but donald trump went out of his way to build a relationship with evangelicals. he is a bracing what has done in the past. everybody has past, but we have problems of the future as well. he did something that is very unique. as i mentioned, the three issues, picking april let conservative running mate who had credibility, did not fight conservatives on the platform, and then released a list of pro-life justice names. but he did something else. once he captured the nomination, he did not say, i checked the box and then moving on, he continued through the course of his campaign to communicate with, go to events of, and build upon the relationship with social conservatives. and i use evangelical, that is probably a proper term. restroom is social conservatives

-- the best term is social conservatives because catholics are included as well. this is an ongoing process, is any relationship is. w starte with a high level of confidence and trust. as penny said, these voters are engaged. i don't believe they are going to be going away anytime soon. they know there is too much at stake. >> you mentioned some of the conflict in the past with trump. how constructively do you expect the club for growth to be working with them? josh from business week. >> thank you josh for the question. you were asked how closely groups like club for growth have disagreed with disagreed with trump in the past will work with him. the answer is we will work hard to pass this progrowth agenda, tax and regulatory relief,

eliminating obamacare and replacing it with free market health care. weon issues like trade will offer of suggestions, but if it strays into areas of imposing a tariff that will hurt the economy. we will be the first to speak of and say that is the wrong way to go. i this you would characterize us, we will be an energetic army to pass the progrowth agenda that donald trump ran on, and will stick to that agenda if things go astray. >> do you still want congress to pass the transpacific partnership? >> i think the transpacific partnership is a good trade agreement, and it would be great if they pass it. let's be realistic. both candidates say they oppose it, and large numbers of free traders in congress saying they can't support it, i think it is a dead issue.

trump said he would do a lateral trade agreements. 11 countries, so negotiate 11 trade deals with those countries. i don't think it has been a secret that donald trump has been on a warpath with paul ryan, speaker of the house. i want to ask, what would you like to see in terms of that relationship? would you like to see donald trump give more support to paul think that paul ryan worldview is incompatible with the population and nationalism that donald trump has been pursuing? >> anybody else want to weigh in? there is no circuit conservatives have had a difficult relationship not only with congressman paul ryan at speaker, but with the republican leadership. you could cut it with a knife

the anger that conservatives have at the grassroots level with the republican leadership. of all of the things they are unhappy with, above everything as the their silence president abused his power. in december 2014 after the conservatives give a president during, they negotiated the budget and obama was able to go on television and say, i got everything i wanted. that is what is driving the grassroots up the wall. i don't think we are going to see that going forward. i think the republican leadership has hopefully the message. there is a new sheriff in town, and we expect a conservative agenda to be implement it. that is what the people voted for.

>> i apologize. my throat has not recovered from the world series. to answer the first step is slowing down the leadership elections. there is no reason to come back next week. let's take our time and digest. you have one shot in this upcoming congress to start off the first 100 days by nick sure everyone is on the same page, everyone is fighting for the same agenda. the worst thing you can do is russian leadership elections and start the relationship in an acrimonious manner. -- is rush the leadership elections and start the relationship in an erroneous manner. >> if donald trump lost, the populist movement he brought to the four would have demanded the resignation of the entire leadership of the house and senate. if that was not forthcoming, there would have been an open civil war in the republican party. our next leader would turn that

movement into a party and so on. that is how serious the situation is, and the underlying tension in the republican party. i think the onus is on the house and senate leadership. we have heard since 2010, and most of our adult lives, if only we had this or that branch, will we have this and that branch, but not this one and that 1 -- this game has been played since i was yea high. now they have everything. they have made promises on everything. they have laid out the commitment to a conservative agenda. i don't want 60%. we should be able to get 100%. that is what they promised. they have the votes and they have a president that can deliver. this can be a good thing where paul ryan and mitch mcconnell could turn out to be real leaders of the conservative movement.

>> that is an excellent point. i have been around 50 years at the national level. all of those years i heard the same story. we can't defund planned parenthood because we don't have the house or senate. now there is no excuse not to go out and defund planned parenthood and all of the other left-wing organizations that are getting every year billions and billions of dollars of taxpayer funds to advance their left-wing agenda that the people rejected yesterday. >> tom of the dallas morning news. conventional wisdom in election night is that trump might struggle to give skeptical republicans onboard. the results suggest otherwise. how did that happen? trump green skeptical

conservatives on board? >> two things clearly make the difference. one, the pick of mike pence as is president. going forward, taking conservatives for his cabinet positions will solidify that support. second, look at his campaign themes in the last two weeks of the campaign. you have a lot of conservatives leaning that way because they do not want to see hillary clinton as president. they needed that commitment to deal the deal. >> i think one of the other things, one of the most important things that affects a conservative is the vacancy on

the supreme court. we wereht this year, together when we learn about the death of justice scalia and acted to wait until improving the elections. i have been in over 30 states this year, 17 in the last 2.5 weeks. this is one of the first things people talk about jimmy. they are concerned about the court. -- people talk about to me. it is not something quick and easy. when you start asking people what they are concerned about, they understand that the court is important. donald trump named people who he would appoint to the court. we want to see him continue to do that. that oneolling shows in five voters said that the supreme court was the most important issue. that has never happened. >> that is a historic moment.

when the supreme court is that important, it is a natural coalition builder and the conservative movement because all good and bad law stops at the supreme court. >> i would add that list. the number one unifier perhaps was hillary clinton. us, that she of would get up many mornings thinking, what two or three things can i do today to crush conservatives, jail their l eaders? last year speaking to a women's group saying, it's time for people to give up their strongly held religious views on abortion. that terrified us. she has nobody dublin but herself. lame but herself. she survived conservatives. not just conservatives, but the american people.

>> you want to put a hold on legislation in the lame-duck period. are you suggesting spending bills for the fiscal year? do you think that to be kicked into next year? onehat i am referring to, of the major hopes i have is that governance by crisis, these lame-duck -- i'm sorry, that anse ominous bills come to end. i would like to see the proper appropriations build later through the air. let's just do a clean cr and get to next year. >> i agree on the clean cr as it relates to making the hyde amendment permanent. that should be a part of the regular process. that is what we believe should be.

the reconciliation process comes at the end. that is the mechanism under which planned parenthood could be defunded. >> can i add one thing to that? >i think the trump administratin needs to take a page from the obama administration. when barack obama came to office , in his first they of office, he pretty much announced that it was game on. he unleashed an entire agenda of legislative priorities, one after another. he got a whole lot of them for. he that it be known that it was his mandate. i hope that president trump will do the exact same thing, but announces oh by the way he is un-fiating all of that fiat going on at the same time. [laughter] certainly agreement

that we need to do regular budgeting in the next congress. however this may be the last time to tie the president's hands on his way out the door. he is basically putting timebombs in place for the next administration. there could be discussion about what he might be trying to pursue at the u.n. as it pertains to israel and the palestinians. we look at our military. i mentioned about social experimentation. the president is trying to launch transgenderism in our military. we should stop that so that donald trump doesn't have to undo it. there are some items that can be legitimately addressed. >> we are overtime, so we are going to take two more questions and will be available one on one.

