for him. >> not so great for those who wanted to play nice. >> the lou, you have been -- lou, you have been ranking not just governors' races but lieutenant governors, state superintendents, i think you looked at local school board elections along the way. is it the same story when we look at some of those down-ballot races, this wave of anti-democrat, pro-republican -- >> pretty much, yeah. in the state a.g. race the g.o.p. gained two seats and pulled into the majority of

state a.g. races for the first time in memory, if not ever. in the state legislature, a gain of i think nine, could state school superintendents there were about a half dozen contested races. very interesting ones idaho and so forth. there were frequently tea party type of gop candidates in the race is in a broad establishment accepted and the tea party gop candidates talk every single one of those races. in general it was a very strong

night for the gop. issue by issue that democrats and liberals in general did quite well. the other one that was a little bit more balanced was the supreme court races, the democratic's kind of hold of their own. they took to a couple seats and states. the d's and r's and on balance they did gain a seat or two but it was pretty even. >> looking down the road a little bit what does it mean when you have a full ticket

switch as you said to the superintendents in the state to the republican party what does that mean looking in the future? >> there's a short-term impact and longer-term impact. the short-term impact is pretty good block between the two parties and not a lot is getting done in congress. you have the least active congress in the decade if not ever so a lot of the decisions are being left up to the states. if the democrats have fewer levels of power they can't really shape the agenda and it becomes a little bit of a self reinforcing situation when you have redistricting. it was the best thing to do so well because they could draw district lines and state

legislators in congress as they saw fit and that box in for ten years favorable winds for the gdp so you have a lot of states where the democrats don't have any leverage at all because they don't control the governorship or the senate. there are some states in which they do control everything and those are fine with the democrats but in the short term in the policy impact you can't have much of an impact. the longer-term impact and i haven't gotten all the figures on this i should do a story on this soon looking at the statewide offices in general for the secretary of state these are offices where they've done pretty well but you've are increasingly seeing them making gains and the more you occupy the more team you have for the politicians in the state. if the democrats don't have the

state auditors and the secretary of state and ag and they are not in charge of the statehouse or the senate they don't have high-profile politicians getting the experience, getting the name recognition around the state to run for the higher office where you don't have a lot of chances to win if you can't put up a good candidate. it certainly helps to have some sort of policy and political experience in your background as he ran you run for the higher office. >> do you have any thoughts on this leadership? who >> look who runs for governor, often the state ag's or whoever. if you don't have that, who runs. there's nevada and so forth where they don't have anybody. but i think that we are going to have a big short-term impact because the last couple of years

we had a phenomenon washington had the gridlock and of the states have had a tremendous policy movement in different ways, so we have a red state blue state phenomenon was very divided states and so the republicans have had abortion restrictions and the democrats have had a minimum wage increases and a couple of gun control measures and now it's all republicans and they control 23 states. the governorship in both chambers, plus nebraska and even in alaska at the independent was republican until it became independent. democrats are in the seven states now that control 27

states after the 2008. now it's just sad than periods of 16% of the population and 12% of that is california. so it is tiny states. connecticut, delaware, rhode island, hawaii, oregon, vermont. so what's been happening is people that that want to do policy wanted to policy innovation and things that are stuck in washington have gone to the states but now democrats are going to have a lot fewer places to go. so i think that we are going to have an age of austerity in certain policy issues it is all pretty predictable you won't see obama care expanded. there is a tremendous fiscal incentive to agree to the medicaid expansion but obviously a lot of opposition to the law and the democrats hoped to pick up main and get medicaid and that's not happening.

you will see a lot of fights over education policy, vouchers, opposition to common core, immigration and tax cuts. we were thinking about how even among the democrats coming down here in washington in the republican congress they will try to end the cuts on the military and have more cuts on the domestic side of that will affect the state budget and the revenue growth had been about 6% for decades until 2008 and it looks like half the states are not where they were and that growth isn't going to be that great and he will have the republicans interested in cutting the taxes further but even on the democratic side in "the new york times," jerry brown the story was for democrats he said he was living within the means as a continuing battle.

brown caught the legislator to keep spending limited and pat quinn lost in illinois cut the tensions that the unions support him because they thought he would be worse. the republicans of course are more excited on the general, so i think that's going to be the impact on the less democratic venues and more republican governance. >> i would also add that it would be interesting to watch for some of these gop governors and especially the new gop governors how much the leadership gives them because i would think they would be under a lot of pressure from both leaders in terms of obama care and other policies and there is that there is going to be a conflict between how much they can do that and fix the party line while also remaining popular in the states that tend to lean blue. >> you made the point that this was a slight rarity of resolve a state-level elections

'-end-single-quote for national congress shall elections and that just reinforces this. >> my sense historically is the voters have been able to kind of compartmentalize and not necessarily vote in the same way. state issues tend to be different. they tend to be about education funding and roadbuilding and not about the things that congress is talking about so there's a long history in the recent years of republican governors in democratic states into democratic governors and the gop states and they've been kind of pragmatic in the matters to distinguish themselves on the national party because they are campaigning on the certain issues of special interest to

the state and having been tied to the national party. there was a way to distinguish themselves. that is less true now. in 2014 the election ended up being a national wave and i think it raises interesting questions about whether the states well kind of be able to stay their own different from the policy issues on the federal level whether it's going to be increasingly interest in partisan and a sort of polarized >> people do differentiate less and you see more cooperative bipartisan basis so that happens less. but it was a term in this victory for republicans. i don't think we should overstate. i think we are still more likely than not to get a democratic president in 2016. the electric keeps going back

