everybody is on board, even if it is wrong, right? then we will all make the mistake together, who can be mad at you versus we are going to give managers more authority. that is the balancing act and the difference in government. >> do you think the balance right now -- we gone -- we have gone so far as no mistakes, no-fault, no tolerance? i think that we should have more latitude and flexibility. as a manager, i certainly see the challenges with that, so take for example, cyber security, huge priority of this administration, huge priority for the country we address cyber security, we cannot get the people to fill the positions. and we don't have the flexibility and how to hire. we don't have the flexibility in terms of pain because we are competing with the private sector.

shortage of 2000 cyber security specialists and united states at large, and we are competing with every company in america to try to attract talent and defend the largest organization in the country, which is the federal government. provisions, inbe my opinion, or changes that would allow you to address what is frank become in my mind, a crisis. is it oversimplified and overstated to say that government should normally business? >> i don't think it is overstated, but what i was remembering going through exactly those things with procurement. there is a reason you have congressional oversight.

i had 20 congressional hearings my first 15 months on the job. that was more than i wanted. [laughter] there is a reason for that. on the other side, you know, sometimes things are just too difficult to get done because the system is riddled with old regulations, or there is not enablesa construct that reasonably fast decision-making. i can't not you how may times i have tried to get something done and my staff would explain to me the steps we would have to go through, and i would say, that can't possibly be the case. there is nothing intuitive about that, right? and frequently, the answer is or is this regulation put on the books 20 years ago and requires us to do this, and it seems crazy. what i used to tell people is if i need a new law to my need legislation to get something done, it is a crapshoot.

if i need a revelatory change, it is going to be a very long, very complex process. ironically, if i had the budget to make an operation -- if i had an operational changes needed to make and have the budget, i had almost no oversight. inould work with the ceo those situations, but what i did five, and it is important to understand this because many government agencies have very large businesses within them. leading, we had government guarantee programs, those are all businesses within them. what i found this in many cases, we did not have the skills to drive change, improvements, there was not the expectation that we would achieve a particular outcome at the end. in to the small

business administration year after katrina and the federal, the direct loan process at shutdown. the sba actually makes home loans for people who have had their homes damaged in a disaster. it was a year after katrina and few people had gotten her loans in the system had collapsed. we came in with teams and brought in a process design expert and engaged our teams and look at all the issues. we updated technology. within six weeks, we had doubled production. we had everything cleared out. we got checks to people's hands. people thought we were magic. we did not do anything that people with good business skills or process goes, or technology skills would not have done in business. on the business side is a lot of the people, a lot of the leadership did not

have sort of the tools to think that way. they were terrific leaders and many other ways, but did not have the tools to say i want to drive that outcome and a half to get these loans out of the door, get them documented, be accurate, etc., etc. a lot of people in agency did not have the skills to work through those issues. and they did not have processes in place that looked at efficiency. >> how did you do it? >> we brought in people with the skills. >> you are able to do that quickly? >> well, um. [laughter] i had a lot of people on my staff where terrific expertise on how to do contracting officially. that was very much helping. there is one of the audience back there. we were able to bring in small teams to help, but really what we were able to do was take the

career workforce that saw all the issues at the frontline and understood what was going on in the mix, and pair them with people who had skills to basically redesign processes and to work with them and to help them be more effective to put in place to organizational structures that helped them be more effective and help them win. and both agencies, we had such incredible success working with people in the career workforce who care deeply about what they did and wanted nothing more than two win everyday and serve the american people. felt likeimes, i their ability was blocked because we did not have a lot of their competencies paired with traditional business competencies to get these types of things done. your question about

learning from the private sector, one of the things that we are doing at the department of commerce is to put an shared services on procurement, hr, i.t.. >> many what? >> our ability to process procurements, or process human resources, or new people that we are bringing on board. tot to do that, you have reprogram money, you have to get approval of congress, and you have two say we want to run ourselves better. agencies2 different and 47,000 people, and we had many services that we provide to the private sector. for us to be more effective and more flexible in terms of we areng as the services

providing, which is what you are talking about, we need, we are trying to take a page from the private sector and really bring in the capacity to have more shared services in specific functions within our organization. and within the department of commerce. we are quite excited about that greater to facilitate ability to address more quickly the challenges that we are facing. >> so, if the new president were instinctou and say, my is to say i want someone with both significant public and private experience to be cap officers,-- cabinet whatever management is important and relevant and more

generalizable, would you recommend that, or would you say -- standpoint, it is all about the team, right? it is the team you put together. folks who iseed absolutely -- folks who are absolutely hardwired of the hill. you need people who have subject matter expertise. you need folks who can manage well. you need folks who can help problem solve. and you need and ability -- an ability to do communications. and the people who make up that team, some could have a lifelong

career in the federal government andthe assets to the team some could be from the private sector. is it wouldlearned be a disaster if all i had to go from the private sector. >> so you think it is the team -- you know, whatever the younesses of the person fill in with the team, but you could also argue, let me push back on that -- people are not all that happy with the way the government is working, and if the person at the top is a lifelong washington person, they will never understand the urgency or the attitude the public has, which is we don't want you to do the same things, we want you to do it a lot differently. if i were president, maybe i would want to say i have people who have experiences outside of this bubble here called washington. actually -- i agree

100%. i was going to say the same thing. you need people not only with look att skill sets, problems differently. it is the same thing if you're putting together a board or a leadership team and business. agency'sepends on what mandated, right? are in the department of commerce and looking on how to advance trade and do a lot of issues with trade, you need both people who can look at the policy issues because they are highly complex. but also people who can negotiate effectively and do a ander of different things you have large programs within the departments, say need people who can run those. i was very involved with transitioning both my agencies.

recommendation i gave to both of them -- at that point, we did not know karen was taking sba. the recommendation i gave was when you put together your team, if you are heavy on policy in some areas, that your -- is a great person. sean came out of the new york housing. very deep and knowledge on housing issues. someonency also needed who could run it in moneys complicated programs. you really need complementarity at the top and it doesn't have to be the head of the agency because if you are dealing with health care policy for the country, you don't -- that is not necessarily a person who needs to know how to run the medicaid program, but you have to have people in their who can. i don't think a leader at the top can drive that.

>> i agree from that standpoint that you need a team to drive limitation, but i do believe you need sensitivity at the top, that these departments need to be run and managed, and you need some capacity in the cabinet member to lead and drive strong management. they don't have to execute on a day-to-day basis. they may have a chief administrative officer. there are multiple ways you can address that. you may have really strong heads of your different agencies. but my experience has been management skills -- everyone of the management skills i have ever learned in my life, i have had to use in this job. policytion to developing skills and other skills that i did not have because these departments are huge.

they are huge, tens of thousands of people. in some instances, much bigger than that. and your budgets are very significant. sayother thing -- i would from someone coming from the public and private sector, and to run a department, you want to dive into your budget before you start, the minute you arrive because your budget becomes your policy. actuallyability to effectuate, if you want to effectuate serious policy change, you need budget approval, or budget flexibility, and with congressional oversight -- in theore and more buyils, that means you need ins to the things you want to

do, and if you don't have that n, it is hard to effectuate the probe ends and policies you want to -- it is hard to effectuate the programs and policies you want to. there is some flexibility, but not as much as you think. the budget becomes your policy. >> it is important to think in that whole mix, and this is where --lsa presidents of all attempted to have some form of a management agenda. think that it is not administrations have not focused on this issue, but it is very important to have a clear perspective on the outcomes were trying to drive in the programs you lead. what is the current state? where do you want to get? how are you going to get there? take your organization there. what we found in a lot of cases, it was challenging to either say

this is what good looks like and this is what good looks like to the citizens benefiting from the programs. and this is the pathway to get there and mrs. help you want to lead the way there. -- this is the pathway to get there in this is how are going to help them get their. to really understand what they saw opportunity. if they had a view that the program could get significantly better if only we could do a couple of things. we then turn those into very specific management agendas with goals, scorecards, we communicated it across the agency and it became a full agency engagement process. i would do town halls periodically and say this product is rated green and we are on track and these are the numbers.

red, weone is in the have these challenges, and what sort of, it really was a great tool to engage the agency, help people stick with those -- help people see with outcomes were an happen participate in business tools because many of the people on the teens were in the sessions. that as a process to train them on a lot of those tools so that going forward if they had smaller projects are other issues, they had tools and templates they could use to help them think through how to do that in the future. and business, it said if you keep a relentless customer focus, everything else takes care of itself. happy, publicre is happy, everyone is happy if you have a relentless focus on the customer.

,f the sba is your customer small businesses who get loans, advice, or is your customer the taxpayer? read your customer the white house that has a certain political agenda? theour customer is recipient of a disaster loan or a small business loan. your distribution force is the banking network and i many policy issues that come through their. let me give you an example of the customer and what it meant for us. because i think often in the start agencies -- in a business, i can go to my managers and say what you hearing from the customer? can i listen in on the caller get the metrics? there was always this wesibility around are affected, are we not affected, and what are we hearing back? when we were trying to fix the disaster loan program, i realized if you were in new orleans trying to get a loan and

city your documents into a po box, you would get a form letter centernd call a call that was not attached to the processing center, as a customer , all you saw was this big government thing. if you are in the processing center and i'm getting those loans out in time, it felt like you were failing. we blew up the whole process and we put people on client service team's. we used to have lawyers over here, financial people over gets a- every american client services representative with a name, direct phone number, and that person has goals to get these loans completed and make new loads. once someone was approved, would have to get that loan out. what we learned was by giving our people a direct link to the , ande they were serving

giving americans in need a direct name, we got this really productive interchange going and started seeing where our problem -- where our people were having problems getting the loans they needed. if she is supposed to be closing on a house into it, it don't get this done, she is not going to get her house. the whole sense about what people were doing and their ability to serve people in need was completely transformed, but it was because the customer was no longer theoretical and there was a tremendous amount of chatter across the agency about this. i was able to use the customer service reps to start sending me daily information on what we were hearing and fixing of the problems. that is important, especially in

government, so often you are dealing with people in need that have no other place to go. by making that connection, it is a very powerful thing. >> madam, secretary. picking cabinet secretaries, what is the most overrated criteria, and what is the most underrated criteria the presidents tend to sec. pritzker: i have no idea. [laughter] i think, in picking time that my advice to a president would be you need balance between someone who can be a messenger, as part of your job. be a negotiator, as part of your job. and the a manager as part of , your job.

