at the future of political parties in the u.s. with political isn't professor brady, and political analyst melissa cain. they discuss the impact of the presidential election and how current issues are shaping public opinion. commonwealth club of over ania, this is just hour. >> i want to, before i introduce speakers, i want to tonight is e that the first time that the onversation is being taped by c-span so you may have noticed promised as, and they me that i would look at least 10 years younger. [laughter] reasons i e of the agreed to let them come. anyway, and they tell me that, that it will be uploaded about two bsite in yous, three weeks most, and

can search under this date or ne of the names who will be speaking. you'll be inspired and please share with your friending and families. speakers, dave known for a number of years. ecause partially my husband attended stanford business school where he's a professor, and i don't know that dave i actually ut interviewed him a number of times during my own dissertation research. remember. [laughter] >> i must have done okay because still talking to me. he's not only a very well

stanford, he sits on the faculties of the business and the political science department. the public policy and is at hoover institution. he's very highly regarded. obviously connected to the stanford community but also, for his ed nationally insightful commentary about political processes. delighted that he's with us tonight and you will, this evening end agreeing with me that he's one of the most insightful political commentators that we have with us today. melissa cain is the political francisco. in san she has a very wide following. with the lot of work commonwealth club and the editor of the commonwealth club one ine said there is no who is better at doing a job of both moderating, asking

questions, and providing political commentary as melissa. she comes with really prettier risk bona fides. i think that this conversation should be just onderful, and i don't know if safer, all make us feel more secure, happier, but it inform us of what's happening. of course, please save your questions till afterwards and for them. time thank you so much. mra [applause] name of tonight's program is the future of american political parties, and house. a packed i can't imagine it's because you all think things are going really well.

there is a lot of uncertainty out there a lot of fear. question, of course, is how bad is it? how bad can it get? point do we start hoarding canned goods. >> is this on? no. there you go. >> it's on? by quotingt to start ts elliott who said that the form of knowledge we can aspire to humility and humility the dless, so one of redictions i start with that, it's a cover. o we have -- we've not had a president like this or we've not many days it er is, 11, we haven't had a president like this or who has this.d like the question is, from someone andhas tried to be analytic

step back and say what will happen? so, in the early days, there things the president could do, refugee crisis, et cetera. e can put some orders out, not that they have been put out very efficiently, but he can put orders out but in the end, on big issues, taxes affordable policy, thoseitary sorts of things, he either has to go through congress, has to go through congress. and then the question people is the congress? is it an independent branch of government and the founders, they put the constitution ogether, i'm trying to put it his in an objective way, the founders knew that you might operatives that probably weren't grand, so -- job.ood >> that was pretty good, right? so they built a system that had checks and balances and that's

checks and balances are for. but i think the -- so the question is, but i don't think that will stopss them. the democrats are obviously not going to hey are not decide this. it will be the republicans in congress. o i'm going to give you the most likely scenario, in my scenarios his other that could happen? sure. what's most likely is the have icans in the house been sitting on an agenda for six years. they are frustrated by president obama, et cetera, so agenda.nt to pass that they did not think that the republicans would hold the senate and they didn't -- that nly did not think donald trump would be elected president. so they look at this, i think they are doing is they are sitting there saying, okay, e've got a path, we want to pass the tax cut, we went to pass what we can pass that we in agree on and they are not complete agreement on the affordable care act. they understand that they own it

now. they can screw it up and make the obama rollout look like silk understand that and so they are waiting. so they are going -- my view is, to wait -- get as much as they can through. unless the point, president changes his behavior, they are going to say that's enough. anymore. go two republicans are already going to vote against his nominee for secretary of announced hat was tonight. so they are starting. and so it's there. you can hear it occasionally from them, so what you've got to to h for, i think, you have watch for how can congressional ranked?ans remember i don't expect them in the first 10 or 20 days, they aren't going impeach him quickly. it's not going to happen but they are going to start to object. only other thing i can say about some of the appointments is, on defense, i mattis. his office was three doors down from mine. solid.