and forth. we've had all of these in 2006 and 2008, 2010. but the country remains pretty evenly divided, so i don't know if there will be permanent for -- perfect hegemony, but it is striking to throw out to some of the members the republicans gained seats in all but a dozen chambers and they sort of took the chambers that have more divided government at the state level to have governors in pennsylvania, bruce browner in illinois would have a strongly democratic legislature but they have 21 super majorities and in wisconsin and the assemblies the assemblies and the republicans have a 50 year high in the seats in the chamber into the tennessee senate is 28 to five. it's really striking and a lot

of democrats ran. some of them were close but the republicans won and so they won't feel any fear of a backlash from the type of austerity but i was talking about earlier. >> if we are coming into the air a in the off year elections and presidential in the midterms you have a much smaller electorate and it tends to be more conservative and in the presidential years it's more diverse it tends to be more democratic leaning most of the gubernatorial races are in the midterm. does that mean going forward if they would have a harder time doing a successful job in the

gubernatorial because i think it's only about ten seats up for the presidential. if it's a permanent smaller and more conservative electorate what does this mean? the >> it's striking what we we expected in the off year that it would be the presidential year and we heard so much about the democrats having a strong coalition with african-americans and hispanics and single women and young people. the electric people voted much more republican and there were exit polls in the 21 states on the senate races. there were huge margins in all but four of them and kay hagan in north carolina got 33% of the vote. it's hard to win statewide even in the state with a strong population and the democratic

share of the vote was down 10% from 2008 so that is a problem how the changing country favors the democratic party but there's still a lot of white voters here. >> back to your point about the candidates that sort of took the success for granted and you can't take anything for granted. >> we want to talk about the state level ballot initiatives that we want to have time for a couple questions right now if you have any questions about what we've been talking about. >> [inaudible] >> the question is about the geographic distribution of the democrat folks into the gop votes. how does that affect the races?

>> one reason we were led into thinking it's because the pollsters don't give a good of a job in the overall areas into places like kansas. so in terms of the actual vote we talk about red states and blue states. i live in missouri where st. louis and kansas city, these little blue coastlines on the state borders and 115 or so red counties in between. so, almost i think it is all but two of the eight statewide officials are democrats.

that's where the people live in the population centers. but that's just a lot of republican territory. so they already have a super majority in both places and this is partly why we have such different maps. they are voted for and not just in to votes have been that the urban centers including the dance suburban counties and fairfax counties of the world are voting so strongly democratic. but you have a small area so it is a hard drawn map that gives you a lot of legislative seats and sometimes you can outvote the rest of the states but you have to turn out to do that. i don't know if that gets to

your question but it's a huge challenge in very limited places. >> i like that red states and blue counties. >> how do you see the publications managing, how are they going to interface and the new majority you always hear they want more transportation funding and tax reform. >> how do the state issues sync up with the national priorities? lou. >> you have now i think it is going to be 31 governors on the

gop side said so that will have a line of communication to the folks in congress. on the other hand is the idea that in general republicans don't like to spend money so this goes back to my point before how much leeway the party is going to give the governors and state legislators that need to expend money on certain things in their state which runs contrary to the general gop philosophy that you don't want to spend too much. it will be an interesting area of tension. they may have different interest because of where they stand. >> we will take more questions at the end of the panel but right now i would like to bring up caroline cournoyer.

she is the senior editor for governing.com. she coordinated all the coverage this year of the state ballots. on these state ballot measures, the story is a little bit different. we have this dichotomy of voters pulling the lever for conservative candidates but more progressive issues, right? >> it was really interesting because despite this republican wave, voters in red and blue states passed a number of ballot measures. one of the more popular is marijuana legalization. both alaska and oregon went the colorado way and legalized not just possession but also the sale of marijuana. washington, d.c. legalized

possession and allowing home growth of marijuana. what will be interesting in d.c. is whether or not congress in the next couple of months decides to intervene. whether or not congress does intervene, this is an issue that will not be going away in the next few years, especially after all the successful measures on tuesday. activists will be pushing measures for the next go around in at least five states. massachusetts, nevada, california, arizona and maine. >> specifically on marijuana? >> specifically on marijuana legalization. marijuana activists will also be pushing for legalization in the legislatures. that is something that has never happened before. they are targeting states in the northeast for this because that is where they think that is where they will have the best

chance. >> another of these categories -- more progressive issues within more conservative states is on this labor issue and income inequality. can you tell us about that? >> if there was a win for anyone, it was a win for lower wage workers. four republican states, they are nebraska, alaska, arkansas and south dakota, they all voted to raise the minimum wage. this suggests that despite it being such a polarizing issue in congress, it might be a little more bipartisan among the voters. i would not be surprised if in the next couple of years you see a lot more republican states, especially since there are more now putting minimum wage on the

ballot and passing it that way. there is also paid sick leave. massachusetts became the third state to pass the statewide paid sick leave law. connecticut was the first in 2011 and california followed them a couple of months ago. massachusetts will be particularly interesting because connecticut's law had so many carveouts for manufacturers. only about 15% of the state's workers ended up being covered by this law. a way higher percentage of the state's workers. both of those states will be a truer test of the impact of paid sick leave on businesses and employers and whether or not it has negative impacts on businesses and their budget. we see layoffs or whether or not

it has positive impact on employee retention. >> massachusetts is actually the first state that did this the of the ballot measure, right? >> massachusetts passed into the ballot measure. >> what are the measures we are seeing in terms of more progressive wins for ballot measures? >> there is also abortion which is not surprising because there were two initiatives in north dakota and california. they were initiatives that would have criminalized abortion. in both states, voters rejected it. it is surprising because of the republican wave in this election but it also is not really surprising because an initiative like that has never passed in any ballot on any state. there is also gun control.

