that parents can find what they think might work best for their kid. >> hello. i'm a senior here. graduating from university, our first thought is we have two avenues. we can go to grad school or the workforce. it's mostly to pay back loans and stuff that we have the students. your starting every shuffling campaign for your listening to get between the minimum wage in the top payers. you also put a cap on the top over the waterfall keep going upwards as people are being paid more? mrs. clinton: let me say this about student debt. i want to be able to refinance everybody's student debt so you will save thousands of dollars and the amount you have to pay back will be manageable for you. now is youngning people graduate with all this debt and you often have to go into the workforce because you have to pay back. i want to put in and date to the debt.

you been vigilant and diligent paying it back, i wanted and date. i want them to have the option contingency- repayment programs like i and my husband had. we had loans that we get the paint as a percentage of income, not a fixed interest rate. we need to get the cost of student debt down. we need to get the pay of people in the workforce up. it is not going up. that was one of the first points i made. we have recovered millions and millions of jobs. we're down to 5% unemployment. but pay has not yet been rising. we have got to do more to get paid to go up. there are all these things to do like raise the minimum wage. and that usually has an upward impact on wages going up the scale. i want more companies to engage in profit sharing because their

employees helped to create the prophets announcing them go not just to the top. we will close loopholes and make sure that the people who are making huge salaries pay their fair share in taxes. we are going to go after the cityem of wages not rising can get your debt down and hopefully your income up. mr. martin: question writer/ -- right here. >> we passed legislation by congress that allowed them to they let the saving and loan. the president bailed out the banks. said those banks had a great community reinvestment act which is expansion of the legislation. as i listen to martin talk about what banks have done in terms of collecting those profits, and since the bailout we've seen little done by the banks in the community reinvestment. this bank was an example used when congress passed the commuter investment act.

what will you do to get the banks moving to invest back and our communities? mrs. clinton: request and -- great question. i believe in the program. again, it is something the democrats of had to defend against republican attacks for decades. there are good examples of it working but increasingly in later years it has not. there are two approaches. one, the treasury and the bank regulators need to ensure that banks are meeting their obligations under community reinvestment. there are a lot of good programs we can point to. if they don't know what to do, we can show them what to do to create economic opportunity. secondly, you mentioned sure bank. in arkansas i helped start the arkansas development corporation because i think in addition to getting conventional banks to do they can we need more of these development banks like south

shore and what we did in arkansas has had a real positive effect. the final thing i will say about this is there is a big fight going on in washington about the dodd frank bill and the rules in place of the banking community primarily into the biggest banks that were contributors to some of the problems we had like the mortgage and other problems we were talking about earlier. a lot of community banks say hey, those rules fell on us to. which is a -- we are just a small regional bank. without giving any relief to the big banks, because i think they need to be regulated so don't get us in trouble again, i want to provide some opportunities for community banks to be able --once more be part partners be partners in the committee. >> many of those in chicago have got out of business. mrs. clinton: he was during the great recession. >> my name is nicholas, i'm a

junior. with more states legalizing marijuana, what is your plan to marijuana legal -- prohibition on the federal level? mrs. clinton: i believe the states are taking this step. there is a great phrase attribute to roosevelt that states are laboratories of democracy. i want to see how it works before we see a national plan because there is a lot for us to learn. what i do want is for us to support research into medical marijuana because a lot more --tes have passed mirko medical marijuana that legalized marijuana. we have two different experiences or experiments going on right now. the problem with medical marijuana is that there is a lot of anecdotal evidence about how well it works for certain conditions but we have not done any research.

why? it's considered a schedule one drug and he can't even do research on it. i would like to move it from what is called schedule one to researchers can start researching what is the best way to use it. how much does to some of you need? how does it interact with other medications? if we are going to have a lot of states setting up marijuana dispensaries so that people who have some kind of medical need are getting marijuana, we need to know what the quality of it. how much should you take? what should you avoided taking other medications. that is how i am currently thinking about it. will you push for major medical increase in federal funding for a cure for sickle cell anemia? mrs. clinton: yes i will. -- how many people know some way with sickle cell? oh my gosh.

is a devastating disease. i have several -- i know several people -- the other day, actually it was last week i was at the naacp banquet in charleston and a young woman in high school gave a tribute. and then she came over to talk to me. she was diagnosed with sickle cell when she was a very young child. she has been in and out of the hospital in august to the medical center in charleston to get transfusions every month. i have another friend, a young lawyer who has sickle cell and she is really smart and she works really hard and yes to go to the hospital. -- and she has to go into the hospital. yes, i think we need to put more money, time, effort into how we will finally air and and sickle cell anemia. mrs. clinton: the question? >> good afternoon mr. martin and secretary clinton.

when i had the pleasure of meeting you a few minutes ago you mentioned you were a girl scout. what character traits did you learn while scouting you would use to be a successful president? mrs. clinton: that is such a great question. let's get this young man a round of applause. [applause] mrs. clinton: i did. i told him i was a scout. i was a girl scout through high school. i learned a lot. in addition to the little merit badge things you learn, which he's got some of his merit badges on his uniform, i learned about teamwork. i learned about cooperating with other people. haven't how important it is when you say you're going to do something you everything you can to keep your word and do it. i learned about how scouting has for so many decades helped young women and young men learn things

they might not otherwise normed. -- learned. my family was on a camping family. we drove every year from chicago to pennsylvania to see my grandparents. we slept in the car. we were not into the forest in the woods and all of that. i learned specific things as well as general values and character traits that i think are really important for everybody to learn, but which scouting is made a big difference in. mr. martin: you are a veteran of the military, please stand up. [laughter] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [applause] mr. martin: stay standing. you are talking about the v.a. scandal nothing as widespread as reported. typically when the president appoints the secretary of veterans affairs, it's one of the last.

i believe if we care for our troops, we will make it as important as the ag, the defense secretary, the secretary of state. what is your commitment to ensuring that the department of veterans affairs is the best federal agency and will you make that the fundamental priority if your president? mrs. clinton: the answer is yes. what i said a few weeks ago was there are certainly systemic problems with the va and they should be fixed and it's an outrage. if anybody has been mistreated or left untreated by the v.a., but i believe they have done good things. the republicans are always try to privatize everything. privatize education, social security, medicare, and ,.a.atize the v

i will appoint somebody with management's parents who will beat out those that are outsourced of either. take what is good about the the a in make sure it's available to all of our veterans. that is our goal. i wanted said that broke his broke. whether you are broke white or black.l what we discussed poverty it is always a black face. how would you lead or drive a conversation to get white america it was broke to understand that your education, your health, your lack of economic access is the same as african-americans and how easy having that discussion? rural communities have a fundamental problem as inner-city communities where they think they are totally different. mrs. clinton: that's a fair point.