very, very clear thinker. no way -- doesn't want to drop the bomb. told the president, he shouldn't torture. agreed that he wouldn't have iran deal but he would keep to it. so i think, on the treasury an appointments, i think they are reasonable people. and i think -- i won't go there. i'm done. no, no, do. >> no. >> say whatever dicey thing you're not saying. no. >> but you have people like mattis and other people in his regarded.at are well who -- he goes behind their back the executive order on the refugee ban, stay, it.ever you want to call how long do the honorable people n his cabinet stay on if he continues to do these things? > i don't have an answer to that, but i'm sure some of them i sign upng, what did for? so -- so what i think of, on

policy, on which i'm no expert but i think what happens is, you have to have a strategy. and then there are tactics. me about this president on this is there are i don't i think, but what the strategy is. so there is symbolism and there is reality, like. there is campaigning and there is governing. reporter: trump turned out to be a much better campaigner than we thought and now you have to govern. thing. a different on the foreign what the strateg. so there is symbolism and there is reality, policy, it's symbolic. he said he would build a wall so his supporters i've got to build the wall, but what's purpose of building the wall? does he really believe he can ut a better deal with the mexicans on trade? already businesses, lots of businesses are already objecting they are in washington talking to congressmen and don't swomen and saying, do this. the same thing in regard to refugees.e muslim

he puts the united states more at risk, in my view, in iran, in iraqis, who are with us, as far as i can tell, it's symbolic. it has no -- there is no strategy behind it. haven't there but i seen it and i don't think many people do. -- so ink those people you may not the fact that tillerson was like at exxonmobil that but he's ke a very accomplished man. he sees the way the world is, sure he would not have been advising to do those things. what have to wait and see they do, and i don't know what the right time frame is. they can't do it now. office, only been in they haven't been in office, tillerson, like one day, they can't quit now. so it's going to take matter of time. we'll see. the nk there is always belief that the president the president will stop tweeting and -- anyone believe that?

hope.re is i think hope is good. so what about -- so if you're right now weou say need to be focusing on republicans in congress. it seems democrats, they are a little on their heels, too, not only in the sense that they didn't think he win but since november 9 or so they have known there is a supreme court nominee coming who someone their constituents won't like and yet hey still seem to be trying to figure out how to navigate this situation. reasonable hat's a thing for them to do. was 4-4 with kennedy, as the deciding vote, of votes, he was -- abortions, a series of other things, he's with them.

-- so whenhink about bama was the president, replacing scalea, if you replace calea with a liberal, that's greatest shift in the supreme court probably since 1934. it a 6-3 w you make majority. so with trump, he just puts it replace scalea with a conservative, it's the same as it was. do you u're a democrat, want make the republicans pull out the nuclear clause and say, to go with going just a majority instead of the yourbuster, or do you hold fire on this guy, because the you may not agree with some of his opinions but he's thoughtful, really smart. on, so i think they are probably right to be thinking about, when you throw the browns. >> but there is pressure for

fill bustering on everything that comes in front of them. i just think that plays into trump's hands and makes his right.ers feel that he's the system is broken, and that they can't even get -- they agree to my nominees, nd the democrats, remember, passed the rule that set it only couldn't 51 and you filibuster cabinet appointments and at the time people said that back and it has. so they have decided not to meetings e of the because you have to have a your rum plus one. under the senate rules so that's and didn't out meet, so then you couldn't actually call the meeting. do you think that looks like to a trump supporter? they show a picture and there is of the democrats in the oom, it seems to me that that

plays into their hands and to justify his behavior and continue to act symbolically instead of substantively. >> what do you think it would trump separate from trump? some of them at least, right? there seems to be this core, i don't know, 30, 35% or so, who what, ou know, no matter you change -- from trump? some of your view of the world to fit that. hat would it take in your estimation? a great question. at least once a month -- moved where who and when. in may, we -- so