i want to talk about priorities. you say that you have everything you need, the white house and senate. that is a lot of pressure if things don't go smoothly in the first 100 days. what are your priorities? you mentioned defunding planned parenthood, repealing obamacare, trade deals -- what is the best way to advance those policies? what goes first? >>-willing to give him at least 72 hours. [laughter] ank, exactly as i said, entire alphabet soup of priorities should go forward. there is no excuse for a single one, why they can't get every single one given that the republican party and virtually every elected member has pledged to do all these things. to cut taxes, to cut spending, to get rid of obamacare and executive amnesty, 20 out

planned parenthood. out planned parenthood. in the first day, just come up with a schedule and get it done. add, i wouldke to like to watch out for republican attorney general's. i think you will see them more active. they can challenge the ministration and will have a friendly hearing. the 10th amendment general, i believe you will see a lot more state action without the feds getting involved. we're entering into a new era here. >> do we have one last question? i am sorry, one more comment. >> tim with the executive director for the faith and freedom coalition. in terms of promedia organization, you will see support from groups like ours. the use of executive orders to unwind just the exorbitant

executive activity of the last eight years, i think that could bank in the you can first several weeks. >> and rescinding the bad ones. >> that is what i mean. you can counterbalance all of the stuff that has been put in place very quickly. and it can be done in a consultative way, in conference with leadership of the house and senate. moving forward in unison in a sense, but without having to go through the legislative process per se. you can actually undo tons and tons of overreach. i think we can be very ambitious. >> i just realized watching and listening to my colleagues, there is a big group of national security people in the conservative movement too who are anxious to see every direction. women and men are tired of

bracing for the next attack in america. without clarity on what our national interests ar and how to secure a quarter and department of homeland securitye, there are a lot of people working with the transition on how to fortify our borders and fortify national security so that we don't have to brace for the next attack. from reuters. i had a question about the economic agenda. all of you seem very happy to get behind donald trump's call for tax cuts. one of the lines in his speech that was a very big applause line on the stump is his call for interest after spending. he has promised to cut spending. do you believe there is going to be a big infrastructure bill, and do you think there is a risk from republicans that this could be a divisive issue on the economic front?

heree of the gentlemen deals with these issues. i will remind you that conservatives believe there is a proper role for government, and building bridges and repairing roads is certainly on that list. yes, let me start there. the constitution spells it out, that is a role for the federal government. donald trump has championed it. this will be an important test of whether his leadership makes a difference in washington. the easiest thing for him to do would be to let congress passed another infrastructure spending bill. we all know what that means, which is 20 or 30% pork projects given to some numbers so they can name a garage after themselves or their biggest donor. if she lets that happened, -- if he lets that have been, it will

be business as usual. if he says no, i mean infrastructure guys, we are spending money where it needs to be spent. i think that is a tough task in this town. probably the first test for donald trump's leadership, how does that infrastructure bill turnout? >> realistically, how could you structure and infrastructure bill that would be markedly different from, say, and for structure spending -- infrastructure spending that obama proposed-- >> you eliminate things that are not actually needed. something that conservatives will support, you turn back the building of the roads and bridges to the states and send the money there, give them the authority to spend it, as long as they spend it on infrastructure. that is the best thing they can

do. >> my first in an endless number of mr. illusions in this calculationsof mis in this campaign was when i told all jump that he could not win. i told him he could run anyway, because with his money, why not? [laughter] no, i am taking all the credit. at the end of the day, i said -- this is fortuitous that you ask this question. i said the only way you are going to fix broken government is to bring a businessman into washington. the only way you're going to manage this level of financial output is somebody with this this sense, who brings in people who have management experience. i would hope he would do that, and i think he will. as opposed to a stimulus bill run by career politicians and bureaucrats and lobbyists, this one might be run by people who

know how to build bridges and roads. >> i think it is clear what the challenge is the country faces. we need to get back to 3% growth. when i talk about the economy, you hear about taxes, but you hear about regulation infinitely more than you hear about taxes. when i hear some of these things out of their plans, a flood of the stimulus is just rolling back regulations, and freezing a lot of the rules and regulations is a great step for growth. on the infrastructure bank, you will see something creative like repatriating some of this cash overseas. i think that will be part of an overall process. for everything that i hear from wishrump administration, i he was here more to talk about this. getting growth numbers back 3% and 4%, then really focusing on the regulatory state and rolling it back. >> thank you all very much.

stay tuned and fasten your seatbelts. ronald reagan said "you ain't seen nothing yet." thank you. [chatter] our election coverage on c-span continues. we will have more reaction and analysis. 40 minutes from now at 6:00 p.m. eastern, we hear from charlie cook of the cook political report. he spoke to the national journal about the election and his findings on the issues and motivations that factor into the voting. again, that is coming up,

charlie cook at 6:00 p.m. eastern about 40 minutes from now, as our coverage one day after the historic election of donald trump as the 45th president of the united states continues on c-span. while donald trump has more than the 270 electoral votes needed to win the race for the white house, 3 states still have not been called. one of them arizona, with all precincts reporting with donald trump well ahead so far. just under 50% of the votes in arizona, but officially not called for mr. trump. michigan, another state where donald trump is in the lead. a narrower lead by about 12,000 votes. still, that state has not been called. one state where hillary clinton

is in the lead is new hampshire. withy tight race though, only about 1500 votes separating the candidates for president. that would obviously still not be enough for hillary clinton. donald trump already over the 270 mark in the electoral college. speaking of new hampshire, some news coming out of that state that kelly ayotte, the incumbent republican has conceded that race. the numbers were only about 700 votes at last check. you can see on your screen, the democratic governor in the lead by about 700 votes. kelly ayotte the republican incumbent conceding. "i just spoke with governor hassan to congratulate her on the election to serve in the . i wish her and her

husband and children of the very best." other news out of new hampshire, a condition in the first congressional district, the incumbent republican frank ter,ta conceding to shea por the former representative in that district. guintantative frank conceding in the new hampshire first congressional district. thatore senate race to go has not been decided. it will go to a runoff because none of the candidates in louisiana running to fill david bitter's seat at the 50% necessary to win. the runoff september 10 between john kennedy who had 25% of the vote and democrat foster campbell, at 17.5%. that would be the last senate

seat not decided. right now the count at 51 republicans and 48 democrats, along with 2 independents that caucus with the democrats. one seat left to decide in louisiana, with a runoff on december 10. now we will show you a portion of today's white house briefing with press secretary josh earnest. josh earnest of course took many questions today about the election of donald trump and the coming transition to a trump administration. >> what do you say about how much of the return -- how late was the president up? was he watching with his family and staff, and what was the reaction? during the campaign he said there was no comparison, that

there wasn't a choice, but this was the choice that was made. surely you must have been stunned. sec. earnest: president obama did stay up late. it was not until after president-elect trump finishes comments that president obama was able to reach on the telephone. at least 3:30 and 4:00 before he was able to turn in. i suspect the same is true of all of you. so he's not looking for any sympathy. the president was in the residence. i don't know there was any staff with him in person. he was obviously in communication with staff members last night. i don't know whether members of his family joined him to watch the results. >> and his reaction? sec. earnest: i think you got a good sense of his reaction in the rose garden. the candidate he was supporting didn't win, and that is

disappointing to him and the 52 million other people who voted for secretary clinton. >> you are saying that at no point of the night he was surprised? sec. earnest: no, i don't think anybody, and when i say anybody, i don't think anybody got an outcome that they expected. it wasn't a positive surprise in his mind. he was forcibly waiting in -- forcefully weighing in towards hillary clinton. be made it -- he made it a clear choice. the president knew that once people started casting ballots on election day, his responsibility shifted from advocating for his preferred successor to planning for a smooth transition with whomever

won the election. beginningful from the of his responsibility to the country and to our democracy, in part because of his own personal experience benefiting from that planning that president bush initiated into the snake. -- in 2008. did he reach the conclusion that this was going in the opposite direction than expected? sec. earnest: i don't know when he reached that conclusion. that eventuality eventually dawned on him. probably relatively late in the evening. president ande other members of the administration during this campaign, the things that donald trump were saying were dangerous, actually dangerous to national security. and you said just today there are real concerns.