only one state voted on gun control. that was washington state and they voted to pass universal background checks for gun sales. this is something that congress tried and failed to do in the wake of the newtown shootings. it is the lesser extreme of gun-control measures. washington state did have, unfortunately, a shooting a couple of weeks ago before the elections. voters may have had that in their minds when they went to the polls. also, former mayor bloomberg's group invested millions of dollars in the washington initiative and they will be investing heavily for background checks in several states going forward. >> i know you have been paying attention to one other set of

ballot initiatives. >> it is a pretty good night for the environment. there were states that passed funding mechanisms to keep open space open. the state of florida has an existing program but a basically shortened up. i think about a two to three to one margin. it was a close gubernatorial race. a 50-50 electorate but they went in favor of this ballot measure and went against some of the key gop leaders were pushing for. new jersey also passed a separate ballot measure on that issue to protect open space. the state of alaska. there was a ballot initiative by

opponents to a major mine or a mine proposal in a very plentiful fishery area. that also passed. it put more severe roadblocks in the way of the mine. the only one which did not succeed was in north dakota where there was a measure to spend some of the states oil and gas tax revenues for a few environmental purposes and that did go down. three out of those four passed. >> it was at least one progressive measure on the ballot that failed which was gmo labeling. caroline, i know that is something you looked at. >> gmo's has been heavily debated in the past few years. a lot of the research that say

they pose health risks have been discredited. but they say the research has been tainted by big industry groups. regardless of the health risks, gmo labeling has never passed in any state. with the growth of the movement, the organic movement and people really wanting to know what it is in their food, people thought this year would be the year for labeling. that unfortunately was not the case in both colorado and oregon. both measures to label failed. however, activists are undeterred. they will continue their fight in the legislatures and possibly on more ballots. it was an issue that came up in 30 state legislatures last year. it will definitely be a big issue nexy year.

only one state has an active labeling law which is vermont. it is an issue that is not going away. >> what were some of the other big issue areas from tuesday maybe not in this vein of progressive issues? kind of more on the budget and management side. what were you tracking? >> one that got a little less national attention was proposition two in california. california has always been a big trendsetter in policy whether it is health care or regulations. whatever california's doing, everyone is watching. california passed proposition two which means the state is now required to put a set amount of money, revenue into the rainy day fund and they cannot touch it unless the governor declares a fiscal state of emergency. this is unlike the past because

before the governor could just waive the requirement to save a part of the revenue. not only is the state going to be required to save a part of the revenue every year, they are required to put a part of that savings every year towards their paying off their long-term debt. this is a really big deal for california. a lot other states are going to be watching to see if it is successful. already the day after the election, it raised california's credit rating just slightly. it was directly because they passed proposition two. with the great recession, a lot of states dipped into the rainy day fund and they are now looking into put the money back in there. they are thinking about the smartest way to do it and pay down their debts. california might be the way they take.

>> to sort of insulate from the next great recession or little ecession, hopefully. i know that transportation funding was a big issue in a lot of places on tuesday. what were some of those ighlights? >> transportation ballot measures were a mixed bag. the federal gas tax has not been raised in 20 years. most states have not raised theirs in about 20 years. states are constantly worried about finding money for infrastructure to pay for road repairs, bridge repairs. it is an issue that voters care about. there was some good news on tuesday in texas, wisconsin and aryland. voters approved measures either to increase or protect ransportation funding.

in texas, they are now going to put a part of the revenues from oil and gas taxes towards paying or transportation. texas particularly has big raffic problems there. it was brought on by the oil boom and all the workers that ame there. it is a big issue that voters care about. in both wisconsin and maryland, they voted to basically lock up their transportation fund so that they can no longer be used for general purposes which is something that often happened in the past and depleted their funding. there was some bad news for transportation funding on tuesday and that was in massachusetts. massachusetts a few years ago tied their gas tax increases to inflation. every year essentially the gas taxes would automatically increase without the legislature aving to vote on it.

about a dozen states have found ways to automatically increase their gas tax. some are tying it to inflation and some are using other policies, but voters repealed the automatic increase in massachusetts on tuesday which means the gas tax will still raise but it won't keep up with inflation. that's going to be a problem in the future when states are struggling to find money for transportation, it could send a message to lawmakers and other states and could make them a little more hesitant to consider policies, to consider time the gas tax hike to inflation. it is going to be a struggle for massachusetts and other states this year as it is every year to find money for transportation, especially with the uncertainty ome may.

>> i want to move on to what has happened at the local level. there are two other state ballot initiatives that i want to touch on because i think they set up interesting fights and potentially court decisions in the future. both of those are out of arizona which may be unsurprisingly want to test the waters a little. what are we talking about in arizona? >> this was kind of an anti-obama, anti-federal government election. that is highlighted more than anywhere in arizona with these two ballot measures. the one that underscores it the most is arizona passed a law this year -- this week that allows the state to opt out of federal laws of its choice. this means that if voters in arizona next year decide that they don't like obamacare, they can pass a referendum or the egislature can pass a bill

against obamacare and then all the agencies, all the cities and counties will be banned in arizona from spending any money for enforcing obamacare or the federal clean water act or whatever. this will be an interesting one because obviously it is sure to bring some lawsuits. [laughter] the constitutionality of it is sure to be challenged. i don't believe it has yet. give it a few weeks. [laughter] this is not that surprising. arizona has a long recent history of defying the federal government and asserting their state sovereignty. the other less extreme issue there is arizona passed overwhelmingly a right to try law. a couple of other state legislators passed this law last

year but arizona was the first to do it at the ballot box. >> tell us -- >> if you have seen the movie "dallas buyers club," this will make much more sense. the right to trial means terminally ill patients in arizona now will have with doctor approval access to drugs that have passed some clinical trials but have not been approved by the fda yet. so, in a way, this does undermine the federal government authority. some in the medical community also say in the long-term, it might undermine clinical trials. people participating in them because they might be a little less willing and me a little less effective if they don't get the right people in those clinical trials. hat is an issue that is also