mr. martin: i don't think cnn or msnbc last that question. mrs. clinton: it is a fair point debilitatingty is no matter where it happens or who it affects. there is such a lack of understanding in our country about the number of for white folks. we just had a steady amount -- study come out this said poor white middle-aged americans without a high school education are dying that a higher rate than they did that have ever done before. alcoholism, addiction, suicide. poverty is poverty. there is a great idea to commerce and jim clyburn has put forward call 102030. go to federal funds would communities where 20% of the

people are living in poverty and have done so for more than 30 years. mr. martin: two thirds of those counties are republican counties. mrs. clinton: and predominately white. as he pointed out to me, this would be a recipe for dealing with poverty everywhere based on the numbers. if you're living in an impoverished generational help and the government should not be turning its back on you. i am in favor of empowerment. one of the programs that my husband put into place, the new markets tax credit was used to help build up poor rural communities, to provide for economic opportunity. it has been allowed to last letter republican congress. there are tools at our disposal. the point you make neeweto be talking about this so the

caricatures and the stereotypes that are too often flooding the media are once and for all retired. mr. martin: would you running for president do about the community? what he did going to the delta give a whole different view and all the cameras that follow you, bring them with you to the areas and say america, these are broke white people who are poor and this is what party looks like. not from a black single mother in chicago or detroit. mrs. clinton: we went to appalachia as well. the delta and appalachia. a lot ofint out that republican governors are not expanding medicaid, including here in south carolina. that is leaving hundreds of thousands of poor people, black and white, just to the mercy of the emergency room. there is no system for them to the elite of the health care they need. if you compare, and i was in

louisiana not so long ago, the prior democratic governor in arkansas expanded medicaid. got a special waiver from the federal government to do it in a way he could get through his legislature. hundreds of thousands of poor arkansans got it. in louisiana they would not do it so hundreds of thousands of people were left out. i don't know how you justify that, especially since the federal government is paying 100% of the cost until in a few years it will take 90% of the cost. we want people to be well. you talk about this recent study i mentioned where you have middle-aged white folks killing themselves, getting addicted to drugs and alcohol, not getting help from mental illness or substance abuse. that is a health problem. people are often times in rural reachable through

health systems. i think we've got to look at this from the perspective of what do we do to make our country healthier and the people most in need of that are poor people. wherever they live in whoever they are. i feel passionately about this. my first job was with the children's defense fund. my first job for the children's defense fund is coming to south carolina to do an investigation about juveniles and adult jails. sound familiar? we make progress but then we kind of fall back. you cannot grow weary doing the work that is necessary to help people have dignity and develop their own potential. that is what health is about. if you don't have that, you don't have anything. mr. martin: black women, stand

up. secretary clinton, if you become appointt and he got to somebody to the supreme court, would you put a black woman on the supreme court? [applause] mrs. clinton: do we have some candidates here? consider people who have the energy and the intellect and the experience to be on the supreme court. probably on the younger side because of want them to be there a long time. mr. martin: we have got a whole list. he would be good to see a sister on the supreme court. i'm just saying. you have a question of your? could you stand up? go ahead. shouted out. >> [indiscernible] mrs. clinton: yes, i do.

i'm asking you about youth empowerment. [indiscernible] mr. martin: just take a picture. >> [indiscernible] [applause] >> something so simple and then bill came to south carolina and i was in the audience and i said i want my bible. [laughter] mr. martin: are you trying to meet chelsea next? what is your question? >> we were talking about youth empowerment.

and i told you that attempt i was working. we were talking about youth empowerment. i now see as a part of your platform youth empowerment. i heard you say today grassroots, small children. what is your plan when elected president that you have for identifying, like other countries, the cream of the crop and channeling those children up to be prepared for when these job opportunities open up? mrs. clinton: that's a really good question. if you have not seen one of the bibles, i would recommend you do it's such an extraordinary part of south carolina history. as you can tell my husband would be jealous. which is ok. starti think you have to with the families and the parents of little children. i want to do more through

communities, through churches, the other institutions to help every parent understand that he and she are a child's first teacher. --ity will be no can work and to do what we know can work to get the child prepared for school. opportunity is not universal. there are a lot of really smart kids who don't get the chances they deserve. that's why we need universal prekindergarten because we need to start with kids that deserve the extra help. when they get the school they are better prepared to learn. i think what you are saying makes sense and is like to the point we were talking about earlier about schools. when i was first lady of arkansas we get a very comprehensive overhaul of our school system. changing the curriculum, putting

more demanding requirements and. -- in. inrecognize it was difficult a rural state like arkansas and it will stay like south carolina to provide all the opportunities for everybody everywhere. i helped to start the arkansas school for math and science. it's a boarding school, a public boarding school. interestedng people in science and technology engineering and mathematics can apply to go there if they are in a small district that doesn't have the courses they are looking for. i would like to see us do more of that across the country. there are some states that it done this. some of them do it for performing arts. i started with science and technology but there are other kinds of studies. when you have as many small towns and rural areas it is not possible to provide everything

in person which is why we also need to do more through technology and online learning. if you are in a poor school and you don't have the computers and you don't have the tablets and you don't even have the school wired and you don't get high-speed internet, it's pretty hard and your kids will fall behind. my highest priority is let's raise everybody up and let's provide some special opportunities for kids who want to go further in the areas of their expertise or they want to learn. mr. martin: final comment. always that it? -- or was that it? mrs. clinton: let me thank you for doing this and let me thank news one and everyone it was part of this. especially to the university for hosting us. [applause] mrs. clinton: i gave the commencement here back in 2007.

i am so honored to be back. as i have told some of the state elected officials who are here, i want to be a good partner. a president can do a lot in should, and i will work as hard as i know how to find common ground. even with people i don't agree with politically. if we can find common ground of something important, we should go forward together. i also want to be a partner to those making change in state legislatures and communities across a state like this. a president can also do things that are not in the formal job description. we want to know what is the best job training for advanced manufacturing. -- get give people people together and come up with a plan and try to sell everybody on doing that.

convening, catalyzing change, connecting people up like the arkansas development bank corporation. let's find out why it succeeded and white south shore did not and how we can do more of what works in communities like those here in south carolina. be a coordinator and connector so that we get people to really understand what we are capable of doing the matter where we are. don't wait for somebody in washington. demand likeitical what you need from washington. try to hold your elected officials accountable. get voterd registration up in south carolina, your elected officials with the than they do right now in many parts of the state. [applause] mrs. clinton: when you got to work in partnership, from the grassroots up in from the top down. we have got to give more people the tools to make the best decisions for their own lives.

that is what i grew up doing. that is what i learned to do and that is what i will do as your president. [applause] mr. martin: all right. that is it. all -- know how to wobble? mrs. clinton: i don't. mr. martin: you just lost the black vote right there. you're going to pick up some votes, trust me. mrs. clinton: but i have to see it in order to know it. who can show me? don't be shy. mr. martin: i told you we do it a little bit different. mrs. clinton: you raise it now don't leave me hanging. mr. martin: i got music. love this up right now. -- plug this up right now. secretary clinton, it's a pleasure. thank you very much.

a round of applause. democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] mr. martin: i told you i need the music. i need everybody to stay in place please. the secretaries coming out to shake hands. all of you stay in place and think you very much. ♪ mr. martin: you do have music. ♪

i got the eye of the tiger, a fighter, dancing through the fire because i am a chance in and you're going to hear me roar. i want to thank the black caucus for hosting this. all right in. -- all right then. >> ♪ you're going to hear me roar you're going to hear me roar

you held me down but i got up already brushed off the dust hear my voice, here that sound like thunder going to shake the ground he held me down, but i get up get ready because i've heard enough i see it all, i see it now , aot the eye of the tiger fighter dance through the fire i of the champion and you're going to hear me roar louder i am a champion roarou're going to hear me ♪ you're going to hear me roar

roarn a hear me ♪ i got the eye of the tiger a fighter dancing through the fire i am a champion and you're going to hear me roar i am a champion and jurgen a hear me roar -- ♪ you're going to hear me roar ♪

i've got the eye of the tiger higher eye of the champion ar me roarna hera m gonna hear me roar t the eye of the tiger

eye of the champion and you're gonna hear me roar you're gonna hear me roar tigerthe eye of the eye of the champion you're gonna hear me roar

you're gonna hear me roar i got the eye of the tiger the fire the champion and you're gonna hear me roar this town hall meeting with presidential candidate hillary clinton will air again tonight at 9:35 eastern time. you will also be available online at www.c-span.org. there is more road to the white house coverage next week when several of the republican candidates attend the sunshine summit in orlando. that event will also include state elected officials and grassroots organizers. our live coverage begins friday at 11:30 a.m. eastern and will continue the following day. you can watch it live here on c-span. c-span has your coverage of the road to the white house 2016, where you will find the

candidates, the speeches, the debates, and most importantly, your questions. this year we are taking your road to the white house coverage into classrooms across the country with our students cam contest, giving students the opportunity to discuss what important issues they want to hear the most from the candidates. to the white house coverage 2016 on tv, on the radio, and online at www.c-span.org. >> charlie cook is a columnist for the "national journal tilde -- journal." theecently took a look at candidates on both sides of the race. he also talked about the likelihood of democrats three the senate in 2016. this is an hour and a half. [applause]

