dignity, the e power and the ethic of work. today, we are taking an historic welfare what it was meant to be, a second way of life. announcer: monday, august 22, at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. ucla political lynn andofessor loin historian discussed their election.ns about the they also discussed the campaign styles of donald trump and hillary clinton. hosted by the hammer museum in about 1:20. this is [applause] you, claudia, and all of you for coming tonight to two distinguished guests who are not psychics or

prognosticators, but political scientists and historians who tudy elections and the results of the elections and everything that happens in between. learly, in this year of the outsider, status quo politicians are having a hard time usual, ng politics as parroting predictable political rhetoric with platitudes and falling flat are and of course the electorate is ngry, and donald trump has changed the narrative, and not necessarily for the better. rather than predict the npredictable, ucla political scientist lynn maverick will begin in explaining the unpredictable. 10 or 15 peak for minutes. then american university alan lichman will explain his system that has presidential y election since 1984. he perhaps might venture a guess outcome of this wild ride we have been on for many

onths and many billions of dollars later. but if he throws up his arms and and it's all too crazy anything could happen, we won't hold it against him. [laughter] then after allan has spoken, we will have a conversation of q&a you, our audience, as many of the choices for the presidency has just been so no more complaining about having to vote for the lesser of two evils. have donald trump, hillary clinton, gary johnson, jill stein, but as of yesterday, we can now include mcmullen, a 40-year-old morman bachelor formerly with cia who was chief policy director for the house republican congress and is for president representing the republican-never-trump movement. professor of a political science at the

university of california los angeles. campaigns and political advertising and is the author of campaign reform, evidence, the message matters, and coauthor of politics.of american her latest book is the gamble, 2012 and chance in the elections and a forth coming book about the 2016 elections is called shattered. gentlemen, lynn vavrik. thank you. thanks very much. show-and-tell ome items with me. if you have always wondered what a ucla be like to be undergraduate, this is going to be your 10 minutes to experience so i'm really pleased to be here. thank you so much to ian for the rum, great introduction, and allan for having this discussion with me. i want to talk about -- we're 90 days out and everybody wants

happen, hat's going to and so i am going to talk about that in three ways. to stay in the light, okay. i'm going to talk about that in three ways. a little bito talk about the state of the nation's economy and how that really in front the back-drop of which this great play -- that is the presidential campaign -- takes place, and we'll talk a little bit about the candidates, particularly because they all constraints. and the third thing is messaging, and the way to think messaging is to think constraintsging the these candidates bring with them, and that's really the trick. nd for me, my system of predicting election outcomes mixes these three things with somend comes out sense at the end about what you might expect to happen. so that's why we're going in the minutes.ple of we'll start with the first thing, the state of the nation's economy. if you only remember one thing -- this is what i tell my

students, one thing and one this 10-minute course, this is the thing to remember: incumbent parties in economies typically win presidential elections. so this is an aggregate relationship. the opposite is also true, by in way, challenging parties hrinking economies, typically win presidential elections. you can think of this as like a on the incumbent party about the state of the nation's poverty. have a job now and didn't have a job before or will later, but how is the country doing? and that's the relationship i like to talk about when i think about setting the stage for any presidential election and i think about mostly the post new-deal era, so since the late '40s. so how does that look? a little bit about that relationship. onwhat i've got for you here the y axis is the incumbent party's share of the two-party

in the presidential elections that i've plotted for you. on the x axis, i'm showing you rate for the nation's gdp change terms of in the first six months of the election year. doing? ally, how are we are things growing or are they shrinking? and as you can see, as growth in nation's -- shoot, i didn't want to do that yet. okay, wrong button. nation's in the economy increases, the incumbent share the two priority votes goes up. so there's a positive relationship here. a monkey get that flipping a coin would be right about which of our two parties election 50% n an of the time. so if you want to impress me your prediction, you've got to do better than the monkey. so this prediction will be right. ery basic prediction, not taking into account much else, will be right about 75% of the time. so it's a little bit better than the monkey and i think that's good.

the next logical question is, first six about the months of this year? we just got that second-quarter tell us?d what does it now it's time for the red dot. right at 50%. o that's what the 2016 growth number predicts. kay, so in equilibrium -- and that's a really important phrase. i want to unpack that in a minute. but in equilibrium, based on know about the last several decades, this election is meant to be a squeaker. going to be close. okay. so since neither party is going to benefit from the state of the nation's economy, you can't beat barack obama in 2008 going out here and saying those republicans, they brought you global financial crisis. time to change horses. can't be ronald reagan in 1984 saying, it's morning again in america. more people are going to work today than ever before. so neither candidate can claim message, either as the challenger or the incumbent.

fight.y're going to they're going to fight to frame this election for you. they're either going to fight to perception of the real economy, which is what's been going on in the last two days, or they're going to fight focus of this election off of the economy, since it doesn't help either one in any profound kind of way. so they need to change the topic. can't change the topic to just any issue. the issue has to meet three criteria. in my view, you have to find an issue on which public opinion is lopsided. that's the most important thing. it doesn't do you any good to off of the election nation's economy and onto something else on which the 50-50. is divided 50-50 doesn't win it for you. you need it to be 55-45 or 60-40. so you've got to find a lopsided issue. be second thing, you have to closer to most voters than your opponent. any good sn't do you to refocus the election on to an issue where you're helping the

other guy. yourself. to help so you better know where you stand and you better know where public opinion is -- it better lopsided, and you better be on the lopsided side. this issue has to be or can be made to be important. colonize the moon, okay. you can't run on something that ou really, no matter how much time and effort you put into it, your not convincing people is the state oft than the nation's economy, which everybody thinks is important at base line. to be an issue that's topical or can be made to be topical. so just a couple of ideas here about how candidates have a hard time with this. and this is because of their constraints. so what kind of constraints do i mean? i mean some are young and some are old. experienced and some are inexperienced. constraints.of they've taken positions on things. they have records.