so, you're looking for people who can effectuate that, but assemble teams that can actually execute it. >> do presidents let people assemble teams, or do they send them a list of people that worked in the campaign or were somehow associated with the administration in some way and "here is a list of people you pick for assistant secretary." does that hamper your ability to pick teams? sec. pritzker: my experience was -- i was given the flexibility, within certain parameters, to assemble the team that we wanted and needed. >> certain parameters being what? sec. pritzker: you know, making sure that we had good gender balance, good diversity, things like that. and that which was actually to the benefit of our department. so those were the parameters i

was very comfortable with. but i felt i had a lot of flexibility to assemble the team we needed. the thing about hiring is that sometimes it is hard to get it right, particularly when you are hiring -- when i came in, we had 80% of the leadership of the department of the secretary vacant. of our 15 of 22 senate-confirmed positions were either vacant or becoming vacant. when you hire that many people all at the same time, that is an enormous undertaking in a short period of time. you do not always get it all right. so having the flexibility to say "i made a mistake", that's hard. or "you would be better in this job than that job," that flexibility you do not have as much of. >> let me be a little skeptical about this. i have not observed, at least on the basis of the results,

looking back, that if you were hired and you had these 15 positions to fill, my guess is you would have looked across the world for the very best people you could get, try to recruit them, and hire them. my experience is in the federal government, secretaries or white house personnel office, do not say i have a assistant secretary position and i want to find the very best person in the world to recruit and hire that person. sec. pritzker: well, you're a have available to you, whether it is in a company or in the government, people who want to be in those positions. wethe federal government, have to pick among the people who want to serve in the federal government. you're not necessarily able to go find anybody from anywhere around the world. >> you can find anyone from the united states. sec. pritzker: i am saying -- my

experience is i was not hampered by the administration in terms of the ability to hire. your hampered by the reality of who wants to come into government and who wants to serve, given the limitations of that. and who wants to go through confirmation. > steve, do you think we those heide a net for positions as we can and should? >> we certainly could cast a wider net, but my experience is similar to secretary pritzker's. alwayshe white house did a great job of screening candidates, giving me candidates to look at. following my guidance in terms of what i thought would be effective, listening when i say i need someone with these skills.

the mechanism to find people is just different. mr. pearlstein: why does it have to be different? steve preston: the positions are kind of different. sec. pritzker: we did not always find our candidates from the list given by ppo. is?pearlstein: ppo sec. pritzker: the office of presidential personnel. and obviously, if you found someone who wanted to go into a position, they had to have the screening and vetting process. but we were -- i found one of the greatest assets was the who areof the people working with us. they knew other folks who may want to come in. so we were triangulating, trying to figure out what are the skill sets we need, and who wants to

come in and serve? i don't think -- definitely, we do not have the world to choose from. but you have the people who are interested in serving, and you tried to attract the best and those positions available to you. sec. preston: i felt i saw candidate lists faster than the private sector in many cases, because in many cases -- mr. pearlstein: where did the lists come from? sec. preston: from ppo, but it was not the sort of thing where they said these are people that worked on campaigns. they found someone who was a senior attorney at a large financial services firm, that walked in the door, understanding exactly what the issues were. and similar to your experience, i was able to hire people i had experience with in the private sector. this person is open to looking at a new role, fits the role perfectly, would you please look

at them? i had no problem with that. mr. pearlstein: when you got to your agencies, did you find the top civil servants were primarily top-notch? or were they very uneven? sec. preston: i thought they were uneven. i thought they were, across the board, extremely knowledgeable in their area. and they were, across the board, great resources. , some of thell you most remarkable things we got done were because people in those levels had an idea and had a passion, and we were able to knock down the walls and support them in being able to do that. let me give you 2 examples. i served in the last year of the bush presidency in hud.

all the 4 major hud -- public housing developments in new orleans had been destroyed. they were destroyed and rebuilt elsewhere. the rebuilding of those looked virtually impossible. there was no funding. the tax credit programs were gone. some congressional and hud money had been squirreled away in other places. we were looking at vacant land and no path to get there. a woman at hud named dominique said, "i see how we can get these out of the ground." in a short time, we worked with her and several other federal agencies. we supported her. we got to those developments ground broken. when the new administration came in, i worked with the new head secretary to basically say this is where we are on these things, we care about them a lot. he was terrific. what we handed over to him was not 80% like i thought, it was more 20% in some cases.

he figured out how to get it over the line. not much later, he called me and said we broke ground on the fourth. that is because a career civil servant had a vision that we could get it done if we could just support her in the right way. now those are 4 communities in , new orleans that are beautiful. mr. pearlstein: you said it was uneven. what was uneven? there were good ones. if you gave them, they could -- sec. preston: they had a vision for an opportunity or change or how to make the program better. "if only we could do a, b, c," "if only i could get sponsorship, we could achieve this." as a leader coming in that is , gold. in other cases, it felt people were in their position for a long time, managing their area, but things could have been better. but i think it is tough for these guys. the leadership changes. the mandate changes. it is hard to get things done,

sometimes, if you are a couple of levels down. i think the important thing, which is something that i have advised every person who has come in is to say, other than i am pure policy issues that come from the political viewpoint, forget about the political career divide. forget about it. get the most competent people in the room. really rankled my political people off, because i put career people on projects over top of them, if i thought they were more competent. it was just healthier for the organization, we got more done, etc., etc. sec. pritzker: i found the following situation, which was an organization that was under-led and under-directed. one of the biggest challenges was i walked in and it was, "secretary, what are your priorities?" as opposed to stepping back and looking at the organization. we do everything from the patent and trademark office to the

weather service to the national institute of safety and technology to the national telecommunications administration. so we have this broad array of things that we do, services we provide. and it was an organization -- "what do you mean what are my top priorities?" the question really was "what should the organization be focused on?" what we did is we took the top -- senior political and senior career people, and we all came together, 70 of us, and we put together a strategic plan for the department based on five pillars -- trade and investment, innovation, data, climate intelligence or environmental intelligence, and organizational excellence. this was -- and under there were three or four things under each

nillar that we, as a organization that we would try , to accomplish. it was not -- we have had career people go into political jobs, political people going to career jobs and we mixed them up. , it was about helping people develop and giving a good set of directions. but the directions were developed together. and then, the point of view that i took was invert the pyramid. my job, then, as secretary is to support you executing against the strategic plan that you developed. helped us, as an organization, really both understand what we are trying to accomplish and for people -- what is the secretary's job? part of that job is to help break the log jam, where no one else can do that.

whether it is a logjam with with theill, a logjam business community, a logjam with the administration, or an interagency challenge, we use the secretary to help us accomplish what we set out were the objectives, which was consistent with what the president asked us to do. transparency of objectives, i think, it has helped -- it has not only develop goals, it has informed where we are focused. it has informed all of our communication. it informs how the various agencies define what they're doing on a day-to-day basis. so it has been one of the -- and we revised it about 18 months in, updated the plan to be more reflective of what we had learned. things we thought needed different attention or greater clarification. and i think that that has been a

great tool. but this idea that the secretary's agenda is over here, the department's is over there, and just have the dep sec run the department -- which one advice i was given when i started "was you be over here and you do what you want to do." that was crazy to me. the kind of leadership that you need and want, particularly in a day and age where we are facing challenges like cyber security and other things the secretaries , are going to be held accountable. management,s basic websites you run, if they breakdown -- which we all have them -- things like that. if those are not happening, there can be serious consequences all the way to the top. the other thing we did was make a "no-fault" if something is going wrong. we tried to create a culture

where if you raise her hand and say "something is not going right," you got more resources and support. not thrown to the wolves, which is what everyone is afraid of. and what i made really clear is here, if you want to see the secretary unhappy, is if she has to read something going wrong in the newspaper rather than being warned so we can address and get ahead of the problem. problems happen in any large organization, in small reservations. what you want, as a leader, is to get ahead of the problem, support your good talent to be able to address the challenges they face. that is the way we, as a team, have tried to manage. sec. preston: you started off by saying running things like a business -- i think the perception of running something more like a business would say

editorial -- more dictatorial decisions. what we heard was running it like a business is about engaging organizations. i think the issue is, the issue people keep saying is you cannot make decisions, you cannot -- there is a sense that you have a leader coming in with an agenda. i have the exact same experience. what is your plan, what is your agenda? but the issue is -- let me just finish -- the issue is you have a massive workforce with great ideas that needs to be engaged. what secretary pritzker was just describing also tells you that organization is going to be able to lead those same initiatives well after the election. they have been engaged in what the plan will be and will carry it forward, because they do not need to wait for the next person to tell them what to do. they believe in it, see it, and it is clear. mr. pearlstein: a question that you will be uncomfortable with. so let me start with you.

[laughter] mr. pearlstein: true or false, so much decision-making, especially in the area of policy, has migrated to a bloated white house and executive office of the president, to the point that it has robbed the agencies of their creativity and sense of purpose. that the government would be better if that was reversed. do you agree or disagree? sec. preston: there were, like statements in there. , six i cannot agree with them all. i never thought the white house was bloated. i thought it was thin and had terrifically smart talented , people. i will say there was often confusion. there was new agency, so there was confusion as to who makes the decisions. mr. pearlstein: no confusion at the white house about that. sec. preston: part of the issue is, though, is if your cabinet is communicating well with the nec or dpc or onb, you're going

in the right direction. the problem is when you have the white house in one place and then an agency on camera saying something else. you have to understand there is one president, and we serve at the pleasure of the president. and what i tell people when they come into these jobs is the first thing you have to understand is whether or not the issues relating your agency are central to the president's agenda. you need to understand you have to be aligned with that, because that is the agenda you are driving. dear thing i experience -- of the other thing i expanse was there was an assumption that as a junior person called and said you had to do this, we had to jump up and salute. my comment was generally "the president hired me to run this agency. we have a policy staff. do we agree or disagree?" if we disagree, i pick up the phone and call the policy accounting and say "i understand you are going in this direction.