> for a number of years united technologies has sponsored these sessions. i guess i have to hold out for an elevator for our house or something like that. the great people at "national journal" for putting this together, great crowd. the brand-new almanac of american politics just came out. amazing 2084 pages and sort of everything you ever needed to know. in 1972 my first copy when i was a senior in high school in shreveport, louisiana, and bought everyone -- are you from louisiana? oh, my god.

we went to the same high school, that's right. -- wow, see if this is a real story. i did not make this stuff up. it's now at bookstores near you and amazon and all kinds of places. there is an 18 page introduction essay i wrote at the beginning. -- and there is an 18 page introduction essay that i wrote at the beginning. so just remember that i wrote it over the summer did give me -- summer. give me a little slack here. what i'm going to try to do this morning as talk a little bit. you feel confused about the 2016 campaign so far. it seems a little disorienting. join the club. this is every election. elections are like fingerprints, and every one is unique. but this one is, obviously, about as weird as they come. interesting dynamics and the democrat side, and a whole lot on the republican side.

so what i'm going to try to do this morning is do five things. first, to try to maybe put some sense into what is going on and why. and then take a look at the democratic nomination side briefly, and then spend a little bit more time on the republican side. then talk a little bit all the -- about the general election, to the extent we can. and finally, talk about the u.s. senate because it is kind of the undercard, to use the term that everybody is using these days, but i think the senate is going to be a very, very, very close fight for majority status, and one that i know of a lot of people in washington are going to be watching very closely and care very much about. but let's get down to it. in terms of why is this such an unusual election and what other with things making this such a highly combustible, to use a louisiana phrase, a gumbo of different factors -- but

actually that is the southern part of the state -- of why this is such an odd election. and i would argue that the five factors are, first, ideology. second, economic anxiety. third, populism. four, this culture value wars we have going on. and finally, this pervasive anger at politics, at politicians, and at washing 10. first, let's talk about ideology. i don't think there is any question that the democratic party is a heck of a lot more liberal than it was when bill clinton left office 15 years ago. and at the same time, the republican party is a heck of a lot more conservative than it was when george w. bush left office seven years ago.

and this is manifesting itself on congress and party primaries, and the like, where what we are seeing is that the people who were conservative moderate democrats are pretty much gone now. both in terms of the electorate and congress. liberal moderate republicans are pretty much gone now. the parties are more ideologically cohesive. there has been a lot of ideological sorting that has taken place. in congress, what that means is that the conservative moderate democrats that were sort of the ballots -- ballast that kept the democrats from going off a ditch, they are gone. and then literate -- liberal moderate republicans who kept

the republicans from going into a ditch on the right-hand side, they are pretty much gone as well. and it reflects what has happened in the primaries. simply, democrat primaries are a lot more liberal than they used to. the republican primaries are a lot more conservative. the centers of gravity in each party have moved to the extreme. members that don't reflect that have sort of been purged out of in primaries. and then we have a media environment that is sort of reinforcing all of that. whether it is fox and talk radio and the internet on the right, or the prime time shows on msnbc and a little bit of talk radio and a lot of internet on the left, it is just intensifying this ideology to a point that just simply wasn't there 5, 10 years ago. but there is another dimension. it used to be more when you disagreed with someone you just had different views. increasingly now, anybody you disagree with, they must be evil or corrupt or stupid. they can't just be wrong. there is something more than that that is taking place.

it has taken on a real edge. and the whole idea of balancing, competing values have kind of gone out the way. enough of the esoteric stuff. let's talk about how does this affect this election. i would argue that hillary clinton and jeb bush are sort of caught in time warps. in other words, they are older -- i turned 62 later this month. by the way, today is my good friend and competitor's birthday. my birthday is later in the month. i don't know what it is about november. but jeb bush is 62, so he is just a touch older than i am. hillary clinton is 68. when her husband was president, she was perceived to be at the far left of her husband's administration. and yet now she is scrambling like mad to keep up with the party that has moved considerably to her left. at the same time, look at jeb

bush. here is a guy who from 1998 to 2006 was one of the most conservative governors in america. and what is happening now? his party has moved so much father to the right, and the primary difference between jeb bush and hillary clinton is that bush has had -- has demonstrated some resistance to the idea of moving over with his party, both in terms of positions and just the tone of his rhetoric. he hasn't moved over to keep up with it, and as a result, having lots and lots of problems. ideology is a big, big, big factor. the second thing is economic anxiety. while we technically came out of a recession in 2009, we were seeing polls even earlier this year that were still showing a majority of americans thought we still were in a recession.

if you think about the last two years of looking at economic growth, it has been like a yo-yo, making people very, very nervous. since 1947, average economic growth, job growth -- or not to job growth, gdp growth, has been at about 3.4%. over the last two years starting in 2013, fourth quarter, gdp was at 3.8%. then it dropped down to -0.9% for the first quarter of 2014. then it jumped up to 4.6% and stayed at 4.3%. then dropped to 2.1%. then it dropped down to 6/10 of a percentage point annual growth rate for the first quarter of 2015. then it jumped up to 3.9%. just reported last week, only 1.5% for the third quarter.

what we have got is an economy that is getting buffeted. it is so fragile that it is getting buffeted by things like droughts in the last or a west coast dock strike or what is going on in china, what is going on in the euro zone, and that anxiety is building up -- has continued this exciting that -- this anxiety that really never ended. if you look at the median real household income, in other words, half the households have gotten better, half have gotten worse. household income has not gone up when you control for inflation since 1999. we have two terms, or will have had two terms of democratic presidents since 1999, two terms of republican presidents since then. we have had democratic majorities in the house and republican majorities. some -- so no matter who is in

charge, real median household incomes have not gone up. the people have this feeling that, well, the economy may have recovered, but my economy has not recovered. and that has sort of added a new degree of angst. all of this has led to populism. and whether it is the occupy wall street on the left and elizabeth one and bernie sanders -- warren and bernie sanders, or whether it is the tea party movement, donald trump on the right-hand side, this rise of populism has great intentions within each of the party. -- created intentions within each of the party. the tension in the democratic party between the building construction unions, who desperately wanted the keystone pipeline, and the environmentalists, who desperately did not want the keystone pipeline. or on the republican side, the export import bank and the tea party movement. creating tensions within each side.

then you get to the culture wars. where you have sort of one piece of america is desperately trying to protect what they see as the historic values and culture of this country, and the other side has a culture that values change with time. and it manifests itself with things like, obviously, the most recent, planned parenthood abortion fetal tissue research issue. we are seeing on same-sex marriage. we are sort of saying this over and over again. one country wants to watch father knows best, and the other wants to watch "modern family." and it is creating this sort of another tension that is out there. and finally, think about what conservatives and republicans, but mostly conservatives, tend to value. they tend to value freedom and love are liberty -- freedom and liberty.

and democrats put more emphasis on equality. it is like women are from venus, or whatever that book was. different value systems driving wedges through our political process. and that leads us to the anger at washington. there was a recent abc poll that asked people do you think most people in politics can or cannot be trusted. can be trusted, 23%. cannot be trusted, 72%. wow. do you think the current political system in the united states is based on a functional or basically just functional? dysfunctional, 64%. these are very, very deeply held views. and there is a party difference. one of the things in that same

abc poll, they asked people when thinking about the kind of person you would like to see, which is more important to you, someone with experience in how the political system works or someone from outside the existing political establishment. overall, 56% of americans said they preferred experience. 56%. and 40% preferred an outsider. if you talk to just democratic voters, 69 percent, experience. and only 27% outsider. but if you talk just to republican voters, it was 60% outsider. and when you think of republicans -- and this concept comes into the president a little bit -- republicans tend not to be early adopters. historically, they have been people that like to become to go with things.