someone -- what are the president's concerns, to transfer to somebody who he calls unfit and dangerous? earnest: the rhetoric on the campaign trail reflects the president's views and his unit respective -- unique perspective on who is most qualified to sit seat in. -- succeed him. but the election is over, and we live in a democracy, and the democracy does not mean that the president chooses success, the american people do, and they did. and the president's responsibility as the outgoing president is to ensure a smooth transitions with the president-elect. and that is now the president's top priority and one that previous presidents have

demonstrated. it served our country and citizens very well, and the president's expectation is that the commitment to those principles will serve the country well this time to dub. >> if we are to believe the president's concerns that this is a dangerous situation, surely he has concerns. can you describe? >> there will continue to be debates in this country about the future of our country. there will be tough debates in congress about the future of our country. there will be tough debates inside the republican party about the future of our country. there will be tough debates inside the -- inside the democratic party of the future of our country. the election is over.

you have seen secretary clinton and senator kaine offer their gracious concession, and you heard president obama graciously ,ommit to a smooth transition even with a candidate that he did not support, in fact, one that he vehemently opposed. but that's what our democracy demands. that is evidence of the durability and strength of our democracy, and it will serve the incumbent test the incoming president well, the incoming congress well, our allies well, our economy well. and that's why the president has made this such a priority. democracy also demands that, at some rare times, the winner of the popular vote is not always the president. more painfule this for the administration?

can't speak for everybody, but it doesn't for me. everybody knew what the rules were. i think the outcome of the popular vote is an indication that secretary clinton's historic campaign succeeded in mobilizing tens of millions of americans behind her vision and her candidacy. that is a credit to her. president obama deserves credit too, given how aggressively he theaigned for, and given kind of agenda that he also laid no. but everybody was aware of the fact that the next president is determined based on a count in the electoral college, not account of the popular vote --

not a count of the popular vote. during the campaign, he said many statements to the effect of this is not who america is, this is not what we stand for, i believe in the judgment and values of the american people that they will choose the candidate i support, and that america is not as divided as people say. does he still believe the things that he says been yakker -- says then? mr. earnest: i think it is true. the president had the opportunity to convey his views on the campaign trail many times over the last several weeks. but he knew all along that what he was doing was advocating to to american people, trying convince them to support his preferred candidate, and some 52 million did, but not enough to win the electoral vote.

and that is our system of democracy. it is not perfect. but it is a system that has served us very well. this changed the president's view of who we are and what america is? mr. earnest: i don't want to leave you with that impression. obviously the president disagrees with the outcome. his preferred candidate did not win. but look, what it says about the voters and their motivations and thinkpriorities, again, i people are going to spend weeks, months, if not years trying to discern what this all means. but at its most basic level, what it means is donald trump is the president-elect of the united states, and the responsibility of the sitting president is to make sure that president-elect trump can hit the ground running when he enters the oval office. lawmakers he told

that he would take it as a personal insult of hillary clinton was not elected area did he take this as a personal -- elected. did he take this as a personal insult? mr. earnest: the feelings the president conveyed in that speech were authentic, and they reflected his views. over, andection is the time for advocating for a specific candidate has come to an end, and the time for planning for a smooth, effective transition for the ,resident-elect is now underway and that is a process that president obama is deeply committed to. >> josh, you have emphasized the smooth transition being important, and you keep going back to the transition that happened between george w. bush mr. obama. as far as i know, mr. bush never tried to lobby president obama directly to maintain some of his policies, but you just told us that the president will have the

opportunity to talk to the president-elect trump about some of these policies. are you suggesting that mr. obama is going to lobby mr. trump directly to maintain some of these policies that mr. trump has repeatedly excoriated on the campaign trail, and if that's i going to happen, does that mean that the iran deal, immigration limits, transgender bathrooms, all those things are sort of gone on january 21 yakker sjr 21st? -- january 21? i can speak to the nature of the conversations between president bush and then president-elect obama. i don't know if president bush lobbied president obama on any issues or not. i think what i would say in terms of trying to help you get a sense of the comes of conversations i am trying to describe, i would not use the word "lobby."

when i would use is i would intent ofsay the president obama and his team is brief president-elect trump and his team on these policies. >> you were there -- mr. earnest: the point i'm try to make is this. and president obama has abolished this. that the view -- acknowledged this. certain policies inside government gives you new appreciation for the benefits of those policies. am i suggesting that president trump is going to reverse himself on a whole range of things he has been campaigning on for a year and i have yakker no. -- i a year and a half? no. but what president obama is hopeful for is, well, what president obama is committed to is an effective transition that

healthspring president-elect trump and his team up to speed on the current status of u.s. policy, including foreign policy, and there is a long tradition of presidents, even presidents in different parties, seeking to preserve some measure of continuity, particularly where those interests align. i will not predict how that shakes out. the one thing i would point out is that there are certain where the downside of unilaterally withdrawing from some of these international agreements is significant. so the consequences, for example, with the iran deal of --ling out, and you do risk pulling out, you do risk the iranians trying to break out. at the same time, there is also

a un security council resolution that applies to this agreement, that means this agreement is supported by our allies, but also by russia. that, i think, could be a pretty uniteddication of how the international community is behind this agreement. president-elect trump will have to decide what impact a unilateral withdrawal would have on our countries around the world. the american people have entrusted him with the presidency, he will determine the course of our foreign policy and national security. , based on the existence of that un security council resolution, based on the consequences of unilaterally withdrawing from that agreement, it is much work obligated than

-- much more complicated than saying you are just going to tear the agreement up. it,oes not mean he won't do it just means that when briefed , hell these consequences will have to take a close look at what policies he chooses to pursue. >> that assumes that optimism that your briefing could change his mind. this is a man who the president has described for months as someone who is deliberately ignorant about much of what goes on in the federal government and does not seem interested in his ignoranceg about many of these issues. you are suggesting a process here of the president educating the president-elect in a way which will get him to change his mind, but that defies the description that the president himself has given of mr. trump as someone who is willing to take counsel and change his

mind. mr. earnest: the president acknowledged in the rose garden that the town that president trump -- that the president-elect displayed last night at a moment when everyone was watching was markedly different than the tone he typically adopted on the campaign trail. .hat's one small example does that apply to his policy positions? who knows. but in the context of ensuring an effective transition, this administration will convey as much information as possible about u.s. policy and the benefits of that policy and the a positive andom negative, for our pursuit of that policy. -- consequences, positive and negative, for our pursuit of that policy. it will be up to president trump to way that information. weigh that information.

the example of the iran deal is a good one, because there are significant consequences that make it clear that it is not just as simple as some of the rhetoric might make it seem. does that change his decision? i have no idea. guess i wills, i be reading about it in the newspaper. >> so, then, earlier when you sent to chris this is not going to be easy, you were talking about dismantling the aca -- you were not talking about dismantling the aca, you were talking about the obama legacy. mr. earnest: at one point earlier, i did say it would be easy, and i think i was referring to the meeting itself. >> you were talking about trying to repeal obamacare. mr. earnest: that's a different example.

obviously there is a role for congress to weigh in on all this. there is still a republican majority in both the house and the senate, which will presumably make that easier, but there are filibuster rules in the senate that leader mcconnell has expressed passion for protecting. will see if he retains that moving forward. but that certainly would require some bipartisan cooperation. there is a different situation in the house, which is that you all have well chronicled the deep divisions within the republican party and the house that make up for a rather unruly thatity, and it means speaker ryan, in some cases, is going to look for some democratic cooperation, and , when you are on the campaign trail, you say, well, this is a lot that i oppose and i will tear it up to go in.

