closely as far as where we allocate resources and my time. i think we have a good shot in colorado, a good shot in minnesota, a good shot in massachusetts, and i think we look pretty good in oklahoma. the last poll, in vermont, 180%. surprise people in other states as well. you have blamed the whole trust issue on independent unfairfor decades of attacks by republican smears against you, by republicans, but how do you fix it going forward? you will need independent voters if you do become the nominee. ms. clinton: absolutely. i will do what i have always done. toill keep reaching out voters. i understand that voters have questions and what i will do my very best to answer those

questions. there is an underlying question in the back of people's minds, is she in it for us or is she in it for herself. that is a question people are trying to sort through. i will demonstrate i have always been the same person fighting for the same values and to make a real difference in people's before i was ever in elected office, even before my husband was in the presidency. casew i have to make my and demonstrate what i have achieved and really make clear that look, we want to make progress in our country and we want to make a real difference in peoples lives. that is what i've always been about and that is what i would do as president. thisnce the start of campaign, only one network has taken you on the road to the white house, from the early announcements and the policy

speeches to the candidates visiting diners in iowa and new hampshire, i'm --, and campaign rallies. after the results this weekend theouth carolina, democratic race has sharpened. we will stay in south carolina with the big democratic i then wea saturday and move on to multistate primaries and caucuses in early mid-march. this race is just getting underway. you can follow it all here on atpan network, online c-span.org, and on c-span radio. >> i think we are the cusp of a progressive revolution. i consider bernie sanders and hillary clinton both progressive spirit one will be the next president, i believe. it is now a good time to take stock and see, how did this guy do what we thought was a real progressive, how did he do that and what did we learn from that

experience as we move to the next administration? >> tonight, bill press talks about his book, how obama let progressives down, which takes a critical look at the obama presidency. senator bernie sanders recently spoke out in favor of the book. >> the blurb is harmless and does not endorse the book. repeats the point he makes in every campaign speech, which is twofold. we need a print -- political phrase, and as political revolution means progressives have to really keep the pressure on the next aesident who we hope will be democrat or a progressive, to really stick to and be true to agendass -- progressive and follow through.

>> c-span, treated by american cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you by a public service by local cable or satellite provider. smith, welcomeon back to "the communicators are co- the current fcc, five commissioners have been in place for several years now. how would you describe your relationship? gordon: i say that having served on many of them in the senate commerce committee. i think it is stylistic and i has anhairman wielder

agenda in mind and wants to push it and he needs two votes. it makes it challenging for us ouruse, on the one hand, issues really should not be republican and democrat. to be more divided that way than i have ever seen it. but that is their business. my business is to work with both and asonstructively effectively as possible. is the fcc structured in your view in a way that is fit for the 21st century? so but i think the house commerce committee and others who have come up with reform ideas that are probably again, i'm notut anxious to venture into telling them how to do their job here my job is to work with them and

make a broadcasting's case as well as i can on the basis of good public policy. peter: joining us to talk about those issues is monty taylor of the comedic editions -- do you think the fcc is more or less responsive than previous commissions and does the election time make a difference? the election year, all the time, consumes a lot of oxygen on the hill. the focus of the hill tends to be more focused on the balance box than necessarily government agency. let me start with my areas. chairman of men, chairman wallman, right member senate andthe

ranking member alone in the bipartisan lee have written to the fcc that in my day, would have gotten a different response. that was my experience and they got different responses. doing itsmments is response -- how responsive the fcc has been to that pressure, sometimes yes and sometimes no. monty: we can at least glimpsed the chairman's term. what do you think his lasting legacy will be? is a verythink he able and very smart man and he has it clearly in mind what he ands his leg is the to be he is no respecter of industry. he is going after that and

sometimes in the face of real congressional criticism, that is not necessarily a bad thing. his -- he is pursuing. probably the net neutrality vote, but especially the headcast spectrum option, has put a lot on that part of the table. we are anxious for it to be successful and over. do our part.s to broadcasters who are angry for logical business reasons wanting to participate. i have a lot of broadcasters who want to be in business and left alone and support localism and

grow businesses and look for new of new platforms to get broadcasting content out there. , have to support and on the other hand, i have to .rotect the remainder we are doing our best to ride those two horses at the same the fcc has not released statistics but do you have any set sense -- any sense on the broadcast side? and a: no one knows chairman says he will not release that the i have reason to believe many broadcasters will look at it for good reasons. how many remain in it is the open question and it depends on the buyer side. cableny will come to the -- to the table? ,hen you look at what we hear

verizon, at&t, they seem to be kind of vague about their intentions. t-mobile will be a big player. but how big their wallet is is an open question. we don't know and all of those cards are being held by chairman wheeler. monty: why do you think it is secret? gordon: i do not know. i know nab fought really hard against the channel proposal to what he think the fcc is pursuing it so hard? do you think it will end up in court? motive is toof the raise money for the federal government. a vacant channel, let's be on a -- let's be honest, google is a company with a market billionzation of $547

and it is the biggest company in the world, figured in many countries. if you're going to set aside a google channel for nothing, you have to ask yourself, is that in the interest of the office of legislation? many broadcasters have said the plan taking into of tower crewsel and the amount of infrastructure repacking. support has anything been done about that? gordon: several things. if i were to come in and you were an auto mechanic when i came in and i said, how long will it take you to fix my car, and you have not looked at it, could you tell me how long it would take to fix it? of course not. know how long it will

take to do and how many stations will be affected. yout is 1000, i can promise 30 month -- 39 months is not enough. if it is 200, yes, maybe. we do not know. has put 39 months in their regulation. in their defense, every fcc commissioner in a house hearing was asked the question, will you force the broadcasters off? if you get 120 megahertz and that is not done, will you force those not completed and the repacking, to go dark question mark everyone of them, even chairman wheeler, said no. i do not think they could sustain it politically if you said to a state come you guys are off the air. i can imagine, because i used to sit in one of those chairs, what my reaction would be if they told me all my broadcasters in

oregon were off the tv set. a lawmaker's megaphone to the people. it is how you communicate with your constituency. thatare not going to do nor do they know how long it will take until they know how many stations have to be repacked. just to go back a step, our broadcasters it -- our broadcasters excited about the auction? i know some are and some are not, but are they excited about the chance to benefit financially? it depends onk every broadcaster and their balance sheet and what kind of modernization they are looking to. how are they doing and do they have access? couple of channels

pyramid and they can get rid of one and maybe they can channel capital. use i think everyone of them has to speak for themselves. i see my membership as rather divided on who will participate and who will not. but many will, particularly if they are public companies. answer togot to boards of directors at investors and have to look at this and look at it seriously area and i believe they are. they have the, ability to withdraw every time. they do not have to accept an offer made. how many will be at the end, i cannot say any more than tom wheeler can say. classic fit goes the way wheeler wants it too, are you concerned that any of these positions will be weakened? gordon: it is a fascinating question. things are in shorter supply. we will be smaller.

does that mean they are less important or more? if something is in short supply in the public still truly supplies localism, one of the most popular to medication brands are your local tv stations, will they be less important or more important? the answer is we will actually be more important. if any of the people will bid on the auction, they want what we have. they want our airwaves. they do not want the responsibility the broadcaster , like localism and weather and news and sports. they do not want to set up a newsroom. they want the specter -- spectrum to bill you more, any other building might be a will to direct into the airway. my own view is that this is a grand experiment never tried before.

i am happy for my broadcasters who want to somehow utilize it and i have a duty to protect those who want to stay in the business and broadcasters tend to be devoted to the industry and their cause of public service to providing local content. great network content. there impact to the viewer of a smaller spectrum? there are some channels i am told that may be going away. that will do is make a programming scheduling a little more interesting on what remains. possible there may be some communities that have none. policy thatic underlies and over arches the broadcast license, they are values that are very valuable to

the american people. what broadcasters do is what newspapers do. she cheetahs of them together, they give people specific information they need to live informed lives and know what is going on in their community. -- newspaper for broadcast ownership rule ought to be changed. we're both in the journalism business and both important to the people who live in every community in the country. peter: it should be changed in your view, but will it? gordon: they have missed it twice. there is a real crying need for that to be accomplished and changed so that for the sake of andfirst amendment

investigative journalism, it ought to be changed. -- r: monty: congress forced a grandfathering provision in there. do you think the sec has a responsibility to scale back that rule now that they know congress does not approve of it in some degree? would think they would but i do not know if they will. to the everlasting credit, barbara and senator schumer, shattered -- senator durbin, thesessman walden, gentlemen, on a bipartisan basis, i think understood at their core that once the rules such a and broadcasters mentally rely on those rules, you cannot change them post fact out. that is what the fcc did and congress said, no you do not.

i would think they would take note of that. we were one of the few writers to get through on the last resolution through congress. i think that ought to say something. the president signed it. but again, that is their business as to how they will respond. currentroadcasters relationship with cable companies when it comes to retransmission? there is always an economic tension there as you could imagine. they want to pay less and we believe our content is worth more. we're paid 10% of the money's dispersed through pay television, and yet we represent 35 or 40% of the eyeball. there is a disparity between the viewership and the compensation. they would like to brame

retransmission for the inflation in the cable bills, but the truth is it has a lot more to do with the box than it does with them and the broadcasters and free market associations. you raise the box issue and that is a huge deal for pay tv right now at the sec's proposals supposed to come up with the next meeting. they haven't really waited to that, to my knowledge. broadcast content is a huge part of what they are selling, but do you have a take on the set box top issue? gordon: i respect that the chairman is looking at something. his greatheeler, to credit, is fostering competition. and he is looking at one of the real cost centers and the pay television industry. so i understand why he is doing that. myself, i'mr

saying, ok, who is the new gatekeeper? is it amazon or google? i do not know. have is right now, we have tough negotiations with satellite or dish work -- or with comcast and cable. i warner, you name it. the retransmission consent negotiations are happening all the time. 99.9% of them and without any difficulty at all. paying for the content. if it goes to a new set-top us with a different gatekeeper, my question put in my broadcast cap back on is, how about my copyrighted material? are they going to sell ads on it? if so, do they have no responsibility for what they then will take from broadcasters? i think there are serious legal issues there.