were sitting around all these at the ys looking candidates, there were about 20 25, whatever, trump's name came up, everything was like -- don't put him in. candidate.serious that's just for show business. good urned out to be a thing for analysis because he wasn't in our list. weturns out, from other work had done in europe that we know hat people who thought their family's income was down or their family financial situation a year as good as it was or two ago, those people all more europe were much anti-immigration. so we had on the first vote what, you know, thought their economy is down, the first choice of those people was no choice. they didn't have a preference. number two was scott walker and he was only at 12%. trump goes on, gives the anderson immigration speech, you listen to him, my god, he's out,

you can't say that in american politics. 22%.enly, he's at he's at 22% because 40% are republicans said that's what financials, itir didn't matter whether it had. they estion wasn't -- perceived it that way. he's speaking their language. 58% of nother question, republicans thought that immigration was a very important issue. 41% of them.had so you've got to remember, in a 23% rson field he's got that puts him twice as his as anybody else. hen the republicans did a couple of other things. front loaded their primaries so more votes up front. two, they switched to a more winner take all format. an advantage mp because he's the early leader. and then the others were fighting over who is going to be establishment can date, right? kasich, sh, christie, and the other parts are fighting

de-party ill the candidate. and we'll never know if the establishment had been able to get on a candidate and put him in if he could have trump. we'll never know but that's rather special circumstances in which he was able to capture the nomination. so those voters, back to those voters, so those are the voters all the way.d him made less than $50,000 per year, high school or less, any way you it, they were the people who were most supportive. so the question is, then, how -- so the question and we're trying to find this out it's -- can he them with, you know, stuff that isn't real? oriented, results that is, it can just be symbolism. can he hold them with symbolism oriented? i happen to believe that they are results oriented. to be people going

who want jobs. they want these things to happen they don't happen, they are go in. our latest poll we asked a trump supporters who were democrats and trump supporters who were independents, because they are tipped it to him. and asked them if in the next would you consider voting democrat? 70% said yes so i don't think hey are tied to the republican party. they are tied to trump a bit but i think they are going -- we're find over time that they are results oriented, and democratic party will have to do what it's going to do but they are going to have to how they think about and talk to those people because wisconsin, en bay, voted big for obama and then switched. 2008, and n, obama in kankakee, illinois, so

is, i think they are going to be results oriented great question and i can't tell you that i have the answer. >> in the course of answering that, you hit on something i wanted to explore. is it part of what the democrats roblem was, is people were saying i perceive that i'm worse off and it seemed like on some level the democrats answer was, statistically speaking you're income has gone up 4.3%. to be sort of an analytical or statistical answer gut driven you know, sort of cry. a good i think that's point. --se statistics don't appeal they don't appeal -- if you're illinois, and your children don't have jobs, illinois,in kankakee, 20 white males over the last years, they live 3.8 years less

they did before. there are job epidemics all over. the democratic party hasn't spoken to them. he assumption has been pretty much that they are there and i politics. identity they don't care much about green bay.litics in i think they don't care where you go to the bathroom. they care about, do the democrats or do the republicans -- does anybody and the care about them jobs they have lost, and what and so, is ion is, it possible to put that together with the regular democratic stuff? sure. but they have got to think about it exactly, as you say, they them.'t talked to >> now, you have written and spoken about globalization as a big part of why things are here and in other parts of the world. nd it did seem like, and i forgot who exactly was it who said this, but i was watching

c-span.y >> hopefully it was me. [laughter] c-span.ink it was someone was saying, people are losing jobs and the democrats is, here's, we'll retrain you. our answer to the massive loss of these, you know, jobs in ly good paying places. and what should the answer have been, in your estimation? and i would like to sort of talk more about globalization and the election here and elsewhere. easy don't ask any very questions. [laughter] >> couldn't you talk about the lectoral college or -- [laughter] >> i don't think -- here's the eason why i don't think it's easy. what globalization does is -- so the first ed at eriod where there was big globalization, 1850 to 1900 or so. major job e two