but you get into office and you realize i will need congresses operation -- congress's cooperation and realize they will have to work in bipartisan fashion. realize that organizing the republican house of representatives is kind of a mess. all of a sudden it gets harder. does that mean it changes the outcome? i don't know, we will have to see. se are thes the kinds of difficult questions that president trump will inherit, particularly when you consider the consequences of that decision, which include stripping health care from 22 million americans, significantly increasing the deficit, significantly increasing health care costs. there are real-world consequences to deal with that often in the context of campaign rhetoric are not accounted for. >> what i am getting at is people are tempted now to say that the obama legacy is toast. you would contend with that?

reporter: again -- mr. earnest: again, i think it is far too early to tell exactly what kind of decisions president elect from will make -- president-elect trump will make, and what impact they will have on the priorities that president obama has so proudly achieved. as positive is not of a picture as i would be pending of secretary clinton had emerged victorious. i would feel a lot more confident because of her rhetoric on the campaign trail. mr. trump ran on a different platform, and what president trump chooses to do with regards to those policies if he makes something that you can't fully analyzed in the abstract. , as hishave to

presidency moves forward, you will have the opportunity to evaluate what impact his decisions have had on the compliments that president obama and his team are proud of. reporter: so it is not as positive as hillary clinton, but not as bleak as portray last week. again, the: president himself, in describing his own campaigning and government, has noted that there is a significant difference between the two things. it does not mean you full on your principles. it does not mean that you are necessarily overpromising. it just means that they are two different things. is why there are all these "that only president-elect trump -- all these open questions that only president-elect trump cancer. -- can answer. reporter: you also said to

margaret then when the president was overseas, he will be trying to reassure allies and partners of the steadfast commitment. that is in question now. how can he do that exactly? he can do that based on the long-standing tradition in our democracy of democratic and republican presidents reinforcing our relationships around the world that advance our national interest. there is a democratic and republican tradition to strengthening our alliance with south korea, for example. found is thatve our alliance in south korea supersedes any presidency, we havel party, because seen multiple presidents in both parties seek to strengthen that alliance. that would be, if you are looking for a reason to be ,opeful about the alliance

something you would draw from, the long history of presidents of both parties seeking to reinforce that alliance. is that something president trump will do? i don't know. you say i hope, not i assure. mr. earnest: the president will say there is a reason to be optimistic, because we have seen presidents in both parties pursue a strong alliance with south korea. that is just the first example that popped into my head. are some of those leaders likely to say, well, mr. trump appears to be different from recent republican presidents? they would not be wrong. can offer somet measure of reassurance, but ultimately the american people have chosen to give president-elect trump the responsibility for figuring that out. what do you expect in a conference tomorrow? at thisest: unclear

point if president obama will take questions, but we will keep you posted. at a minimum, the president will take time of questions from all of you during his trip overseas next week. reporter: and maybe tomorrow? mr. earnest: maybe, but we will get you clarity by the end of the day. on the topic of free assuring world leaders, has the president actually reached out to world leaders, or have they reach out to him about this result? different world leaders are rattled by donald trump's candidacy. aware ofst: i am not any conversations that president obama has had with foreign leaders at this point, but if there are calls like that that we can read out, we will later you know. i can't speak to reach out to the white house or u.s. government -- to who reached out to the white house or u.s. government since last night.

on the course of president obama's travels next week, he will have the opportunity to see the leaders of many of the countries within the united states has an important relationship, and we will have more details about that trip in the next couple of days. the next country the president is visiting his peru. the lame-duck period with the president stumping for tpp. given the fact that the election has repudiated the idea of trade with many nations with donald trump's victory, has that changed? is the president still going to stop for tpp? mr. earnest: the first observation i have is that this is a question you would be

asking me regardless of the outcome last night on the because secretary clinton's --ervation to this has been opposition to this has been well-documented. the first thing i can tell you is that president obama did have an opportunity earlier to speak to leader mcconnell on the phone. the president is hopeful that he will be about to connect with speaker ryan at some point relatively soon, and we will let you know when that has occurred. and i did have a conversation of thehe outcome election, and president obama did congratulate leader mcconnell on his success in retaining the title of majority leader of the united states senate. and they had an opportunity to prioritiese of the for the lame-duck session. i don't have the details, but president obama does continue to believe that this is the best opportunity that the congress has to take advantage of the

benefits of the transpacific partnership agreement that cuts countries imposed on american products. we have a strong case to make with regards to the transpacific partnership, and we will encourage republican leaders to take it up in passage because of the enormous that of its that would accrue -- enormous benefits that would accrue to the american workers and broader u.s. economy. has president trump now received the full briefing that he himself receives everyday? mr. earnest: i can tell you that the presidential daily briefing and other intelligence materials has been made available to president trump, president-elect trump, vice president-elect pence, and a couple of designated members of his team.

this was a courtesy that president bush extended to president-elect obama, vice president elect biden, and a couple of other designated members of their team. this is an important part of ensuring the kind of smooth transition that president obama has prioritized. reporter: [inaudible] mr. earnest: i can't speak to the nature of information that is presented, so i would check with the dni, but the idea here is that the president-elect and vice president-elect and some of their key national security advisers, just a couple of designated officials, can't begin to get access to the kind of material that they need to make important foreign-policy decisions once president trump takes office. reporter: this was asked about in august, about last-minute

pardons. he said that any last been -- last-minute pardons would have to go through the white house counsel, through the regular process, and all pardons would be based on merit and not political considerations. does that guidance still stand, and with that preclude the president from giving a last-minute pardon to secretary clinton? remember when you had an opportunity to ask president obama about this at the pentagon, and the answer president obama gave you at the news conference still applies. i would not speculate at this point about what impact that may have on hypothetical pardon requests that he receives. i will say that the guidance president obama shared with you is still operative. is the clinton cavalier -- [indiscernible] mr. earnest: absolutely. reporter: the president said he

was encouraged by things yet heard from donald trump in the last 24 hours. does the president have conference that donald trump will respect the rule of law? mr. earnest: i think at this point, what president obama is responding to is the tone that president-elect trump displayed at his event last night. the significance of that is that mr. trump had to make a conscious decision about the tone that he was going to use in speaking to not just his , butrters in the ballroom also the millions of americans watching on tv and tens of millions of people watching around the world. it's a high-stakes moment. for an opportunity president-elect trump to make an impression, and i'm confident that he was aware of that. at that moment, he chose to that seemse

generally familiar to people who have been watching presidents-elect at election night events. would seem to suggest that certain basic principles of our are likely to be upheld. certainly one of those thatiples is ensuring criminal investigations and our criminal justice system is not .nfected with partisan politics the question is whether or not that tone will persist, and i'm

that president obama will not be the only one watching. if the election results hold, as you likely to remain more in the public eye after this than he would have otherwise done if hillary clinton would have? again, the election results are barely 12 hours old. but in those 12 hours, i'm not orre of any changes reconsideration the president has made about his post-presidency plans. other than the likelihood that he probably is looking forward to his postpresidential vacation now more than ever. yes, ma'am? i would like to ask , [indiscernible]