and we are paying attention. this is something they will vote on. it is likely to go to rulemaking at some point and we will be participants and we want to protect our content. it has a value and we are determined to protect that. >> how worried are broadcasters that there will be a lot of changes to negotiation rules? gordon: again, this is a solution looking for a problem. good people and the pay-tv collies are, there -- that they can. far less, we are paid for our content than they pay themselves for their own content. and our content has a lot more viewership than theirs. we think there is a disparity between compensation and viewership. our friends on

the other side of the negotiation, some of them, dish in particular, really relish it whatever they can get a contrast and blow it up into some big deal, they always tired around the super bowl or the oscars. that is going to happen. the fcc and the hill and say there is a huge problem. willng up this proceeding probably result in more standoffs, more blackouts, and the best thing that could happen for them to close the proceeding quickly, and it sends the message basis -- should spend less time focusing on special favors for the government and more time negotiating the business. that is how it is supposed to work and that is how it has worked. what is the impact of an

election season on broadcasters? is it like christian -- christmas morning? it is to buy me nfl has become a secular religion in our country. half the country was tuned in, at least. it was just off the charts. sports has a great value and they are very important to broadcasters. you theased to tell broadcasting has never been better. the architecture streaming will never support that kind of dealership with the kind of quality we can do with a clear broadcast signal. there will always be niches around it. the big tv with a broadcast signal. when it comes to

commercial and people have different devices for skipping over those commercials, what has been the impact? it is a concern because most of the revenue for broadcaster is still advertising data. retransmission and consent is still growing but it is still small relative to advertising. dish wantple who like ofsay, let's undercut 85% the broadcasters revenue stream, it is a problem. we want to say the advertiser will deliver the eyeballs and that will produce customers for you. if they give people the option -- the superit, bowl, people tune in for the advertisements almost as much as for the game. they are pretty amazing. advertising still remains central to the revenue stream necessary to create content and supporting localism and

journalism. can you talk about the progress to the update to the standard? is it moving in a way that it will get adopted by the repack or is there a transition plan? juncture, nab is very interested in what it could do and the promise is that it will allow members to do less -- with less spectrum even more than what they do now than they have. interoperability, channel sharing, it has great promise but there is no finished standard yet. before i voice an opinion other than a hope, i want to see the final product. then we will take it to our television board. it is really these members who

have to make that investment. it looks promising but the proof is in the pudding and the transition is difficult. >> there -- are there issues agree on an michael all work for the same goal when it comes to congressional issues? gordon: yes, it seems like we are often on different sides, and yet many times we are on the same page. it goes issue by issue. i have a high regard for both and i have a particular affection for michael. i was on the senate commerce committee when he was a chairman and i thought he was superior, i love his dad and have the privilege to work with: powell and he is a remarkable guy just like his father and his mother. has nab taken a position on that neutrality? we have not.

members are for it and some are against it. it is an issue i have debated back and forth to recommend could make you a good case for and against it. >> but nab does not have a dog in that race at all. >> no, but i understand why others do. there has been concern about the fcc closing enforcement feared -- field offices and keeping up with radio. concerns been borne out? is fcc doing enough? gordon: they have a proceeding and we salute that. undercut legitimate legal radio and we do not want that. whatever they can do to terminate it, -- to eliminate it, we think that is important.

by theous efforts commissioner who led that through. it gives the a.m. radio station a window to apply for fm translators who keep in business listeners and we are grateful to the fcc for the ruling. the 20th anniversary of the telecom act of 1986. time to update it? a littlet preceded me by a year, i believe. i think the difficulty is they take a long time. they have a tendency to take winners and -- winners and losers and overhanging any future are issues like the neutrality and things which,

lots of capital flows one way or the other. so they become very difficult things to do. the other problem with telecom the complexity of it. the constant change in technology. it seems like the sooner they get it done, technology has moved on so most of it is irrelevant. what i like about the idea is that it will look at things in a holistic way. you look at it, the more difficult it becomes. . >> my guest is that there will be more rifle shots that he holistic. >> given your past in the senate in your current position in the

national position of broadcasters, what can you realistically expect to be thatlated in the congress deals with some of the issues? >> this year? >> yes. >> not much. the reason is because it is a presidential election year. it was my experience that in an , doubly so in a presidential year. politics trumps policy almost 100% of the time until you get to the lame duck. the lame-duck dynamics are determined by who wins and who loses. to be watching for everything and be prepared to make our case all year long, so that when it gets to the leadershipthe

goingg the cards, we are to do the best that we can to protect our members. but i can't tell you what that would be at this point. >> one minute left, monty taylor . a few years ago at the nab show, wheeler presented a business plan for broadcasters that concentrated on channel sharing and making money off the auction. he was hugely criticized for that plan. isn't that kind of what's happening, though? was he right? >> a criticism was the fact that we were some of the biggest online players already, already doing that. in terms of channel sharing, a lot of that is going to depend on each individual station and can kind of deals they structure. all of that will happen anyway. theas kind of saying -- response was because -- check it out, we are already there.

>> senator gordon smith, monty taylor, thank you both for your time. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] quick c-span, created 35 years ago by american cable companies and brought you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. bernie sanders is in south carolina day for a campaign rally in greenville, coming up at 5 p.m. eastern. we will take you there live when it begins. next, nate silver talks about statistics, polling data, and the 2016 elections. he spoke at an event hosted at george mason university.

well, welcome back to our second round. thank you for coming back. as you go, tyler and nate are both big fans of vitamin d, so it's important for them to take some breaks in sneak outside. has manyy that tyler interests, as you know, for being here and for being fans of tyler. so, i cannot tell you what tyler and nate are about to discussed. but i can promise you this, it will be challenging. it will be fascinating. and, above all, it will be entertaining. please join me in welcoming tyler cowen and nate silver. [applause] tyler: nate doesn't need much of

an introduction, he is a data,enon in the areas of online media, politics, public roads sectors, basically. i think of your work i think of you is dedicated to the idea of numbers, data, and wanting to apply that to as many different areas as possible. a volley areas of human life, where can data bring the biggest improvement, what would your answer be? tyler: that's a pretty heavy question. know, i should take another hour to think about that. look, i think the answers are obvious, in some sense, were held is an area where i haven't done a lot of work are slowly, but i'm sure it's incredibly valuable. doctors are not known for being terribly analytics driven. i don't of the culture enough as to know why. --terms of areas that we are that i would like us to focus on eight, criminality

and criminal justice. in part, because you have a lot of issues with data. know how manyo people are killed by police officers you don't really know that very well. education is another area where he could have a lot of data use. it is used poorly, as well as data used well. urban planning is something we're fascinated by. we did a big analysis of uber data. we spent $2 million of our own which is that uber in new york was not adding car should the streets. tyler: if we applied more data to the law, what kind of improvement can you imagine we might come up with? nate silver: i think them up in the last field where you would have -- a noncitizen a pejorative way -- -- i don't say this in a pejorative way.

answer that is at least approximately right. whereas the legal sector i think relies more on precision. you want to very sites -- precise answer. that is kind of what you're avoiding sometimes and fiscal analysis. tyler: i sometimes wonder, how much data to people want? i went back to your high school yearbook as prep for this. i took a look at the quotation you left it is from the combat. -- macbeth. liars and swimmers are full's, because there are enough to be the honest man." nate silver: you are entitled that of high school, i think. [laughter] tyler: when you give a lot of people a chance to view the quality of the hospital, or

doctor, they aren't interested. as a citizenry, how much dated you think people want? do you think it is a kind of entertainment? do people want to see real data on how good or how honest they actually are? nate silver: my partner got really into 23 and want honesty do. you actually tell you all that much. i don't want to stress about a bunch of things i can't necessarily affect. i don't know. empowering people to make better decisions with their own health is a noble notion. i am enough of a free marketer that i say you should give people the information, whether or not they use it well it is their right. i'm not sure at a firm conclusion whether or not it leads to better decisions. amongression is that

doctors, and hospital administrators, they are not , despitedata-driven their rigorous work in other respects. tyler: i think of you as a kind of super forecaster. do you think you can beat prediction markets? nate silver: not all the time, but a smidgen above average. if this were a game and we were all investors, at the end of 40 years you have some excess returns. i think made by small amount but not enough to make up the variance. it's been to what market you are talking about. i think the market in politics are not all that liquid, or that sophisticated. i know the various sports hubs we have have tended to beat they guess not by a lot -- vegas.