going to be pretty big in the coming years and activists are pushing it in state legislatures. it is an issue that is not facing that much opposition. i would not be surprised if you saw it passed in many tates. >> what state would not want that if it is upheld? we want to spend some time alking about local elections and measures that passed this week. alan, you have been tracking that for us. this republican wave we saw at the congressional and gubernatorial, legislative level, is that something -- did that sentiment continue at the local level? >> it is similar to what caroline was saying that the ballot measures were more liberally leaning. it is not a huge year for local elections. everybody -- "the governing's"

current story about pittsburgh which really profiles the mayor who is progressive and was elected last year. you go down the line and they ran on similar pre-k, income inequality, transit type platforms. the big cities -- they are talking about how they're more emocratic. almost every big city is getting even more progressive mayors elected. there were not a ton of important mayoral elections. bowser won here in d.c. greg fisher won in ouisville. joe aberson was just picked by the white house to run the office of governmental affairs. providence got a lot of

attention with their mayoral race. he had to twice leave office because of felony convictions. [laughter] providence got a lot of attention with its mayor race. he was unable to achieve his latest comeback. he ran as independent. the republicans endorsed him. the republican nominee said i'm voting against myself? he wins in oakland. gene had never been a popular mayor. oakland does rank choice voting. you pick the first, second, third choices in mayor. she came in second choice. four years ago she got beat by an aide to jerry brown -- barbara boxer sort of came n.

san jose was an interesting race. it was close. chuck reed has been a big pension reform proponent. the guy he liked won with 51.5% of the vote. the police union heavily backed dave cortez, who lost. they will not roll back those pension reforms. phoenix voters, there was a local measure to put municipal employees into 401k's file plans. that was voted down. a couple of county races of note. another former "governing" cover subject -- craig watkins, the dallas county district attorney. he lost. he was famous for having a wrongful conviction unit that xonerated about 35 people. he had some personal problems. he had a car crash where he was driving while on a cell phone. his opponents say she'll continue the exoneration work.

we will see watkins claim that was the real issue, not his personal problems. i mentioned i am from st. louis. michael brown was killed on a saturday and we had the primaries the tuesday before. steve stanger won the democratic nomination for county executive beating charlie duely. the county prosecutor had an opponent in the primary but note opponent in the general election. he is a controversial figure for putting the case into that front of the grand jury rather than deciding whether to indict in his own. it became a very contested race. $3 million race. the republican nominee was a statehouse member. he ran a very -- he was extreme. he kept saying he is too extreme. some of the african-american officials endorsed stanger out of anger for the party not

supporting charlie but also he is very close with the prosecutor. general frustration over ferguson. stanger got a key endorser from an african-american activist in st. louis. one of these dance, heavily populated counties. we also had paid sick leave passed in trenton, new jersey and over in oakland. it is a mixed bag on transportation with money for infrastructure. it was voted down in kansas city. austin, texas. seattle voted for more transit. there were bans on gmo's passed at the local level in alifornia. there were a couple of places in california and texas that voted to ban fracking. finally, there was a soda tax measure for the bay area. in san francisco, berkeley and more than $10 million spent on those races.

san francisco, a majority voted for it. 75%. most of this was from the everage industry but there was ome money -- michael bloomberg put in $400,000. erkeley approved it.

i love this quote in the hronicle afterwards. roger salazar, the spokesman for anti-tax campaigns in both places, says san francisco would've mattered -- i don't think people will look at berkeley's results and see and think that is what the rest of the country would do. it is not exactly mainstream. this was the spokesman for the campaign. it is hard to believe a charmer like that was not successful. [laughter] >> other than free pot for poor people -- [laughter] -- any takeaway we should think about as far as these local elections? >> how do you manage -- if you're -- where you stand

depends on where you sit. if you are a mayor in a big city with the state with a heavily republican state government, what do you do? big cities are always hated by he rest of the state anyway. i think that will be a tricky area for people to navigate. in general, the cities will be the blue labs of democracy while the states will be the red labs. >> we will take more questions from you all at this point. who by this question about the elections either at the state, local level? any of the initiative that caroline ran through? yes? >> you mentioned the mix bag as far as transportation, representing a national

transportation association, we are very excited concerning the federal gridlock lately of the state races and the ballot initiatives. do you see given the mixed bag them taking different issues such as tolling, sales taxes in some of the northern states like ichigan? >> i am not really knowledgeable. >> i am not super knowledgeable either. obviously, states keep wanting to build roads. it is a key priority. we have had a lot of public-private partnerships. i think that will be an area. governors do want money for transportation. what will be the innovative funding sources of the uture? >> i am trying to think. >> you made the point that voters seem to be willing to set side money that already exists

for transportation or protect transportation funding from being used for other sources that may be less excited about increasing revenue for ransportation. >> one interesting thing to note is tax increases at the state level generally are hard for voters to pass and they are unwilling to pass them at the state level. at the local level, voters are much more willing to pass a tax increase because they can see exactly where that money is going to. they can see if their taxes increase, the bridge i drive over every day to go to work or that is going to expand over the road where i sit in traffic every day. i think that is one factor that

is really important. if you are trying to get the voters to pay for it which is always hard to do, it is much easier at the local level. >> i think we will continue to see contested battlefields over what kind of spending in transportation. is a just roads or roads and ransit and so forth? i am pretty sure in the wisconsin measure that passed, it is all sorts of transportation funding. in texas, do you guys recall? >> it was just road transportation. >> there is a lot of demand for schools because there is so much growth and demand for roads because there is so much growth yet the desire to cut taxes.

was it georgia a year or two ago that had the regional transportation taxes that failed? they tried to be strategic and had this long list of specific projects where people would know with the money is going. it kind of backfired because people said that is not my county. t is really tough. everybody wants roads and nobody wants to pay for them. >> it is never local enough, right? in georgia, it was a nine county region. or 12? >> this what the state into that multicounty region. >> if it is not my road or my commute -- exactly. other questions? yes? >> all of you have mentioned health care. i am wondering what you think re the biggest, most significant takeaways on health care whether it be federal, state, local. aside from the obvious obamacare potential -- what are the biggest takeaways you see in this area?