they come with constraints. and so the trick is to find those constraints and leverage them. so just a couple of examples of mean.i in 1960, john kennedy is running gainst richard nixon and kennedy is young and inexperienced and nixon has a lot of experience. the vice president. and what does kennedy do? he turns that election into an all-out war for the future of the free world, an all-out war soviets. and what does he tell us about the soviets? they're better at everything. science.etter at they're going to get to the moon first. their kids are better at math. symphonies are more complicated. their art is more beautiful. their poetry is nicer. he talks about everything and how we are going to be better at all of these things. explore the o oceans and the skies and the whole campaign turns on this of the new frontier, because he's young and nixon is old. he's the new idea, and nixon is a part of the past. nd what's worse, the election comes down to what kennedy calls the missile gap.

kay, it didn't exist, but he didn't know that. not too many people knew that, truthfully, was the good part of the story. and how was nixon constrained? he's a part of the administration that has gap.tuated the he let us fall behind the soviets. there's nothing richard nixon shake that constraint. that's the kind of thing i'm talking about. 1968, nixon then leverages crime and fear and says we're restore law and order in a country that is reeling vietnam, the in civil rights movement, free speech movement, the women's he ment, it's chaos, and leverages that. in 1976, jimmy carter does the same thing. outsider hington running against the most inside-the-beltway washington find.er you can he's appointed to the vice presidency.and the but there's nothing ford can codoto shake that and carter on that at exactly the

moment. that's what we're talking about. not as easy as it sounds. barry goldwater in 1964 went talking aboutntry nuclear war with the soviets and saying he wanted to lob one into men's room of the kremlin, nuclear bomb.the in 1964, most americans thought would see world war iii in their lifetime and most americans thought they would die it. okay. so going around the country telling people you're going to iii, he's missed those criteria. lopsided issue. he was just on the wrong side. [laughter] not as easy as it sounds. we in 2016? let's think about the messages that donald trump and hillary clinton are trying to convince frame, if you will, that they're trying to put on this election. worth pointing out that both of these messaging strategies

were in place one year ago from now. so it isn't the case that donald "make ust thought of america great again." this has years, and thefor same thing with hillary clinton. so "make america great again." key word "again" meaning it's not great now, but it once was. great? it in the past. why in the past? because we were different then. how are we different? okay, and you can finish that equation however you want. but it's an isolationist kind of message, and you can see then counters howhow it hillary clinton's "stronger together" message counters that. o they are very much trying to leverage the exact opposite the about the future of country. so here's a still image from one of donald trump's first campaign ad, actually, and he talked about the things that we might of: security, terrorism, radical islamic

words.sm, in his what donald trump has done, he is trying to -- and he successfully did it in the primary -- divide the election by in group and out roup attitudes based on race and ethnicity. so here, i'm going to show you a little bit of evidence of this i'm u understand what talking about. on the y axis, i have donald of the vote in republican contests in 2016. these are data for the american elections study gathered in february of this year. as donald trump's share goes up, average, all the other candidate's share has to go down. axis, i've got two different measures of this kind of in group out-group consciousness. the first is just a question asking respondents in the urvey -- white respondents -- whether or not they think it's likely that white people will lose jobs to and the more likely you are to say that, the more likely you are to vote for donald trump. over here, whether whites -- how important you think it is for whites to come

ogether as a group to change laws that are unfair to whites. we call this white group onsciousness and, again, a positive relationship here. graphs ow you 10 more like this about all sorts of different groups. donald trump didn't change these attitudes. hese attitudes have been out there for a long time. he has chosen to prime them in a way that divides the electorate, and has done them in the done ican primary and has it in the general election. hillary clinton, on the other is talking about stronger ogether and talks about an inclusive message. women, non-white people, children, she wants everybody to come together and that's her message. we're going to be better and greater if we're all in it instead of just those of us who have lived here in some previous period. so what does that look like? hillary clinton is successfully expanding the democratic

coalition. points inning by 31 among college-educated white women. won in '8 and '12 by one point. that's a huge change. that is not about hillary clinton being a woman. she didn't win that much in the primary against bernie sanders. that's about donald trump. that's about college-educated women being offended by donald trump's machoism, if you will. college-educated white men, she has also expanded the party in that way. them by seven points, but this is a big improvement over how barack educated with college white men. is losing noncollege educated white men. hose are the ones that are moving towards trump, which is huge. this white men's story is more of a timeline story. movements started between mccain and romney and now a little bit more with trump. women's story is complete ly cy

about this election. where does that bring us to? who is going to be president? actually not in the business of poll aggregating or i will ng outcomes but share with you the predictions by my colleagues at the upshot 9 at 3:20 ugust updated their poll aggregating likely that 86% hillary clinton wins the presidency. in mind, that that share. her vote that is the probability or the chance, the likelihood she will win. chance that han a an nba basketball player makes a free throw when he goes to the line.throw so better odds than being the average nba player making a free shot. [applause] thank you. aaron rickman is an american teaches historian who

at a university. his books include white the rise of tion, the american conservative movement, and the keys to the hite house, a sure-fire way to predicting the next president. his prediction system has predicted the outcomes of all u.s. presidential 1984.ions since ladies and gentlemen, allan liclic lichtm lichtman. >> thank you very much. you can all rest easily. going to predict the victory of evan mcmill an. it is okay. it is true, i have been predicting elections since 1984, i was nine, but that's another story. you may think it's a wonderful prestigious thing. go all the around the world predicting the outcomes of american presidential elections, tell you, the only result of all of that is every