not by a lot, but 52% of the time. tyler: that is a lot. nate silver: it is a lot, and it does what i spend a lot of my time taking about. arrogant to for anyone to think they can beat markets. right? at the same time, the more worshipful we become of markets and the less useful they become as well. know donaldell, i trump is going to win because he's up to 52% -- it is lower now -- but is that fair? that i think doesn't add any value to the conversation. i am more interested as a person in providingrcher, information that other people

can aggregate. if you are talking about our political market -- the first question is how good our markets? the answer to that is pretty is not verye air linear. when it is off they can be off by quite a lot. is the person who knows when they are off? that is harder to do. tyler: what is the difference between forecasting in futurism? do you have any predictions for the year 2050? not great, just better than the market. think i am mildly pessimistic in some ways. tyler: what is the biggest source of your pessimism? [laughter] nate silver: i don't know. there's probably some survivorship bias. willing about how our way

persevere forever forever, and ever. we were talking backstage about how you go to asia -- not as often as you do -- but if you want to feel optimistic but civilization then go there. but, some of it is thinking about this donald trump phenomena. tyler: i have heard of him. nate silver: it just made me consider that a lot of assumptions people made about how american politics work really based on the relatively narrow slice of history. 2000world war ii through or so. or 1980-2000. it is gotten a lot of history. in many other contexts, they're all types of places run the world where nationalism is a

much bigger phenomenon that it is in the united states. and racism is embedded in a great deal of political turmoil in the united states. in some ways, i wondered after the great recession how come we haven't seen more upheaval, more social upheaval. maybe we're seeing that a little bit delayed. it is more of a revolution of rising expectations. a the same time, there is tendency now to focus on -- i don't politics to focus on a specific -- i know in politics to focus on a specific picture. there is a lot of wonderful news in some sense in terms of poverty rates going down globally, income inequality going down, diseases being eradicated. muchder to some extent how the media culture tends to focus the lens on negative aspects

society. optimistically, do you think data can improve matching? should we just follow the algorithms, or that a potential that end? or does it just focus -- force you to choose someone to get you out of a decision? [laughter] nate silver: i think the market would say that people find online services fairly useful. maybe it removes some spontaneity. i met my partner at a bar which feels almost old-fashioned now, really. pills,ld be like these or the placebo effect. nate silver: i think there was a lot of over optimization. almost across any sector you want to talk about where data is being used to optimize a short-term equilibrium. it is much harder to measure the

long-term. before, you couldn't measure anything at all. the navy your shirt -- then maybe your services were that bad. what is going to get my website the next traffic -- most traffic 36 hours from now isn't necessarily the best decision in the long run. you can measure some things come and not others, that can make you quite myopic. tyler: you mentioned donald trump a moment ago. i told quite a few people i didn't think trump could get very far. it is not obvious that i was right, paul krugman said early on that hit quite a good chance. what is it that he saw that i did not? nate silver: i was one of the skeptics, too. let me say, i thought you'd ask a version of this question. tyler: i wasn't allowed to blame you. [laughter] that is important,

i think. i got a little frustrated because before saying rutrump will instantly evaporate in the polls list up we said that could happen but there were a lot of candidates like pat buchanan and or 30% ofill get 25% the electorate and they have a high floor, low ceiling advantage. that could still wind up being true. thing,at said, for one we're dealing with a fairly small sample of relevant election. people look at the primaries going back to 1972, and one basic lesson is that when you 15, thereple size of is nothing you can do to make it not a sample size of 15. no matter how compelling you can

make a rationalization to say we have fear he as well as empirics here. i think maybe making people more conscious about saying unlikely verses never. the record will show we said unlikely, and not never. still, it is a lot of things to give up. i don't know. you talk about what super forecasters are supposed to do. priors, and it said that the prior to win the nomination. what signs could i find that would violate that assumption? it is not necessarily performing well in early polls, lots of candidates -- unusual candidates -- have done well in early polls. lots of unusual candidates have

won iowa or new hampshire, not usually both. tois the ability consolidate the field after that to become a consensus choice of the party this been more unusual. that assumption still might prove to be true. i do think that i, and a lot of other people, overrated the ability of the republican party to stop what i think is a radical insurgency within the gop. tyler: the party is weaker than you thought. what other ideas about the world you think we should revise? paul krugman would say republicans are racist and many other people would believe. nate silver: that is a little bit of what i wanted to resist. i think one lazy, in my thinking are thosep, is there

weapons consistent for a long time. i thought the people who were approached trump were generally mp were people whose opinions i would not wait eight as highly. i think it is lazy, and quite dangerous. tyler: does michael bloomberg have a chance, if he chooses to run? nate silver: give me a probability. i think as a 2.8% this morning. is that too high or too low? of becoming president. nate silver: probably about right. in some ways, the climate could be as fertile as ever for some type of third candidate running. but bloomberg, i don't know. i don't know if he differentiates that much from clinton, with whom he is a lot trump from whom

he is the same character. ,ut between sanders and trump or clinton and trump, everything is quite left of center. when he was thinking about running as an independent in 1999 had a platform but it involved a wealth tax coming with anti-immigration even then and pro-choice. he said he would reconsider his stances if he began the republican nominee. today, the more viable candidate in that case would be like a mitt romney, condoleezza rice ticket persimmon like that. tyler: let's move past the esoteric and give people what they really want to hear. let's connect in 1968, the world -- let's go back to 1968, the world series. he took mickey stanley, pull

them out of center fielder but the minute shortstop for stop. no one had ever done this before. you were advising at that time -- how do you start digging but that problem? -- start thinking about that problem? nate silver: we know a lot more now about the value of defense than we did in the late 60's, or even 10 years ago. if anything, defense to the to be quite a bit more important that people would have thought. that was ironic when some of the conventional scout and wisdom was confirmed as data got more advanced and more sophisticated. if want to get really complicated, and to the tigers had denny mcclain and a strikeout have a pitching staff maybe you worry about defense a little bit less, tiger stadium is a park conducive to low batting average is to begin with. it is not obvious to me that it

was the best move. it is interesting that all of a sudden, baseball teams in football teams become, in -- correct when they have more on the line. in the world series, usage is a lot better. you bring your best guy in the eighth inning of the seventh-inning and in the nfl teams will go for two more often. it will go for it on fourth down more often. when the stakes are high, and the outcome of the game is all that matters, then things are different. tyler: who is the underrated candidate in the republican race this year? [laughter] to impose a kind of consistency on you. nate silver: i mean, i don't know. tyler: you have to go along with someone. nate silver: i think the markets

are fairly close to correct right now. rubio optimist for a while in the very that he is the only candidate who really has appeal to all the various sectors in the gop. that may be a fraying party, but he has the highest favorability rating in the party. speaks the language of conservatives without being too extreme. the big question is where is trump's ceiling? 35%the start of 25% in iowa, is much harder to the case when he would be harder to stop. half ofnew hampshire, republicans there said they would not want him as their nominee. the question is -- can the non-trump candidates organize themselves into one candidate. then does he a 35%, or 40%?

if he gets a 51%, then it doesn't really matter. suppose, i think rubio at 3-to-1 should be more like 3- to-1. tyler: what about the ted cruz there he? that you knew less cover my's in canada to bring up the violent conservatives very don't devote. and that there is a lot of them and cruises more electable than more electables than rubio? nate silver: talking but the priors and kind of occam's razor . the reason why that is relevant senators are easier to measure their ideology because they legislate. we also have a much larger sample size.

not a price that can be overcome if we go into a big recession or if clinton or bernie has huge problems. youcruz would probably cost three or four points relative to the median generic republican. tyler: last i saw, bernie's it share with coming at 17%. at that price to go long or short? nate silver: probably short, but it is also not radically mispriced. what people miss is that unlike on the gop side where trump has passed the first test. people are out there willing to vote for him. there was some doubt about that after iowa. sanders we haven't really seen can he win states that are not very white, and very liberal? maybe he can, nevada seems to be pretty close. we haven't really received that much information that would make

you update your priors about sanders all that much. he probably has to win by a little bit of room to spare. if it is a tie, then clinton will probably win on the basis of superdelegates. if she loses by a couple of points but it is close enough. if you're an underdog in a football game and you lose unless you win by more than a field goal, that reduces your win probability quite a bit. theou're the favorite, maybe it wouldn't. that is tricky. when underdogs when they tend to win narrowly. becauseon wins superdelegates turning arrow bernie when by a field goal into after further review we have an overtime quarter. i think 10 or 15% is more in that range probably is about right. tyler: let's turn to a nobler

endeavor -- sports. fan of baseball. i would like to ask you come up all the different baseball records, which one is most impressive to you? -- the largest statistical moderation. with the 36 triples in 1912. what is the most politically impressive baseball record, and why? nate silver: the biggest outlier is the intentional walks the barry bonds drew. was att closest player 50 when he had 168. there was no other record i can think of where the recordholder has three times as much as the nearest player. tyler: to the streaks in place -- impress you more or less than other people?

things like cal ripken, mickey those. nate silver: one of the area where simple answers might not have been totally correct. there was a lot of talk for a long time about how the hot hand theory was false. basically things are random. now there is more argument against that. if you have a task that has low power, then you made a mistake. oft may result four-legged -- may result in a negative result. you'd expect there is some variation in some behavior in the day today. it was lester guinness and you might think.