-- become comfortable with things. and they have been sort of conservative. then we started seeing that changing some in 2012 and 2014 a great deal. so there is a difference within the two parties between the two. but on the republican side, this is a visceral anger. this is like that howard character in the movie "broadcast news." i am mad as hell and i will not take this anymore. it really is that strong and toxic. so these are the five factors i think has helped create this instability that we are seeing in the political process. now let's talk about the democratic side. there is some precedent to what we are seeing in terms of the democratic party and initially coalescing behind a front-runner. and that front runner seems to have the lock on the nomination. but then the challenger comes out and makes it a little interesting for some time.

think of walter mondale in 1984, where he had the outsider challenge from gary hart. with think about 2000 with al gore where he had the challenge coming from bill bradley. and each got interesting briefly as that sort of got -- and it sort of got less interesting. with the democratic party in 2000 a whole lot more -- i keep on forgetting that my left in your left -- getting so much brother to the left and to the left of where hillary clinton had been, then this anger at politicians, anger at washington, or at least the established order of thing, that has crated more of a net to it. but the real story a think with hillary clinton is when you think about when she left office in january 2013, when she left the job of secretary of state, she had terrific numbers overall. yes, republicans all hated her, but they have hated her as long

as they have known anything about her. but if you look at her numbers among democrats, liberals, independents, hillary clinton's numbers back in january of 2013 were really pretty good. they were probably unsustainably high, but since she was not seen as a politician, she was not seen as a presidential candidate, she was kind of about politics, so her numbers among non-conservatives kind of rose up to and unsustainably high level. when she left office and talk started picking up of her running for president, you saw this gradual slide down in secretary clinton's positive numbers. but it was still pretty good. and it didn't sort of pick up steam until you got into 2014 when she became an even more of a political context. and then she didn't help herself with a couple of remarks.

my two favorite, january 2014, she is down in new orleans speaking to the national automobile dealers association. and she finds the need to sort of volunteer that she hasn't been behind the wheel of a car since 1996. what in the hell would you say that for? was this your way of sucking up to a roomful of car dealers? why would you say that? and six months later on abc, i think she was being interviewed by diane sawyer, and she talked about how her husband and i were dead broke when we left the white house. we all know the clintons had several million dollars without -- worth of legal fees from all that mess and impeachment and all that. yes, of course. but obviously anybody that could

get a seven-figure book deal and six-figure speeches is not what i think most of us here would think would be, say, dead broke. but again -- but still, her numbers were still pretty good until this e-mail thing started catching. i have to confess, early on, i kind of blew off the e-mail thing because i didn't see -- i thought it was kind of goofy. you use your work e-mail for work stuff. but, you know, obviously you are not paranoid. people are really out to get you. and whether it is the i.t. people at the state department or freedom of information act requests, you know, i could see -- i mean, i wouldn't have done it and she wouldn't do it if she had to do it over again, but when you start appearing, well, there may have been in some way shape or form some classified information.

whether it was classified after the heart or before the war -- fact or before the fact or whether it was marked classified or not, but suddenly things started to get more complicated. and that is when you started seeing her numbers among independents start really, really coming down. to the point where they are now upside down or underwater, which in a democratic party nomination fight is not a big deal. but in a general election, that is a big deal. and that has brought her numbers down when matched up with republicans as having as healthy a lead is you can in a heavily polarized country to having not elite at all or within the margin of error. so this is has sort of change things loosely. when you look at the perceptions -- i was talking yesterday to peter hart. they have a new nbc-"wall street journal" poll -- but peter makes

the argument that clinton is perceived as smart and competent by most people. but they don't have this warmth. a lot of them, they don't like her or they don't feel any kind of comfort with her. and they don't necessarily trust her. it is not a competence thing, it is a personal thing. and that sort of comes into play in a general election. in a nomination environment, it is kind of hard to see how she could possibly lose a nomination to bernie sanders. barring some cataclysmic event. could bernie sanders win the iowa caucus? yeah, that could happen. it is sort of observation changes behavior. you can argue that iowa and new hampshire have been observed a whole lot.

and that it has sort of changed their behavior some. or in some of the subsequent primary caucuses out there. but when it gets to sort of primaries, non-new england primaries, the demographics just don't match up. and that is not going happen. so the only way i think there is any legitimate doubt in the democratic nomination would be if -- and i would put this only a one in 4, 1 and 5, 1 in six shot -- is if the justice department starts to kind of get, you know, while if the fbi find some things and they decide to pursue it and a decision goes up to the public integrity section of this justice department, and this is a group of career politicians -- again, i don't think this is going to happen -- but if they do a recommendation of these career

prosecutors, that is going to put the attorney general and the obama administration in a really, really tough position because the thing is when career prosecutors in the public integrity sector recommend prosecuting someone, a prominent person in your party, if you turn down that request, it would take maybe four minutes before it is all over the city, all over the country, and you have a huge mess on your hands. and if you think of this as sort of getting overplayed, think of two different things. did sandy berger, president clinton's first national security adviser, did he expect to be prosecuted for mishandling classified information? what about john george who had stepped back -- stepped down already for having personal information on computers. or what about not appropriately handing -- handling classified information?

this is something that there is a chance they decide to pursue this that could put secretary clinton -- they could cause her real, real problems. tell me that the bush white house, the bush administration really wanted to prosecute ted stevens. i mean, chairman of the appropriations committee, really? oh, i don't think they wanted to do that. but they were faced with a situation of how do you turn it down. it turns out it was a garbage case that was eventually discredited after senator stevens had lost the election and after he was dead it or do you think the obama -- dead. or do you think the obama administration wanted david petraeus prosecoted? there is some chance that this goes to that dark side.

if it did, and again, we are talking about a small chance, if it did, i think you'll find democrats looking for on the wall for a case of fire, break the glass option. so, -- enough of that. let's go to the republican side. where the real fun is. a couple of observations before we can get into the nuts and bolts. you know, what historically has been said about republicans and presidential nominations, and that republicans -- if you think of every republican nominee since the end of world war ii with the notable exception of barry goldwater, every single one of them has been a sitting president, a current or former president -- current or former vice president, excuse me, a runner up of the previous

nomination, the son of a former president, or a commanding general of the most recent world war. it gets back to something i alluded to earlier that republicans have historically not been early adopters. it is like your -- those comfortable old ugly bedroom slippers. they want to feel comfortable. but 2012, we started seeing some different behavior. and when you saw michele bachmann win the iowa straw poll, when you saw herman cain shoot up to the top of the polls, then suddenly -- i go through all the cast of characters from 2012, but when republican voters seriously consider nominating some pretty inconceivable people. again, it was totally against their stereotype of doing this. in the and, sure, they went back and nominated mitt romney, who had been the runner-up.