years, i make half of the country really, really angry at me. hope i won't anger too many of you. now, i've got to tell you, i am going to predict the outcome of this election. are going to predict the outcome of this election. i have my 13 keys to the white house? all right. you are going to predict the is tion because the 13 keys the world's only do-it-yourself system. but to have that privilege, because i'm a professor, you've pop-quiz first. are you ready? it's a really easy one. ow many of you have listened o, read, or watched any of the punditry about this election. raise your hand. quiz, except the what you've got to do to that is hume, he advice of david flphilosopher sh

hen he talked about works of superstition. it's worthless. it is not based on a theory of presidential elections really work. that's why you've got to turn to system like the keys to the white house, which a really y based on simple theory, that elections debates, speeches, advertising issues, party loyalty, or any of the things media spends a billion dollars a year covering. are really tions simple. it's the joe, the plumber theory elections. any of you remember joe the plumber? asked obama a lot of obnoxious questions in 2008, right? hired joe the plumber to fix your pipes, right. joe the plumber breaks your

basement. floods the are you going to hire joe the plumber again? of course not. but if he does a good job, fixes pipes, everything is great, you'll consider hiring him again. the same thing with presidential elections. holding the white then governs well enough the american people give them another four years. joe the plumber does well. pipes of the the country and flood its basement, do a really bad job, then the them out.ns and the 13 keys to the white for creating aem to demonstrate that theory and a decision rule for prediction. lynn talked about her students. i would love to tell you and i especially to tell my tudents i came up to the keys to the white house by ruining my eyes with years of contemplation archives by and deep thought. but if i were to tell you that,

not-so-great late richard nixon, that would be wrong. i came across the keys to the white house. how those sting hings derive entirely by accident and even though i'm based on an american university, i discovered the keys to the right here in southern california when i spent a year at cal-tech. world's lead the ing authority in earthquake prediction. bludgerbora. he said to me, lichtman, you and going to collaborate. being such a brilliant course, i ul guy, of said absolutely not. they may care a lot about earthquakes here in southern got to go but i've back to d.c. nobody cares about earthquaking in d.c. no, i've already solved the problem of earthquakes.

i want to try a harder problem, american presidential elections. get this. member of the soviet scientific delegation, your next pop quiz, that came to 1963 and in negotiated the most important treaty in the history of the nation of the war. why you are here today. what was that treaty. he nuclear test treaty that stopped us from poisoning the atmosphere, mother's milk and the earth. fascinated he became with politics. but he said, look, i live in the oviet union, you know, predicting elections, i get it. extreme leader, or off with your head. you know a lot about american politics. the greatest election in the world for the american presidency. this point, i thought the guy a kgb, back when there was kgb. but i'm an historian. i had no secrets. to the test my

elections are primarily referenda on the strength and performance of the holding the white house and the opposition party doesn't matter much. cal-tech.981 at by looking at every american 1960 dential election from to 1980, and we found to our we were able to come up with a model, the 13 which are simple true/false questions that can be answered prior to an upcoming an answer of where true always favors the election of the party in power. way they're phrased. and we came up with a decision rule. or more of the keys are false, if six or more keys go party in power, they lose. the n six keys against party of power, they win. six strikes, and you're out. dead simple. even have to take your shoes off to use the system. all you've got to do is be able

count to six. now, what do a couple of do when they come up with a big story like this, right? publish it. journal where we expect at least four or five people to actually read it. and that's what we did. e published it in the proceedings of the united states national academy of sciences. people read it, and the sixth person was the science reporter for the associated in s, and i'm back washington in 1981 at american university, young professor. opened the newspaper, and there is an article which said, couple discovers white house. it had to be the crazy russian physicist and the crazy american historian. all of a sudden i'm thinking, oh my gosh, i'm in the paper. i published my first prediction in the washingtonian magazine in april of 1982.

two have used before the before thelf years election and i predicted the reelection of ronald reagan. the reelection of ronald reagan was easy. here's the next pop quiz, we talked about the economy. what was the state of the economy in 1982? horrible. everyone was talking about it one term presidency. that was not an easy production. and it caught someone's attention. i get a call my office and a man with a heavy southern accent says professor, mrs. lee atwater calling, political director of the ronald reagan white house, we want you to come to the white house. i said, excuse me, i think you have the wrong guy. i'm friends with george mcgovern and he said no, we know you are. if you don't know who he is, he died young tragically of a brain tumor, he was karl rove before their was a karl rove and karl rove was a carbon copy -- pale

carbon copy of lee atwater. we talk about all caps of history. -- kinds of history. he was in the eye and guess what he wanted to know. professor, what would happen if ronald reagan did not run again in 1984? six keys and you're out. right now you're are down three keys as my article pointed out. you are a sure winner. take out ronald reagan and you will lose the incumbent to keep. you will lose the incumbent charisma key. george bush charismatic, forget it. five down. big party contest, he will lose that. -- you will lose back. you'll go from three keys in a sure win to six keys in a loss and he says, thank you so much

professor. and the rest is history. the other call i got was in 1991 after published my first book from the special assistant to governor bill clinton and she asked me, based on your system, and george h.w. bush really be beaten? his approval rating was 90% and i said look at my book. it shows he is a sure loser. i sent a book to clinton and a memo and the rest is history. no matter what your partisan affiliation, he can blame you for something. let's turn our attention to this election are the toughest election i've ever had to call. 2008 i called in 2005. i was notorious for saying the democrats could nominate someone out of a phone book and win 2008. that's what they did. who had heard of barack obama? i called 2012 in 2010.