i think it is more important to think about it this way." mr. pearlstein: how did that turn out? sec. preston: usually extremely well. if we did not get to where we needed to go we talked about the , issues and got aligned. and in many cases, we did prevail. like any team, it is important to have alignment and communication and a process in place you understand. i think it is important to have agency heads who are competent , who can make it a vision for the agency, and then advocate at the white house. that is what we are hired to do. mr. pearlstein: you do not think there are too many cooks? sec. preston: i think if there is not communication, it can be complicated. i got to tell you these groups , are not that big in the white house. the idea that there are thousands of people -- mr. pearlstein: there are 1700 people, actually. sec. preston: well, ok, but the people we deal with. mr. pearlstein: with omb and the councils, there are 1700 people. sec. preston: but we were

dealing with a senior person, or a number one or two person. so we will pick up the phone if there were issues, they pick up the phone. and if you have the right relationship, you work through the issues efficiently. we could also offer to leverage our staff for their benefit. the issue comes when there is not communication, and people are not working together. mr. pearlstein: do you think you drove housing policy from your department, or do you think housing policy was driven by the white house? sec. preston: i think -- first of all i came in the middle of , the housing crisis. there was already a bill on the hill. there was already a lot going on. what i ended up driving was i was extremely involved in a lot of how is the issues around mortgage modifications and different programs to help homeowners. on a number of occasions, i called the white house and reversed issues on budgeting, prevailed on a number of issues that actually ended up being unpopular for the administration that i felt was important to advance the integrity of the organization.

mr. pearlstein: was this a problem for you? an overly involved and suffocating white house staff that saps the policymaking of your own agency and just would discourage them and drives away talent, because they cannot do anything? sec. pritzker: no. i would not say -- i don't think you can give that uniform -- mr. pearlstein: i know. but i am a journalist. [laughter] sec. pritzker: i know, of course you are. my experience has been, for the most part, not 100% of the time, it has been a collaborative process of trying to develop policy. because at the end of the day, the white house cannot implement. they need to work with the departments. often, the biggest challenge is the department is -- it is not just department executing. one it is often interagency. therefore, you need the white

house engagement. we are working on all kinds of things. i worked with the nec, nsc, and dpc. right? often, i need them, because i need to work interagency, and there is not a mechanism set up to deal with certain issues. sometimes there is, sometimes there is not. but i have found it very collaborative. but i found it really depends on who is leading those policy councils in the white house. i would also and -- are they an honest broker or basically -- it depends on the person, and are they just going to drive their stuff or run an honest process. and my experience has been predominantly "honest process." at the end of the day, if there is disagreement, it's getting reflected on the president, and

ultimately the president decides. sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose. your opinion prevails or doesn't. but that is the president's prerogative to do that. --ound, not 100% of the time let's call it 85% plus of the time, it has been an absolutely fair process and collaborative to try to get to an outcome we are trying to achieve. periodically, yes, someone will drive something because either the president has decided already or that someone else, it's their style. that happens periodically. sometimes, that's needed, frankly, to drive an agenda for the president. which, you know what? this is where the president needs to go, and we need to get in line and figure that out. then what you might be doing is saying how do we shape that in a way that is most productive for all of the stakeholders that could be affected by a decision.

so that you get the best outcome. you have to acknowledge, at the end of the day, i think that is the system. what should the size of the white house be and the white house staff? i don't have an opinion about that. i have found the most important thing is what you said, which is relationships and is it collaborative or not. because there's also perspective that you may not have. right? we think, as we run our departments, we have a relatively decent handle on what's going on in our departments, but there is a lot of other things going on in our departments that may be the president is trying to balance. mr. pearlstein: can we keep going or not? max: i think we should see there are any questions or not. so the audience, we had a microphone. questions --t have

>> i have more. [laughter] max: here he go. do you have a microphone? wanted toecretary, i follow-up on a common you said earlier about policies driven by budget. in the last several years, we no have not really seen a budget passed by congress. how does that affect policy? i don't really see budgets eating past the way they used -- being passed the way they used to. >> that was my question as well. [laughter] >> what's the impact of congressional dysfunction on the impact of your agency? sec. pritzker: huge. it's a huge challenge. in a funny way, often like shared services we are trying to implement now, to run our organization more efficiently and more effectively, get more value for the taxpayer. it's not that much money in the scheme of a multibillion-dollar budget. having a budget really matters

, because this is a change from the way we have operated before. you need approval and appropriations for that. so it is huge in terms of being able to run more effectively and efficiently and get the best value. for the taxpayer. mr. pearlstein: did you have any problem? sec. preston: it is. and every year looks different from the last year. your agency has hundreds of millions of dollars of whatever they need -- whatever. every year is different, and the opportunities are different, and if you have a static budget and in many cases, the line items are so specifically designated. it was interesting, because at the small business administration, i had a lot of latitude with my budget. when i went to hud, every penny was designated. i cannot move money at all.

the budget process starts early and goes long. by the time you get a budget, the world has changed. as a leader you don't have , flexibility to make good decisions. like i need training dollars for my people, because i've got an issue they need to learn about. sec. pritzker: you need to patch systems. i need to put in dual authentication. sometimes, it's simple stuff that you just do not -- it could be a million dollars. a million dollars is a lot of money, don't get me wrong, but in the context of the multibillion-dollar budget we are running, the ability to move $1 million should not mean you have to, like, do back flips to take care of an urgent need. mr. pearlstein: other questions? how about over there? >> i will squeeze into questions. mr. pearlstein: this one. >> ok. so i guess the concern i have in the transition process is that

we go too deep in appointing people. in some cases, we go down to the office director level, well below deputies and secretaries. and that seems, to me, to make the transition that much harder. when you go that deep in assigning people. why couldn't we limit it to assistant secretary or higher? i think that would make the transition a lot easier. sec. preston: i don't disagree with you, but i do think, if you have a policy agenda as a president, you need to go down to a certain level of leadership to effectuate that. i think there is, sort of a , reality to that. honestly, i think the bigger problem -- the other thing is, the career team keeps things going pay like, the lights stay on, right? but if you're trying to bring the agency in a different

direction, you need to make sure you have the leadership down to a particular level. i don't know if that covers all 6000, or whatever the number is. i think the bigger problem is it just takes too long for people to get through. congress has just continually used it as a lever to do other things. and that is -- the really has to be -- you have elected a president, and you need to let him or her bring in their team , and you need to let them get on with running the country. irrespective of -- it's fundamentally detrimental to the country not to have leadership in these roles. sec. pritzker: i couldn't agree more. mr. pearlstein: i saw someone back there -- anyway, right here. >> this question is for both of you, if either would like to respond. one is if you were to go back in the first six months of your tenure, how would you approach it? coming in day one, what would you do how would you spend your

, time? the second is how would you advise career civil servants the first six months of a new leader's tenure? sec. preston: all right, so i would start. for me it would be coming back -- you are already here. [laughter] sec. preston: the biggest thing i would say for the new person coming in is listen very hard and figure out what needs to happen. number one, understand what the white house's expectations are. because ultimately, your priority needs to be their priorities. number two is understand how your agency can be more effective and listen very hard to your people to do it. there is so much that we do that has nothing to do with politics and everything to do -- there are great programs out there that are not effective, because they are not run well or don't have the tools or technology or whatever. so my advice would be listen very hard to your people, pull them together in a very

organized way and develop an agenda. the 5 pillars, right? then communicate it out to your people and let them know they are part of it. one of the things that surprised me the most when i came in -- i have always been in informal business situations, and i have never been called anything but my first name. then i started walking into meetings, and people were referring to me in the third person while sitting next to me. it was a strange thing. i also realized there was a degree to which people did not address you. my entire company knows my e-mail. i get e-mails from employees every day. they are sending me unhappy e-mails, and i call them up and get them to the right place. that's how i learn. it's hard to tap into that. so what i would do is if you see an openness as a career person, figure out how to be creative in getting your recommendations to

the new leader. because that is just great stuff. it really helps. sec. pritzker: i want to build on that. you have heard me talk about the budget and strategic planning and things like that. this ability to break down this very stratified structure and formality that exists is, in a day and age where organizations need to be flatter and information needs to travel more quickly, these departments are structured in a way where you walk in, and first of all, everybody stands out. then they call you like you are -- it is like there is somebody else over there they are talking about. and they do not tell you anything. they have to go through 16 other people before the information gets to you. by the time it gets you, it's so old, it's out of date. it's crazy. so one of the challenges we

found was how to streamline all of that and how to break all that down. you don't want to break all of it down, because you need -- the organizations are too large in order to just have a completely flat organization. but you do need to break down enough of it, and as a leader, you can set that tone. you can talk about responsiveness. i do everything from, for example, we take great pride in the fact that if you bring an issue to us, we know how many days it is until we have responded on an issue, as a third-party. we know how many days it takes to get a thank you letter out. we know how many days it takes to respond to members of congress. when sort of interesting the white house calls and says, "what about that letter?" and we say, "we already responded to it." we are trying -- we think of ourselves in a service business.

being responsive is part of what we do. sometimes you need 16 other people to come together in order to respond to some very complicated questions. so it takes more time. but the stuff -- the more you can do to develop trust and greater transparency, i think, in this city, buys you more credibility and buys you more flexibility. and that's hard to earn. you have to earn it. nobody just gives it to you because you show up and gives you a title. but that becomes the most valuable thing you have, is your reliability and your dependability, i think. mr. pearlstein: moderator's prerogative for the last question. it's often said that you guys operate in a fishbowl. it is a funny thing about the fishbowl -- it's true anyone can look in.

but for the public, they don't pay attention to a lot of the things you do day to day. but there are groups -- call them special interests or constituencies -- pay incredible attention. how can you make sure your department does not get pushed around by the special interests, who make a lot of noise and can make a lot of trouble for you, to the detriment of what you consider to be the public interest? sec. pritzker: you have to be a leader. at some point, you have to stand up and say, "no, we are not going in that direction" and understand the consequences. often, you may not get to make that choice by yourself. you may have to convince others to go along. but you have to -- you can -- i have found as a secretary, as a member, as a leader of a department, i can weigh in and say look, we are trying to deal with the healt

balancing between the health of our fish population and the fact that we have no water for growing food in california. we have to figure out -- how do we solve those problems? right? and you don't make it political. you are basically saying, "look, we have a responsibility. let's look at where our responsibility is and try and balance that." or weigh in on different issues. because they are hard. mr. pearlstein: is it a challenge to keep the loud, special interests in their place? is that a big challenge of the job? sec. preston: it can be. sec. pritzker: yes, it can be. to say it is not would be naive. absolutely. these are folks -- let's assume they all have their -- they are sincere. -- often,ve to try

your balancing. when you are in the leadership position, you are trying to deal "i hear you, and if you think it is a legitimate issue," but often you are trying to deal with issues that may be semi-irreconcilable. and the other challenge, of course, is you don't want to -- you need to make sure you really understand the facts or the science or whatever is at stake, so that it's legitimate and the decision-making that goes on. our sensible. sec. preston: and that the organization needs clarity in what you are doing, why you're doing it. i agree 100%. you have to be out front of these issues. it is really very reassuring i think for the team, the broader team to see you out front. thing, however, is it

is very easy, on political issues, for the team to lineup against your the guys, they are the bad guys. you have to take that off the table. if they don't agree with you politically, it does not make them the bad guys. it means they have a different perspective of the world. you have to meet with those people and listen to them and say i not going to go down this am path and let me tell you why. and i want to keep the dialogue and if we go down this path, maybe we can modify a 20%, i can't get to a lot of the issues. there has to be an openness and a willingness to realize that you're serving, in your capacity, you are serving the whole country. you are serving all of these interests. and to some degree, there are ways you can work with almost everybody. what i found was some of the people who walked into the situations where the most charged up and are coming at you or the agency, end up being diffused a little bit and feeling dignified. there is not enough of that right now in this city.