-- we have a greater or lesser extent to that than you might think. we have some unpublished research that a colleague of mine is doing. it looks like if you maybe predict batting average up or down, or on-base average 20 or 30 points from a baseline. in baseball terms, that is pretty relevant. if you have aguy in the leadoff spot and he's really a340 in his current condition, then he should be demoted down to the 8th spot in the lineup. things.true of a lot of fromnow, the first cut data is over simple five. -- simplified. tyler: what do you think based on the evelyn's -- evidence that we have, like with the houston rockets run by daryl morey.

it seems to be supersmart, and right now the big debate in houston is which of their two star players they should trade, or maybe both? they might not even make the playoffs? how does regression in data analytics work in sports? nate silver: the golden state warriors might be the best examples. tyler: clearly, it increases your variance. so the good examples will look really good. but as a predictor how hard it d we be selling it? nate silver: you talk about how hard it is. there was a little bit of this in sports. a colleague of mine just wrote a book that is not published yet but he and sam miller and givenr stat head were run of a minor league team for a

year. they encountered baseball culture in a very head-on way. the team did pretty well, it was a very obscure minor league. the baseline, if is making cap your decisions orht and you make 55% right, 53% right, that is a pretty big gain at the margin. ort as noisy as baseball, it will take a long time to show up. basketball is less noisy, but in areral i think the spurs fairly analytics friendly, the rockets come and the warriors. i think basketball is probably the best example. tyler: there is not much of a natural time unit. it is hard to squeeze in commercials.

they're not always well-defined. defense is more confusing to this american than criquet. did market salaries of soccer players are determined. the small amount of data seems to predict does very well. the fact that soccer being a normal ways, does that mean we can still get it all done with limited data? or does that mean having more data doesn't help for a much and in all sports are a little bit like soccer? i feel like i will answer all your questions in the far i which is analysis is from perfect. you'll make a lot of mistakes. at the same time, pretty good is hard to beat sometimes. things that develop over time about how to evaluate people at different positions. the don't appropriately value goalkeepers all that much. we are in soccer that

in the very early stages. there hasn't been very much data collected. it is not the mba -- like the nba where you have defensive stat. for espn a fewem years ago. the only data that has been captured long-term and soccer is goals, and red cards and yellow cards. until not have assists recently. you can maybe get time on the pitch if you parse play-by-play records. we don't have crossing passes. i think there is still a lot of room for upward improvement in soccer. live in a global economy with billy and delivers. why don't more people learn the knuckleball? dickey on the cy young

with the knuckleball he taught himself. why so few knuckleballer's? why isn't that a more regularize process? twornate silver: i have answers. wonders their diminishing returns of a number of knuckleballer to have in the league. when you have a second, it affects his success. i think there is a second thing which is that sports tends to engender conformism. do.t of walks of life that is the whole tension that comes up. on the one hand, the market is usually pretty good. on the other hand, there are powerful biases that can form. tyler: trumpet but the knuckleballer politics, then?

therump is like knuckleballer of politics then. yeah, kind of. the other fiscally to think about it is when you have some sayhat is unusual you can that trump on average would get less than a vote and someone higher in the polls was done but he is a much longer pay off on the side. that is no reason to not be dismissive of him. in the early going whenever one was a long shot. tyler: in all of these interviews, we do a kind of game called underrated versus overrated. i name if you think you tell me if you think there underrated or overrated. you're free to pass on any. i -- upperty, the east side? nate silver: i think a little

overrated. but look, new york is efficiently priced. we tried to if years ago say what was the best neighborhood. the problem is, cost accounts .93 in our quality index. it is hard to improve your life in new york at the neighborhood level. good hold thefind wall places to eat. the ramen shops are getting better. i would judge everything by food. tyler: the short as avenue in manhattan, is six blocks long. overrated, or underrated? littlelver: a underrated. it is short, and a very dynamic section of town. tyler: even with all the bookstores close down?

the idea legalizing drugs, overrated or underrated? crowd,lver: by this probably rated properly. [laughter] nate silver: i mean, i don't know. l libertarian.e i think the government ought to have a stronger reason to intervene in places that people are making decisions. to me, it makes no sense to treat marijuana as being a more serious substance than alcohol, for example. i don't think in my heart of hearts if i were running for office or in the senate that i bill tote for a legalize heroin, or cocaine. but decriminalizing it, perhaps. ofhink the kind

consequentialist case for a long time was probably underrated. it meant gone too far into the other direction. i would say if it is close, then you give people the choice. tyler: musical group my bloody valentine. they put out an album in 2013 after almost a 20 year hiatus. overrated or underrated? nate silver: the group, or the album? tyler: the album. nate silver: i think the album was properly rated. tyler: singapore, overrated or underrated? nate silver: just by you. i know exactly why you would like it, it is like a little laboratory experiment. we were talking before about youapore is a place where could have some constraints that

might seem slightly strange. maybe having a few you constraints is helpful. you talk about the -- my sister lived in germany for a while wile. if you're there in the shop and it will close at four clock at doesn't matter if you have a huge lot of groceries, the store will close down and you have to put your stuff back. and then you come back tomorrow which seems irrational. but the germany has little weird quirks. it seems to be doing, i do know, fairly well in some ways. or scandinavia, or something, if you give up a little bit of freedom to have more freedom. i thought i could organize freedom, how scandinavian of me. singapore feels a little bit like that. tyler: this is a big compound question about a few things. hisof them is sports, one fantasy sports, and one is gambling.

what is your take, what do these actually do for us? how socially productive are they? ask a comparable question about gambling legalization or liberalization. externalitysocial on this mix of sports, fantasy sports, and gambling? nate silver: one of the things regular fantasy football link that you are in with your friends is that you get a lot out of it. you get to see people you wouldn't see very often. especially as you get older, you get to watch a lot of games with more of a rooting interest. daily fantasy sports is that a lot of that is really taken away. it is very much like a brute force approach to watching sports.

basically, i had a program that was randomly generating high-scoring lineups. you scrape that data than you loaded up to underline that a time. it kind of took all the joy out of it. it isn't quite what you're asking, right? tyler: right. [laughter] --e silver: i think tyler: what if people just watch sports? if it is a good game, i enjoy it. don't feel like i need to gamble on it. i want to read you, or other analytics, then watch the game. what am i missing? what they can but gambling in fantasy sports is it is a good way to teach people about analytics. i think this has a measurable benefit to society. look, this is a case where,

unlike drug legalization where there aren't a lot of countries where drugs a part of marijuana -- worldwide people are much more relaxed about gambling. it is normalized, you can go to the betting shop. it doesn't seem to ruin society. maybe you have come and low-paying leagues or in canada the occasional betting scandal which is not great. i think it is a way for people to enjoy sports. they can develop critical thinking skills. again, if it is close, i say let people do it. i feel that way about gambling. you do have examples of many westernized countries where betting on sports is legal. it seems not to be a grave societal harm. tyler: you run the website

fivethirtyeight. you developed it, founded, to get to espn. over those years, what is the most important thing you learn about managing? nate silver: basically, there are three strategies. three fundamental strategies of management. when you disagree with something one of your employees is doing. up.of which is you can give you can say i will not take this bat to the fight. there is a consequence of this person's morale, or i have other issues. you can capitulate. number two, you can fiat. you can say i'm the one that signs the checks. you will not publish that article. you can try to persuade instead.

that is perfect except the persuasion is really time-consuming. [laughter] nate silver: figuring out which tos of those three tactics use, and in what ratio, is i think important. i honestly found overall there is a little bit more value in micromanagement and i thought. not about everything, but strategically saying i will spend a lot of time going into detail on this one part. which sports coach or manager are you most like? who do you draw inspiration from? -- i amver: i am like fiare, fair -- laissez but when i weigh in on something i will do it directly.

if you hire really well, and it is a culture of creative journalists. journalists are strange and wonderful people. if the trust people to make their own decisions. a big thing to his figuring out which one of my deputies, the other managers and editors on the staff, what is my agreement ratio with them? it is valuable to have someone who come without your intervention, agrees with you 80% of the time. in the 20% of time they disagree they are right as often as not. if it goes to 95% and there is is probably bad. if they go to 60% then you might as will do the work yourself. you find people who listen to you but also challenge you at the right time. tyler: you mentioned food

before, let's take a data intensive approach to food. what is a restaurant we could consult or advocate others consulting in this endeavor? is a fairly this basic one. i would rather looking at yelp porch of advisor, the number of review to the better cigna visor -- signifier than the average star rating. especially relative to how long a place has been open. when you adjourn for more diverse segment of people, -- towards are drawing more diverse segment of people. a lot of 9/11 conspiracy books ated pretty well in amazon but none of the conspirators bothered to read them. [laughter] rate silver: whereas othello o

eth, people who have to be to could lead a -- leave a bad review. but it comes and places where employees will drive to my not like that cuisine as much. when i go and i used to do more yelping. place, to a mom and pop there's almost no way i will leave a negative review for that place. anyone'sant to hurt feelings. study showed that yelp reviews dollars inousands of business for a restaurant that has under 50 reviews. tyler: is a better food on the avenues or the streets in new york city? i have read yiou on this. weird,lver: new york is

there are three of them from a culinary perspective. there is the rich, michelin star new york, the hip williamsburg and there's the ethnic new york -- for lack of a better term. if you limit a list of places small three types of those, there are some rules that work well in one of those lanes that don't work well in the others necessarily. you have a high reference of new york it is so competitive that i think you rule out the weirdest thing on the menu. some places that isn't true because it is a hypercompetitive that the menu could not afford to lead people astray. sometimes the menu is clearly pointing you towards the kind of thing that you would want to order instead. that might not be true if you go ns, or something

like that. probably pound for pound the food is better in manhattan, or brooklyn. you can read a whole book, maybe about eating food in new york. before, one of my dreams to someday you write a quantitative history of new york city. this would be one of my favorite books. weather --out the whether reporting. forecast, are over why is that? is this even true? nate silver: nate silver: it is true the further downstream you go. meteorologists in tv -- on tv want to get high ratings. they are trying to scare you. tyler: it is like they want the iraq war so people turn on cnn. nate silver: the data the

government produces is well calibrated and does not have a bias. interesting in my shoes going from someone who was a total outsider to someone who has more reputational risk. to a first approximation, i think it might make someone a worse forecaster intentionally. thing, thing about trump my early view that child had a trump had a- that low chance of winning the nomination is not based on a former model. i wonder even if i had a fairly bad model instead. the good thing about building a system model is it commits you to rules.

instead of saying early polls are not very predictive, therefore probably not. itis you down and says -- pins you down and says early polls are not predictive, but what point does it become more predictive? when trouble went from 25 -- when trump went from 25 to 35% in the polls, how significant is that? answer designed ahead of time may be more helpful than people would think. i guess a long way of saying it better not sure i'm any than the average pundit unless i have a model. doing your thinking in advance and setting up rules of evidence is probably quite important. tyler: i have a question about the economics and sociology of sports. this has puzzled me for a while.