why is this election difficult? because it turns on one key and it is a very difficult key to call which is why i want to help. right now the democrats have five keys against them. get to sheet. obviously the mandate key. how did they do in 2014? horribly. obviously they have lost a sitting president key. they lose the policy change key because it goes term by term. nothing big was achieved this term. they lose the incumbent party charisma key. even hillary clinton says i don't have that magic. that is for. they also lose the

foreign-policy success key. i thought the iran nuclear treaty was a huge success but it has been a big bust with the american people. it has not been solved. that is another story. that is five keys. if it stays at five, the democrats win. if it goes to six keys the democrats lose. the party contest key. this is such a difficult key to call. early on i thought surely there is a big contest. that is the sixth key , and republicans are going to win. but then something really strange happened that has never happened before in the history of our country, donald trump. donald trump is such a president precedent-shattering candidate that he may be a racing the effect of the democratic contest. in other words, it has been there for a while as the contest between hillary clinton and bernie sanders happen to be, it is being erased by the fact that

all of clinton supporters and the vast majority of senior supporters can agree on one thing and one thing only, it would be a catastrophe to have donald trump as president which he may have proved today with his remarks about supporters of the second amendment can do and he said after she selected. it had nothing to do with how they were voting because he was talking about appointing supreme court justices when she selected. -- she is elected. the democrats lose the contest key and lose the election? or has donald trump erased the effect of the contest key? how many of you think the democrats with the contest key? you have turned history. this group has now turned history. there is an old saying and probably a curse, may you live in interesting times.

no doubt that we have that here. [applause] >> thank you. let me begin with lynn. a certain amount of uncertainty in both of you and i would like to talk to you about the wildcard, adult you can rule out -- i don't that you can rule out an october surprise with the islamic state and also you have, essentially, i think you could make the case that the american people don't necessarily control their political destiny. if you look at history, 68, obscure palestinian decided that kennedy would never president and helped elect nixon.

'80, the ayatollah from the middle east, he helped elect ronald reagan. you can also argue that osama bin laden and saddam hussein helped bush in 2004. do we really control our political destiny? foreign events in far-off lands that we don't understand it more often than not we get bogged down. >> first i think, want to separate the bobby kennedy exhibit from the others. it is different a summit comes in and illuminates a front ran her -- eliminates a front loader -- runner. the second set, is it the occurrence of these events or is it what the candidates who are running in those moments are coming october surprises, what they do at the moment? that is an interesting thing to think about. in the background all of that, i also want to say that foreign-policy is rarely the

thing that decides modern presidential election outcomes. what is my evidence for that? even during the vietnam war, if you go back as i have and read all the campaign stump speeches and all the political advertisements and all the news coverage, of those campaigns, what you will learn is that neither one of the major party candidates for making the war in vietnam the number one predominant message. someone is always trying to frame the state of the economy and the other persons or try to shift off the economy and onto an issue that meets the three criteria in the reason for policy is never the choice is because of the october surprise. the world can change

dramatically 10 days before the election and if you run your campaign on smart diplomacy, was that the heller clinton secretary of state, and all of a sudden the world unravels and you have 10 days, you are losing. mostly candidates try to avoid owning the foreign-policy card because of that reason. >> donald trump has played that card fairly prominently saying it with confidence? >> the one thing about donald trump is unusual, there are many things unusual, the one i'm to talk about in response to this topic is his, i think, this is why he's a good salesman come he has an uncanny ability to know how to sell his product and he

reads the room so that when an event happens, whether it is san bernardino or paris orlando or dallas, he knows instantly how that works in the service of his argument in his brain that he is time -- trying to cast on the election. i don't want to say that he has made this election about for policy, i don't pick you have. i think he has made this election about in group outgroup attitudes and that those in groups and out groups are separated on race and ethnicity in the foreign policy moments only work for him in the service of his friend because of the ethnic makeup of these moments. that is why they work for him. it is not so much about for policy, it is about your fear and he uses that. >> allen, mentioned that donald trump has changed the narrative and it seems to me that he really hasn't a profound way -- has in a profound way, that's how we got to the primaries, he

continues to do so, do you think this is a permanent thing? for example, if you watch the news hour over the years, republicans and democratic politicians have said they respectfully disagree with my learned colleague in the front and all that funny rhetoric, now dislike, you are his comeback. -- it is like, you are a scumbag. >> we can if donald trump loses and you all think that he will lose and we can recover. if he wins i don't think we can recover from it. you have to look at the history and is not a pretty one. those who claim i am the answer, i am the answer, only i can change things for the better. it doesn't matter what i say, you have to believe me and trust me as a person. i don't like to draw analogies to foreign nations but you have to reach out to find an analogy to donald trump and i have to say, many times when you see similar candidates, you have

folks say, it can't happen here, we have checks and balances, we have a bureaucracy, that is simply wrong. it has not worked out that way for country after country around the world that has come under this way. this kind of one man type of rule. i think our country is on a dangerous precipice. i think we are in danger of going somewhere where this country has never gone before. he has already gone were no candidate has ever gone before and not just once, not just

twice, not just three times, but 10-15-20 times. i have to tell you, it doesn't matter how may times he is criticized, it does not matter how he times he is caught up in lies or statements, it makes no difference whatsoever to donald trump because he has no shame. you can't shame him into changing. all of these people who say he will pick it and change -- pivot and change, it will not happen. donald trump has been this person throughout his career and life. essentially a con man. doing the same thing he did at trump university which was never a university and not paul ryan or mitt romney or all the kings and horses of the republican party are going to change this one word. >> can i jump in for one second? i want to entertain for a

second, but they can about this a lot, that none of this matters, that the comments he is making that think what you are saying allen, he is not getting feedback, he is not changing. i've heard a lot of people say, some people say, i've heard a lot of people say that he is teflon and can say anything and does not pay a price. i want you to pause for a second and think about where he stands in the polls and how much is cratered in the last 10 days. he is not teflon. he looks like he is stuck where he is. maybe there's an october surprise but i don't think it is right to say that he is teflon and none of this is hitting him. it might be right to say he is not getting any feedback from the fact that he has cratered and is losing georgia and iowa and utah and arizona. he is not taking because of that. i think he is paying a price in terms of public opinion. >> given that he has a gigantic ego, --