sec. pritzker: it's an important point, which is, you have to -- as you are trying to balance various issues, depending on what the issue is, you need to treat people with respect. and understand they are coming at you with their passion and their issue and their concern , that that is legitimate. but then also help them understand the context within which you are trying to make a decision. if the decisions are easy, for the most part, they are not ending up on our desk. they get made someplace else. in many instances, there is judgment calls that have to get made. and those are hard. mr. pearlstein: thank you very much, both of you. [applause] i do not know if we called it

the special interests in managing effective government, but thank you for being great champions, and thank you for your facilitation. quick note -- in our audience, we have paul mcgann and dennis wagner, 2 winners of the service to america medals. they did a phenomenal job. [applause] 100,000 lives, billions of dollars, making hospitals safe is. we need more sammies nominations. servicetoamerica.org. nominate them. lastly, next week on the 13th, we are releasing a report on the review of the office of management and budget, again part of our transition series ,? -- part of our transition series and how we might envision the center of government operating. thank you again. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> hillary clinton her way to st. louis for tonight's debate. she departed white plains, new york a bit more than an hour ago. a look here at her motorcade as she arrived at westchester county airport.

fromss than nine hours now, hillary clinton will be here at st. louis university -- in st. louis at washington university, facing donald trump in the second presidential debate. the moderators tonight are anderson cooper and martha raddatz. our coverage begins at 7:00 p.m. eastern with it p view, followed

by the debate at 9:00 p.m. watch online at c-span.org or listen on our freeseas been radio out. several republicans continued to call on donald trump to leave the race follow his comments on women in a 2005 video made public friday. the utah senator spoke about it on "meet the press" this morning. we also heard from senator tim kaine, who was on "state of the union." >> hillary clinton is, a flawed candidate. equally flawed. so flawed i think the democratic party ought to take steps to replace her with someone else. for whatever reason, they have not. the democratic party has chosen to be the party of the personality cult. i do not think we ought to follow that path. the path i suggest would bring republicans together. bring together grassroots activists who have made donald trump so successful. who have had this very

theuasive argument that washington political establishment of both parties have failed them. and we need a new leader. a republican leader who can win, did eat hillary clinton. that is what unites us more than anything else as republicans. the fact that the washington political establishment is broken and hillary clinton needs to be defeated. we need a candidate do that. i would like to see the republican party identify such a candidate and make that change. >> well, i do not presume to give the gop advice. the gop had a nominating process and chose donald trump their candidate. it is a complicated thing. my son is in the military. he is deployed overseas. he cast his vote a week ago. there have been hundreds of thousands of votes cast in multiple states and by troops and americans living abroad. the question of who the gop nominee is was resolved by the gop in cleveland. if they regret it now, it is up

to them to determine what they would want to do about it. reportshill" newspaper two trop surrogates were set to appear on sunday talk shows before canceling. rnc chair reince priebus was supposed to be on "face the nation," and trump campaign manager kellyanne conway was scheduled for "fox news sunday." rudy giuliani appeared in their place and stead, saying it was a "question of scheduling." >> initially, when i was trying with myup -- come up documentary for studentcam, i was daunted because there were so many different elements i was trying to put into it. and a lot of information to try to communicate in seven minutes. then i took a step back and realized it is just like a visual essay. and i have been writing essays all throughout high school. it was something that became less daunting.

when i look at it from that perspective of gathering oformation, and instead writing that information, i am filming it. i would urge anyone thinking about making a piece for student cam to reach out to as many people they could, to get a lot of interviews, get as many different perspectives as they campaign because there are experts out there so much more knowledgeable about the subject than you are. and as many of those people that you can get in your piece, though more credibility your piece has. and it will not just be a high school student trying to solve this massive problem, it turns into you are can shooting useful information, compiling these different perspectives. >> this year's theme -- your message to washington, d.c. tell us what is the most urgent issue for the new president and congress to address? allcompetition is open to middle school and high school students grades six through 12,

with $100,000 awarded in cash prizes. students can work alone or in a group up to three to produce a five to seven minute documentary on the issues of selected. c-span include programming and export issues. the $100,000 in cash prizes will be awarded and shared between 150 students and 53 teachers. willrand prize of $5,000 go to the student or team with the best overall entry. this year's deadline is january 20, 2017. help spread the word to student filmmakers. for more information, go to studentcam.org. joining us here in carly cook,ow, editor and publisher of the cook political report, and stuart rothenberg, founding editor of rothenberg and gonzales political report. they are here to talk about

campaign 2016. gentlemen, thank you for joining us tonight. both of the reports have hillary if the in the lead election were held today, she would win. tell us what are the reasons behind this. what we usually do is go through past election data in each state, and what you would expect from a generic republican , and then you look at the polling data from this race, specific to each race, and there will be some aberrations. i was usually democratic, but it has been solidly cordoned this year. ohio has been a little bit more there are variations, but we have been doing this since 1984. stewart has been doing at the

same time. his business is a couple of years older than ours is. it has worked well for us. the report has hillary clinton at 272 electoral votes, donald trump with 197, but 69 electoral votes still up for grabs. it still seems pretty close. guest: not really. if you were just going to go ahead and push everything one way or the other, hillary ,linton would have about 273 and donald trump would have about 265, and that is giving trump every close states, including north carolina, where he is behind. it is giving him i will come in nevada, florida, and ohio, and that still gets him just to 265. 2.5 is like the next margin up that clinton has. host: stuart rothenberg has

hillary clinton at 279, donald trump at 191 with 68 up for grabs. very similar, but a little closer fairl for hillary clinto. is it her race to lose? guest: i should point out that although i offer my two cents or sometimes $.10 to my colleague, nathan gonzales really does the ratings. but yes, i am there where nathan is and where charlie is, but we should offer the caveat that these ratings were done before the last 48 hours where the environment has mentally shifted. i agree with charlie completely. close,look and say it is hillary clinton is just over 270, so anything can happen, and she could lose a state that she looks to be winning end, but the reality is when you look at the competitive states and how they

performed over the past two election cycles, and now you at the states, more than a dozen republican officeholders have withdrawn their endorsements, this race has blown open, and we will be over the next week or so, depending on what happens in the debate, obviously. it i guess if charlie and were to push the undecideds, i think we would push democratic right now. guest: i think the odds of hillary clinton going well over 300 electoral votes is much your to in her losing think the odds are better of her hitting 3.5, 350 than of her 350 than under -- 325, of her coming in under 270. guest: i had never thought the race was a tossup, even though in the middlethat of september.

i never thought it was a tossup. the fundamentals, you have to look at the fundamentals in this race. host: all right, we are talking to charlie cook, the editor and publisher of the cook report, as well as stuart rothenberg, the founding editor of the rothenberg and gonzales political report, about the election ahead of tonight's debate at washington university. just a reminder that you can see the debate and all of the coverage of tonight's debate on c-span beginning at 7:30 on c-span as well as c-span.org and c-span radio. you were saying that the race -- guest: we are phrasing it -- previous to this, it would seem that the race had fallen into predictable patterns. talk t a little bit about what

those are and how they have changed. guest: if you look at this race from the first of may onwards, it has most onwards been at a point where clinton was ahead somewhere between three points then whenights, and everything -- one donald trump would go off script and mess up and clinton was doing well, the togin would grow up from 5 6, 7, or eight. conversely, when donald trump stuck closely to the script, clinton makes mistakes that you have the whole follow from the trump pullsepisode, out ahead at even, but i do not really by that. -- buy that. is thehink three to five default. but i think now after the first debate and after the billy bush tapes, no, i think three, to four, five, will be more like

the floor rather than the main. guest: i disagree, of course. i look at it a little different way to what protectable patterns means. when you look at the demographic groups supporting each candidate, the protectable patterns have been holding. the single biggest producer of who is going to vote for the republican over the democrat, donald trump or hillary clinton, the parties of the individual voters. democrats vote democrat, republican vote republican. that automatically gives you an insight into how the election is going to break down. we did not have that indicator in the republican primaries, did we, because it was all republican. so you take away that indicator, and it is much harder to predict what will happen. but you have how white voters will behave versus african-americans or latinos. you have older voters, men, women here you look at it that way, and until you start seeing dramatic shifts, you have to

look at the predictable patterns that produce printable results. host: ok, we are talking to charlie cook and stuart rothenberg about the election. you can call into the conversation. (202) 748-8000 for clinton supporters. donald trump supporters can call (202) 748-8001. third-party supporters, (202) 748-8002. and undecided, (202) 748-8003. past, we have seen revelations about donald trump coming up from his comments from universe,former miss insisting that those exonerated by dna evidence are guilty, those have not moved the needle. what do you think about this weekend will move the needle this time? guest: first of all, the needle has been moved because we see a number of republican

officeholders who had endorsed to have now unand/or spirit of were not the people who supported trump. that may be true, but they had endorsed him.ow un these were not be people who supported trump. that may be true, but they had endorsed him. you get the pure, unadulterated essence of donald trump in these tapes, his language, who he is as a person, how he sees himself, how he sees others, and i think that struck home with many people. let me clarify this. on the republican side, i do not think this will cost trump a lot of the vote he already has, and republicansue said, are going to mostly stay in line if, for no other reason, that so many of them hate hillary clinton. this election is not about

donald trump to them. it is about hillary clinton, so they are locked in. poisons it does is it the well of those undecided voters, of those pure independents in the middle, and these are folks that may not like hillary clinton much at all, but at this point, they are sort of more leaning come up more likely to go ahead and vote for clinton because it has become so poisoned. trump's expect to see actual vote share drop much because his people, as you said, have been with people through thick and thin, and as he said, he could shoot somebody in fifth, and they would still support him. when you look at, even before fox last incident, the news poll that came out before the tapes did, hillary clinton

she was viewed unfavorably at 54%. trump was -15, and that is a lot politics ofhan the the major national polls. -9.5, and he is -20.6. so he was in deep trouble before these tapes came out, and this just absolutely poisons the well of undecideds. host: ok, we have an undecided voter calling in from victoria, texas. owen, you are on with charlie cook and stuart rothenberg. caller: yes, gentlemen, thank you, c-span. what i want to know about is open borders. this country is already in dire shape. there is no jobs to support people. the power grid is failing.