i am struck by the relatively small number of professional athletes who have come out as being gay. in hollywood, it is a lot of people. a very washington, conservative town, i would not say is a lot of people, but it happens in a quiet kind of way. in sports, why is there so little? if we applied some kind of economic or statistical model, in which sport would you expect to see the new breakthroughs coming when they come? nate silver: i am sure there are a lot of athletes in the closet. i don't assume it is 5% or whatever the population averages. i assume it is lower than that. i don't know. i think people forget about how much the economics change when you are talking about people in the 0.001% of something. until fairly recently, until

maybe a few years ago, and in many parts of the country still now, until fairly recently, thatng up gay is something requires a lot of bandwidth or energy. data about how hockey players are born in january. just because they start earlier than their peer group, that is a powerful effect versus being born in november or december instead. minor and haveat that profound and effect, where there are twice as many nhl players from january as december. been something as important to your identity as gay, that is a competitive disadvantage. there are also correlations and

what kind of skills and traits people have. i don't know. but we will see three i guess the prediction is that very is true is as it has become more normalized and now people who are growing up in middle school and high school where being gay is not as much of the disadvantage, you would expect from that generation there would be substantially more gay athletes. tyler: in which sport will that happen first? what is the applied prediction? we see a bit of it in women's tennis. individual sports over team sports, yes, no? nate silver: you would think in tennis and golf, you might see it first. the nba where talent is so manifest and one player can make so much difference. lebron james could come out as gay tomorrow and i think it would not hurt his ability to get a contract at all. tyler: but it could heard

endorsements -- heard endorsements -- hurt endorsements. nate silver: it could. i think it is not so much about sportsng side as much -- is still a very conformist culture. the reason i might say the nba is i think it is more individualistic as a culture. guys are free to express themselves more. listen to baseball players talk. they are boring. kevin durham, these guys are smart and interesting. kareem abdul-jabbar. i would think basketball might be a sport where you would see it relatively soon. tyler: let me ask you a general question about forecasting. i worry about this in the context of finance. i see a lot of money managers. he saw one basic point about real interest rates, made billions off of that on a great

run. now it is not obvious he and his team do better than anyone else. peter lynch had fantastic insights into considerable -- consumer-products. he believed that an age when consumer products. were taking off. warren buffett, worked great for a while, a lot of big failures in recent times. is it possible like the so-called true model is always shifting and there is a selection bias were different forecasters are elevated and have a run for however many years and in the true model shifts and what they're good at is not valued and we replace them with other forecasters? as our best forecaster -- our best forecaster, do you worry about this? nate silver: sure. even if you are skeptical about the efficiency of markets, if you are picking up $100 bills off the ground, you can extend that by three or five years by

ducting and evolving -- adapting and evolving, that is on the extreme high and. three to five years is a fortunate run. verythough now we are immersed in the election cycle, that is part of why i wanted to make sure fivethirtyeight was not just an election site. we are going to blow an election sooner or later. we might blow this one. we are doing a diverse array of ofngs to actually and -- things is important. those who have skills to find the next underway did opportunity is trickier -- under weighted opportunity is trickier. i think a lot of people have one or two good insights. if you are very lucky, that can take you a long way. tyler: here is a related worry. it is clear stock market volatility is correlated over

time. that is another way of saying those returns for a while are hard to forecast, and stay hard. this year politically is already a big surprise to me and a lot of people. could it be the case where -- we are entering a new era where political volatility is higher at all forecasters will do worse than they have been doing? nate silver: it is possible. the people take to be equilibrium baseline condition may have been an outlier instead. you have this relatively stable long boom, politics, economics and the 1950's through the early 2000's. that could potentially reverse itself. looking at examples outside of the united states i think is instructive. maybe i am more of a believer in american exceptionalism than i

thought. but you see constituencies that are trying -- trumpian in different parts of europe for a long time. maybe america got really lucky for 50 years. in some ways, the world is getting weirder. there is the example of plane crashes. claims used to crash a lot for normal reasons. the engine would fall apart. we more resources in making planes safer. i just read last year there were zero deaths from jetliner crashes other than terror attacks. we have strange events like the germanwings pilot flying into the outs, malaysian air disappears and no one knows why. we are left only with the weird ones. do you think we are headed toward a future where we will only be talking about weird, hard to forecast events,

precisely because we get good at involved -- avoiding a lot of problems? nate silver: for sure. there is some stupid metaphor i use in the book where one of the problems with comparing how shortstops play is you always kind of evaluate players on the edge of their range. can they make a spectacular diving catch? a first approximation, everyone is equally good at the edge of their range. the question is how much territory they cover in between, the non-spectacular plays we can miss potentially. it is probably more true. one reason why i like when we forecast sports is you have a chance to build up your sample size. a perfectly routine wizards versus cavaliers game where we have the cavs favored at home and they win, you get hundreds of those over the course of a season. in politics, you are more drawn to the spectacular and weird

events. a lot of models are good when conditions are fairly normal, and they don't deal all that well with the edge cases because of the design or because they have small sample sizes or whatever else. do models deal with the weird cases versus others? i am not sure. maybe the advantage is more in the baseline case is instead. tyler: other than skill with data, what are the personal qualities of good predictors? nate silver: i think you have to have a certain mistrust of conventional wisdom. it is a tricky thing. on one hand, we know i am not that smart. this room is way smarter than me. a market is way smarter than me. at the same time, people are

social beings. they behave in herds sometimes. this is easier in politics than almost any other field because the political press corps literally is kind of a herd. it is like the perfect example of it where you have a few hundred journalists who travel around together, talking to one another. it is not like 500 really smart people. it is like one or two really smart people and 489 followers instead. i don't know. we get ourselves in a little trouble little bit at fivethirtyeight at times because we are fairly combative. for a long time, i thought this is part of my personality. i think they are sides of the same coin. when you read the "new york nots" or "the post,"

factual statements where they say today donald trump was in arizona, but when there is a piece of analysis that is not necessarily obvious, to say there might be a 40% chance that is basically wrong, right? that leaves you in a replace kind of -- in a weird place kind of. that is a source of healthy skepticism and some of our failings sometimes. tyler: let me get to the question maybe the crowd most wants to hear. who will be the next president of the united arab emirates? [laughter] questionis is a trick because it is a hereditary monarchy. here is my background question. intelligence agencies and scholars did very poorly forecasting the arab spring and did very poorly forecasting isis. you are put on the case. someone from washington, they call you in and say, what

variables should we be looking at to understand the middle east that we are under waiting now? i know it is a tough question. but who would be the next president of the united arab emirates? will there be a next president? i don't know that much about international politics to speculate that much. airlines -- iris flew via emirates airlines. tyler: four more years out, this nation, what is your best pick on who will be elected president? nate silver: who will be president in 2020? tyler: correct. nate silver: probably hillary clinton still. tyler: number two, next best pick? nate silver: i think it is close

between donald trump and marco rubio. trump might be a one-termer. tyler: if that. [laughter] tyler: who is the most likely next vice president? maybe.lver: john kasich seems tailor-made for vice president joe. -- vice presidential. tyler: in if hillary were to win, he is the most likely to be vice president? nate silver: hillary has a lot objectives she want to fulfill. i think it is a shorter list for the g.o.p. can we use that to pick the next supreme court justice? nate silver: potentially. there are fleshly -- fledgling attempts at supreme court analytics.

we are kind of in a sample size of zero. you have a nominee unlikely to be confirmed -- likely to be confirmed but there are still high political stakes. my uninformed guess would be maybe trinivasin who was confirmed 97-0. i don't know. the theory is either obama nominates someone with unimpeachable credentials and ores them look unreasonable he makes a pick that trolls republicans in place to the democratic base. i am more of a believer in the former as obama's mode of doing things. someone atmight have the risk of -- the republican base as opposed to the other way around. tyler: my last question before

we get to the crowd. as you said before, we have a lot of the same interest, food, travel, sports. i am not sure politics counts as one of mine. but in a broad sense, politics. you have taken a lot of trips. if you apply data analysis to those trips, what do you learn about what makes for a good trend and what can we do to have better trips? travel.ver: i love i had an unintended experiment where i went to hawaii two christmases ago. for some reason, i sat on my phone and my phone did not work. we were flying through portland for some reason. we were flying new york to kansas city to portland to honolulu. don't ask why. the day i was in portland, i was panicked. we were at the strip mall on the edge of town. you have to wait in line two

hours to replace your phone. i did not have a phone and why. it was the most amazing thing. tyler: you have repeated that experienced each subsequent trip? nate silver: no. i was in thailand this past christmas. build the primary election model. , workingbit of work 20% of the time reduces your enjoyment by 70%. [laughter] tyler: here is how we are going to do questions. we have two mics, one on each side. s. will run two que if you start making a speech or statement, i will cut you off. please just ask a question. it is fine to introduce yourself if you wish and then nate will

respond. i will start over here. first question, please. >> my name is caleb. we talked earlier about super forecasters. i wondered if you have ever considered incorporating the work of super forecasters into fivethirtyeight. nate silver: the guys who wrote the book? >> getting a market of super forecasters to help you make your models. findsilver: i guess i crowdsourcing sort of boring. as a journalist, i find it boring. even though if you are in a business setting, that is exactly what you should do. we are doing that a little bit with the oscars this year. we found eight different people who created different models. we are seeing how well they do. ax awards is not near

sufficient sample size to deal with something like that. i don't know. i am very process-driven as a person. for me, a lot of the joy is digging through the process of it. reading a book like this is useful. it talks about a process that is great. it is almost beside the point in the sense that you are still probably dealing with sample sizes too small to tell you that much. when you start to do that, it takes the focus away from thinking about process. it is kind of an unsatisfying answer, i guess. tyler: we have printed out a lot of nate's columns. there are many of them here. there is plenty you can ask about. >> my name is michael lily. if it winds up being clinton versus trump, is that the first time we've had to candidates

with the highest unfavorables going against each other? nate silver: i would think so. romney was basically breakeven when he was nominated as obama was. clinton is -10. trump is -25 or something. there probably will be some reversion to the mean in both cases. imember, one reason why -- would say trump is a fairly heavy underdog. but it is a conditional probability. conditional on having won the g.o.p. nomination, trump will have had to display some staying power and acumen. you will have to get beyond 35% to win 50% or so. and probably will have done something to improve his image with people who are not in his core constituency. it would be unprecedented certainly. i wonder if he has to adjust.