[laughter] do you think you could face public familiar asian? -- public humiliation? rumors of exit strategies. one of george w. bush's speech writers has an op-ed in the near times today saying mike pence should ease him out the door. do you think that he will last the distance? i'm not putting you on the spot. >> alike and say about that is i don't know donald trump, i've never met him. my guess is that you don't yet to be -- get to be that executive with that portfolio unless you have some resiliency and so can he take humiliation? i suspect he can. doesn't mean he will drop out, i don't know. when i hear a public and say -- republicans say that, i think

that is wishful thinking. more than it is based on any kind of real evidence that he might be indicating that he is looking for a way out. >> if you agree with me that donald trump has no shame that none of this matters. it is not that he doesn't get feedback is just that the feedback doesn't matter. the feedback never changes him. he has already set things up to heaven after he has said the election is rate -- rigged. if he loses, that will be the narrative. i should have one but for the rigged election and how do you prove a negative? he has set himself up, it doesn't matter to him whether he wins or loses. i'm not sure he even once the job. let me say why. he loves the spotlight. can't stand not to be in the spotlight. but this is a man who has walked away with bankruptcy six-times. does he really want to be president of united states when

you are actually held accountable for your decisions? i'm not sure he does. i think he's planning this exit strategy. not that he will get out, but that he is planning to say if i lose, it was rigged. >> probably a good time to write out your questions. we will have people on both files collecting them. -- aisles collected them. if we want as much qad as possible. given that he is cratering -- >> tomorrow he will surge just because i said this. [laughter] >> all changes rapidly. the one thing that is consistent is he drops a bombshell almost every day if you did a major one today with the second amendment folks could stop hillary clinton from appointing judges in the assumption is that he meant stop them with a bullet, that is just today. is it possible this trajectory, there is introductory and it

could get worse? >> it is possible. the upshot prediction mostly based on poll aggregating. when i made this and sent it to the hammer a week ago, that number was barely at 70. it was a different sports analogy. just in that week, so many polls have come out that have the margins, double-digit margins. it moved a prediction into a range that is really unprecedented. it is possible that that continues and it is possible this is a plateau and it goes back up. i agree with alan, let me say. saint 47% of the people will not vote for you, none of those moments are game changers. debates rarely change the outcome of elections. what they do do is change the polls after the debates in right after you say things. romney example is a great one

because he lost. people who were supporting him after the 47%, moved into undecided. we were in the field with a long panel. people moved into undecided in the news was romney that this hurt him. 10 days later, i said to his campaign manager, you are brilliant whole thing with 10 days later he had an amazing performance at the first debate held the news was that romney had a great night and went back up and was searching and it was a game changer. that's what it was --guess what it was? it was all those people who moved away from him to undecided after 47% that moved back to him after the first debate. there has been no change after all. i think polls can move but the outcome is probably solid. >> i think she just proved why

you can't predict elections by following the day-to-day events, the ups and downs of the polls. i will remind you, three weeks ago, 538, the gold standard was saying 55-45% trump and now is heavily clinton. you can't predict that stuff. i also want to talk about donald trump's comments about the second amendment people. and what is dangerous. he tried to explain this away by saying i was being -- trying to unify people to vote a certain way. that is not what he is saying. he was talking about after the election. when hillary clinton was already president and was making supreme

court appointments, how could we stop that. nothing to do with voting or unifying people to vote. it was clearly, an invitation for the second amendment people, those who love guns to do something about it. why is that dangerous? not because we will shoot someone, but what has donald trump stirred up? the worst and most dangerous element. neo-nazis, white supremacist, ku klux klan, david duquette said donald trump has made this my time. all of those groups are encouraged by the trump campaign. how some of those people might interpret what donald trump said. that is was -- it was so despicable and ought to be disqualified for the presidency. we have not seen anything remotely like this in our

history. [applause] >> i do think it's important to keep in mind as you think about these things that come i said this earlier, donald trump is not creating these attitudes. they have existed in the united states. people have high levels of racial anxiety and we can trace this back to the beginning of pulling. it is worth pausing for a moment to think about what donald trump has demonstrated is that the payoff from priming this kind of explicit racial and ethnic messaging or this hate messaging. he has demonstrated the payoff from doing that. the white non-college-educated men moving toward him. mitt romney and john mccain could have gone to that same explicit messaging and they were running against the first lack man nominated in the major party

so they were in an environment where it would have been more of a payoff for going there. both of those candidates are on record and you can talk to them or their advisers saying that they were not willing to do that. they were not going to win that way. the romney said i had to get up in the morning and look in the mirror and john mccain said i'm not winning by playing the race card. i think it is worse worth -- worth pausing saying that donald trump is not a member of this class of professional politicians. not a polite politician. honest are genuine. there is a set of norms that politicians adhere to. mostly you see on the floor of congress but donald trump is not of that. he is a businessman. it is a different set of norms so a lot of what we see as despicable is really, for the fact that he is not of this group and we disparage politicians. people disparage politicians all the time but i think this moment

actually makes me sit back and say that professional politicians may be dessert slightly more respect than we are traditionally given them. >> i cannot us went i think he's not a professional politician. we have had nonprofessional politicians before run for office. we had the republican tommy in 1970 -- 1940 was exactly like donald trump compared a businessman who had never run for office, never held office. and he ran an exemplary campaign. up against frequent roosevelt and had no chance. he never appealed to the darker nature's in america. dwight eisenhower was hardly a professional politician, he ran an exemplary campaign. what do you agree or disagree with them -- whether you agree or disagree with them who came from outside the political class, they did not come remotely close to starting -- stirring up the emotions that