but it is only after they pursued every possible option and they were all discredited and fell by the wayside. so at think 2012, what we saw in the republican nomination fight was a little bit of a foreshadowing of some of the tumultuous news we have seen since then. one other broad point heard if you think back -- point. if you think back to 2008, what is something we heard a lot of them say? well, it is a lousy idea to nominate young freshman senators. ok. and there was sort of this feeling among a lot of people in both parties that, well, you're really what someone that may be a governor of a state, that that executive experience is a better skill set than some of us come out of congress. so you have this over here, but

there is another thing that is also important. if you did a national poll and you basically said -- asked people, what is the most important political peace in the -- what do you want the next president to focus on? if you ask democrats that question, what they will tell you is the economy, jobs, income inequality, wealth inequality, education. a certain constellation of issues. but if you ask republicans that question, what they will tell you is national security, terrorism, america's place in the world, completely different group of issues which are distinctly not very governor oriented. so republicans had the sort of dichotomy of what do they want that is separate from -- from ideology. ok, so, how should we look at this race? i am sort of a simpleminded

person, so i like to hyper organized. i tend to want to hyper organize things. so i ought2 look at it -- i look at it like ncaa basketball brackets. you have the bracket over here that is the conventional republican party that nominated eisenhower, ford, bush, reagan, bob dole, john mccain, mitt romney, that republican party. and then there is this -- there is this other republican party that is sort of this outsider wing. ronald reagan would have been an outsider in 1976, but by 1980, the establishment had sort of embraced him by then. but then you have this other. this other wing, sort of an orthodox wing of the party, it is a malleable of four different groups.

-- amalgam of 4 different groups. you have the tea party, the social based, then you have libertarians, and then you have people that are just really, really, really, really, really conservative. that is this exotic group over here. and i would argue that what is happening on the conventional side are totally different from the wind things that are happening on the more exotic side. -- from the weird things that are happening on the more exotic side. if someone had told us two years ago, jeb bush is absolutely going to run for president. what would most of us have assumed? he had locked that half of the party up almost immediately. and would have a very, very, very good chance of winning the

overall republican nomination. and so there is the bush thing, and then there was, well, scott walker is going to do really, really well with this. and that chris christie, you know, there was sort of a group of people that thought they could or would do really well, and what has happened is they have all underperformed and walker has already gone. but it has left this big vacuum in the conventional side of the party that no one anticipated. what was going on here? first, with bush. i think you can say first that the bush brand has been kind of dinged up some. this is not the brand that to dad left in 1992 or w inherited in 2000. i wrote a column where i likened it to jeb bush as kind of the teenager whose older brother wrecked the family car just before you needed it for homecoming or problem or something.

-- prom or something. it is not your fault, but he wrecked it. and you've got to deal with the consequences. and so, there is that, but closely associated with that is that the bush brand, was a terrific brand, but it is also, w notwithstanding, it is associated with conventional, historic republican has tablets met -- republican establishment. and that has taken on a bad issue. then we have already talked about the ideological part where the republican party has simply moved way over to dad's right, to jeb's right, so that is part of it. but i also think there is one other factor here. and that when i look at -- i have met him couple of times, i don't know him well at all, but he strikes me -- jeb bush has always struck me as a smart guy

and an intellectually honest guy. he is not a chameleon in any way shape or form. and he is being asked to take changes in what he feels is important, both in terms of substantive issue positions, as well as rhetoric, take on a rhetoric that i think the guy is really, really uncomfortable doing. hillary clinton was more than happy to go ahead and move over on keystone and trade and things like that. but bush is showing consumer resistance. and so it has not only created a political problem, but it comes across almost like his heart is not in this. and the guy who was sort of an 800 pound gorilla when he was governor of florida who exuded strength and confidence, now we are sort of not seeing that anymore.

and i had a co of a big company -- had a ceo of a big company that dealt with him a lot when he was governor said, when that guy walked into the room, you knew somebody walked into the room. i don't see this happening now. i think we are saying that in the debates. we are seeing it in the interviews. we are seeing it on the campaign trail. underperforming is not even -- is an understatement, but he is in a position where he is going to have to turn things around -- he needed to the other night -- because i don't think he is getting any new donors on board, any new donors. and there are a lot of big fundraisers in the republican party that were fully prepared to go his way, but are kind of sitting back a little bit. and they are not jumping on board right now.

and they are starting to look over at rubio for other folks. i think the idea that jeb bush is facing an exit stencil threat -- an existential threat to his candidacy, i think that is very, very real at this point. and then you saw scott walker and they had this great brand. it turns out the skill set didn't match the brand. so he is gone. and then chris christie. i thinth christie, a lot of his momentum was back when there was a certainty about whether jeb bush would run. i think a lot of the people that were pushing christie, perhaps particularly in the new york metropolitan area, new jersey, all that, that once it became clear that jeb bush was going to run, it is sort of like the wind came out of christie's sales. -- sails. and then you had the bridge mass.

-- mess. but the fourth thing is that once chris christie -- i say that, i'm not being critical of him because i think he is who he is. the truth teller. the big, tough guy that is going to tell the troops this. he got out trumped. donald trump basically stole his act. donald trump and chris christie are totally different people, but to that role sort of got stolen. you watch christie in the debates, and i think he is pretty good, but he has never been able to sort of recover and match up to what those expectations were. and then you get to -- let's do marco rubio and john kasich.

then we will go over to the other side of the party. with marco rubio, toomey, you are looking -- to me, you are looking at the best raw talent. if we were talking about sports, you would say that marco rubio as the best all-around athlete in this race. that he has got a very, very, very good skill set. and that when he -- you know -- if you look at his announcement speech also in terms of reach, if you look at his announcement speech, it was about hope, opportunity, the american dream. it was a sweeping inspirational aspirational speech that was not unlike obama, i might add, but the thing about it is the next night i had dinner with a democratic strategist who said -- who was like, you know, a democrat could have given 80% of rubio's speech because it wasn't ideological. it wasn't partisan. it was a message that could resonate across a lot of lines and particularly to independent and moderate voters. now, that is really good.

the clinton folks have been terrified of marco rubio from the very beginning, both in terms of the obvious going after latino voters, but the other thing is going after younger voters. if republicans can close the gap -- for example, obama's age group in the 2012 election was 18 to 29-year-old. he got -- he won that group by a 23 point margin. mitt romney's best group, 65 and over. if a republican can cut it to the democratic margin among younger voters, while, that would be huge -- ow, that would be huge -- wow, that would be huge. in other words, he needs to be throwing red meat to the party base, and he hasn't been

throwing that kind of red meat which is why i think rubio -- you know -- he is moving up in the polls, but not moving at a pace that you might think. but it is because he seems to be running as much for a general election as a nomination. and then we get to john kasich. i knew john some back when he was in the house, and i like him a lot. i haven't seen him since he became governor. i would say just as marco rubio has the best skill set, i would argue that john kasich is probably the most qualified person running in either party right now. 18 years as a member of the house back when it was a functioning institution. remember the house armed services committee, the entire time he was there, which is sort of checking that national

security box to governor of ohio. that is kind of a big deal. you think, wait, it is ohio. no republican has ever won the river presidency -- the presidency. i have thought of it like a bell curve, slightly asymmetric where the center of the bell curve is maybe the 40, 45 yard line on the right side. but slightly asymmetric. and case against sort of on the, say, 35, 40 yard line, which is in the same sort of zone with bush and rubio. and so it is not optimal to win a republican nomination, but it is sure a sack a good place to be in a general election. kasich has all these tricks, but then he is one shortcoming. i alluded earlier that i have 80 -- adhd, which is no surprise to the people that work with me,

that ritalin would probably change john kasich life. [laughter] you have never seen a highly successful person as unfocused and undisciplined as john kasich. and -- and -- and whether it is watching his announcement speech that would sort of -- in contrast with ted cruz, ted cruz gets up and he does his announcement speech that he had memorized. i mean, it was just absolutely scripted and perfectly delivered. it was a theater in the round kind of thing. but what about john kasich? there was not a teleprompter. i don't think there was a speech written to be honest. he just kind of got up and went on a stream of conscious thing for close to 50 minutes. john, john, john, hey, this is kind of an important event here. that sort of thing.