>> on health care -- >> there were a couple of ballot initiatives that were mostly in california. they failed. there was one to give the insurance commissioner the power to reject excessive premium hikes. this is something that insurance commissioners in other states do ave. in california, they rejected that. interestingly enough, the health exchange in california actually opposed this ballot measure. that is because it gets really complicated, but they believe in he end the insurance commissioner has the power to reject premiums in california then it would put too much restrictions on the system which could raise prices and premiums. that was a really interesting one.

>> i think it is going to be really interesting to watch. so much of the argument against obamacare is the changes to the health care system take away health care from people. if the republican governors who re either newly in office or who are newly emboldened, if they decide to cut back or end the medicare expansion or hatever they are going to be dealing with -- even in a conservative state, it'll be interesting to see if that approach flies or not. particularly arkansas over they have the private sector approach to the medicare expansion.

it was passed as a compromise between the gop led legislature and the democratic governor. it nearly got overturned part way through even after he got ut into place. now with the gop governor and a strengthened gop control of the legislature, if they will pull that back, it will take away a lot of health insurance from people. it might be seen as a critical and might not fly. >> i think they want to. a lot of the state legislators ran on that. they took the money from the feds to apply. i see that as a possible workaround. arkansas -- with the governor and the legislature -- they flipped two years ago and now they have a bigger majority. it is the first on the state is totally republican controlled ince 1984. there will be this continuing tension that people could get it through obamacare.

say they have a cash flow incentive for states to go with t. we will see some governors -- mike pence -- another republican governor in utah that they are egotiating with the feds about expansion. one thing to watch in health care is chip. the children's health insurance program which is supposed to go way under obamacare. they thought kids would be covered under the medicaid expansion but of course that is not happening in a lot

of states. funding expired and will that be a priority of this congress? i don't think it will go way. whether he gets to funding that it had been, it is been very expanded in the obama years. i don't know what will happen with chip. >> another interesting take away regarding medicare expansion -- because it is a republican wave, it is unlikely we will see a lot of new states expanding edicaid. what is at risk is the states that have already expanded edicaid. in a lot of those cases, it is not necessarily because the governor has come out against edicaid expansion. it is oftentimes the legislature. it will be really interesting to watch what seems like is going to be some battles between republican legislatures and epublican governors. many have said i am not necessarily against it, i am going to watch it and look at the numbers. even a lot of republican governors have adopted medicaid expansion.

it will be interesting to see how that pans out. >> i think we have time for one more question. yes? if you could just wait for the icrophone. >> i will take a different path with this question. what about trickle-down? one of the areas that have potential agreement between the white house and republican ajority is tax reform. how to do you see that lining up with a lot of the local initiatives, priorities? i will take transportation again as an example. the last time the transportation, federal tax was raised was in 1992 and it was a tax reform initiative. in previous congress, the same thing.

how does that line up with not just transportation, but also some of the health care ssues? how is this going to impact the new legislatures? are they going to have priorities? >> lou, that goes back to your point about we will see how the nationalized these elections get. do you have any other thoughts on any other specific issues? what do you see in terms of trickling down from d.c.? >> it depends on whether the president and congress decided to pursue policy as opposed to skirmishing for a better osition in 2016. >> do you want to take bets on that? [laughter] > exactly. there is certainly an opening for some serious policy advancement and compromise, but we do have a presidential lection coming up.

there will be a lot of pressure on congress from presidential candidates and so forth to try to fight the next battle instead of trying to actually consolidate gains and make olicy. >> i think we are going to have to end things there. i would like to thank alan greenblatt, louis jacobson, caroline cournoyer. i would like to thank all of you for the governing election briefing this morning. thank you so much. [applause]

>> next a look at the future of the democratic party followed by a conversation about the future of the republican party. after that, the u.s. ambassador to the united nations, samantha power. she talks about the u.s. role in the u.n.'s peacekeeping efforts round the globe. >> here are just a few of the comments we recently received from our viewers. >> just calling to tell you how much i enjoy "q & a. at 5:00 on sunday on the west coast everything stops in my house. i turn off my phones and get my cup of coffee. it is the most enjoyable hour on television. >> the guests are informative.

i enjoyed listening to him. he was very accurate and he was on point. innuendos. sing his he was right on target this morning. >> i'm calling to say i think like many people c-span is wonderful but as to criticisms, i almost have none and i'm a very partisan kind of person. the reason i almost have none is i think you all do a tremendous job of showing just about every side of everything and the way people look at 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.