donald trump hazard i don't think donald trump is explicit -- exportable by saying he is not outside the political class. he is outside any reasonable class of human being. [applause] >> some questions, there is a big stack. do you think the election is in any way affected by the defections of gop leaders away from trump? >> i do think that that would have some impact. i actually think that if we were seeing what we are seeing in the last two weeks back in october of 2015, i think that a little bit of the caller:. -- -- if there had been more coordination from her elite a year ago. >> given what we now know, do you think that sanders would

have had a better chance against donald trump and hillary clinton? >> i can't answer that. i don't do that thing. >> i don't know. >> is there anything that republicans could have done to foil donald trump's rise? >> like i was saying, the lack of correlation. the advice they were making a year ago, we were buying time for attack advertising but they were attacking each other and that is when they started attacking donald trump, i was march. -- that was much. >> i will think there was anything because the donald trump supporters were not listening to those people. last august when everyone was dismissing donald trump, i was on the air saying you cannot dismiss donald trump because he is saying what a substantial

segment of the republican base once to hear but that the other politicians are afraid to say and that is why donald trump had so much appeal and there's nothing that jeb bush could have done about that. >> what does the republic -- why does the republican party continue to support donald trump and do you think there is a limit? >> this is an interesting question. they take a pledge and say they will support him and he becomes the nominee and what you do? i think plenty of people have held back and a lot of people have expressly said they will not vote for him. again, if this had been happening earlier, thinks my has shaped up a little differently. i don't know how much differently. at the end of the day, or has to still be a party and contrary to what you might think, there is no master puppeteer of their telling people in the party what to do. donald trump loses and] tea party and non-tea party and nonevangelical.

right back where we were of a broken, dysfunctional republican party. if he wins, i'm not sure what happens. i think it have to be worried about the house and senate. >> two words, supreme court. there were maybe as many as three supreme court nominees you would see much more massive defections, probably even paul ryan and mitch mcconnell. but where is the action today? washington is such good luck that the action is in the supreme court as we have seen time and again. that is the only reason that

they are still clinging to donald trump. >> could his rise be attributed to the fact that his republican opponents had no marked accomplishments other than their instruction is a -- obstructionism? >> probably ted cruz in mind with that question, that set of people, for senators and governors, those are formidable candidates with a lot of political experience. >> it was the best group they could put up your there was on some shadow candidate out there ready to rise into the party. what you see is what you get. >> do you feel that the entry of three other candidates shifts the balance? >> i think it is too early to tell. i don't feel like i have a good read on mother -- where that will go. there had to be more to -- more than two people in the first debate, that could be

interesting. >> that looks unlikely and you had to get 15%. my rule is you take where the candidates are a pulling -- pulling and you slice it in half. if johnson is pulling six or 7%, you might expect three or 4%. why? wasted vote syndrome. it is easier to tell a pollster you will vote for gary johnson. if you go to the point place and say i love you gary johnson, you can't win so i will vote for some of the ross perot in 1992 at one point was out pulling both clinton and bush. at 40%. he finished at 19%. the only third-party candidate ever to be in the debates. >> what is your personal hope for the outcome of the elections?

>> what! >> we know who allen is voting for. >> i'm voting for trump. [laughter] >> personally, as a clinical scientist writing a book about the election, my personal hope is that it continues to be really interesting. [laughter] that's not what you want to know. i will tell you what i told my mother lastly, my mother who is 87 years old and has watched her first set of political conventions and is not interested in politics but has been watching and this is how interesting this election is and she said to me, i don't know, what do you think? and, this is amusing to me. i had the privilege and honor of hosting hillary clinton at ucla

when she came and spoke on thought leadership. that was a career highlight for me and i said to my mom, wouldn't it be great i got to tell people that i got to interview the first woman to be president of the united states. that is my answer. >> you should go into politics. [laughter] if one candidate is a dangerously mentally in fit -- underfoot -- unfit candidate, does that overturn all the keys? [laughter] >> no! of course not. i swing how he affects the keys. this has never happened before. in opposition candidate has affected any of the keys. in this brilliant audience, you all expect to me that donald

trump has negated the effects of what otherwise would have been a divisive and bitter democratic contest. perhaps something on donald trump have done. >> what can be done or can anything be done to improve expectations, cooperation and compromise in congress? >> i think that, i don't want this to sound hokey but it does kind of start with the candidate to get nominated in primaries for open seats in congress. i really think that whatever the systemic column is the people in the chamber now, the problem is

staying there. to change the culture, we have to change the people. you need to, if you have good people who you think should be running for congress in your neighborhood district, i know this sounds hokey, you have to talk them into running for congress. i'm not going to run. i will talk you into running. i think we really do have to change the set of people because as long as the republican party has the tea party-non-tea party divide, it is going to be very hard to have brokers like ted kennedy and john mccain working across the aisle, even people like dan quayle who had bipartisan bills, i just think that is an era we have lost. >> think where our politics have come to when you are rooting for dan quayle. [laughter] >> we will put you on the spot.

did you expect or predict donald trump to win the gop nomination? >> my system does not predict nominations. in august i was on record when every other pundit was saying he was going to fade, i thought, was the most likely candidate to win the republican nomination and everybody thought i was nuts. >> somewhat similar to the one i ask, how can you evaluate the campaign for one candidate keeps breaking the boundaries of what is acceptable and/or normal? >> i mentioned this in my remarks and forgot to come back to her when about the slide that said equilibrium, this election is meant to be close, i told you that the in equilibrium part was important and that is essentially what this question is asking.