categories were people either worked on the farm or they as servants at homes. there was a huge transformation nd people were better off economically for that but they moved to the cities and got factory jobs so there was -- created a lot of problems. immigration was an issue. the guilded age. inequality and you can expect that every time there is globalization. go away.t going to there is going to be inequality. switch, here are all these people, in cities, off happened and what was, by 1950, those people had good jobs, my father was able to six rt a family of children. we didn't live -- we had a home. on.ad a house and so but -- and the politics at the there were labor parties and there were anti-labor arties, and the democrats and

republicans, it could be a two party but there was multiparty, parties of the right and so on that were not. but overtime what happened is, people g in the 1970s started to automate, those jobs began to fall so around 50% of 1950, by the in way, it's nice to be able to say o an audience, it was so good in the 1940s that is harry truman could get re-elected in on the taft igning hartley act. you try that with stanford students. who bill clinton was. true, they don't. they were like two. so, they weren't even born then. 17. those jobs -- , but it's the jobs left and some moved to china, et cetera. really automation that caused that, so that's across world. as you mentioned france, the people's party in denmark, the germany, in italy,

over europe you're getting anti-immigration, as the jobs go the political parties they don't cause have 40% labor. so then you try -- so the try and do to stuff, they do stuff like try workers withcollar stanford professors. well, they have got 90% of them are democrat. but, you know, that works okay just go to vote but if and - if you go to a bar put the professors and blue collars workers there it doesn't too well. tap, so, have tiny that's a problem that no one -- that problem.ved so what i worry about is not jobs. i don't worry about jobs too much.

the se, you know, as faerls, you know, people -- you go back and read history oh, my god, mccormack reaper what will happen? jobs.of these people have they all got jobs and we'll create jobs but what i worry about is wages. it's not clear to me that the that these jobs generate to sustain the political system. >> and that's part of it? > is that the crowd from berkeley that's coming in now. just kidding. that comment about stanford. [laughter] >> but that's a great point, and when you talk about things like unemployment. just another issue, i think, emocrats said, well, unemployment is low. but the wages for a lot of these incredibly low so even let's assume, you know, let's unemployment e rate is accurate. being employed at $7.50 per hour isn't the same thing. >> that's correct. so i think you have to have

growth. and if you don't have economic -- the markets't get stripped so you can hire people lower. don't even know if growth alone would cover it but without growth you know you can't do it, it seems to me, and then you to say, well, what are -- what are the president's policies? banging away at carrier or telling the ford otor company you can't do that -- now, you may get a couple of them to say that but i apple's 400,000 workners china are going to suddenly move to the u.s. think you have to try and look at the trump economic he's expressed them thus far and say, are these policies that are really likely growth?ate i don't know. now, the tax cut, corporate tax cut, things like that, they may growth.e but they have to get that through the congress. trump can't do that on his own that's, when you begin to get at that, that's the are ical problem, what

these workers going to do, will they be able to solve the problem? economic policy work? that all comes together and he's got to get that through congress. do you think he will? >> well, i think that congress shape what he tries to get through more. -- the tax, xport 20% tax where imports come into tax nited states, going to at 20%. well, some of those things go forth two or three times, same product. ell, that just means the american taxpayers, we're paying for that. the mexicans aren't paying for it. they will in terms of jobs and stuff like that. not in a real way. i don't think -- i just don't think that's a real solution to the problem. will the congress be able to get a tax cut? i think they will get a tax cut. i wouldn't look forward to getting a lot back yourselves because -- --i know

>> as i understand it, what they you oing to do, suppose made a million dollars. don't you? no. >> total possibility. so no, as asking you, i'm kidding. if you made a million dollars in alifornia, by the time you pay 43% when you add the 39, six, ederal plus the obama tax for medicare and then you pay state to s so what they are going do is cut that rate or the proposal i've seen is they will 43 to 33, es from and -- but they are not going to and local uct state taxes. which pretty much makes it a push. going toal emphasis is be on corporate tax cuts in the hope that it will bring some of the money they have in foreign home, and the second part will be they will reduce gains tax between 15 and 20 but those will be the main deductions. supposed to are

generate jobs? capital gains and money coming back -- the money that say apple and other companies -- that could generate jobs. could. will.bly how many, i don't know. >> some accounting jobs. this.t an economist to do >> so -- we're talking about political parties here. that california, the growing political party is declined -- a national trend, don't third of people wish to belong to either party. what do you make of that? that say about our party system? do we need additional ones. you know, people are consistently especially younger join , declining to either. >> well. you asked that i have data on this. collected, about time, no.