202-626-3,400. comments at c-span.org. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> next a discussion about the future of the democratic party. from "washington journal" this is about 50 minutes. 2014 election that saw steep losses for democrats. we're talking about the future of the democratic party. to do that, we're opening our phones just to democratic callers. we're splitting our lines just regionally. we want to hear your thoughts on the future of the democratic party. and to join us for this conversation, we're joined by jonathan cowan, the president and co-founder of third way. and mr. cowan, what is third way? guest: third way is a centrist democratic think tank in washington that works from everything from economic prosperity to national security

to climate change to education. host: and one of the columns in the "new york times" that was written in the wake of the results on tuesday night describe the election this way. for republicans, they want control of the senate with room to spare, easy victories in what was supposed to be tight purple space races and unexpected nail-biter in virginia and upset north carolina where rick scott and scott walker were re-elected as well. -- in light of that, where do democrats go from here? guest: you certainly know how to rub salt in the wound there. that was a good highlight of all the worst things said. a couple of things. there's no question this is a bad map for democrats, a very bad map. and the mid terms of second-term

president sis are always difficult. and -- second -- presidencies are always. however, if democrats do not use this election as a wake-up call and think about not only 2016 but beyond, build and sustain congressional majority, that would be a huge mistake. on the political, it's all about moderate. it's moderate stupid. that's what it boils down to. democrats had to win in all of these senate races close to two thirds of all the moderates because there's more conservatives in the electorate than liberals. that means that democrats have to overperform among moderates and guess what. every single democrats who lost red or purple states did not

meet the threshold of what they needed to do with moderates. that's the simple story in this election. democrats didn't perform well enough with moderates. the substantive side of this election is all those moderate candidates who were excellent candidates and wonderful politician, mark pryor, you can , mark warnere list -- he will pull it out. that's for sure. but all of thoid moderates were great candidate who is had the right ideas for the country. they could not overcome the anchor of the democratic party brand around their in connection and democrats have worked hard to try to turn themselves into a party that's about economic fairness and what voters are saying in the center is we want -- ocus on economic protest rosperity.

that's who will dominate politics for the next generation. host: so that first message by the president coming out of the election, was it the right message? there's been comments from presidential staffers that said the president doesn't feel repudiated. the president said he wants to move with some sort of action with immigration reform. how did you take the message of the president in that first speech he gave after the election or first press conference? guest: i think at this point on both sides, both from the republicans and a democratic white house, the talk is irrelevant. what's really going to matter is whether they roll up their leaves and decide to work together. and the new reality in washington, and this is different than the 20 st. century. the new reality is we are in for long-term divided go. neither party is likely to get a filibuster-proof majority any time in the near future.

that's not going to happen. so the reality is whatever the president said to his press conference, whatever mcconnell and boehner wrote in the "wall street journal" op-ed, that's all talk right now. after the holidays when they start heading towards a new congress, they going to roll up their leaves and work together? and the truth is there are a number of very big issues on which they can and should find common ground. host: and that talk happening today bipartisan meeting the white house. we mentioned the president's press conference. i want to play a little bit in which the president talked about what is that he said he could work with the republican house and senate over the next two years. here's what he had to say on wednesday. >> the american people overwhelming little believe that this town doesn't work well and that it is not attentiff to their needs. -- attentive to their needs. and as president, they rightly hold me accountable to make it work more properly. i'm the guy who's elected by

everybody, not just from particular state or particular strict and they want me to push hard to close some of these division, break through some of the gridlock and get stuff done. so the most important thing i can do is just get stuff done and help congress get some things done. in terms of agenda items, though, julie, if you look as i just mentioned to a minimum wage increase, for example. that's something i talked about a lot during the campaign. where voters had a chance to vote directly on that agenda item, they voted for it. and so i think it would be hard to suggest that people aren't supportive of it. we know that the survey's consist -- surveys say they want to see that happen. the key is to find areas where the agenda that i've put forward, one that i believe will help strengthen the middle class and create more opportunities for the middle class and improve

our tools and make college more affordable to young people and make sure that we're growing faster as an economy and we stay competitive. the key is to make sure that those ideas that i have overlap somewhere where some of the ideas that the republicans have. host: those ideas that the president laid out there. are those the right foundation over the next two years? guest: so the democratic party has to think on two tracks. one what is can you do really over the next nine to 12 months before 2016 really hits up? that's substantive, where you can find common ground with republicans. that's probably not going to be on the minimum wage. it would probably be on energy policy, trade policy. those are places where there is already well established bipartisan common ground and those are the places you're going to see. the second piece of what democrats need to think about goes to the longer term message

agenda of the party and our view at third way is very strong, which is you must focus as a party both substantively and in terms of your narrative on prosperity. n 2016, democrats focus on a prosperity message and agenda that is about actually not throwing people a life preserver, but actually fixing the boat and making it go in the direction they want us to go. if that's what they do, their prospects both in 2016 and beyond will be really good. if the party sticks with the same playbook that they used -- the same economic playbook they used in this cycle, even though a presidential cycle is better for democrats, it's still not good enough. host: we're talking with jonathon cowan, he's the president of third way. here to talk with just democratic callers on the future of the democratic party. we'll start the phone call with colleen from long beach, california. caller: hi. i just want to know what really

happened there. was it because the democratic senators and congressman and all the people running doesn't back obama's policies? because it seems like he had real clear ones for prosperity and the future of people. i mean, some of these republicans sending jobs overseas and their trade policies and not having corporate loopholes, change and stuff. they didn't do anything. we know the whole story. what really happened? and because of the big fox news message missing that they know how to push people up. they know how to groom their candidates. even though a lot of them were based on just negative rhetoric and things that weren't true and trying to fool their own people which they did very well. what can we do? do we have to be more negative? do we have to groom our own people better? host: great questions. t me take -- in separate

parts. first of all, on the question about the president's record. truthfully, the president has actually done, accomplished some significant things and really dug our economy out of a ditch. unemployment as well as stock market is high. you know, unemployment steadily coming down. so, his actual economic record has been pretty solid. but there was so much dysfunction in washington, so many things that didn't work that that just didn't break through. the second piece of it is that, you know, actually, a lot of the things the party talked about were things like the minimum wage or reducing interest rates on student loans, you pay eckty. these are good and important things. we strongly support them at third way, but they're not remotely sufficient. they really don't add up to restoring long-term middle class prosperity. you've got to dig in and do big