in baseball, you have to adjust stats for the era. if you're in the home run or steroid era, the home run does not matter as much. like maybe now obama with the 48%, would be like 56% park adjusted rating. [laughter] nate silver: i am not sure, maybe. tyler: expressed in. >--next question. >> my name is tom. he brought up the question about how much data people want. does the amount of data people want, is that influenced by the way data is presented? the second part would be, what advice would you give as far as presenting data or visualizing it? ite silver: visualizing might be some of the advice. people seem to learn better from visualization. one thing i think a lot about as a journalist is preferring simple models to more

complicated models. there are other virtues of simple models. people can also take it too far. to havernalist something i can say this is a benchmark and i understand what it is doing, and i can what it is doing, and i can also understand what the limitations of it might be. i kind of know which direction to lean relative to that baseline. i think that is more useful than some datay we fed into a random number generator or a magic machine, and here is what it spent out. i highly prefer regression-based modeling to machine learning where you cannot really explain anything. to me, the whole value is in the explanation. when youk likewise explain and say we have the same interest in mind, to say this is

pretty simple when you start peeling away the b.s. to me, that approach works a lot better in the long run than the approach of saying arguments of authority -- from authority, this is rigorous and empirical. explain to people why it is not that complicated and why you're making defensible assumptions, how that leads you to an answer that might surprise some. tyler: next question. >> frank mannheim school of policy. could you put numbers on the to elect presidents? for example, emotions, personal acquaintance, rational concepts, information, and so on. nate silver: the kind of classic political science answer is people are deeply concerned

about the economy. 50% ornomy might make up so of what people vote about. there is room to dispute that. now, i that aside for don't know. iguess one of the reasons why was initially skeptical about trump is america has a history of not nominating candidates and electing candidates who are blatantly unfit for office. [laughter] i have a follow-up question to that. tyler: we are in the state of virginia. to the best of my knowledge, you are the only person to have calculated correctly the chance if you are a voter in virginia your vote will sway a presidential election. nate silver: individual voter? is the chance your

vote in the state of virginia will matter? if you don't remember, i do. it is from your paper. nate silver: 10% divided by 4 million. tyler: one out of 10 million, the highest of any state. if you are going to vote anywhere, vote here. next question. >> tyler o'neill, a reporter with p.j. media. you mentioned how difficult it is, the weakness of empirical models when predicting president elections. is it possible to look at congressional elections, house of representatives races, and draw more information and modeling from those? nate silver: yeah. i think we would say even though it is less sexy to predict senate races or congressional races that having larger quasi-independent samples would be the better test ultimately. we saw in the senate races last year how the polls

were off on average by three or four points, which is pretty bad. the problem is all those errors were in the same direction. a lot of races around the country they were underdogs in. virginia was almost a major upset. yeah. form of the purer exercise to do data mining on congressional elections versus fundamentals and whatever else. tyler: next question. >> my name is harold. you mentioned some things like limited data, limited observations, nonlinearity, and things of that nature that make traditional tools difficult. what are your thoughts on more computationally intensive methods for dealing with things like herd behavior that make some of these analyses more

difficult? nate silver: agent-based modeling is interesting. if you can simulate the underlying mechanisms, this is how weather forecasting works by the way. weather forecasting is not statistically driven. they are creating a model of the atmosphere. if you have reason to know exactly how certain people would behave and how they behave as a system, agent-based modeling could give you insights you could not get from regression analysis. if you are wrong about those assumptions, things can go very haywire in a hurry. when i am building models myself now, i spend a lot more time thinking about the edge cases. let's put some really weird inputs in here on the edge of

plausible and see how the model response to those. function have a approximately linear. for example, if you have a model saying hillary clinton will get 106% of the vote in washington, , i used to think who really cares? she is going to win d.c. anyway. she may. you can vote twice in some parts of d.c. [laughter] nate silver: now, that bothers me more. i'm trying to think more about the correct functional form of a model that would apply when the going gets weird. when the going gets weird is when things are interesting. tyler: we have four minutes left. next question. >> my name is richard, i am an intern at the house of representatives. do you believe facebook and twitter has led to possible confirmation bias and led to

people choosing more extreme views of political ideologies such as socialism, nationalism, marxism? nate silver: perhaps. the traditional two-dimensional political spectrum is a strange and contrived thing, too. it is the result of a very messy process of coalition building between parties. i mentioned reasons to be pessimistic earlier. a reason to be optimistic as a fan of democracy is you are seeing voice given to quirkier ideologies that are no less in thectually coherent democratic versus republican axis we have in the united states. i kind of believe in the notion of a filter bubble where people surround themselves where they are getting like information and not confronting themselves with unpleasant facts necessarily. you saw that a lot during the

2012 election where the polling was a lot more straightforward, and people still were kind of cherry picking data to tell themselves romney might win. you saw democrats do the reverse in the 2014 midterms more or less. as someone who is a critic of media, i think the way people consume media is important and has probably fairly large effects on our politics. tyler: last question. >> i am a law student here. i get my coverage of the election exclusively from fivethirtyeight. largely because of the unbiased nature, except for terry's unabashedly for chris christie. i noticed specifically in your debate coverage, one of the things you always mention is the mainstream media's portrayal of

the debate matters more than anything else. when they say someone wins, that coverage carries. at the end of those pieces, you and your staff put together grades for how the candidate did. you may see where i am going with this. you strike me as someone who would rather predict that influence. do your sea -- do you see yourself where you could carry some weight in this election? nate silver: that is why primaries are tricky. in the general election, people are fairly sensible and retreat to their quarters. drivenes are so momentum it is a little bit weird. i am sure people do read what we say and so forth. it is not the type of influence i want. isthe same time, the fact all news coverage is influential. i would say at the very least,

we promise some self-awareness. we are aware the way the events are covered by the press can affect voters' views. sometimes the press can be surprised it does not go the way they expect. you can have these big feedback loops. i am surprised how difficult it is. i'm glad you read us. i think one big edge we have times" is we york can talk about the media as a political actor. we are the media, too. and i am aware of the circularity of that. frankly i think one reason why during the primary sometimes the conservative fights are more is that theyo read also start out being more suspicious of the media. sometimes in ways that i think are wrong, like about the polls in 2012. i think having that skepticism of the media as a political

actor instead of a benevolent right way to do things and is reflected in our coverage. i guess sometimes at the risk of being a little bit hypocritical potentially. but we do try and be very transparent about what we think is a fact, what is an opinion, what is an analysis. kind of what is a provocation. one reason i like your blog is you have a lot of provocations. are. clear what they it is clear they are provocations meant to incite discussion and debate. we will have a few of those at times. speaking in the first person i think is important and breaking from the voice of god where a storm cloud descended on new

hampshire today. speaking as an individual trying to understand what the objective world is like this a lot of what we are all about. i think that should be reflected at least in the tone and approach of our coverage, even where we wind up getting things wrong in the end. tyler: here is nate's book. read nate's site. thank you for a great chat. [applause] >> i think we are on the cusp of a progressive revolution. i consider both hillary clinton and bernie sanders progressives. one of then is going to be the next president. now is a good time to take stock and think, how does this guy do that we thought was a real progressive? how did he do, and what can we learn from the experience as we move to the next administration?

>> tonight, radio talkshow host book,thor talks about his how obama let progressives down. it takes a critical look at the obama presidency. democratic presidential candidate bernie sanders recently spoke out in favor of the book. >> the blurb is harmless. it does not endorse the book. repeats a point he makes in every speech , which is twofold. we need a political revolution, that is his phrase, and that political revolution needs -- means that progresses have to keep the pressure on the next president who will hopefully be a democrat and progressive, bernie or hillary, to really stick to the recipe true to the progressive agenda and following through and not compromise it. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on q and a.

>> this is greenville, south carolina, where presidential candidate bernie sanders is set to speak. firsts is one of his public appearances since losing their caucus in nevada yesterday. its campaign hoping to get a different result in south carolina. the democratic primary is set for this saturday. we expect the rally to begin momentarily. applauding]d ♪

bernie!ng] bernie,

[cheering] ♪

♪

♪

[applause]

>> [chanting] bernie, bernie,

bernie! >> here we are in greenville, south carolina, waiting for bernie sanders. scheduled to get started fairly shortly. we expect him to address a fairly large crowd and mentioned something about the democratic caucuses yesterday in nevada. in the meantime, we remind you the republicans have their primary in south carolina last night, where donald trump beat out his opponents, winning 32% of the vote. we learn more about that and results in nevada while we wait for this event to begin. derek, the first word editor for bloomberg news, joining us on the phone to dig into these numbers are let's begin with republicans.