about time she asked me i actually know. on that, so we collect asked all data back to l 1937 on party identification. had this democrats big lead but in the 1980s, was1980s with reagan, there a big rise in the number of independents. a decline in the number of democrats, and so since that time you've really been like 30, 35. have mocrats generally about a three to five-point lead and there are more people who say they are independent. think -- i think that's significant because i think what appened with the political parties was, again, it'size to be able to talk to people, you days when there were liberal republican senators from he senator massachusetts, clark, there rockefellers, scranton, and there were conservative democrats.

parties sorted. and now there are some moderates in the democratic party and moderates in the republican party. but the bottom line is, the european e more like political parties and the democrats are object left and are on the right and the nk by and large that average american is not as liberal on economics as the they are nowhere near as conservative on social issues as the republicans. i think that accounts for a hunk of the rise in independents. personal view is i think that's good sign. that may be because i consider one.lf >> why don't you start a party for those folks? people in theough middle would are these socially liberal economically conservative folks, why haven't we seen something coal list for them or see them, you know, take parties?or the other >> the trouble is, there is not oh us.nufacture

there is only 15% fit, and then there are some on the periphery, core like is about 15%. reason why they don't take over a party is because, well, work. it's a lot of you can't -- you have to go out 435 ecruit candidates in districts and start a run like that that's hard. third-party et is, candidates jumping in, and ross perot and others. it, real reason is because it's easy to take, it's easier to take over a political party. is the only ates democracy in the world where we have democracy in the party and democracy between the parties. only one where people run against each other in that way, in each of the so a ssional districts democrat runs against a emocrat, republicans run against republicans, so think of donned trump. donald trump is not a republican.

trade.ot free he's not any of the things that the republican party was for. he wasn't even pro-choice until like about two months ago. ago, or whenever. but the point is, and he took her the republican party and won. he took it over. of the thinke think populace. in the era of globalization there is a lot of flip-flopping. in the rue in the 1870s u.s. just think for main. in 2004, i remember reading this by karl rove saying after the victory, you know, it's great. we've created kind of a mckinley era. the republicans have now won control te elections, the house and senate. president bush saying i've earned some capital, i'm going o spend it and there it was, privatization and social security and then in 2006, oh, my god, they all got beat. 2008, bo abortion there were ooks, carvel's book, where the

democrats will control america for the next generation. apparently generations are they used to be. obama president overreaches. flip-flopping t is the result of this sort of conomic undercutting and you don't have a solution. so under those times, and again, the democrats, populace were riding as a political party the democrats bad guy, we'll a take their platform and take him and they captured the democratic party. easy to do it. >> is that where you see democrats going? of in an they are sort internal debate, do we follow the bernie sanders or do we try you know, stay on this other path of these more established democrats? > this is strange but i actually think the democrats have an easier time of it than republicans. not in the short run because in the short run, as you say so the question is, they lost an

election. but, you know why, did they lose? because of the distribution of votes. they actually won the election by about three million votes. some of you need to move to on.n bay and so so they lost by 77,000 votes. for a second. if 77,000 votes in pennsylvania, wisconsin, and michigan had clinton would be president, and then the oh, america uld be rejects racism, et cetera, et cetera. didn't change at all. the votes were exactly the same, you just get these different -- these different headlines so the democrats have problem, they lost an election. and their problem is, we lost the election by 77,000 votes. well, so then there is going to be the fight exactly that you expressed between the left, sanders, bernie sanders, and the governor of montana and some other people in the democratic party that are