our road structures are failing, and the more people that you pop into this country, the more demand for water, electricity, puts, food -- you can only so many people in a phone booth, and if you overpopulate this country, and then we have a natural disaster like we had in florida, people had better wake up. host: ok, let them address that. how big of an issue, how is that resonating in the the election? guest: ok, that does not sound like an undecided voter, ok? [laughter] a lie they ought to have detector test when people call in and say whether they are trump, undecided, or clinton. here are concerns .immigration is one, jobs are one, the economy is another. there are a whole bunch of issues out there. you are looking at some really pressured voters.

when you look at republicans and conservatives and liberals and democrats come if you look at swing voters, they tend to think that hillary clinton is smart, knowledgeable, experienced, confident, and they do not like her, and they do not trust her. they look at donald trump, they like the fact that he is not a politician, he says whatever is on his mind. they may not agree with him on a couple of issues, but they question whether he has the temperament, the personality, and even the fundamental knowledge about governing that you need to have. so these voters are very cross pressured, and i think the that is piling up is more likely to take them to the negative side for trump is getting more overwhelming. is a: it sounds like owen trump voter or will be a trump voter even if he has not decided tiered i think immigration will be a big issue. the country has a history of immigration and welcoming people, and people like owen

pointed out the stress on services, and it depends on how you see the issue. host: let's talk about polls for a minute. what polls do you like? what should voters look to it determining whether a poll is trustworthy or not? well, we talk about the folly time, and it can be a controversial subject. believe, as most kind of experience old hands do, that there are certain polls that are more accurate than others. a safe income always the best thing to look at a whole range of surveys from a whole time period. there will be some outside the margin of error. the safest thing to do is to put eight, 10, 15 polls to see the general direction of the election, how is moving, and the general concourse. there are some polls getting a lot of attention these days that

seem to be outliers consistently. times"-usc polls have been outliers. some of those i am more skeptical about. guest: the dangerous for people to do one of two things -- either to cherry pick where they look for the poll that tells them what they would most like to see happen, and that is the most accurate poll in their minds, and anything differently is a flawed poll. excesser thing is to over whatever the most recent poll is no matter who took it, no matter whether they have any track record, and no matter whether it is consistent with all the other data. what i would suggest, and i will do it here for the overhead camera, look at the averages. this one is real clear, -- realclear

politics.com, which is a conservative-leaning website, and they do all the averages of the national polls and averages of the key battleground states. if you touch the little button right here, you can change to the other set and then widen it back out to the other group of battleground states. and that keeps you, but looking at the averages, it keeps you from cherry picking. it keeps you from obsessing over the most recent poll, and that is really the best way to do it. say, the veryl best pollsters in the business, their work is not as reliable as it was 20, 30 years ago, and most people think that is because of cell phones. it is not really. that is sort of a minor problem. it is really caller id. the telemarketers have burned it out so that a lot of people

simply will not pick up the phone. reliable, is not as which means you have to be more careful, and it means cherry picking is even more of a problem. so look at the averages, and then you will have gist. people not toto long after the 2012 election, a congresswoman said, "i was stunned, i had no idea mitt romney was going to lose. all the way to election day, i thought he was going to win." you wantught, "lady, to get out more, and you want to look at more than one network." in.an, really, take it all do not just listen to people you agree with. host: it is rumored that mitt romney himself also thought he was going to win. fromxt, our caller marietta, georgia, a trump supporter. the morning. you are on with charlie cook and

stuart rothenberg. caller: first of all, i am an first of all, i'm independent. i am an african american woman, 59 years old and i have a bs degree. what makes me mad, i hear people try to put black people in one category -- we are all going to lockstep with the democratic party. no. the reason i am voting for donald trump is i was something different. you cannot get some different if you keep voting the same way. statement 15his years ago -- i find it really hypocritical, especially when bill clinton had a woman have oral sex with him in the white house -- host: let's break that down a little bit. asst: her opinion is valuable as anybody else's, absolutely. but it is a bit of an outlier.

when you look at the last three nbc-wall street journal data -- 2000 voters, among african-americans, 80% are for clinton, 5% for trump. -- 80% for clinton. clinton, 5% for trump. out of 2000 interviews, only 17 african-americans were for donald trump. is the african american community monolithic? pointou know what, an 80- -- actually, clinton got 86%. 5%, it wasn' an 80-point margin. with the rhetoric going on in they maylican party,

be turning the latino community into the neck's african-american -- in other words among one with the republicans having a really big problem to having a really, really, really big problem. guest: let me make two points. first of all, and we always say what charlie and i do for living is to try to explain what is happening in politics -- not what you should do, who you should vote for, what your opinion should be. i really do not care. -- are the best person to your viewer is the best person to judge how he or she should vote and what issues. when we talk about it as handicappers, as analysts explaining what is going on, what has happened, and what we think will happen. this is important here. the second point, when i talk about printable patterns by looking at demographic groups, i do not assume that all whites, african americans, or all women vote for one party or one candidate. what we do is we take the baseline, how they voted in 2012, 2008, 2000, and see are

the groups moving around? it does not mean it is an individual voter moving around. we want to see how the groups are behaving so that we understand the party coalitions and the candidates' coalitions. latinoalk about the population. it is a fast-moving group pdc conservatives in states like florida. you see more liberals in new england and other states. guest: you see hispanics and latinos coming from different countries and cultures. generationally, there is the difference between older and younger cubans. you have all these subtleties in the groups. but you can step back and say what percentage of latinos did romney get in 2012? 27%. you compare to how george bush get? guest: 40% in the exit polls.

was 44atisticians say percent. but whether 40% or 44%, compared to 27%. guest: yes. so we look how is trump doing with the individuals in that voter group? the latinos are a growing part of the american electorate. increasingly important in several states and throughout the country. that is why we look at latinos. that is why we look at different elements of the latino electorate. 17%t: and trump is getting of the latino vote, 10 points under then what mitt romney did. 88% of all of mitt romney's votes came from whites. 90% of john mccain's votes came from whites. 88% of george w. bush's votes came from whites. that recipe does not work anymore in a country where the

share of the white vote has gone 1992 to 72% in 2012, 70%will probably be around in this next election. some people say around 60%. like the republican national committee autopsy report from 2013. they got to change. they are going to go like dinosaurs if they do not change. guest: they only need to change if they want to win an election. walter isright, calling from baltimore. third-party supporter. good morning. caller: good morning. as an independent more than third-party, when johnson open his mouth, it was like a clean version of trump. the man is an idiot. so that his or my vote is going

to clinton. to your guests, in dallas me ulge meis one fact -- ind with this one fact. the voter suppression of the nation, most people who just the idea of not being allowed to have their vote counted, i beg that to your mix as you comment on the idiocy and filth of that. i told you on c-span at year ago that donald trump is a filthy jerk -- host: let's let them unpack that. did have some very rigorous, onerous, depending on idr perspective, of voter and other restrictions put on since 2012. more restricted early voting, that sort of thing, in some

states. it looks like it can make a difference in some states. north carolina is near the top of the list. however, the federal courts have started throwing out some -- not these, which will ease them up a little. if you look back, you look at the number of voter fraud cases prosecuted during the george w. bush's eight years in office, they were miniscule. there is very little voter fraud problem in this country. sh prime minister asian aggressively sought it out and did not find much. but there are a lot of -- but the bush administration aggressively sought it out and did not find much. some legislations are sincere, but some are trying to get partisan gangs to make it more difficult for strongly

democratic voting groups to go. but the courts are starting to interfere, intervene. guest: i think i will throw a hand grenade on this one. a hugeoting -- i am not fan of early voting. i like the idea of the entire country going to vote on one day. i think there should be processes, options for people who cannot get to vote. we should make it easier for that. but people have already voted before donald trump's tape. they can consider it, they cannot consider it, that is their choice. but i like the idea of the whole country taking a deep breath and going and voting on whatever day it is. guest: i wrote a column about this eight or nine years ago. there is a certain norman walk well -- norman rockwell thing about going up to a school and

voting. old high school friend who moved to oregon write me a letter, who said picture this. you are sitting with your spouse at the kitchen table, and you have all of the voter guides are systematically going through the whole ballot. and some of these states have lots of ballot initiatives and things. and you are really able to make a more studied decision. old-fashioned. i like the norman rockwell thing. but the whole world is changing. we have to sort of go along with it. but it does reduce the volatility in the races, so latebreaking events matter less when a third of voters are voting early. as you said, you wrote as a twice-weekly columnist -- guest: i switched a long time

ago to national journal from rollcall. host: thank you for that. your resumes are both long. , columnist aterg the "washington post" as well. from we have tim greenwood, colorado, clinton supporter. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am kind of a political junkie. the first two sides i open in the biging is 538 for picture, then c-span for the individual view. my question is based on demographics and future demographics. i am over 50. i look at my generation. every time i hear callers who will call in and defend trump's positions on race or even his billy bush tapes, these are people who come from the " father knows best" generation.

people like kimberly and her generation, they do not buy into this. i am wondering if you can speak to what is going to happen over the next 20 years as my generation gets scraped off their earth, and it is her generation and kids voting. how will that impact the vote? guest: let me add that can really -- kimberly is scrupulously nonpartisan and independent. goodhe caller makes a point. when you look at younger generations, again, they are very different from those of us 1950'sw up, born in the and 1960's, or 1940's or even 1970's. looking again at the nbc-"wall street journal numbers, among 24, that -- 18 to 34, that trump is behind.

republicans are loaded up 65 and older. and trump performs a little better than the typical or as republicanhe typical among the younger group. but under 50, he has some support, but it is not a lot. hillary clinton also have an issue getting millennials? guest: she is having some trouble. they view her as a traditional politician, using politician language. they seem to want more dramatic change. there is no question about that. but walter is right about how you have to look at the age cohorts and groups. but you have to member as they age, sometimes their views change. theyu have to remember, as age, sometimes their views

change. when i was in my 40's, older democratics entered as new dealists and kept that through. voters are more republican, because they entered at a different point in time. many people who enter as a 65-year-old republicans, they started out more liberal. generations change. the basic point is younger voters generally tend to be more progressive and liberal. that is a long-term problem for republicans. they will have to change voting patterns for some groups. isst: if you think about who the dominant political person for a generation. for people who grew up immediately and during the great depression, it was franklin roosevelt. for the group 65 and older now, it is ronald reagan.