do you think that afghan people should have high expectations from the new president? you think there is any change in policy toward afghanistan? mr. earnest: i will confess that i don't recall having heard president-elect trump speak extensively about is view of u.s. policy toward afghanistan. some of your colleagues in the press corps may have covered the debates or other events with mr. trump more closely, and they can fill you in, but it's not clear what sort of preferences or he has articulated with regard to our policy toward afghanistan. categoryut this in the of other important policy decisions that the next president will have to make. and to ensure that he is afectively positioned to make good, smart decision that is consistent with our national president obama and

his national security team will ensure that trump and his team have access to all of the information that is necessary to about u.s. decisions policy in that region of the world. the kinds ofusly decisions that the next president will make. a significant impact on our foreign-policy, a significant impact on the thousands mr. earnest: and encountering the threat that emanate from afghanistan. the stakes are high. the kinds of decisions that have to be made in that environment are not obvious. the next president will benefit from the kind of informed, carefully considered advice from leaders in our military, leaders in our intelligence community that have been very focused on u.s. policy in afghanistan. this dayverage of

after the 2016 election continues on c-span with speeches, reaction, and analysis. the reaction of the financial markets to the election of donald trump as the 45th president, did not go as predicted by many. today,ory in "the hill" "the dow hits all-time high after a wild day of trading." hight an all-time wednesday, reversing a massive drop triggered by president-elect donald trump's improbable win. the dow surged more than 300 point briefly wednesday afternoon, finishing with a 250 point rise. the nasdaq and s&p 500 industrial index rose roughly 1% each. wednesday's surge reflects a promise of business friendly, growth focused policies from republicans, who gained control of the white house while

retaining control of congress. stocks initially plummeted. the dow jones futures tanked more than 800 points overnight and trading on nasdaq and the s&p futures were halted until morning trading were -- or morning opening of trading. the dow up more than 200 point after the election of donald trump. congress get back to work after the election. monday andeturns on the senate will be in on tuesday. the house live here on c-span and the senate on c-span two. ,lint michigan water aid medical research programs and defense programs and policy. all ahead for congress, live coverage on c-span and c-span2 when they return next week. now, charlie cook, the political

analyst on the election and why donald trump did better than many expected. mr. cook: good afternoon, everyone. my name is -- >> i want to welcome everyone to be after election event. the guest of today's program will be charlie cook and he will be breaking down the who, the what, the why, on what happened on yesterday's election. to handle some housekeeping before we get started. on eitheree two mics side of me in the center aisles. there will be a question and answer portion of today's event. when it comes to that moment, we welcome anyone who has a question to line up behind the mics, and when you are preparing to ask question, state

your name and organization. getting to introducing charlie. charlie is the founder, editor, as well as publisher of "the cook political report." he also is a political and election analyst for nbc news. cookie founded the political report in 1984 and never since then, it really has been what i would call the bible for election and political trend analysis in washington. one other housekeeping matter. # today.e we welcome you tweeting on social media. i would like to introduce charlie cook. [applause] sorry we have nothing to talk about. [applause] -- [laughter] mr. cook: i wanted to ask your indulgence of, i did not go to

bed last night. i got back to my hotel room in new york about 5:00 a.m. and had an 8:00 train and thought, you know, "what is the point?" am moderatelyi incoherent, i hope you will understand, but i am glad we have such a great crowd here. you know, i think, i do not think any of us will ever have to be reminded where we were last night or what we were thinking, and a lot of times, i can think back about elections and not quite remember, was that 1996 or was that...? i have seen a lot of people around politics for a long time who have seen a lot of things that we saw the reagan title wave election in 1980 and the 1994 andelection of

all kinds of very interesting elections, but i have never experienced one that felt as much like a baseball bat to the side of the head at last night. -- as last night. over the course of the day, it seemed kind of normal. although i guess being in a cabin, i finally was in a cab that had a right in new york. i thought sooner or later, that had to happen. i guess that was an omen. i went to mbc, and we were doing nbs, and i was doing something with chuck todd on msnbc and the first wave of exit polls came in. when they give you the first wave, they do not hand you the top line of like, clinton, trump. they have mail, theme -- male, female, all of those

demographics, but they do not deliberately give you the bottom line so you have to do the math in your head looking at gender. it looked like it was probably clinton ahead by about three, which was not far out of line of where a lot of the polling was, and it was not until we got a little deeper into the evening that it quickly started looking at specific states that we started seeing anomalies that, wait a minute, this is not heading where we all thought and i think historians and political scientists and pollsters and operatives, all kinds of political aficionados are going to be ported to the data for years to come to try to figure out exactly what happened, why we did not see it and how it. so underestimated, but when you think about what this it was aneant, unprecedented rejection of so many people and things. it was a rejection of hillary

and bill clinton, of the republican party establishment, of really the national establishment, when you think about it. we have had five living presidents and none of them have endorsed donald trump. bob dole was the only living former republican presidential nominee who endorsed him. ceo's, not one of them made a contribution to the trump campaign. the best i can tell, there were two major newspaper vegasements, one was las review journal and the other one was the national enquirer. i did not know they did endorsements until then. [laughter] mr. cook: and it is like, wow. we are going to be unpacking this for a really long time. as i am sure, all of you have been glued to various sites. you know that secretary clinton

pulled ahead by it looks like about two tenths of a point right now on the popular vote, but that will get you a cup of five dollars coffee, and what's interesting is that during the 19th century, we had split in electoral college popular vote outcomes three times during the 19th century, none during the 20th, and now, we have had in two the first 16 years of the 21st century. we had 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 , and now 2016. , the thing is, we knew that this election was going to be about change. i mean, we kind of knew that. and on one level, it's not terribly surprising. i mean, we knew the history that whenever a party has had the whitehouse for two consecutive terms for eight years, five

times out of six since the end of world war ii the american , people voted for change. the only time they did not do that in the postwar era was after president reagan when they elected his vice president, hw bush, so there was a tendency there, but it seemed like there might be different factors this time. while hillary clinton certainly had incredibly ugly numbers , but so are donald trump loss. while the desire for change seemed to be so great, nbc "wall street journal" poll going in 31% felt the country was headed in the right direction. 62%, wrong track. the interesting thing about that number is the last time and peter hart, now fred yang on the democratic side and bill on the and long before

him, bob teeter had been asking that question almost monthly for the better part of 30 years and the last time the right direction was more than wrong track was back in january, 2004. 12 years ago. so, we knew there had been sustained anger and heart had done a series of focus groups so seven far this year or this cycle i should say for the annenberg center in pennsylvania. the last one was two weeks ago. i think the annenberg school has it on their website. you can watch the focus group, but you could see the anger, the alienation. this was a focus group of late deciders, but even in that focus group, even listening to these people, it seemed like they desperately want to change, but that donald trump seem to, you know, listening to these people

seemed to be a little too risque risky a change that they , wanted change. they wanted something different, but that he might have been a bridge too far, and maybe i read too much into it. there were two quotes in the analysis that heart to did that -- that stuck out to me. that i thought told me something. one was a woman named donna show saying, "i so much wanted trump. i don't trust him and i'm afraid of him and i just don't think he knows when to shut up. if he would just say, i'm a businessman, i'm not a politician and i'm going to make america great again and to stop right there, then i would vote for him." you know, it was like, ok, i can kind of see where she's coming from. another woman, jennifer, in the

focus group, was undecided. "i wanted to like trump, but i don't know that i can because it is embarrassing the way he acts. his temper tantrums he's , embarrassment to our country. i don't embrace clinton, but i would vote for her. it's probably just going to be a vote against trump." that was sort of the theme what we were picking up around the country. people desperately wanting change but was he on acceptable , risk? you know, he was clearly change, but was he too much change, was he too risky a change? so there was reason not to say, maybe this is going to come up short. clearly, there were a lot of voters out there that think that our political system is not working, or at the very least, it's not working for them. and that think that our economic system isn't working or at least not working for them.