no, now we've got to be more centralist. of normal fight after an election so that's not easy, to be particularly but, think of what happens when is gone from the republicans. what are they as a party? they don't know. they are now sitting there, a that bunch of people believe in the things, lower taxes, more freedom, blah, blah, blah, and they are thinking donald trump. they are waiting because they agenda, but the he's not a republican in any ordinary sense. the es he redefine republican party? or does the traditional parts of party come an forward? i think that's a much tougher question than the question of figure crats trying to out how to win next time. >> just one last question before e turn it over for audience questions so get to thinking around we'll be coming

with a microphone soon do. the democrats need to rethink their views on immigration, since that seems to be the thing hat galvanized so many people in certain places, that had voted for obama once and now issue.witched, was this at least have that conversation? >> yeah. well, in principle, no. but in reality, probably yes. the data on that has shown for a long time that the democrats were closer -- that the independents, so i think of it, democrats, republicans, and independents. so where are the independents? there were fractions of the democratic party -- democrats were in general on the side of more immigration. republicans, some of them, bush ut, president bush put forward a decent plan, people wish they had taken it now, i think. a question about independence and i think it's he way you talk about immigration. and i think that not talking

they either didn't talk about it or conversation? >> yeah. well, in principle, no. but in reality, probably yes. the data on that disparaged trump. it didn't work. so i think they have to think about it and probably talk about different way. but i don't see -- i think they win -- they can have a position close to where their now and they can still win the next election, to be easier than republicans thinking about what means now.can party >> okay. >> twhaent much of an answer, by way. >> i think democrats would love to hear about how they have an go.er >> let me just jump in with audience questions at this that's okay. and, let me take a prerogative the first question. which is, a few years ago, a out called why nations that i thought was

particularly pressient and they argue in that book that when institutions in a country no work, the country no longer works. and our institutions, i.e. congress, the media, parties, are broken. work, the think that our institutions are going to fail us?nder if you us or >> you're talking about robinson book? >> yeah. ph.d..got a >> but i can't pronounce his name so i didn't say it. that's not -- that's not a ph. >> but i can't pronounce his name big seller. so their argument is, if you try to look -- if you're looking for why the economies don't work better, their argument is, book. institutions make a difference and institutions are weighed in a particular way and some people

some n advantage and people don't, and if you don't get the institutions right, you right.et the economy so they went on some broken institutions. are american institutions broken? no, i don't think they are broken. i think they are in a situation where like the institutions australia, e, everywhere, where -- this time the alism and transformation of the economy is enough harder than it was before. 80% of the world. before it was just europe and the u.s., essentially. and you have ld the problem of, is anything you sustainable? so you see china has 7% to 8% growth. you 't know how large of have been in beijing when it wasn't windy but it's not great question is can we do this in a sustainable fashion? i think, you know, our institution may be damaged but -- ou actually look at how

look at the big crisis, 2007-2008-2009. that was a horrendous recession. at how if you look we've done relative to europe, australia, and japan, the united pretty good shape. but -- 2.3%, not great, not -- i'm just saying relative o everybody else, with the possible exception of germany, jobs, incomes more are up some. so i think we've done better, so -- ink our institutions are i don't think we should turn to parliamentary government or anything. but they are damaged. the question is about electoral college. do you see the electoral college what possible alternative scenarios, whichsen anyway owe do you see as being

do best one and which one as being the most probable? the never think of what's -- i don't ause --- think it's possible. so what die think? he electoral college, is it going away? no. here were in the 1950s several bipartisan attempts to reform it. and they were democrat and republican, and basically, there ere going to do it like congressional districts, like nebraska and maine do it. got beat in the congress because the big states didn't like it and the little states didn't like it. it states didn't like because they like the fact that candidates pay more attention because if you win california by vote you get all of those and little states like it because otherwise, no one knows there.re wyoming, like nothing. so this way they get three. but now there is