and the voting patterns reflect that. nowadays, it is not so much ronald reagan. you have millennial voters who were not even alive when ronald reagan was president. host: ok, we have a call from tulsa, a donald trump supporter. supporters, we trump really do not want the united states to go the way of venezuela. to the issues. discussion of trump wins -- i know a lot of people elected doubletalk the issue, like the caller who called in as an independent, talking about illegal immigration and the concern of , who docked it and call him a trump supporter. that is a tactic people continue to use. do not talk about the issues -- global warming, for example, is

a disaster. big government takeover of energy industry and run the costs. no discussion on the issues. that is why the media is keeping people ignorant in order for them to vote democrat -- host: let's let charlie and stuart unpack that. thet: when you look at data, you actually use numbers -- i hear this from liberals and conservatives. they all complain that our person would win on the issues, it is the other extraneous things changing. i would tell coleman it is his to and donald trump's job convince people he is right on the issues. and talk to people in a way in which they will hear him. and use that information to decide how to cast their votes.

to blame that on the media, that we want to keep people ignorant, there is a wealth of information out there. not just different tv channels, ,nternet websites, books magazines -- there is enough information for people to decide for themselves. so i guess i do not have a lot of sympathy in this regard. i do not think it is the media's fault. i think hillary clinton just thes would say same as you, why can we not get back to the issues? but it is an extraneous thing. guest: i would add a depends on the issue. this is the fox news poll taken just before the first presidential debate. -- sorry, after the first presidential debate but before the bush thing. , whorms of race relations

would you trust more to do a better job? 35.ton, 58, trump foreign policy, clinton, 56, trump, 39. immigration, lynton, 51. trump 45. nominating the next supreme court justice -- clinton, 58, trump 44. now terrorism and national security. trump 48., handling the economy. trump 50., managing tax dollars, clinton, 44, trump 49. this terrorist groups like isis. clinton, 41, trump, 52. whichends -- it depends issue you are looking at. this is the fox news poll. it is not likely it is slanted

against a conservative candidate or donald trump. toterms of the ability handle a crisis situation, clinton, 54% have confidence in her. she is plus nine. in the same fox poll. trump, 45% would have trust or confidence in trump's judgment in a crisis. 45% would not. -- 45%. 55 would not. he is at -10. it depends on which angle you are looking at. guest: let me add it is not simply what is your position on issues and the other person's position. a lot of people vote in who they have confidence in in terms of leadership and the ability to communicate with the country. -- judgment.es it is not about issues. it is about understanding problems and making the right decision, whatever issues come up.

about style and substance, there are still 30 days left in the election. if donald trump wins, how might that change the way campaigns are run from here on in? adst: when you watch the tv of automobiles racing around mountain sides and stuff, saying this is done on a closed track by a professional driver, i would tell would be candidates is do not try this at home. donald trump was born and raised in the media capital of the world. while he has never run for office before, he is clearly a lifelong student of the media and has learned -- and i do not say this in a pejorative way -- manipulate the media to his benefit. but we have never seen a politician able to do this. maybe there are other people in the future he will again out how to do it. i say the average, typical

person running for office, i would not try to replicate this. your odds of pulling it off are a lot less. guest: we are also at a particular time and place. the electorate has a particular mood, which may continue indefinitely or may change, where voters are looking for a more traditional campaign. the joke around political circles is if donald trump wins, every specialist and ground game field operation will be put out of business, because he did not have a field operation in the primaries and nomination fight and is only now trying to put something together. host: melvyn's calling from fort lauderdale, florida, clinton supporter. good morning. caller: good morning. i have not heard donald trump explained not one thing about any policy he has put out yet. he tells you he talks about the polls he is up in. he will never give you an in-depth way of how he is going

to enforce any of the things he is talking about. one thing you need to do is have someone explain the differences in the borders. there are only two or three countries where the borders are completely closed the at most are controlled. -- where the borders are completely closed. most are controlled. when the lady indicated hillary clinton is against trade, no. she's four. and now donald trump talking that he is a genius -- i have whereheard of a genius -- was that genius from 1998 with the bankruptcies in 2009? no genius does the same thing and fails three times in the same area. unpack.at is a lot to let's let charlie cook and stu rothenberg take a crack.

guest: melvin has a favorite in the race. of reasons, i think he made that clear. that is a legitimate point of view, just as, to some extent, coleman's was to they like one candidate but not the other. guest: you do have to segment the trump vote into two groups. one group just really likes and admires donald trump. a second group that despises hillary clinton. and they are willing to look past trump's problems and any shortcomings he may have, just as hillary clinton has shortcomings. they are willing to look past that because the pivot point is hillary clinton. they will be there, no matter what. i do not think donald trump's away in any way, but his ability to tap into the voters between the 45 yard line, that are undecided and generally do not like hillary clinton, his

ability restricted in terms of reaching those people. host: let's shift to the senate races. the senate is possibly up for grabs this election year. how is the presidential race in general affecting the senate race in some of the close polls where? guest: i think the dominant forces in this race are unrelated to the presidential. whenever i tell people that they want to look at the senate races nationally, i suggest they do two things. "is this ak presidential election or midterm election?" presidential elections, the turnout is a and broad. elections, the turnout is about 40% lower and it tends to be more white and older and republican. and you have to look what

happened six years earlier. in 2010, president obama's votes were in the toilet. the affordable care act was radioactive. democrats had an awful year. republicans were able to pick up six seats. have 24ult, republicans seats up in 2016. democrats only have 10. seven republican seats are up in states where obama carried. there are no democratic seats open in states mitt romney carries. so republicans just have more exposure here. it has nothing to do with donald trump and hillary clinton. no matter what is going on, they would have problems. i think the senate will be a photo finish. a-50, give or take, as seat - seat. guest: up until a couple days ago, i thought the impact was minimal, because -- and i still , which itl disproven may be disproven in the next senate that republican

candidates, mostly senate incumbents, have been able to run as their own candidate, focus on their opponent. and not have their races be a referendum on donald trump. part of this is donald trump is presidentialtical candidate. i think voters have been making this distinction. donald trump but there's kelly ayotte. there is donald trump, but there is pat toomey. the danger for republicans is donald trump does so poorly that, as we approach the election, it looks like he will lose and lose badly. there will be a greater risk of republican voters saying "i will not even bother to vote, i will stay home." an efforts are making to avoid that logic and energize the republican voters and people yooteupport toomey and a and richard burr and the like.

we will see how that -- toomey a nd ayotte and richard burr and the like. we will see how that goes. look like a 10 point or 12 point race, which huge in the current political environment, that would be problem -- that would be a problem for the republicans. guest: for republicans, the danger is turnout drops. what i think they will do is and foreir argument on the swing voters who do not particularly like hillary clinton but will probably end up voting for her is make the case do not give hillary clinton a blank check. because you have a lot of voters who will reluctantly vote for clinton, but they do not really like or trust her. i think this argument, do not give clinton a blank check, could help pat toomey in pennsylvania or richard burr or

kelly ayotte a new hampshire. that could be pivotal. host: taking a look at the koch report on the senate -- on the cook report on senate races. it has seven races that are tossups. , thet rothenberg rothenberg and gonzales report has three tossups. they are new hampshire, nevada, and pennsylvania. but the new hampshire race in particular has been one republicans have been watching. let's look at a political ad from democrat governor maggie hassan, who is challenging republican kelly ayotte in that race, trying to tie kelly ayotte to donald trump. [video clip] >> would you tell a child to aspire to be like donald trump? widepoint to him as a role model? >> absolutely. >> she gained a massive amount of weight. and there was no problem.

>> donald trump call you "miss piggy." how did that make you feel? >> so sad. >> here is a woman, and she cannot make it 15 feet to her car. you can see there, he suffers from a chronic condition that impairs movement of his arms. >> i do not know what i said, i do not remember. i look right in the sad, ugly face of hers. blood coming out of her wherever. >> would you point to donald trump as a role model? >> absolutely, i would do that. senator ayotte, immediately after the debate, said she misspoke, and donald trump was not a role model. yesterday she went even further, not vote for him after the revelation of the tape

with billy bush. how impactful do you think that ad will be? a race somewhere between that even and kelly ayotte up by three or four points. it was close. of an had a little bit advantage. my guess is it pulls it back to dead even. year, ajust a horrible year republicans are having to perform all kinds of gymnastics. they're getting cool between the trump supporters and swing voters. -- they are getting pooled -- pulled between the trump supporters and swing voters. guest: the presidential race has been from being competitive to opening up for five points. the republican senate and house ,andidates have moved around thinking donald trump is stronger than they thought he would be. so they were willing to say they would vote for him.

but then he says something bad, and the vote changes. this is a problem. the ad you shows are what democrats around the country are trying to do. nationalize the race. saying that the election is a referendum on donald trump. kelly ayotte would love to have her comment back right now. she would love to have that back, because it was a mistake. calling inve richard from massachusetts, an undecided voter. you are on with charlie cook and stuart rothenberg. i am 72.irst of all, i have never voted in my life. know whattes, they they will be asked. they call each other names and then shake hands. my number one thing is this but ament is nothing camouflaged dictatorship. if they doe nothing

not want you to say it. i do not know how may times i called my congresspeople to andn, kennedy, now warren, they just laugh at me. i have three letters sitting at my table, all from warren. it is the same old stuff. they do not listen to year. that is why i do not vote. they never listen to you. host: let's let them respond. guest: i have been on c-span as long as there has been a c-span. have both been here. i have never said anything ugly to a caller. but if you think this country is a dictatorship and your 73 and have never voted, i have absolutely no before you whatsoever. you watched c-span, you write your member of congress and you do not vote?