phone call he made within the last month to someone, and this guy, big republican donor type, very wealthy person, it became clear that john kasich was having one, possibly two other conversations with people in the room with him while he was on the phone to this really, really rich donor type and the guy finally said, john, if you want to talk to me on the phone, call me and you're not having other conversations. anyway. the point of all this is that if bush doesn't get stuff together really quickly -- and i think it may not be quite too late -- but you are going to see rubio take this conventional thing. christie is showing some signs of life and thinks, but i think it will be more rubio. let's go over to the exotic side.

donald trump is clearly tapping into this visceral anger. it is like giving the finger to career politicians and to the establishment. or let me do it differently. let's say you have people that are sort of estranged from the establishment. and they are looking for the antithesis of a politician. but for different people, that is different things. it tends to skew a little bit more blue-collar, a little bit male, a little bit -- male, a little bit more younger, their idea is donald trump. he is the opposite of a politician in their mind. he is angry, he says what is on his mind, he doesn't care what anybody thinks. and it is a pretty good act. and so one group gravitated to him. but then there is a second group. and these are not people -- these are people that are just

as estranged, but they are not angry so much. and these are people that are gravitating to ben carson. and they see him as a kind, decent, gentle man, and gentlemen, and they see him as someone who is a role model. they see him as someone who, you know, this is what politicians ought to be like who tell the truth and are fundamentally decent people. in their mind -- and it tends to skew a little bit more white color and upscale, deeply religious, a lot of it of -- is about religion, but in their mind, ben carson is the opposite. in somewhat a smaller group, it is carly fiorina. businessperson, hardcharging woman, but sort of doesn't fit the mold of a career politician either. so a lot of it is sort of social economics, temperamental, it is

what are you looking for -- you are looking for in this part of the party. we still think of the republican party as upscale people and all that. that is exaggeration. it wasn't entirely untrue, either. keep in mind now that roughly half of the republican party is college educated. but roughly half is not good a -- not. a lot of these either are, or their parents maybe were conservative democrats who moved over into the republican party and have really chilled over the last 50 years and have completely change the mix of the republican party. -- changed the mix of the republican party. they have moved over. the thing is i think -- my colleague wrote a column over the summer where she said about the nomination politics that summer is for dating and winter is for mating. [laughter]

and i have heard -- i have heard republican voters say, particularly last summer, that this was like walking into a baskin-robbins and there is 31 flavors of candidates out there. and they have the little wooden spoon and they are tasting some of of them. the establishment is petrified, but the voters are having a great time because they have never had a selection that was quite like this. the question is, we have already seen trump's averages start to come down, carson has supplanted him in some. and let me do a brief rant for a second. you can see people and the -- in the press, and not press, who will gravitate -- whatever is the new poll. and even though they have no earthly idea who the poster is, and no one has ever heard of this poster before, it is like polls have become a commodity.

they are all the same. a few years back, it turned out they were just making stuff up. i saw this morning some people on a morning show who were going crazy over a couple of state polls that i never heard of the pollster before. ever. and, like, you know, any of you -- what is your mother's maiden name? polls that i never heard of the tata? tata research just came out with a poll. [laughter] and the thing is, you could get it on television. and they give it just as much credence as if it was an nbc or "new york times" poll. anyway, i think that as it gets

closer to february 1, i will talk. i think as it gets from sort of the getting around phase or the having a little bit of this or that, and i think we are already seeing with trump, the novelty is starting to wear off, the act is starting to wear thin. and you are starting to see it. -- see it fade. i think carson is going to have some legs, and he will last a little longer. the funny thing -- the trump and carson vote is not interchangeable. take the carson type of voters. they see donald trump as this vain and profane man who brags about having been on the cover of "playboy" magazine, fully clothed. that is a little inconsistent with the people, the deeply

religious faith-based people who are backing ben carson, who is the antithesis of donald trump. so we are talking about some different constituencies here. but when you listen to carson -- first of all, as a neurosurgeon, gosh knows the guy probably has twice the iq points of any of us in this room, but the thing about it is when you listen to him, it is right clear. he knows very, very little about any of these things. and that when you heard him try to talk about the debt limit recently, it became clear that he did not know what it was. the question is want to get into caucuses and primaries, once you get from messing around down to getting to it who is going to be the republican nominee, who can win a general election, who do you want to be the commander in

chief to deal with all these problems, i suspect you start to see this paid down a little bit. -- fade dodnwn a little bit. i think it is going to go to someone in the more exotic wing of the nomination. i think it's going to go to someone who is a vehicle for that anger, that outsider, but knows more and is sort of -- not quite as flawed in one way or another. obviously, trump and carson are very different people than some of these others. could it be a carly fiorina? could it be a ted cruz? who could it be? carly fiorina, in a funny sort of way -- and i know i am in overtime here -- carly fiorina to me is a great example of how someone who has never held elective office and should not necessarily know about a lot of these foreign policy issues, man, she knows these issues

inside and out and she is honed in. she is on message. the thing about it is what carson and trump do not know and understand about public policy, clearly carly fiorina has figured it out. watching her in these debates, she is really, really, really good. i think fiorina's challenges -- challenge is this. despite the fact that there does not appear to be a campaign underneath her, which is a problem when you get to caucuses, but who is going to control her narrative? is her narrative going to be a smart, decisive, ceo of a company in a very difficult time for the industry, who had a board that went rogue on her and pushed her out? is that going to be her narrative or is her narrative going to be a flawed and failed ceo who was pushed out and has

become sort of untouchable in some ways? usually, think about baseball or football. a manager or a coach whatever, they get fired from one team. what happens? they pop back up someplace else. where did carly fiorina pop up? you can make a lot on the board of one of these companies. as a woman, you could be on one of these boards. other than taiwanese semiconductor, i have never heard of any company that would put her on board. that tells me that that narrative is likely to go to a bad place for her. then, you get to ted cruz. remember i talked about how john kasich may have been the most qualified of these republican

candidates and that rubio probably had the best skill set in terms of candidate skill set? but one thing that rubio, that fiorina, and cruz share -- focus, discipline. they are absolutely on task and nothing you can say or do will peel them off of what they are planning to say, which is a very valuable commodity in politics. to me, when i look at ted cruz, i see somebody who -- look, i am a registered independent and middle of the road guy. i do not agree with ted cruz on a whole lot, but when several of us had dinner with him in the back room of a steakhouse and sitting across the table and listening to him, he said things that the day before i would've thought were crazy. the next day, i did in fact think were crazy. but you know what?