things. get a much bigger slice in the asian pacific market. really change our schools in ways to prepare us for the 21st century. bring down health care costs. solve the climb -- climate crisis. these are the big bold reform ideas that we're going to need to do prosperity. one last point on fox news. look, i'm a fan of fox news, but they had nothing to do with why this election turned out as it did. it's just not -- they're not big enough. that's not really what happened. what happened was you had very, very good candidates in red and purple states running against a very difficult electoral tide at a time when the president wasn't popular with a party brand on economic fairness that just does not work. host: we are talking with thethan cowan of third way,

future of the democratic party, but also looking back so the democrats can look forward. senator bernie" sanders joined us and talked about where he thought democratic candidates failed in their messages. here is a bit of what he had to say. [video clip] >> i think many of the candidates did not run on an agenda that resonated with working people, that said two people it is worthwhile for me to come out and vote. i hope that people regardless of their political views appreciate this. we have a situation, where i believe, some 60% of the american people did not vote, and about 80% of young people and low-income people did not vote. i would hope that regardless of political views people would see that as a real problem, to say the least, in a democratic society.

to answer your question, this is what i think -- where democrats have been weak and individual candidates have been week, is not really standing up, saying we have to take on the billionaire class. right now, especially with the citizens united supreme court decision, millionaires are able to spend unlimited amounts of money, and right now what congress is doing, especially republicans, and some democrats, is working to advance the interest of the 1%, and not the 99%. you look at the polls -- one is totally amazing -- look at the polls, what do people say? they want to raise the minimum wage to a living wage? have the democrats take another republicans strongly on that issue? not enough. full you can see the interview with senator sanders on our "newsmakers" program. --of thirdwan the of

way, i wanted to give you a chance to comment on senator sanders. sanders is ar strong politician, and i agree on one point and disagree on another. the place i agree -- we do not have enough people voting in this country. the greatest democracy that's ever been known, so if you vote. i favor what they do in australia -- mandatory voting. i think we should do some combination of mandatory voting and make it easier for people to voting, voting on weekends, i do not know why we have voting on tuesday. why is it not saturday? the disagreement is he is just totally wrong -- all democrats have talked about for two election cycles is billionaires

and the 1%, and the koch brothers. if that is what they want to talk about, but he is wrong that that is not what they talked about. that is all they talked about. americans want prosperity. they want middle-class prosperity. they do not see it as very much connected to some lengthy conversation about billionaires. very specifically we had a case study in arkansas. pryor, lost,enator strongly batched -- back the minimum wage, and his opponent did not. wage past, which tells you that voters support the minimum wage, but it has no political coattails. voters say let's give people a raise, that is the right thing to do, but i will not fundamentally alter my and my family's economic trajectory.

when will you get around to talking about a trajectory that is about me and my kids and my future in the country? host: from "the wall street journal -- and one other piece in "the washington post," simply asks what is next for democrats. we are asking democratic callers to call in. jared is up. good morning. there are so many things they could tackle. campaign financing, political butintee systems -- something more doable would be to tidy up their own house, and by that i mean congress. look at the rules, and now that swung, them has majority, the minority parties, but look 12, 14 years ahead and

say how could things work better? why don't we have some rule about bills coming to the floor and for how long they can be open for discussion or can the dominant party force it down their throats as the democrats did to republicans recently? also with the filibuster, i guess we have to keep it. as long as we have "mr. smith goes to washington" in the movies, but to do something to modify that where we are not in a position for a governing body to have to listen to dr. seuss recited by someone. guest: you think these changes will help --host: you think these changes will help democrats and the entire congress work better? caller: that is the point. theong as someone is in majority or minority now, they

cannot do it -- they have to look at who will be in the majority. jerrod, greatt: point. the filibuster needs to be reformed, no question about it. the two member we have used these rules for over 200 years, we have made it through two world wars, a great depression, and on and on. we need to fix the rules for sure, but what is deeper is politics have changed, and we are faced with a generation or more, or maybe permanently, with divided government, and both parties will have to figure out how to move to the center and govern in a principles, but, ground way. that is the future of progress -- commong through ground way. that is the future of progress in breaking through. host: what you say to democrats who point out the republicans gave their midterm press

conference in front of a sign "stop obama, fire read. --there is no working with them. that is a view. jack is right. that was their strategy, and no question of structuralism works. -- obstructionism works. to.crats play tough, the finger-pointing does not solve much. what is actually going to solve it is when you come to govern, and you have divided government, will both hardee's actually reject the orthodoxies of their respective bases and come -- both parties actually reject the orthodoxies of the respective bases and come to the middle. the other will get

the message that voters want them to govern from the center -- in a principled way, but from the center. whichever party gets that, understands that, and moves in that direction will have the best shot at a long-term majority. clyde is up next talking about the future of the democratic hardy. he is in new jersey. good morning, clyde. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i have to say this -- i know the republican party got the house and the senate. i am also afraid that john boehner made the comment they are playing with fire. i do not know what they are up to, but i think they are more partisan toward their party. thank you for letting me say this. host: on the distrust issue -- their deep distrust -- if you look at the obama-john boehner relationship, they have had some promising moments, and some moments of deep distrust. clyde, the question

will be is there enough trust over the next 12 months that they will get things done. i think there is because it is an interest of the president or his legacy to find common ground, and it is in the interest of john boehner and mitch mcconnell to show they can be more than obstructionists and govern in a responsible way. the burden will be on them to prove that. two lines for democratic viewers. we are splitting them up regionally. we are talking with jonathan cowan of third way. next year -- next. caller: good morning. watching the coverage of the election, as a lifelong democrat, i am angered and disappointed. first of all, when president