good grief. host: next, alan is calling from washington, d.c., third-party voter. appreciate your work. i am in st. louis now. i have been in philadelphia and cleveland and hofstra and longwood. a good feel on the ground and looking at polls. i can tell you that i really think a very large percentage of bernie sanders supporters are going to vote for the green party. yet i am not seeing any ink that reflects this in the polls. to me, it is mystifying. i was hoping you could comment on that. and if i could get a plug for student loans.org. guest: you know, jill stein getting, what, 3%, more or less, which is roughly 10 times the

third of 1% she got in 2012. i think there are a lot of people who do not like hillary clinton, do not like donald trump, they are tempted to vote for a gary johnson or jill stein. at the same time, they know the election is important, they know the outcome is important, and that is a throw away vote. it is basically saying i do not want to have to choose between hillary clinton and donald trump, so i will throw my vote to someone who has no possible chance of winning. most people do not do that. some do. host: but is it a throwaway? say a vote fors gary johnson is essentially a vote for donald trump. gary johnson and jill stein, neither will be elected president. in a sense, you are choosing not to choose between the two people who could possibly win. is that throwing it away? it is a statement.

they are making a statement they do not like the major party candidates. that is fine. but it really does not make them in the choice between trump and clinton, which will decide the next president. saw an adile ago, we from new hampshire, democratic governor maggie hassan. let's look at an ad from republican senator kelly ayotte. [video clip] trump and hillary clinton are far from perfect. i am not perfect either. but when partisan politicians shut down the government, i led the fight to free open it. i worked to find solutions to new hampshire's opioid epidemic. i have been called a problem solver and ranked as one of the most bipartisan senators. i am kelly ayotte. i approve this message, because whether i'm working with republicans, democrats, or

independence, i am standing up for new hampshire. host: does that message of bipartisanship carry anymore? -- shein new hampshire is trying to separate herself from trump, yet not get in bed clinton. that was a good ad. both the as we watched were good. guest: right in the beginning with donald trump as a nominee, she had to carve out her own personal profile. to do that, you talk about how bipartisan you are, how independent you are. you know areas where you disagree with your own party or your own party nominee. new hampshire has a good chunk of independent voters. i do not think she is trying to get hard-core democrats, but i do not think that is the purpose of the act. democratsndence, soft host: gary is calling from san

francisco, 12 supported. can one. -- 12 supported. good morning. caller: good morning. i have one comment for mr. rothenberg. he mentioned all the information is out there and you can get it. with a completely of solve the media of giving voters correct information so they can make the right choices? we pay for our televisions and we watch spectacle replace policies. to mr. cook, air answer to the gentleman in his 70's was terribly disrespectful and i think is a symptom of how we have been pushed into an ideological absolutism, rather than listen to people just to say he is wrong. it speaks for itself. host: we will let you both respond. guest: i would say somebody that

complains literally about government that does not vote, no, i don't have respect for them. media, a longat time ago, media meant abc, cbs, news -- news, that was media. today, it encompasses everything msnbc, frees to republic.com, conservative websites to the far left, social media, so if anybody says they are not getting anything out of my guess, the media, is they ought to get the computer and sign up for cable because it is coming in like a fire hose. the question is, are you getting a reasonable sample of all of it or are you getting it from one place? guest: i think there are legitimate questions in the media.

the role of the moderator during debates. one school of thought is that the moderator should correct error and point out misstatements. other one said, it is up to the other side. kind of like lawyers and a trial in defense and prosecution. it is up to them to make their cases and judges are supposed to make should that the rules are fair for them to make the cases, so there are issues there. i have plenty of problems with the media these days and how they report on polling. there are certain shows everybody watches. they spend the rest of their day and that is the truth and ignoring everything else. would behe media putting six people in a box and -- squawk about the candidates is not enlightening, but charlie is right, if you want to learn about the candidates, not a good to the campaign websites, the party website and you do learning. i do not think that is the problem to require a voter to

pay attention and make effort in this. i think the information is there. that i wasll say talking to the dean of one of the best journalism schools in america and i was complaining of they about the role traditional old-fashioned .ournalism this year i think it is the worst i have ever seen, and we are at the friends and and even taking some of the most respected newspapers in the country giving trump a pass for a long time while the -- i networks and c-span exempt c-span because you have always run speeches and rallies and things, but other networks handing over the airwaves to and you have seen some of the most respected newspapers in the country reaching over and editorializing in their news columns, front

page news columns, breaking every standard ever taught in journalism. i think that this has been the most horrible year, but it is like watching a basketball game that has been badly rep. reed:, or the make a bunch of bad calls and they try to make make up calls in the end. when you say, once you play it i'm not defending journalism because i think this year has been produced horrible for journalism. anybody who says if permission is not out there, they are not looking. host: you said information is coming in like a fire hose, what about polling? when i look at real clear politics on any given day, i realize that is the polling the came out the day before. every day there seems to be too much. is there too much polling? guest: there is a lot of bad polling out there. could thist afternoon get a domain name for some research and make up some

numbers out of the clear blue sky, make a nice-looking website and pump it out there and it would be complete made up stuff, and some people would publish it , run with it, embrace it, and there are no entry barriers for people to claim their polling, and some as high-quality and some of it is garbage. kind of have to know something and he a research to find out which ones are worth watching and which ones ought to be worth ignoring. guest: remember, there are polls that are not public polls. there are real professionals to our getting paid to get the numbers right rather than some institute established by some college or university seeking to boost name recognition, therefore, get more applications. be average ore to

know the difference in the polls and evaluate them differently. guest: anti-privately with the people that they talk about and we have both known lots of pollsters who have been in the business for 30 odd years and we have known them the whole time. you seeing? and they are doing maybe some national polling and doing it in 5, 10, 15, 25 states with each individual week and will privately say, well, i am starting to get nervous about x, y, z. that is how we are able to do our job, is to be able to talk to these folks off the record and find out and get the benefit of what they are seeing. that will usually give us their actual numbers that sort of impressions and there are people who have dealt with for 20 years and they will not mislead you. guest: let me say one other thing.

the ones that i look at all the abc, cnn polls, nbc, and fox -- guest: and pew. guest: i were stated more surveys now that i look at gallup and quinnipiac. you have emerson college, which is only land lines, and they manipulate the data because they don't use cell phones. you have the l.a. times stuff, which is a paddle survey -- guest: experimental. guest: you have to use some judgment i think. that is the only problem i have with averaging everything. you have to average everything or can you pull out two polls at the polls that are constant outliers and then average them out? guest: pollster.com is somewhat more inclusive than real clear

politics, but i wish they would be a little bit more discriminating in which polls they cover, absolutely. ose is calling from ohio, trump supporter. good morning. caller: our country is in a sad situation. all these politicians through decades two decades have not been 100% honest with the american people. you have got hillary on one hand that lies to the american people . all she cares about is the boat. vote.the all the time she has been in office, we need change and that is why i am supporting donald trump. yes, he has done some scandals, too, but that was before he became a politician. you have got to look at both sides. do we want change? rapdo we want the same old c

from year-to-year? host: let's let them address your question. guest: i talk to someone when you're ago or so it was starting to pick it up and i was expressing some chagrin that republicans were not -- you are having republicans with stellar qualifications that were not doing so well, but i was expressing some chagrin. the person i was talking to said -- talking about trump and carson -- how can they do any worse than what we have had? thinking, we are talking about the president of the united states, so we could get blown up, that would be worse our where we are in the cap economy. it is not as good or as in good shape as i would have liked in

2015 or today, and there are a lot of things i would take the differently than president obama and i think our economy could be in better shape. having said that, then or now would i have traded places of our economy with the united kingdom? germany? france? china? no. question? no. brazil? no. our country and economy is less worse than any other major country, so could things get worse? yes, they could get worse, and that is as someone who is not been a big fan of president obama. guest: i would say that rose's view that the majority of the country needs a change, if you look at the country headed in the right direction, about two thirds of americans, between 30% generally say the right direction. the desire for change is strong got there. it is fueled and continues to feel the term campaign. host: how do you compare that

with president obama being at a high approval rating? guest: his ratings are up in comparison to the other two candidates. there is aeat, but good point in the follow-up question to the change -- what kind of change? who is bringing the change? so that the republicans have dominated a different candidate who is more traditional and had more therience and talked more way politicians talk, that is using language that demonstrates a maturity and caution and seriousness, -- guest: i think they could change -- guest: that could have taken advantage of the change. ab bush could the man as candidate for change, marco rubio, serbia had a candidate like that, this whole thing that it expresses, a republican would be much better shape. guest: change is a big thing and

donald trump is for change. a lot of it is different change. what kind of change? of president obama has job approval ratings right now of 52% and 55%. just because someone says they or for change doesn't mean necessarily say what specific changes they would like. at that point, things get a lot of disagreement. host: we have myra from new york, a clinton supporter. good morning. caller: good morning to all of the of. i was just wondering, is guys talk a lot so much, talked forever, but i am a clinton supporter and i am always wondering why people see trump as a change. as a businessman, he taps himself as a businessman and

successful one. don't people investigate what he did to atlantic city? the fact that he used chinese steel seven american steel? another thing i would say, how do you get about -- go about getting honest information? guest: i would respond that people have a tendency to see what they want to see. the pick and choose the sum the information out there and they take information that is more comfortable and avoid cognitive dissonance, when they hold one view of evidence as contrary. that is really the answer to the question. there is a lot of information out there and it is how you evaluate it and how you evaluated in terms of your on view. i think that is part of the problem we have. that is the human condition. part of having opinions.

viewers would just urge , besides watching c-span, we get diversity points of view, identifier separate sources so that you can listen to some things you agree with, but also spend a few hours a week watching or listening to a network, a channel of people that you probably disagree with , and my beinglf honest? generally speaking, on both ends of the spectrum, you have very bright people who are cherry picking arguments to reinforce youpoint of view, and if are not getting an alternative point of view, and you are not get that on anyone cable network , you are justpan reinforcing preconceived notions

and falling into an ideological rut. we have ideological silos in this country, where people are getting -- or conservative people get more and more conservative and liberal people more liberal because of the lack of a balanced media diet. host: let's talk about tonight's debate. the last debate was one of the highest watched in some time, probably up until tonight's debate. conceit super bowl numbers. what you expect tonight from the candidates and how much might that move the needle? a pretty good idea what hillary clinton will show up. sure ofolutely not which donald trump will show up. that if athink measured, disciplined, practiced , focus donald trump had shown up in the first debate, i think you would be a lot better off today. but i do not think he has the

focus to stay on task for 90 minutes and not go off the rails negativeorce all the preconceived notions people have. referendum ona hillary clinton up or down, she would lose. donald trump is not allowing this to become a referendum on hillary clinton. guest: i try not to have too many preconceived notions because then you get into evaluating the debate and how it performs and how they perform versus how you expected, and i take it as, how they are and let's evaluate that. i think the big question, as charlie points out, is donald trump going to be super angry and aggressive? try to engage and take the fight against the media and begins to a clinton? or will the start by being apologetic, sincere? or try to be sincere. that statement the other night

was not much of an effort to show sincerity, i thought. guest: it looks like a hostage video. guest: [laughter] is he going to do that? i do not know. it depends on which trump shows up. i agree that clinton does these all the time, during the campaign, and she will be poised and suitably empathetic with the questionnaires. is can't from panama city, florida. david is undecided. i would like to say to all those rockstar chasers, including monica lewinsky, bill areton and donald trump owed an apology for denying their true intentions and character. that is it. host: a response to that question mark guest: i'm not sure -- response that? guest: i'm not sure i

understand. host: robert is calling from illinois, donald trump supported. good morning. caller: good morning. i voted for hillary in 2008. this time around, i am voting for trump. i hope all of the independent voters in the swing states that the votes for mr. trump, but my question to both of your guests this morning is i do jump around and watch different medias and i have never seen the media cash mr. trump has to run against hillary, republicans, the media. the media is here and they notice how rabid the media has become. like [indiscernible] -- host: go ahead. with: i do not disagree the caller. for the last three weeks of four weeks, i have seen an overview