when he said it, it did not sound crazy. [laughter] in fact, it made a heck of a lot of sense. to me, this guy is brilliant. number 2 -- he is a very, very skilled communicator. you cannot listen to him and not say, wow, this guy really was a championship debater in college. finally, he is just focused and he's got a strategy. you notice he has never criticized trump or carson because he wants to inherit. he believes that their support is going to start melting off and we are already starting to see trump melt off and he wants to be the remainderman to pick up the support. you do not do that by telling people their first choice was a stupid first choice. that is not how you do it. i am watching cruz as the guy -- and i do not have data to support this -- but he is likely

to be the most likely person to inherit the exotic side of the republican party. first of all, this election is going to be about change. it's going to be about what kind of change. do you want risky change or a more safe form of change? that was something that heart was saying the other day -- what kind of change do you want. is this going to be a time of -- time for a change election or change in american demographics? if it is time for a change, that almost inevitably leads to a republicans winning it. if it leads toward demographics, that could be a real challenge for the republican party. one thing -- we are waiting to get the rest of the nbc and wall street journal polls. their september poll asked whether what you would rather see a democrat or republican elected president. it was either 37-37 or 38-38. that is where this thing starts

off and then candidates are then -- candidates, events, circumstances and then they start leaning one way or the other. sort of watch that. real quickly, the senate and then we need to open it up. everyone here knows and most people watching c-span would note that senate is 54 republican. if they hold the white house, five seats that they do not. one thing that is report -- one thing that is important to remember about the senate is that we have gone late in this cycle. john edwards used to talk about to america and i agree. i do not do the house and have-nots. i have presidential election america and midterm election

america. in presidential election america, the turnout is big and broad and diverse. it looks like the country and what the census bureau reports. midterm election is 60% high and its older and white earth and more conservative and more republican. when you see that, it is just a different, different environment. what we are having is 2008 -- democrats have a great year and pick up the presidency and seeds -- seats in the house and senate. 2010, republicans have a great year. 2012, presidential year again and democrats get elected to the presidency. it creates this boom-bust cycle. keep in mind, six year terms in the senate. if you are a republican and elected in a midterm election year, congratulations. you won with a 70 mile per hour wind at your back. guess what? six years later, you are up in a presidential year. the other way around, you are democrat elected in the presidential year, congratulations. you had a 60 mile-per-hour wind at your back. midterm election, really, really different. in 2014, democrats had a whole bunch of seats up and they were

in really red republican sates -- states and they got hosed. that is a political science term. [laughter] 2016, the shoot is on the other -- the shoe is on the other foot. republicans have 24 seats and democrats only have 10. more importantly, republicans have seven steeds that were up up in 2012.t were there are zero democratic seats up in romney states. one of those republican states, one of those republican seats is in and obama state and that is chuck grassley in iowa and he is not going to lose. you have six republican seats that are in real, real danger here. conversely, you only have one on the democratic side and that is in nevada. if you ask each side, what is one more? republicans would love to talk about colorado, but that does not look promising against michael bennet.

democrats would like to say richard burn in north carolina, but i do not think anything is going to happen there either. it is really 6-1. you look at mark kirk in illinois -- good guy, but if he got reelected, it would be an enormous upset. frankly, i think ron johnson in wisconsin would be something of an upset. then you look at other republicans where you would not put it in the upset category, but republican incumbents that are in states that are in obama and have significant challenges, rob portman in ohio, pat toomey in pennsylvania, kelly ayotte in new hampshire, and finally marco rubio's open seat in florida. six republican seats that are prime vulnerable versus harry reid's open seat in nevada. that's the only one on the democratic side. now in my mind, i would bet you that if you want to mitch

-- went to mitch mcconnell and you gave him a shot of soaking -- sodium chemical and you gave him a choice, you want to take a two seat senate loss or take your chances in the election. i bet that he would take that to wo seat loss and run like a thief. i think that is realistically the best case scenario for publicans, dropping from 54 to 52. i think a three seat loss or more is plausible. it would take republicans down to 51. that starts getting close. four seats is entirely possible. that is 50-50. and you know, which way is the presidential race going to go in terms of tiebreaking in the senate? keep in mind that some of the very closest senate rate states are the closest in presidential , like florida, ohio, new

hampshire, nevada. so that, it is not necessarily true that as a goes presidentially it will go in the senate. keep in mind that whatever is the turnout dynamics and what ever is the issue agenda, whatever is going on in these states is going on in the other. there is some connection may -- there were you could see more of a pop one way or another. we are looking at a real heck of a race for the senate underneath what is obviously one of the weirdest and most fun presidential races we have ever seen. now, i have gone over time, but i think we have time for questions or comments or accusations. [laughter] i know we have some microphones here. i'm told there is also a way to tweet questions in. those of you watching elsewhere can do that, but questions, comments, accusations. state your name and what organization you are representing or with.

so, anybody? my god. oh, you have some? [inaudible] >> these are two good ones. first, how can establishment republicans win in a populist friendly year? charlie: that is a great, great question. although to me, trump is more populist. carson is less. populism is going on, but it's not the only thing going on. to me, i do not really call a what carson is doing as populism. it is something different. it is something big and meaningful, but i think it is something other than populism. that is a really good question.

either one or two things happen -- republicans completely change their stripes and do something that they have only done once since the end of world war ii or it is more like 2012 where they sort of flirt with all this and really want to do this and end up doing that. that is one course. the other course is they go with someone outside of the box or running from the outside. that is sort of my ted cruz argument. he is an outsider, but he knows this. he has better candidate skills than trump or carson. he is smart and knows his stuff and knows the issues. in a debate he would be very formidable. i think that's why you could have a somewhat populist or outsider run and possibly win the republican nomination, but that it is one that does not

have some of the shortcomings that both trump and carson happy -- have. the republican establishment is under siege. look at what happened at the rnc after that last debate. they are trying to shift as quickly as they can from defense to office again. -- offense again. with mixed if any success. how can jeb turn things around? i think he is trying to build an edge back in. look, i have a very high opinion of jeb bush. i would give him a b12 shot. i personally like five hour energy and just pound them away. maybe some caffeine. you know, you know how you kind of -- you have seen football

footballre some of the g heads before the game. it's like a pair of rams, just sort of psyching themselves up for a game. this guy needs to get psyched up. i would say whatever i needed to say. you want to go to thanksgiving and look across the table. i would say whatever i needed to say to get him angry, to get him passionate, and to let him to show that this is not something -- and i do not think that he thinks it is his right or he inherited it. i do not think that at all, but the perception is out there. he is a different person than his brother. maybe he is better or maybe he is not. he is a different person. to be honest i do not think this , is a campaign problem. i think he has rotten luck about when he's up.

had he won the governor's race in 1994 and george w had not, the world might have been different. it is both timing and he has got to show that he desperately, desperately wants this. as he said the other day, not terribly convincingly, but more questions. yes, sir. there is a microphone right there. >> thank you. given the impact of donald trump's campaign turning this to a schoolyard type politics, how do you see that impacting campaigns going forward? will they be less genteel? charlie: i do not know. i think gentility started going out of style a while back. , but is trump going to

be a role model for some candidates in the future? yeah, i think so. i think there is only one donald trump and that is something that a lot of us are grateful for. [laughter] he really is something of a performance artist. you know it is funny, for a guy who has never been involved in politics before, he seems to have a very real understanding of how the media works, how to manipulate the media, how to take advantage of it, which is interesting for someone who has never run for anything before. i am tempted to say that trump is part of a trend that we are seeing towards more outsized, more passionate, angry -- it's part of a trend that we have already seen. i think also that he is a pretty unique character.

it is not something that we are going to see exactly manifest itself like that. we're going to see a lot of little trumps coming up along the way. he is awfully unique. he really, really, really is. the other thing about trump to me is that i do not know if this is a guy who can deal well with being in second place for a very long period of time. i do not think his ego can take that. keep in mind, he is only into this for $2 million so far. you can find people in the house or senate who did make it there who put in far more than $2 million of their own money. he said at one point that he would spend $100 million if necessary. first of all, let us assume he is liquid enough and can. $100 million, do you know what that represents?

and romney each spent $1 billion in that election. , that is more than pocket change. i do not think you'll soon can donors pick up the tab behind him and take up the tab for donald trump. i do think we are seeing politics go for a time to a very, very different place. that is why i think it is important, that while i personally do not think that carson and trump are going to go the distance and when the -- win the republican nomination, i think that anger they give voice to and are vehicles for that anger, i think

going to go on. i do not underestimate that at all. that is going to carry on. the question is who is going to be the jockey that rides that anger through to the finish line? my hunch is that it is not trump or carson. right over here. >> do you see any viable scenario in which the republicans will lose the house? charlie: any viable scenario the republicans will lose the house. first of all, it is hard. it is really, really, really hard and would take and a n enormous amount of effort to lose the house. basically, democrats would have to hold onto 100% of their seats and win every single republican seat that is in any danger at all. 100% of those, which is really hard to happen and then knock off people that do not appear to be vulnerable at all. and it just given where people live and population patterns and where district boundaries are, this is really, really hard.