and then, you had people that, some people, that they seemed to feel like things are changing -- are not changing fast enough. and think about, you know, some of the bernie sanders reporters, for example and certainly sanders went out and campaigned awfully hard for clinton and elizabeth warren went out and did a lot, so this is not criticism of them, but they -- but that clearly some of the people they were tapping into were restless and they did not see this as enough change and may not have turned out in quite the numbers expected. but i think, far more, there were people that felt like things were changing to quickly quickly and whether , they were looking onto society and culture and all of the debates on transgender bathrooms , and this and that, that maybe too much was happening too quickly for them. or in the economic system in terms of whether it's

globalization and trade that has put obviously some people out of work, but then there are other people that were probably replaced by robot machines and things, but as far as they were concerned, they were replaced by workers abroad when it really may have been productivity, but clearly, the world for the folks that either chose or didn't have the opportunity to go to college, people that could have made a really, really good income, have a nice living back in the 20th century, but far fewer of them could make that work in the 21st century and clearly, they were afraid, angry, looking for something else, that clearly that was sort there.ding up out

then, we saw something and i have a lot of questions before the election, was sort of breaks brewit-related -- brexit-related, and i think we could talk about that a minute, but maybe thinking about brexit in a sense that, you know, all the experts in the united kingdom and all the experts around europe and basically telling the people of the u.k. you don't want to do this you don't want to leave and by, you know, 52 to 48 the british people voted to leave and the thing is, but they did it despite the fact that the vast majority of the country leaders, economic leaders, experts all were saying "don't do it, don't do it," and they did it anyway. i think it reflects something that this devaluing of this feeling that our leaders and let us down and our experts don't know what they are doing and

that they see quagmires in iraq and afghanistan and they see all of the problems in the middle east and the rise of terrorism , and they blame leaders and , experts for it and so they say, "well, what the heck. what we have the lose?" that sort of thing. they look at relationships with china and russia and think if things are going so badly, how can a real estate developer do any worse than that? we are just a sort of seeing this thing where they were defying to sort of all warnings that in the past would have, may have scared them off from doing something and they did it anyway. i confess that looking at and watching focus groups and looking at polling data of all the problems that secretary clinton had in terms of trust issues and being perceived as

evasive in all that, but it really looked, i mean, it looks -- looked like donald trump's past and things coming back up as well as just behavior, i mean, think about we could see a change in polling data after the first debate. or if you want to lump in first debate, the billy bush tapes, where it look like that many real difference, that that was seminal point in the campaign. clearly, it either was not, or it got undone by subsequent events, and i don't know what the affect all of the james comey back-and-forth did, but i suspect it probably sort of kept that alive, pushed it back to the front of people's mind, reinforced doubts or re- reminded them of things they didn't like about secretary clinton, all of these things.

we also saw a sign of things happening in, you know, just sort of think about how debate discourse in this country has changed over the last 20 or 30 years and whether it's cable news, talk radio, the web, social media, but we have gone from a place that i guess in retrospect seems like it was moderately polite to just bareknuckle brawling, and i highly recommend -- how many of you saw "60 minutes?" fair number. you can go on the "60 minutes" website. frank once did a focus group, and i have watched a lot of them and i remember at the time being , a little suspicious because it was like, i have seen lots of focus groups where they had some people that seemed kind of angry or pretty angry, but i have

never seen one where it's like all of them were, and i was a little suspicious that, you know, maybe there had been some aggressive recruiting of people -- [laughter] mr. cook: that were particularly, you know, let's call up three or 400 people in the area and takeouts the 25 most ticked off people that you find, and let's put them in a room with some network cameras and see what happens. but i mean, i have to tell you it was compelling television. , the wasn't sure it was a straight up, but in retrospect, you know, i sure can't say it was fixed, but it really gave you a sense of how debates and people interactions had changed and how pointed things had become. and so, we come back to this choice that people were having

, and there was one set of focus groups that were done with walmart moms, and this one woman characterized the race is between quote "between a dishonest washington politician and an unqualified hothead." in a different focus group, one in charlotte, peter hart said a man said that it had come down to quote "vote for me because i'm less of a sleaze ball." i mean, that's how voters were seeing this choice. i mean, well. the fact that we could see this in the exit polls. we had, for example, and this as oft of the 24,000, about 2:30 this morning, when i printed out the cross tabs about 24,000 interviews. president obama's approval rating of voters yesterday was

53 approve, 45 disapprove, and normally, if you look at that you would say "well, ok, the party of the city president would have a fair chance of -- the sitting president would have a fair chance of holding on and actually did win the popular vote," but looking at the favorable unfavorable of just the two candidates where hillary clinton had a 44 favorable, 54 unfavorable, so minus 10, but trump's was 38 favorable, 60 unfavorable and that was the one that one up. -- that won. wow, wow. [laughter] mr. cook: like i said, we will be unpacking this for a really, really, long time. "washington post" poll sent out an analysis this morning and one line that kind of hits me was a

"revolution against politics shook the country tuesday, with working-class whites venting their economic and cultural frustration by lifting candidate donald trump to the presidency," and where this was, we heard a whole lot about ok, it was noncollege whites over here , against whites that were college graduates over here, and minority voters over here and that is a way and i will go through some of these numbers in a second, that is one way looking at it, but part of it was this urban versus small-town rural, and one of the first signs that things were starting to go in an unexpected direction last night was david wasserman, our house editor and he was across the room. we were in the decision desk

room at nbc and he comes over and whispers in my ear, something to the effect of, "you won't believe the numbers we are seeing in some of these states in some of the rural counties where they were getting turnout levels in places that were just absolutely unprecedented in these rural small-town settings. " which raised the question of, clearly, i mean, we knew about the noncollege whites versus college, and we kind of knew that part, but, and i know, i mean i was personally aware of sort of this cultural divide between small-town rural america and i might say middle america , geographically compared to the coast on each side, but it was much, much, much, much hotter than we expected, and so,

there's kind of the city people or people from the east coast , west coast telling us how we ought to live our lives and really just sort of a rebellion there as well. our colleague from atlantic media national journalism from atlantic magazine, ron brownstein has a great turn that we've seen the subversion, political inversion. if you think back to the franklin roosevelt new deal coalition, you know, one a central element of it was basically blue-collar whites, working-class whites, central part of the new deal coalition , they have either left, or i guess you could say the democratic party had left them or driven them away or however you want to characterize it to the point where trump won noncollege educated whites by

a 39-point margin. here's a frame of reference. reagan won them by a 32-point margin, so seven points more, greater than what ronald reagan got, and reagan won a 10-point landslide and this was an election where trump actually, you know, seems to have lost the popular vote by, you know, a fraction of a percent, but certainly, it was not anything like the 10-point blowout-- 10-point landslide like ronald reagan achieved over jimmy carter. that me -- let me just run through just some of the exit poll data that just jumped out at me as particularly important. those voters under 45, they were 44% of the electorate and clinton won them by 12 points, 52 to 40, but those 45 and older , that was a 56% of the electorate, and we knew that people particularly 65 and older turnout at a higher level, but trump won them by nine points.