i take all of those numbers since the new deal and i look at what they mean and i can make a prediction to wear the red dot is going to be based on the growth rate in the six months of this election year. but, that is assuming the equilibrium we are typically in in every presidential election year is to highly qualified candidates equally financed fighting really hard because they want to win. that is the equilibrium we are making a reduction in. if someone comes along and does not have the money -- any money and has no tv ads and says unusual things to get into the news come all the other things you have said, people always ask me, when obama ran, isn't this time different? he was the first black man. isn't this different? maybe people would say this

about the selection because of helical to being a woman but it is so different because of donald trump that they are not saying that. i always say no. part of what i do as cyclical scientist is generalize, take data and be able to tell an overarching story and so i have this urge to generalize to something we can use to make productions. i was on say no, this time is going -- not different if we are neck will agree. i think we may not be in 2016. i want to say that this time might be different. >> any positive impact of the trunk candidacy? --donald trump candidacy? >> if you are a democrat. >> i think hillary clinton has to be incredibly lucky. what book you have said, she's running the worst campaign because she is using donald trump's words against him rather than addressing the underlying

reasons for the anger for why people support him and supported bernie sanders. >> i don't know about that. some days i wake up and i said, if you're hillary clinton run out, you're saying i'm the luckiest person in the world and some days i wake up and think choosing, this guy is a loose cannon and i don't know what he will do today and i'm the most -- i don't know whether she is lucky or unlucky. i have this project in the field called spotcheck run testing these advertisements in real and i've got people rating and it is on the web. what actually works best is when, the at has worked best, it is not one of hers, it was a republican super pac called our principles pack and they had women just, average women reading from ipads and iphones quotes donald cap has said about women and it is offensive

statements in that ad hurts donald trump more than anything else i've tested. i think that is why you are seeing her do it. it is effective. >> what do second amendment people do in the face of a rigged election? >> recently he said on what he meant by rigged the -- trouble eventually said they were voting all times, people were voting. 10 times. >> 15 times today. >> if you are not voting 15 times, you are not living up to the city expectations. >> i was the expert witness and all of those voters -- texas, north carolina, virginia, and we looked into the question of whether people were voting multiple times or impersonating someone and your chances, even in southern california of being

hit by lightning are vastly higher than the chances of anyone impersonating someone or voting multiple times. you know i does not happen --it does not happen? three years in prison. he will risk that -- who will risk that when your chances of being caught are 25% because that is about the percentage of people who recognize people who come to the polls. it is a complete red herring issue and for courts have weighed in on this. including the most conservative appeals court in the country, the fifth circuit down in louisiana and a long come to the same conclusion that these voter id laws are not justified by claims of fraud. donald trump is making this up

out of -- making this up. >>'s polarization such that pulls will become much less electives -- plastic and volatile from here on out? >> if you had asked me this question in 2008 and 2012 i might have said maybe. party identification is such an anchor. in 2008 and 2012 we have is long panels of data with a lot of people in the abdomen december the before the election what is your party id into you will vote for it over 90% on both sides tell us they will vote for the person from their party and then we go back to them, they end up doing it. the swing in the election with

people moving around is maybe 13%, maybe more than that. i might have thought the stability was the story, this year makes me think, we have seen a lot of volatility in the polls recently makes me think that when you have an exceptional candidate like this, when you get party elites announcing the candidate and endorsing the opposition, you can shake people off that party identification in a way that honestly is a little surprising to me. >> when i watched the rallies, you talk about uneducated white men and trump said he loves the fully educated. i don't see them at these rallies. i see middle-class, republicans. >> i have been to a donald trump rally and, it is hard to say.

i can't say that the crowd felt much different to me, i went to a ted cruz event and it donald trump about, it was not that noticeably different. in might have been a little older age wise. >> will democrats get back the senate? will likely to be a one term president --hillary clinton be a one term president? >> if this election is sweeping, we can expect there to be coattails of the democratic candidate. she will bring members of the senate to her party. this is generalizable. you bring people into congress when you win the election and then there is this reverse to the mean in the off year and your party loses seats. we call that surge in decline. we're likely to see a surge

italy clinton'-- hillary clinton wins. i think the search could be big. >> allen, is donald trump truly a president? is there anyone like him and u.s. history? >> all of u.s. history? i can figure one figure, not a major party candidate. he was an independent candidate. he did really well for an independent. he got 13% of the vote. pop quiz? who? george wallace. he campaigned on citing a lot of -- inciting a lot of ethnic and racial issues but he campaigned as a complete outsider. one of his favorite targets was as pointy-headed professors who try to tell everyone what to do but we can't even park a bicycle

straight. [laughter] >> how will the relationship between china and the u.s. be if clinton wins? i think the question would be if trump wins? >> that is outside both of our scopes. >> anyone who would dare to say something about that would probably be wrong. try to predict what china will do, good luck. >> do you think kerry johnson can get in the debates? -- gary johnson can get in the debates? >> the presidential debates are different than the primary debate. there hosted by tv networks. the presidential debates are organized by the commission on presidential debates which is bipartisan and has democrats and

republicans on it and so it has been in existence for a long time and all these rules about how you get in. highly negotiated set of atmospherics by representatives from both campaigns. 15% is the number you have to be pulling and there are some other criteria and off the top of my head i don't know what it is. i think it is a little bit of a tough road. >> i think the bigger question is whether donald trump will debate. he has set up the possibility of not debating. not only is the election rigged but the debates are also. it is the commission. he has artie said i'm -- already going to debate under conditions. i doubt if gary johnson will get into the debates. i'm not certain there will be debates. >> if i remember correctly, if he does not want to show up, that is fine but she gets the stage for however long, 90 minutes.