if you are going to tell me, republicans have lost the house in 2016. what happened? i would assume one of two things. trump's name is on the general election ballot either as a republican nominee or independent. i do not think he will run as an independent. i do not know if carson would do that or not. that would be interesting. the thing about it is that think speaker ryan owes speaker boehner a lot. a year or so ago, tomko, who i think the world of, said about taking the sharp instruments out of the room. by doing the debt ceiling and a budget deal, they did remove the instruments that would be most likely for them to impale themselves. it is awfully, awfully hard. look, you never want to say

never, but it is awfully, awfully, awfully hard. if i were republicans, i would say -- republicans should be worried about the damage they are doing to their franchise both internally within the house of representatives. when i think of fortysomething members that thought that paul ryan is not conservative enough, it is like, wow, this is really, really interesting. and i do think that a month or so ago, eric cantor, yeah, he let his district get out from under him, but he is a smart guy. he wrote a piece in "the wall street journal" where he warned conservatives of following leaders who are misleading them. there is this pervasive view within conservatives that we were told -- and i think the establishment played into this a

little bit -- we were told that if we elect a republican majority to the house and to the senate that we could repeal obama care, we could turn back all the epa regulations, we could undo everything obama and democrats have done and put forth our agenda and get things done. the next day actually, speaker boehner warned of false prophets. that same sort of thing. of thing is, it sorts ignores some basic civics that you may have a majority in the house and you may have a majority in the senate, but until you have veto proof -- if you do not have the presidency and have vetoproof majorities, you do not have that kind of control. and so these conservative voters feel -- they feel like they were misled.

we were promised that we could get all this done. and to them, republican leaders, obviously they could get all these things done. they have chosen not to. well, they did not choose not to -- they couldn't. look at the rules. look at how the place works. that is, i think, primary source of all this anger and victory all you are seeing within the republican party. they think that they got lied to. maybe they were probably exaggerated to where hyperbole is a part of politics. i think they took it a little too literally and they feel the -- betrayed by their leaders when their leaders exaggerated somewhat. unless you have vetoproof majorities, you cannot do all of things that you guys desperately want to do. so, another question in the

room? >> is there a path to victory for the gop in colorado senate? charlie: the smart alec side of me says, get cory gardner to resign from one seat and run for that one. [laughter] here's the challenge for republicans. number 1 -- it is a presidential year as opposed to a midterm year. so the electorate in colorado -- colorado is one of the closest states to being 50 yard line states out there. it is a big difference between presidential year and midterm year, number one. number 2 -- mark udall was from a storied family in democratic politics. the thing is that i do not think he was a natural politician. he is a really good guy, but i

do not think he was a natural politician. bomb michael bennet is -- while michael bennet is relatively speaking new to politics, i think his understanding of politics and of campaigns and how to win is very, very highly developed. i do not think he is as beautiful as udall was. finally, there is only one cory gardner. you show me another cory gardner, someone who can cut into independence and moderates and who can cut against the problems that the party is facing in umpteenth different groups and that person can win a general election. so far, republicans have not found someone there you. -- yet. i'm fairly skeptical there and i been fairly skeptical in north carolina. does sanders outreach to white male voters something the gop with key demographics?

>> hurt -- hurt the gop with key demographics. to me, yes, bernie sanders's support is overwhelmingly white. i think the white males that bernie sanders is winning on board are not voters that have been swing general election voters in a long time, if ever. i'm trying to stay away from talking about volvos and birkenstocks and soy lattes and things like that because i think that is not fair. the thing about it is -- sanders supporters are very passionate liberals and they are not anybody that would ever contemplate voting republican. so i do notresting,

think, i mean, if there is a path to the white house for bernie sanders, it is a subtle one and it probably requires republicans doing some exotic things themselves. it would be a long process. >> the question that keeps popping up, what is rubio's path? how will he win? does the primary schedule most favor in your opinion? : -- cohen wrote a piece earlier this year and our house editor is working on things, it ,s very interesting, there are i am not sure i should say -- i

do not think he has written it areor released yet, there an enormous number of delegates to the republican convention that are not from republican districts or conservative places. and keep in mind, basically every congressional district has three delegates. there are also two states that have voted republican, but for example, in the most republican districts, david will probably , and thefor doing this most republican district in the country, according to law sermon rman, there were 85,000 romney votes for each of the three delegates from that congressional district. , think it is jose serrano

170,000 votes -- for romney at the debt -- at the convention. and --e is in a perverse perverse way, there is a thumb on the scale for republicans that can pick up delegates and not very republican places. on one level, you expect that might favor a more moderate or a less ideological republican. you can make that. or maybe just one that is really smart. and poised in strategy. you win the three delegates and that district, even though nobody knows, the people who live there do not know

republicans there, but the thing about it is there is a path because the delegate selection process, on the republican side, they do not tend to put a bone, or does not give these districts a boatload of delegates. it is impressive numbers. yes? >> we haven't talked a lot about isependence, so my question your general thoughts on independents and could a nominee from a party be so disliked by independents that it would try them to the other party? charlie: that is a good point. isse, to me the independent the best number to look at. i also look at self-described moderates as well.

let me make sure i am looking at it, at the right tab. independents. no, that is a vertical. onependent split, romney the independent vote by a five-point margin in 2012. part of the problem is, the math, there are more democrats self-described than republicans, so it is not a matter of who wins more independents. but romney won by five percentage points. but among self-described by a 15s, obama won point margin. so, i look at both groups,

independents and moderates. so is there a way, obama won without winning a majority of independent votes, but he did it because his party had an advantage. is there a danger there? if youter hope like heck are a party going that route, that you are getting absolutely off the charts turn outs among your members to make up for that. there is an argument that conservatives make, that a lot of conservatives did not vote and that depressed the number. at the same time, if he had done what it had taken to jack up the turnout among conservatives, to what extent would he have lost the independent vote. the point is, you have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. you have to be able to get a good turnout with your base,

reach in and grab as many votes as possible from the middle, the partisan middle, or the ontological middle -- ideological middle, but keep in -- they great number , that was a decisive factor in 2012, they asked people for factors, which of these was most important? which mattered the most in your decision? future a vision for the and romney one that by a nine point margin. the second-most was sharing my valleys -- values, romney one that group by 13 points. the fourth group, i am skipping

one, 80% is a strong leader -- 18% is a strong leader. romney one that group. but what was the other group, 21% cares about people like me. obama won that by a 63 point margin. so romney won three out of four, but got clobbered there. that is why for a conservative, the key is how can i maximize the republican vote, the conservative vote, but not come across as this coldhearted person who does not care about the people. why, you say how does a republican do that, the answer is very carefully. just not something that happens automatically. ok, i am getting the look.

last question. >> emergency candidates for both parties? michael bloomberg. charlie: let me talk about my personal bias, he is a very good mayor. side, that would be a complete nonstarter, you cannot do what he has done on guns and have any chance on the republican side. ,nd even on the democratic side i think it would be safe to say that elizabeth warren, if they think hillary clinton is a wall street candidate, try somebody who didn't work there. they would go completely out of their minds. i think joe biden would be, to me if things, if there was a break the glass case, if it is

early, you could see the party head back toward biden. if it is late in the process, really late then where it is a most like to late, filing deadlines and this, i wonder -- i do not think, i do not see a circumstance that sanders actually wins the nomination. so the guy within the existing field i would look at is om alley. o'malley, are there any signs of life in his campaign? no, but if you think of