53 to 44. gender, women made up 52% of the electric and clinton won by 12 according to the exit poll and , men made up 48% of the won theme, and trump by 12 points. seems to me, given that women are usually 52%, 53% of the electorate, my louisiana public school arithmetic suggest that she should have won this given that, but go figure. then, let's look at race. back in 1992, when bill clinton beat president george h toby , -- george. bush h.w. bush 87% of the electorate , was white and in 2012, it dropped 15 points to 72%. this electorate was 70% and the thing is, there were some folks saying this could drop down to

59% to 68%, something like that , and ended up being 70%, but of the whites that voted, they voted for trumpet by a 21-point margin, 58% to 37%, while the 30% that were nonwhite voted for margin,by a 53 point 74% to 21%. and then you look at the race , education, gender split. they were interesting. white female college graduates, 20% of the electorate, clinton won them by six point, 51% to 45%. white female noncollege graduates, 17% of the trump won them by 28 points, so six points up up for clinton among college graduates, white women and trump by 28 among the noncollege. wow, what a difference. white male college graduates trump won by 15 points, white

male noncollege graduates, trump won by 49 points. 72% to 23%. nonwhites, 29%. wait, that doesn't make sense. i was doing the subtraction on the train without a calculator and no sleep. [laughter] anyway, party, clinton won democrats by 80 points. by an 80-point margin. it was 89% to 9%. what's interesting is obama -- president obama had 91% of the democratic vote in 2012. now, mitt romney won 92% of the republican vote in 2012. tom cotton 90% 83-point margin.

,-- trump got 90% 83-point , margin. in the exit polls, it is looking more like a four-point spread. turnout may have been a little surprising. here's the one less thing on the exit poll that i felt was kind of interesting. yesterday havers served in the military. 13%. by avoted for donald trump 27 point margin, 61% to 34%. and of the 87% that had never served in the military, they went for clinton by five points, 50-45. interesting. things, madeast

their mind up before last month, -- that's 73%em of the electorate, and clinton , 51-46. by five points but people who made their windup before last month -- i'm sorry, the 73% was before the last month. the people who made up their mind in the last month was 26% of the electorate, and trump won them by 10 points, 49-39. you wonder, is that where -- did all the comey stuff -- we don't know, we will never know. but it is a plausible theory. things the little quirky , like, one of the questions they asked is, should the next president -- and they gave three options -- continue barack obama's policies?

a second option, change to more conservative policies? the third was changed to more liberal policies. those who said continue obama's policies, clinton won them 91-5. those who said change to more conservative policies, not surprising, donald trump won 83-13. but 17% said change to a more liberal policy -- change to more liberal policies than obama had, and trump won 23% of those people, 70-23. you sort of look at that and you say, what is going on? an sort of similar to that, question -- do you think the 2010 health care law went too far?care

and trumpith too far, got 83% of that vote. right was 18%, and trump got 10% of that. not surprising. 30% thatabout the thought obamacare do not go far enough? trump got 18% of those. of theone out of five people that thought that obamacare do not go far enough voted for trump. [laughter] know, it's times like this that you start -- i start to let my hair. -- start to pull out my hair. thankfully of got plenty. trump got 18% of the vote of people who thought he was unqualified. [laughter] said, we are going

to be unpacking this for a really long time. but what is interesting, and i around 5:30eone at this morning talking about this as a wave election. i was thinking, ok, it was surprising things happening, but in a wave election, a party that is benefiting does not lose a half-dozen house seats. my definition of a wave election is when you start picking up two or three dozen seats, something republicans got with reagan in 1980. 52 seats, like republicans got in 1994. that is a wave. having a net loss of either one or two seats, depending on what happens in new hampshire with ,elly ayotte and maggie hassan

losing a corridor two, that's not a wave -- losing a seat or two, that's not a wave in any direction. this seems trump-specific, but some of the turnout things that i think were driven by trump also kept republicans from losing more seats than we thought. over-under was about 13 seats. that's the number of seats that republicans gained in 2014 over what they won back in 2012 in the last presidential election. argue 13, 15, something like that. six seats, there's lower than we thought. not shocking, but lower than we thought. what our laster range was, but at some point in the last week or two, we had a wide five to 20. it would have fit. the thing is, those -- losing

one or two seats, that's not -- arething, as i said, we going to be unpacking this for a really long time. when he talked for like, five minutes. how much time do we have? for like, five minutes. how much time do we have? 10 minutes. what does this mean, and where we going? this is uncharted territory. house.tart off with the how does this affect paul ryan? does he want the job? if he wants it, how does he have to keep it? will house republicans, the

freedom caucus, tea party folks feel emboldened by all this and rid ofu know, let's get ryan and get one of us in there, or do they say, we need somebody who's going to be a negotiator, someone who's going to run interference between us and president trump since he is kind of new to town. [laughter] the legislative process, the governing process, this kind of stuff. we don't know. i think obviously mitch mcconnell was in a different situation, because he is not in any jeopardy, and he certainly played things a little cagey than ryan did. he does not have that vulnerability. some of us were talking last night about, what's going to

happen? trump hereng to have , and are you going to have paul ryan here, and mitch mcconnell here, and mike pence has been around. do that kind of surround trump im inind of try to move h certain directions, and constructive ways? or is trump completely freelancing? how does all this work? we don't know. we have been so thinking about, if republicans lose their majority in the senate, and they get the margin in the house cut in half, how many could ryan finally the has to of world without ruleg kicked out -- hastert

without being kicked out, but that does not seem relevant anymore. we are in a new place. at this point, from this point .orward, nobody is an expert we are all novices in this situation, because nobody has ever seen anything quite like this before. and what happens in the democratic party? made had been an argument when it appeared in was going to people argue that she actually would have been better off with 49 democrats in the senate than 51, that she would have as much or more problems on her left as on the right, and there were already about 12 or 13 really, really, really liberal democrats in the senate, and it looks like it , and probably get up to 15

that would a real problem for her, that maybe she could tell them to chill out a little if they did not have a majority in the senate. there was that whole discussion going on, which obviously is not relevant right now, but where does the democratic vertigo? -- democratic party go? i have been saying this for a couple of months, that to me if you look at the democratic party , i would argue that the center of gravity and the party nationally is closer to the bernie sanders and elizabeth warren than it is to hillary clinton or joe biden, and that while everybody was fixating on how ideological and cider and goingat all the stuff was on on the republican side, but iowa's thought that whenever you see some problem in one party, other getter over at the

side and look, because you will see either the potential of or the reality of that same problem democrats, and that and whether it is the outsider alienated, some of the stuff bernie sanders and elizabeth warner say, the democratic party is owned and operated by wall street, which is obviously news to wall street because they were clearly not getting enough value for their ownership. [laughter] where does the democratic party go over the next few years? , a couplee thing thoughts about how things changed, and then we will open it up for questions and comments beenccusations, but i had -- and again, i'm trying to sort of mentally make the turn from

what we thought was going to happen to what obviously happened, but in the context of clinton winning, i was thinking, well, a couple of things made the happening. number one, -- might be happening. number one, she would likely better working relationship, at least with the senate, then president obama did . i would not say they had to break his arms to sit down with members of congress, including those in his own party, but, you know, they probably did have to shove him around a little bit to get him to do that, and that generally does not work so well. i would venture to guess that ae last time a president had difficult relationship with his own party on capitol hill was jimmy carter, maybe, back in the late 1970's.

we thought that. i do think, though, that chuck schumer-- i think touch -- i think touch schumer and mitch mcconnell -- i think chuck schumer and mitch mcconnell, first of all, think about harry reid. it was like watching two scorpions in a bottle. terms like loading and despising really understate the relationship. had was thatn i will have a far better relationship both with mitch mcconnell and other republican did, -- van harry reid then harry reid did. that will being different. all, i know that probably a couple of you are lobbyists. wow.

i don't think he will be getting your budgets cut until next year. , if this town is driven by fear, uncertainty, and change, we have all three food groups coming up in the next two years. let me just close on that. just will tell you, sitting around, talking with pollsters and other folks around have onenight, you hundred 40 years of experience there and nobody had ever seen anything like this. there years of experience ever seen had anything like this. we have microphones, and they ask that you identify yourself. here we go. >> height.