-- an overly aggressive and decidedly anti-trump town, and we have crept into the news pages of some of the best newspapers in america, for example. whereis is after a time other cable networks a sickly handed their airwaves over to trump. i mean, networks that had amersham complete speeches before. c-span, you have always done this, but having trump exclusively and then reluctantly other candidates, and then in the early debates and the debates during the republican feet not holding trump's to the fire because they do not want to alienate him because whenever he came on the air, even on the phone, their ratings so they did not aggressively go after him for the longest time.

now, they're taking a lead pipe and beating the hell out of the guy and i'm afraid they are lowering journalistic standards that in the weight long after donald trump, when we are all gone, that the nature of that claims a certain rules may have gone to the wayside in 2016 because they chose not to be as aggressive as they should have been at the front end of the race. guest: i agree completely with robert. the community of journalist is much more outspoken. i think what has happened is, i agree with charlie, many journalists are offended by donald trump, angered by donald trump. it is one thing if it is mitt romney versus barack obama and most journalists show that over the year, not a surprise, most tend to be more democratic and liberal, but they have been able to be detached. i'm not talking about talking

heads, their point of you folks that expect george will to take a point of view, but i am talking about journalists. i think they are offended by donald trump's lack of knowledge , showing a desire to study, to learn, they believe that. you may disagree, but that is their view, and i think they have been more outspoken. it worries me a little bit -- but also look at newspapers. republican newspapers have never endorsed a democrat and now endorsing hillary clinton or endorsing a libertarian, so i think robert is correct on this. i share charley's nervousness on whether this is a fundamental shift or you do not see this kind of visceral hostility with john mccain or mitt romney or even the bush -- it is a mocking

of george w. bush been at the like this. from providence, rhode island, clinton supporter. good morning, thomas. caller: good morning. i just wanted to ask the question about why don't the media or the television or the cable or whatever, why don't they just let donald trump say what he wanted to say without people interrupting him or trying to make him to say? let him show his true colors. you do not need all these other people telling him what to say, how to say it. let him be himself and let everyone see for him -- for themselves what we are dealing with. host: one to address that? guest: i don't know. i think they have given donald trump some pretty long periods ,f time, 30 minutes a shot uninterrupted, standing in front of a group and saying what they wanted to say.

i have a lot of criticism of coverage this year, but not letting donald trump say what he wants to say, that is not something i have seen. guest: i think they have given him that freedom to say that and this will cover entire speeches. i even hesitate to say that, but there is a small cable network funded by conservatives, even more conservative than fox, ,alled one american news, oan and that donald trump wants to speak, i turned them on because i know there will be covering him and they just put the camera on him. on, let's putarly him on there, he is so ridiculous and people will see right through it. i remember watching many months ago, and they would be interviewing trump and it would ask the questions and they would get the response and they would go, ok. now, when you look when they interview a trump person, he

pushes back and is one of the most aggressive questioners and one of the better questioners. i think they tried that, hey, it is ridiculous, let him talk, and then they concluded he won the nomination doing that, now they had to have a different role to challenge. host: supporter from springfield, virginia, good morning, carry. caller: going to joel stein, of the green party, the strongest candidate i think. met many times. i admire your work. about the talks people, the planet and peace, giving 41 million students student debt, every dollar like the g.i. bill that create seven dollars -- dollars for the economy and dr. stein talks about green jobs, rail jobs, 50 million new american jobs.

host: do you have a question at the end of that? caller: i do. we have seen dr. stein pulling as high as 7%, but often times in the polls, dr. joel stein, that includes dr. joel stein of the green party, and we see maybe 9% and sometimes even more where there is nothing there. what is going on with that one final point -- tonight, the debate. democracy now and dr. joel stein is in that debate. thank you. guest: i have not seen -- i am looking right now -- i have not seen a single pole. right now, i am looking at all the national polls. i am looking for one that shows stein, here is 4%. here is a bloomberg. i'm looking at 1, 2, occasionally for --

weight, a five in early september. there was an economist with five. no, no. i do not see a six or seven going back to may. wait, there was a six. host: [laughter] guest: nbc wall street journal in mid-june had a six, but no. it is ones, twos and threes. host: those all have margins that very. guest: she is averaging right now 2.3. guest: remember, she received about .3 of 1% when she ran for years ago. of a baseline. she is doing much better and she is getting 1% or 3%. significant improvement, but let's not for trade this as a credible candidate to win. she may be credible candidate in terms of experience, language,

knowledge of issues, that is fine, but as [indiscernible] she's way out of margin. ask the is calling and top supporter. good morning. caller: two of my greatest guests. i am so happy i got in, i am tickled. charlie, there is not a democrat in congress or senate that does not know that hillary clinton is 30. there is not a republican in the senate of congress that doesn't know hillary clinton is dirty. the difference between the two for the democrats, she is their dirty candidate. the trouble with republicans is they don't have enough brains, sense, background or guts to islize that their candidate him and they should back in. the key is to win. the difference with the difference with republicans are -- and i am a conservative, i

used to be a democrat news ago -- the difference is trump has brought up subjects that the american population out here, republicans, democrats, many, have been waiting for somebody to talk about. host: we're almost out of time. i want to give them a chance to respond to you. i think that it is absolutely true that trump is tapping into anger, alienation, that a lot of people feel strongly help. actually, it was interesting. when hillary clinton maker now famous deplorable statement, it was half of trump supporters are from this. this was a basket full of i do not think that is an appropriate thing for y at all, but the second have got left outcome and that was the other half, people

who are struggling economically, lost faith in the system, and basically the second half of that statement i think was a recognition, and she said, and we have to understand these people. i think that was absolutely dead on. unfortunately, overshadowed by all the deplorables, but i think they need to listen. this is around the world, and whether it is what is going on europe, columbia, the philippines, that there is a populist insurrection going on out there and elites in the establishment need to listen and need to kind of figure out what to do and read this is coming from and understand and address it. host: 30 seconds left. we enjoy hearing from you as much as you enjoy us. trump's issues, yes, they are resonating, but the downside is the crudeness, vulgarity, the kind of lack of discipline, and that is what is holding donald

trump back. host: charlie cook, stuart rothenberg, two top political analysts, thank you so "> c-span's "washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up on the morning, we are getting your reaction to the second presidential debate. join the conversation with your phone calls, comments and tweets. be sure to watch "washington journal" live at 7 a.m. eastern on monday morning. >> "first lady's" is the name of the book. producer here at c-span is mark farkas. what is this? ofit is a book that grew out

our show on c-span. it has taken every single program where we've had some of the greatest shows with the biographies of first ladies and put them into a narrative form. every first lady has a chapter in which you learn about their biography, which includes their time as first lady. some of them had great influence, some of them had less of an influence. recordst hard to find on the first ladies? >> some of them, it's easy. abigail adams, a have thousands of letters from her and john adams where she is lobbying him to remember the ladies and lobbying him on issues of slavery. martha washington burns all of her papers. there are only two that exist. you go from one extreme to the other. farther along you make it in time, you see the adaptation of technology and the role of first lady begins as well.

past. runningr first ladies for president? >> the chapter on hillary clinton, for anyone he wants to know how she approaches campaigning, how she approaches politics, read that chapter. you know right away that she's most famous woman in the world. she is on the campaign trail in 92 and things are getting rough for the clintons and it shows how hillary reacted. ratheri think she would not have happened, but she goes on the attack. jazzy firstery lady. even back in 1992. >> what did you learn in the series and working on the book? >> my favorite stories are the ones where i knew nothing about these first lady's. lucy hayes was known as lemonade iny for prohibiting alcohol

the white house. she was in some ways ahead of her time. pushing causes. someone like grace coolidge -- you have the silent calvin coolidge and grace coolidge is the opposite. about the modern first ladies, lady bird johnson is someone all first ladies sort of go back to her as a role model because she's one of the first who really takes on causes. eleanor roosevelt does but there's a break and lady bird takes on this cause that people think of as beautification. role.eally do play a involvement of richard norton smith? >> a great friend of ours. he's a guest on the martha washington program and he makes a really good point.

some first ladies, when you think about it, probably had as inh if not more influence the way we lived our lives. look at betty ford. she's ahead of the curve as first lady. she's not saying things gerald ford wants to hear but you think about her causes after a time in substancehouse -- abuse -- she has had an effect on a lot of peoples lives, maybe more than some of the presidents. >> here is the book. on the lives of 45 iconic american women -- first ladies come in out available your favorite bookseller and online. >> the second presidential debate is tonight at washington university in st. louis, missouri. watch our live coverage for a preview of the debate and then the predebate briefing for the audience. at 9:00, live coverage followed by viewer reaction.

the second presidential debate -- watch live on c-span or , phonend using a desktop or tablet at c-span.org. listen to live coverage on your phone with the free c-span radio app. >> we are back live on the campus of washington university in st. louis, missouri, the gary and summers recreation center, the site of tonight bait. -- tonight's debate. they will hold the presidential debate tonight. this holding is the site of the 1904 olympics. we are looking at the media filing center. with take a walk through right now. walk through a right now.

>> we are walking through washington university in st. louis, missouri. we are in the so-called spin room, where you will see tonight as part of our coverage some of the surrogates for the candidates and perhaps even a candidate themselves out speaking with reporters. all the preparations getting underway for tonight's debate and our live coverage getting underway with our preview program tonight here on c-span.

you can always watch on our website or listen on the free c-span radio app.