>> senator rubio has a really vested interest -- interest in this. consolidate what we call an established lane, and make sure the republican , elected apparatus, comes behind him. that is not just people, that is money as well. andcampaign finance fundraising has not been phenomenal recently, and there is indications right now, as jeb bush dropped out, that some of his top finance people are giving marco rubio a very serious look. we are going to watch in the coming days to see if there is a ss exit is, or if it spreads evenly. certainly a mass exit is to rubio is what the campaign is

hoping for, after a second-place finish it looks like in south carolina. --don't these donors as then ask then, when candidates come to them, which state are you going to win? >> that has to be the question. >> what is the answer? -- this is the same question i have been asking since august. for rubio, i had answers and people saying nevada, but he is down fairly significantly in the very few calls that have been run -- polls that have been run in nevada.that state does vote very very shortly for the republicans. i believe it is tuesday. that is before thursday's debate. it's not like there's much time -- there.

it will be interesting to see. if you does not win, you are at a superng forward tuesday match, where there are possibilities on there for him to do well. vermont is a stay, maybe massachusetts is estate. i talked with people in minnesota who talked and said they would be ok with campaigning. there are opportunities on the map or marco rubio to do well, you have topoint, win something. that point usually, this year, is not yet. this is an unusual year for a letter reasons. someone could be on the steps to try and consolidate that lane without winning a state in the history is very unusual. -- in the first three is very unusual. there is a caveat. although the people for john kasich would have a very big problem saying business -- this is a four-person race.

next question. marco rubio is looking at vermont, massachusetts. john kasich is looking at those states as well. fromhe pull away votes marco rubio and make it difficult for him to get a win? >> this is interesting. you have to wonder whether john kasich will do better there or rubio. i think john kasich team has pointed out, when he came to new hampshire, they went out and did substantially better. you have to states bordering new hampshire that are voting on super tuesday. ch team is absolutely targeting those. they are also looking at virginia, a state where they might possibly be able to do well. theyern virginia suburbs,

see it looks good for john kasich. they put out something yesterday saying they had consolidated the governor's lane, if you will. ,hey reduced it that way christie, bush, walking, jindal, all of those votes, it is john kasich who is left. that has a ring of truth to it. there are a lot of people who like john kasich, namely a lot of editorial boards,. you see a lot of them coming out for john kasich. in south carolina newspapers, they were coming out for him even if he was not really campaigning there as much as the rest of the candidates. he has some stuff. he also interestingly, has a good state coming up, most of -- notably his own state of ohio on march 15, as well as the michigan primary about a week before that. >> so what does this mean for

senator ted cruz? which state is he saying he can win going forward? >> ted cruz' strategy is the same. he has a great organization, a great campaign. a guy who has sent staffers all across the united states, and by all across, i mean he has had people in pacific territories, people in the virgin islands. he has been playing a delegate math game that is not changing. sec'swalking into the alabama, cruz' home state of texas, that will be a critical one. 1, that isn march where ted cruz is expected to do fairly well. he has been planning this very long time. the key will be beating donald trump in some of these places.

south carolina was a stage where guys like cruz should be figured to do fairly well, and he did, but he lost by 10 points to donald trump. but that is the whole thing with this campaign. it is not just doing well absent donald trump. donald trump is also running for president. you have to do well in comparison to donald trump as well. that is a difficult thing. is only onempaign to win a state aside from trump. his campaign has money, organization, and a major test coming up in very short order. >> let's stick with math and talk about the democrats. what is it looking like after hillary clinton's win in nevada heading into south carolina, for her and, bernie sanders and super tuesday following that? we published something just

after new hampshire that showed hillary clinton -- we put her superdelegates with delegates, and we said look at this leap. she had gotten wiped out in new hampshire, and she still had the delegate lead over all of a couple hundred because she has so much support from party people. actualnevada, she has an win to back that. iowa, she barely one -- won. itthe skin of her teeth, barely happened. new hampshire, she got crushed. but nevada was a win. now you go to south carolina. nevada was a good state for it -- clinton demographically. south carolina is a much better state demographically. the polls show her up in the 20's, somewhere in there.

this is a state that she has a lot of support. recentlyrn endorsed or -- her recently, a very public guy. she has a lot of support in that state. it should be a good state for her. she should take a pretty intosized delegate lead super tuesday, but on super tuesday you have pretty good skates for bernie sanders. mckeever hillary clinton, who has been the presumed front-runner since two years ago, has always been getting through this and beyond. iowa, new hampshire, definitely said that was not going to be a quick process. super tuesday will tell us just how quick of a process that may or may not be. sanders has some pretty good states coming up, and if he goes 3, 4, 5 or six of them,

this will continue for a long time, and it raises more questions. word editor with bloomberg. you can go to bloomberg.com to follow their reporting on campaign 2016. thank you. >> thank you. wrote tor live look, the white house coverage continues in greenville, south carolina. place.wd is in it looks like we are ready for candidate bernie sanders to begin his remarks. we are told that should happen shortly. he we are live in greenville, south carolina on c-span. ♪

♪ [applause] >> we are still waiting for candidate bernie sanders, live

from greenville, south carolina. it sounds like the program is getting underway. live coverage here on c-span. >> greetings, south carolina. [applause] thank you all for coming out to support the political revolution. [applause] mcdaniels, hailing from the great county of lines -- lawrence. being a representative from a small, rural town, i have seen firsthand the need for higher education to become accessible for everyone, the need to increase minimum wage, and the need to revamp a group -- broken criminal justice system. i'm sure after yesterday's gop primaries, the nation is looking at south carolina like a bunch of uneducated voters, to put it lightly. [laughter] [applause]

let's build on the surprise and together andoming take down the confederate flag -- [applause] -- toing and applauding] pulling together to mourn and celebrate the charles the ninth. -- charleston nine. let's redefine what it means to be a democrat in south carolina by voting for change we all can believe in. [applause] let's show the power of the burning supporters, not only in the upcoming primary but again in november, because we are going to take this nation. [applause] history, and turned this traditionally red state

blue, and showed them what south carolina can do. go out on february 27, and vote bernie sanders. [cheers] [applause] andy name is benjamin todd, the former national president of the naacp. [applause] we are here today because we ern! the b [applause]

this may just be the most important campaign of any of our lifetimes. [applause] we are at a choice point as a nation. either we come together and we move forward, and make the future come faster, or we give into the politics that keep us ingided, and we keep sink backwards. you look in the eyes of college peoples, you see young who can remember when their nation wasn't at war. them tell stories about being worried that they are going to come out of college indentured servants. they turn on the tv, and they see too many other young, black

brothers unarmed, being shot by the police every day. [applause] and then you look at the politics on cnn, and you say, how is this going to help any of us? and then a man from vermont starts a campaign. [applause] [cheering] he had the spirit that unites all of us. it runs right in the face of those who say we cannot do better for our college kids. avoid getting into more stupid wars. and said,ur nation, yes we can. yes, we must

! [applause] we can make a better america. we can pull our nation together. we can empower our college students to go out of college and unleashed the entrepreneurial power of our nation with everything they have. of thecan get out business of being in stupid wars once and for all. [applause] this is a movement. it is a movement to pull our nation together. for those of us like me whose family comes from the south, is a movement to finally get to the place where working people, regardless of color, say we have more in common than we don't. [applause]

ladies and gentlemen, i keep looking at my shoulder because danny glover is supposed to be in the house. [applause] is he here yet? here he comes. [applause] [chanting] danny, danny, danny. what a moment, what a moment. [applause] you walked through here, can feel the bern, don't you feel it? think about south carolina,

right down in st. helena, where the first slaves had their first taste of freedom, right here. just after south carolina seceded from the union. think about south carolina. where the first time those former slaves got a chance to learn how to read and write. think about that. think about where young civil rights workers, for the first time came, and had integrated meetings. let's talk about that. [applause] we know that part of south carolina. but we also know that south carolina has some other history as well. we know that one quarter of this stage lives in poverty -- state lives in poverty. we know that the incarceration

rate, even though african americans represent 30% of the population, they also represent three fourths of those incarcerated. we know that is the reality. we want to change that. this is why this movement is here. it is about changing. [applause] chaging south carolina, country, changing our relationships, and building a community. that is what the campaign is about. it is a historic campaign. [applause] we have a public service. congress,ayor, to the to the senate. he has been there working. it is not about the time you spent, it is the substance you make out of that time. [laughter] [applause]

whether it is against those who profit from our worry, bernie has been there. have the opportunity to come here and meet him, and know that we are all a part of his re--- history. we make history right here this moment. we make our history with the choices that we make. [applause] to know that you are building not only a movement, but you are building that movement on the stage of a presidential election. we have never had that opportunity before. we are going to change this country. every single one of us as americans, we are going to change the country. we need all of you to be a part of it. not only to vote, but to remain engaged. president, bernie

sanders is talking about continued engagement, sustained engagement. that is what this is about. [applause] >> ordinary people engaged. let me bring him to the stage. he belongsrtainly, to us, and he belongs to us right now, and we have to work as hard as we can for the next president of the united states, senator bernie sanders. [applause] [cheers and applause]

[applause] sen. sanders: thank you, greenville. [applause] let me thank aaron mcdaniel for his very kind words. , as you know,an the former head of the naacp, one of the great civil rights leaders in our country today. [applause] let me think danny glover.