-- hi. pennsylvania, michigan, wisconsin, is that a trend that you see going forward? trend.: i think it's a i really do. well,an may be -- democrats had been banking so much on this rise of latino vote, asian-americans, the rising latino vote, the states with booming numbers of young, highly educated people that were moving towards the democratic party, but the thing about it is that's not happening evenly across all 50 states, and there are some that that has happened result, she did fine in virginia, colorado, but skews states where it

somewhat less minority and a little less on the educational side, a little more on the rural ide, the democrats -- democrats have been so excited about the glass being half full that a were ignoring that the glass was half empty. they were losing ground with certain groups. they have been so excited about the groups that they have been gaining with. we all have spent a lot of time talking about the 2013 and haven autopsy republicans needed to do better with minority voters and younger maybe, yada yada, that democrats should have done a study like, ok, we won, but there are some warning signs out there.

where democrats are underperforming, and they are troubling. i think that democrats would be very well advised to maybe do their own autopsy this time and ,ake a look at what happened and what some trends are that they are to be worried about. changing,e country is and it is changing a lot, and it is changing in a way that generally benefits democrats, but it is not changing as fast as they think it is, and it is -- i guessme real for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. it is opening up real problem areas for them that they have to figure out a way to square. you, is someo ask of this trump's new approach to technology? did the clinton campaign fight

the old election of obama, data-driven, turnout operation, were they fighting the cold war, and his -- the old war, and is twitterland? we all know how much less he spent on his campaign. or was it just the cult of personality? charlie: my colleague amy walter wrote a piece this morning. she was ambitious and wrote something. i was too brain addled. what was the phrase she used? fromuoted glen bolger public opinion strategies talking about 2004, that a good field can't make up for bad messaging, i think. and the thing about it is, i think the power of trump's -- the thingped is, clearly the clinton campaign

, clearly some things goofed up. first of all, the fact that they did not send her into wisconsin, that minnesota and wisconsin were left sure -- left sort of exposed. and even though she did carry minnesota, but not by much. clearly something went wrong somewhere along the way, and i'm sure we will read a lot about it. trump hast think that found some new way. i think he just had, in retrospect, a very powerful withge that resonated certain types of voters really well. the right message, the right year. i think it was that. is, if i were a republican consultant, i would not tell future republican residential candidates, don't field, do it the way

trump did. what's in those car commercials, professional drivers on a closed course. kids, don't try this at home. just because it works for him does not mean it will work for you. the thing is, and i'm not saying that this is the same, but the had somelks, romney awfully brave people working for him, and they had done a lot on prettycs, and it was a sophisticated campaign. they thought they were pretty good. they felt good going in, but they were measuring up reasonably well to the obama operation. were measuring up reasonably well to the obama operation. it was not as sophisticated as the obama operation. --t i think -- that i think did not haveomney

that powerful message to make up for whatever gap in the technology level that was there. no, i don't think this is something new, but i think it is the power of trump's message. i will stick with that until we learn more, which i'm sure we will all three plots more. is there nobody here? >> what impact does this election have on the role of the media and politics? it seems to me that what i would call the legitimate media, the fact checking and document of all information, had no impact whatsoever, and instead what we got was the entertainment side of media, and there does not seem to be a real political filter anymore. for thein the future media's role in politics? charlie: that's a great question.

part of it is, particularly with younger voters, i don't want to lay it all off on them, that the distinction between traditional , thatlism and opinion wall has broken down. whether you go on the internet, some of those walls that used to be there, what was an editorial, what was an op-ed piece, and what was a new space -- a news piece, it's murkier. mediad also add that the -- how much trouble do i want to get in? [laughter] i think there's going to have to be a lot of soul-searching within the media on this. , i think with a , up untille networks

tos year, if you wanted watch a whole speech from a politician, you had to go to our friends at c-span, and that's where you went. of other cable networks, national ones speeches,doing entire that never really happened with any kind of frequency before, and they started doing it very aggressively with trump, and eventually they would throw in some bernie sanders. we saw a couple billion dollars worth of coverage, not that donald trump any name recognition problems before, but to gets of allowing him

his message directly to voters, mainlining it to them in a way that was unprecedented. and then we kind of segway to a segue to a place where, every time we put this guy on, our ratings would go sky high, which helps my bonus. wall between profit-making and journalism got a little more permeable. and to be honest, i think in a , and inhe early debates interviews, they would ask the obligatory question about, when are you going to release your income tax returns, and he would say, oh, after the audit is gone, and there may or may not be one follow-up, but in terms

of somebody grilling him and sort of really going after him, they did not do that. and i don't want to impugn anybody's motives, but you kind w, ifnder whether, wo i give him a hard time, maybe you won't come back on, and we will take a ratings hit. thatber the interview chris matthews did with trump on abortion, where he asked, what was like ao -- chris dog with a bone. trumpt kept going after in a very aggressive way. and i know chris is not from the traditional journalistic background, but chris went after than i more aggressively saw any other journalists do in terms of that kind of thing. you did not see much of that.

but then we went into the last .ix weeks or so i think some newspapers i love , theyspect enormously kind of went a little far the other way and got really, really aggressive. when you call -- you know, it's one thing to say, "mr. trump said this. however, the record shows this and this and this." that's the way to teach you in journalism school. but to call something a lie in a new story, wow. f think i would have gotten an f in high school journalism if i had tried that. that's a new place. though i have no set

the paper donald trump, i tell you what, i got uncomfortable watching the finest newspapers in the country really -- it was like watching a badly-refereed basketball game where you are getting a lot of makeup calls at the end. you have watched games, you have seen these makeup calls. you kind of go, wow, you kind of wince. quite frankly, i'm not sure that print journalism had a lot to make up for. to me it was more on the where some ofe the transgressions early on had been. all political analysts and pollsters and operatives, -- of us lot of that going to be looking back at how we did things. same thatrt of the

trump was going -- when we sort that trump was going to lose, i wondered if he would get the genie back in the bottle , if any kind of journalism, if trump, this to donald would you be able to get your , down theback up road, for somebody else? maybe you should have just left all the standards where they were. a lot ofre are us that have a lot to be thinking about. naval gazing, not that i have seen my navel in a long time. [laughter] charlie: any questions?

>> i'm going to have you permit cost to kate -- have you prognosticate more about 2018. a whip position might have been part of the conversation with ted cruz last week. but you get to 2018, the senate autopsy, maybe they get to how they mapped the genome of the republican party in ohio, what kind of candidate would you have against sherrod brown in 2018? how conservative would head of its the that -- would candidates cruz could use in 2018? charlie: we certainly are making the turn. had all theyou circumstances that were working against republicans this time.

we know that in presidential election years, the turnout is big and broad and relatively diverse and looks less like the country, and it midterms the turnout is 40% lower, older, whiter, more conservative, more republican. republicans had seven senate seats up in states that president obama carried. there are no democrats in states that mitt romney carried, but for 2018, it was like everything was on the other foot. ok, it's a bit term election, so it favors republicans. we thought that it was going to be a midterm election with a democratic president. yardstick,ouse as a the party has gained seats in precisely