obama was elected in 2008 by substantial margin over senator mccain, i do not remember anyone in the public and party saying a national just won election, let's work with him, let's give his ideas a chance. the first thing out of mitch mcconnell's mouth was they would make him a one-term president. inauguration,he 15 legislatures and republican big deals got in a statehouse and said we are going to obstruct everything he has done. by2, he wins again substantial margin -- 2012, he wins again by substantial margin. nowhere did i hear republicans say not once, but twice, this a presidential election, let's give him his mandate. it was never like that. it is only expected of the democrats to do that as though the only elections that matter

is when republicans win. host: jonathan cowan, why should democrats give? guest: democrats should give for two reasons -- one is that is the only way they will govern the country, and misbehavior on one party does not justify this behavior -- misbehavior by another party. i do not agree with the history. 2008, but to quote the president, he got shellacked in 2010. just two years and voters said we are not comfortable with this and it delivered a shallow -- and they delivered a shellacking to the president in 2010. i do not think this is a simple story of the president got a mandate that was never contested by voters for the last six years. host: let's go to virginia where kerry is waiting. good morning. caller: hi. i disagree with your guest's

analysis. i think for the most part, the democrats ran mediocre, milquetoast candidates like mark pryor from arkansas, even though he has been there forever. midterm elections are about raising the interest level of the voting populace and the democrats did nothing to do that. --fact, they simply certainly dropped off voting from latinos and blacks, not to mention young people who turned out in droves to vote for obama. the idea of democrats trying to turn into republican light, has been tried since bill clinton. when it has succeeded, it has been given a state like nasa. if you are advocating that, you will be having more problems. energized, people you have to appeal to what makes a difference in their lives -- he is correct on that, but what

matters to people at the bottom is having a job and a higher minimum wage level. people in the middle -- it is not having a job outsourced to china and other countries through deals like the pacific trade partnership, which is coming up for a vote, too. host: you might agree with -- raulman raul drama grijalva who put out this statement talking about the future of the democratic party. jonathan cowan? tost: with all due respect the congress and, that is absurd . we passed the most sweeping the most sweeping reform since the 1960's. we fought to provide citizenship to 10 million plus undocumented

immigrants. we made the min wage our centerpiece economic item. i do not know at all what he is talking about. he made the koch brothers the tragedies of our politics. -- the koch brothers the centerpiece of our politics. the president, by his own admission, the single biggest thing he ran on was raising taxes on rich people and they need to go up excess they were too low because of bush. we learned that the party moved to a direction of economic populism and fairness, and we got important things done like obamacare, which we fought for and strongly backed, but this election makes very clear it is not a winning formula. host: the people who've suffered the most in the senate were the most moderate democrats. guest: absolutely, because they could not overcome a party brand. when you are running in a state like colorado, or arkansas, you

have to try so hard if you are a moderate to rise above a party brand that is eric arrived as liberal economic fairness -- characterized as liberal economic fairness. all of them tried. they are in condition they were all good caret. goodey were all candidates. i also disagree with the caller's characterization of bill clinton's record. we won two politics with politics andrd way revived the democratic band. if the caller would like to go back to the days of walter mondale and dukakis, he can do that. i would like to return to the record of bill clinton. his economic record is stunning. there is not a person in the white house who had clinton's economic record. on the politics and the

substance, i would welcome the day we returned to bill clinton's politics and substance. that would be great for the country, great for the democratic party, and fantastic for the middle class. host: cap is up next in michigan. how optimistic are you? caller: is the democratic party starts acting like democrats, it might help. the republicans have walked the ideas in this country farther and farther and farther to the right. they define what is going on. there is a lot of common ground out there already. there is the minimum wage. the common sense gun control -- the senate immigration bill, low-interest loans for students -- i mean, all of those things, in the general country of this been united states has approved by over a majority of 60% of americans, and the republicans that won pretended

to be moderate, pretended to be for the things the democrats represent, and the democrats ran away from those things. not know what you mean by the democrats ran away from those things. the democrats all campaign on a minimum wage. it was one of the top items. haddemocratic party agenda lower student loan interest rates. it was quite the opposite. they ran toward those things. i support those things. third way supports those things. we need to raise of them wage. but we have to keep in mind, one is those things are good, and they are important, but they do not sufficiently address the economic anxiety that middle-class people feel. the fundamental, the defining issue of our time, is going to be can we find a way to restore and middle-class prosperity. tinkering with student loan rates is not going to do it.

we have too many kids dropping out of school and not getting a good education and the price of it costs too much. i can go down the list of things. we can not, as a party, afford to keep saying the same things about economic fairness. while they are true and policies winnot sufficient to long-term majorities or to rebuild economic prosperity. host: we're talking with jonathan cowan, the president of third way. he spent over 15 years in senior levels. what are some organizations you have worked with? i work in congress. i was the chief of staff to andrew cuomo, the current governor of new york, who i will give a shout out to, who just won a second term as new york governor. organizationd an called americans for gun safety that worked on common sense gun safety, like the previous caller mentioned.

so, i have done a lot of advocacy work both inside and outside government, and that worked inside of government. andrew cuomo,on one overlooked thing in the selections -- in these elections, the democrat governors who won are all centrist reformers -- andrew cuomo, jerry brown, tom wolfe, and general mondale. she is one of my heroes. she is a serious pension reform her and she showed you can read -- reform pension in a way that and publicxpayers employees. she has broken the mold and shown you can have a democratic party that has a reformist, long-term agenda that can both govern well, but also is politically popular. the: we are talking about future of the democratic party with just democratic viewers