[applause] sen. sanders: you all know danny glover is one of america's great actors, and he is that. [applause] sen. sanders: but, unlike many other people, who have achieved celebrity status, when danny has done is used that celebrity status in the fight for racial and economic justice in our country, and i think can are all that he has done. [applause] sen. sanders: on saturday, south carolina has the opportunity to make american history and i hope that you will. [applause] sen. sanders: you know, we go

around once, we may as well make history as we go around. [applause] sen. sanders: we may as well do something that people will remember decades from today. [applause] this campaign has taken on the economic establishment, all of the big-money interests, and let me tell you, wall street is getting nervous. [applause] sen. sanders: and let me also tell you, they should be getting nervous. [applause] on. sanders: we have taken the political establishment. we have taken on the media establishment. and we are gaining momentum every day. [applause]

sen. sanders: we are gaining momentum because the american people are tired of the same old, same old establishment politics and establishment economics. [applause] what the american people are demanding is a government which represents all of us, not just a handful of wealthy campaign contributors. [applause] sen. sanders: this campaign is gaining momentum because we are listening to the american people. and we are listening and a way

that other campaigns do not. to the millions of workers in this country who are making nine dollars or 10 bucks an hour and they cannot make it on nine or 10 bucks an hour. [applause] we are listening to the elderly women in south carolina and in vermont, who are trying to get by on $11,000 or $12,000 a year, social security, it cannotow what -- get by on $11,000 or $12,000 a year, social security. [applause] sen. sanders: and we are listening to the young people across this country, many of whom are here tonight. [applause]

sen. sanders: and many of whom by $30,000 orhed $50,000 or $100,000 in student debt. [applause] sen. sanders: and they are asking us, why do they have to , payinghed for decades off that debt, for the crime of wanting to get an education? [applause] sen. sanders: we are listening to women. who are tired of earning $.79 on the dollar compared to men. [applause]

sen. sanders: and then find it impossible to come up with affordable, quality childcare for their children. [applause] and as ben and danny glover just mentioned, we are listening to the african-american community who understand that we have a criminal justice system which is broken. [applause] sen. sanders: and today, has more people in jail, than any other country on earth. [booing] sen. sanders: you're right. you're right. have 2.2 million people in

jail, we spend $80 billion a year, locking up fellow americans. that is something that we must be ashamed of, and we will change. [applause] sen. sanders: this campaign began about nine and a half months ago, we were regarded by the media as a "fringe campaign." said,he media said, they bernie, you come your hair really nice. [laughter] gq. sanders: you have a real look. and i want to make public now, this is actually a new -- i just bought it the other night.

[applause] but, despite all of those attributes, what the pundits said is, you are not going to go very far for one reason, and that is, that in this day and age, to run for president of the united states, you need to raise hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. [booing] sen. sanders: and what the pundits said is that the only way that you can raise that kind of money is to establish a super pac and made millionaires -- [booing] this is a smart audience. i like these guys. all right. [applause] sen. sanders: because you know, you know, that would a super pac is about is millionaires and

billionaires and wall street pouring huge amounts of money into the political process. day one,decided from that we were not going to have a super pac, because we do not represent billionaires or wall street. [applause] sen. sanders: but, it is easy to , itery noble and courageous is another thing to raise the money that you need. is we basically reached out to the middle class, working families of this country, and we said, if you want a campaign which is going to fight for real change in this country, help us out a little bit. we know you're hurting, help us out, when he backs or 50 bucks. you know what happened?

one of the most amazing things that has happened in a very long time in american politics, and that is, over the last nine plus seen iswhat we have 4at our campaign has received million individual campaign contributions. [applause] sen. sanders: that is more campaign contributions than any campaign in the history of america at this point in a campaign. [applause] sen. sanders: and we all know what the average contribution -- >> [indiscernible] sen. sanders: these guys are

really smart. [applause] sen. sanders: $27. [applause] to paraphrase abraham lincoln, this is a campaign of the people, by the people, and for the people. [applause] [chanting bernie] sen. sanders: when we began this downign, we were 50 points in iowa. we were 30 points down in new hampshire.

and just about five weeks ago, we were 25 points down in nevada. a lot has changed in the last few months. [applause] sen. sanders: this is a campaign that has the momentum. and we have the momentum, not only in the democratic primary process, if you look at national polls, and you want a candidate who is going to defeat donald trump, you are looking at that candidate. [applause] sen. sanders: and there were the

nothing that would give me greater pleasure than, in fact, beating donald trump, and beating him badly. [applause] sen. sanders: everybody here understands that throughout our change,s history, real only takes place from the bottom on up, never from the top on down. [applause] sen. sanders: the people who make the changes in the deepest sense, are not presidents, they are not supreme court justices, they are you. they are you. [applause] sen. sanders: because what history has always been about, is people finding themselves in a moment in history and which

they look around them and they say, the status quo is not good enough, we need real change. we are at that moment in american history today. [applause] sen. sanders: 125 years ago, when workers had no right, they worked outrageous hours, they could be fired for any reason, working people stop and they say, we are not animals, we are not cattle, we are going to form a union and we are going to bargain collectively. [applause] sen. sanders: we are going to stand up for our rights, and that is the origin of the union movement in this country. 150, 200 years ago,

whenever, african-americans and their white allies said, racism and sexism and bigotry is not what this country is supposed to be about. [applause] sen. sanders: and against all odds, they stood up and they fought back. that that is not what america is supposed to be about, and way back when, women said, you know what, we are tired of being second-class citizens. [applause] sen. sanders: sometimes we forget that 100 years ago,

today, women did not have the right to vote, women did not have property rights, women cannot go to medical school, women cannot go to law school. women could do the work they wanted to do. but women and their male allies stood up and said, sorry, that is not what america is about. we are going to fight for change. [applause] sen. sanders: not so many years ago, 10 years ago, if we were in this room, and somebody stood up and said, you know, i think that gay brothers and sisters will have the right to be married in 50 states in america -- [applause]

sen. sanders: the person next to him would have said, what are you smoking? [laughter] sen. sanders: which raises another issue. [applause] sen. sanders: the important point to be made, is that the only way change takes place is when millions of people stand up and say, enough is enough. thanca can be much better where we are today. [applause] sen. sanders: the reason that our campaign is gaining such momentum, is frankly, that we are treating the american people

as intelligent human beings, who are prepared to hear some harsh truths about our country. now, i can give you a wonderful speech, make it all pleasant and happy and funny, but that is not the world that we are living in. and what i've always believed, tot if you do not face up the difficult problems, if you try to sweep them under the rug, you are going to go nowhere in a hurry. [applause] sen. sanders: what this campaign is talking about is the unpleasant reality that we live today with a corrupt campaign finance system, which is undermining american democracy. [applause] sen. sanders: what democracy is

about, if you have an idea and i have an idea and we disagree and we argue over it, but at the end of the day, whether you are rich or poor, you get one votes and i get one vote. is not about billionaires buying elections. [applause] sen. sanders: and, what connects a corrupt campaign finance system is the fact that we are living today in a rigged economy. [applause] and what that means, as all of you know, is the average american is working longer and longer hours for allr wages, while almost new wealth and income goes to the top 1%.

that is a rigged economy. [booing] sen. sanders: and we are also living under a broken criminal justice system. [applause] sen. sanders: and what that some kid inat if south carolina or vermont gets picked up today for possessing marijuana, that kid will receive a police record, and that record will be carried with that person for the rest of his life. [booing] sen. sanders: but, if you are an whoseive on wall street, for us to thisr country into the worst economic downturn since the great get asion, you do not

police record, you get an increase in your salary. [booing] what this campaign is about, is saying that it is wrong, it is un-american, it is unsustainable when the top 1/10 of 1% now own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%. [booing] sen. sanders: that it is wrong that the 20 wealthiest people in this country now own more wealth than the bottom half of america, 150 million people. [booing] sen. sanders: now, when we talk about a rigged economy, let me

give you just one example of what that means. it turns out that the wealthiest family in america today is the walton family who owns walmart. [booing] sen. sanders: now, i know that in south carolina, many parts of the country, you hear a whole lot about welfare abuse. about people ripping off the welfare system. right? well, let me inform you about who the major recipients of welfare in america is, it happens to be the walton family, the wealthiest family and america. [booing] sen. sanders: now, why is that? walmart,eason is, that owned by the walton family, pays wages that are so low that many of their employees are forced to go on medicaid, food stamps, and

subsidized housing. and you know who pays for the food stamps, the subsidized housing, and the medicaid? you do. [booing] sen. sanders: so, on behalf of the walton family, the wealthiest family in america, i want to thank all of you for helping them out. [applause] they are down to their last $60 billion. and they very much appreciate your helping them out. but, in all seriousness, i say to the walton family, and all of those corporations that are paying workers subsistence wages, get off of welfare, pay your workers a living wage. [applause]

sen. sanders: and when we talk about wages, let's lay it out on the table. the fact is, the federal minimum also exists in many, many states, of $7.25 an hour, is a starvation wage. [applause] sen. sanders: you can do the arithmetic as well as i can. you can multiply eight, 9, 10 bucks an hour, 30 hours away, 50 weeks a year, and you end up with a sum that nobody can live on. [applause] sen. sanders: and that is why,

together, that is why we are going to raise the minimum wage to a living wage, $15 an hour over the next few years. [applause] sen. sanders: and when we talk about an equitable and unfair wages, i hope that every man in this room will stand with the women and demand pay equity for women workers. [applause] sen. sanders: now, every month, federal government comes out with a report on unemployment. what you see on the front page tells you, officially, unemployment in america is 5%. that's right. [laughter] is, thaters: the truth

real unemployment, including those with given up looking for work, or who are working part-time when they want to work full-time, is close to 10%. and youth unemployment, for kids who graduated high school, is off the charts. for white kids, 33%. latino kids, 36%. african american kids, 51%. [booing] now, if anybody thinks there is not a connection between high rates of youth unemployment and the fact that we have more people in jail than any other country, you would be mistaken. you would be mistaken. [applause] so, here is a radical idea, are you ready for a radical idea? [applause] nation, wes: as a

are going to invest in jobs and education, not jails or incarceration. [applause] sen. sanders: today is about thinking big, thinking outside of the box. and one way that we have got to think outside of the box, is to