so i think that is the role. i'm not sure about that. >> she would be remiss to she does not take advantage of the situation. >> she will. >> why has donald trump not been accused of treason for encouraging russia to hack democratic computers? why has he not been arrested for inciting the assassination of clinton? >> check out my article in the new york daily news. i did not say he committed treason, but i did say he was advocating a violation of federal law because he did not sickly say if you have the

-- simply say if you have the hillary clinton e-mails come he said go find them. the only way you can find those assuming you can, is to hack into her private e-mail server. which is a violation of communications act. a violation of federal law punishable by five years in prison. certainly he was advocating a foreign power to break a federal law. first candidate i know of to advocate a foreign power meddling in the election. ever since george washington as the netherlands french ambassador to get out of the country back in the 1790's we have stood staunchly against foreign going until -- meddling

until this year. as far as what he said, i've given my commentary on what he said about the second amendment. if you had say that -- said that, you'd be in some interrogation room with secret service agents. >> what about hacking the elections? >> i think that is a scary prospect. people have hacked the defense department. i have to tell you, these voting machines are nowhere near as secure, probably not as secure as the dnc. the possibility of the russians hacking, while small, it is not zero. that is a frightening thought. federal officials are well aware of that and i'm not a computer expert, i don't know what precautions they're taking, they are treating this as a homeland security issue. in treating the security as a -- of our elections as a chief security issue. putin will do whatever he wants to do and does not care what anyone thinks or says. though that sound familiar -- does that sound familiar? >> i may be the pollyanna of this group and i'm not willing to believe that the united

states secret service changes its protocol on for a three principal because that person is a nominee. i'm not willing to believe that. >> it was sufficiently ambiguous. >> maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. if a private citizen had say that -- said that, they would have been in some jeopardy. remember come the federal government does not like rocketry to interfere with -- bureaucracy to interfere with their retro -- -- presidential candidate campaign. candidates have a lot of latitude that is not given to ordinary citizens. >> i am puzzled by this. a lot of my women friends hate hillary clinton with my -- with a passion.

how do you explain the extreme hatred of hillary clinton, does that matter for the election? >> this is one of my favorite questions. how do you explain the animus people feel for hilly clinton? -- hillary clinton? you were around in the 1990's. she is not an unabridged candidate. -- unbruised candidate. you have to admit that she had a history that is, there is a pattern to that is just somewhat troubling and i think that is why she is a little bit of a lightning rod but not always. the other important point is that she had very high approval ratings when she was secretary of state. a lot of what you see now with the high unfavorables is brought out by the campaign. then he that was going to happen, everyone knows that when

you get in a political contest, the partisanship kicks in. >> do you think misogyny is kicking in? >> i think there is a gender difference here for sir -- sure. when you watch this ad called quotes with the women reading the statement, i wrote about this, you can read the piece can see all the data, there are very different reactions to this ad by gender. women really hate donald trump a lot after they see this but they don't necessarily like helicopter anymore. it is not her ad. men are not as moved to hate him i think that is a lot of it. the dislike of hillary is not german as much by gender. -- driven as much by gender. >> do you think donald trump has fundamentally or permanently changed the way politics and the media interact and i would add to that, the only beneficiaries

of our broken political system or the media? the 5 billion this election will cost will go to the mainstream media. >> local television. that is not a bad thing. the local stations are going to make a lot of money. that is not a bad thing. if you like your local news, ok -- do i think he has changed the relationship? i think so but on the way you think. from a reporter buddies, they were telling me that this thing about how the media has made donald trump, the pushes the buttons because they desperately want to cover these candidates. that is their job. what does he do?

he calls them. sitting around and your producer for the morning show on cnn and donald trump calls you up and you are talking about the thing and he says he has something to say about that. he makes himself so accessible, but my friend said you are doing a form like this couple months ago and he said, i will prove it to. i will get on my phone and we will call it donald trump and he will not answer but i guarantee before the panel is over, he will, back. -- call us back. he made himself so accessible and hillary clinton has not talked to reporters for months. that is attention for them. should they not cover donald makingven though he's himself accessible because clinton will not talk to them. it makes you think a little differently about how much coverage he got. is that a real change going forward? if you want to own the new cycle, make yourself available.

>> he has taken free media to extort very heights -- extraordinary heights. i want to because i'm expecting a train wreck. >> why people watch nascar. >> we are approaching the end. i would like to mention here that the final debate live on october the 19th whether or not donald trump is on stage. thank both of you for joining us tonight. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]

>> coming up on c-span, hillary clinton campaigns with vice president joe biden in pennsylvania. after that, donald trump speaks about foreign policy in youngstown, ohio. >> tuesday, the heritage foundation looks at welfare presidentyears after clinton signed it into law. that is live at noon eastern on c-span. then the wilson center on the 100-year-old migratory bird

treaty between canada, the u.s., and mexico. that is live at 1:30 p.m. president clinton signed it intoeastern h. three years after a supreme court ruling overturned part of the voting rights act, courts across the country have struck down a number of state laws saying they discriminate against groups of voters. saturday night, c-span's issues spotlight looks at voting rights and the impact on the election. we will feature part of the 2013 supreme court oral argument in shelby versus holder. members of congress look at whether to restore the voting rights act. plus, a discussion on whether the voting rights act is necessary. here is what the presidential candidates have to say. >> all of this voter id, nowadays, a lot of places aren't going to have voter id. what does that mean? you just keep walking in and voting? >> what is happening is a sweeping effort to disempower and disenfranchise people of color, poor people, and young

people from one end of our country to the other >> watch our issues spotlight on voting rights saturday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and c-span.org. hillary clinton and vice president biden campaigned in scranton, pennsylvania monday. scranton is mr. biden's hometown and the home of misses clinton's father. they talked about job growth and donald trump, calling him unfit for service in the white house, particularly to be in charge of the u.s. military. this is an hour.