some chance for change because states like california and new and illinois, candidates, hillary clinton, democrats don't unless they go -- the democrats come here, they come to silicon valley and hollywood money. they don't campaign here. you may have noticed they didn't have much trouble winning the state. so they don't campaign here, and that california no longer gets the juice that it candidates the coming. so there is more of a chance for it has to but i think come from the states and the problem with the states, best way to do it is break it down by congressional democrats are not going to like that i'll give you an example why. 2012, president obama won by five million votes. -- over five million and romney carried 226

congressional districts. had gone to that system, romney would have been elected. so the alternative is not -- i do believe as states come along will start to do things like nebraska, and there but it will changes take a while. >> in all of this, talked about, back at the beginning of this talk, talked about, would they on and to results and so so forth. >> i'm sorry? >> would the electorate respond to results. in the next election, and -- i think we i think we just watched a situation where that happen. where people had more healthcare. the list y was up -- is long. and fox news told them that case.t the obama -- everybody said obama had a good message but didn't get it across but the people to

to get it across were listening to fox news, they were never going to hear it there. it doesn't seem to me that any of that is going to change. -- ink that those people it's not going to matter whether for theseides results people and that they have better paying jobs, because they are do, and be told they they are going to be told that everything is fine and they are going to continue listening to goingws, and they are not to know that it's not. me, and w it feels to it's happening already in this first 10 days. big difference -- he's president and they are responsible now. that's one. two, the areas, it turns out, here mrs. clinton didn't do as well were not the areas where they had been growth. -- so, we oversampled six midwestern states that it turns out that the areas where population went down those were t down,

the areas -- population and jobs were down, trumps vote was up 2.9% over obamas and in areas where there was growth. so the question was, areas voted were areas where jobs weren't. and i guess the third point i make, i don't think these yeah, you fox news, know the max, bill o'reilly 3.2 million. that's it. watches him. that's you know the -- cnn, i mean, they but, of everybody else, okay, three million, you know dancing people watch stars?e 24 million. so i do think there is a problem sources, because now people can just listen to there is no --

here is no -- there is no walter cronkite to interpret events. i think there is a little bit of probableelem, and we're looking that now and i -- and we are looking at that now. i think the biggest problem, i think the biggest problem may be facebook, where most people under 40, that is where they get their news. >> and youtube actually. my husband and i volunteered at a middle school. we were teaching a journalism class. we would say, we're going to research -- they wanted to write about video games, of course. ok, they would just go to youtube and type in video games. or if we were going to research wales, they would go to youtube and type in wales. cnnnews is positively compared to some of the nutty stuff on youtube. there is whole flat earth movement. google it. [laughter]

>> or youtube it. it is kind of interesting. i think there was a lot of silo-ing in this election, but if in reality their places were losing jobs and population and life expectancy was going down, that wasn't just something fake that fox was telling them. i just want to point out that rick perry was on both. [laughter] >> what are the prospects for healthy democracy in an era of really powerful gerrymandering? , i thinkrrymandering gerrymandering is overestimated. if you actually look at it, there are between 65 and 75

-- andhat are majority they are from these districts that are set so they will have the majority with minority representative. once you sort those in, then republicans have a great game. they say you can have another one. just put some more democrats in that district. if you look at the distribution of the democrat and republican votes in house seats, the democrats have a fat end of the tale, 50%. the democrats have a lot of districts where the winner gets 75%, 80% of the vote. the republican tail looks nowhere near that fat on the end. is, if you want to draw the district differently, you could get that, but part of theserrymandering is

districts. once they are there, our best estimate of this is that, of the districts that are left, the republicans got about a 53%, 53 %, 54% tendency to windows. the way things are set up now, i think the democrats are going to have a hard time taking the house. it will take some event like the disaffection with bush in 2006 for the democrats to get the house again, unless they change the way those districts are drawn. somewhat heartened by your observation about general as as and rex tillerson guy with perspective and a worldview. what do you make of the fact that secretary manus was standing right behind president trump when he announced the

immigration order on friday? >> what could he do? then what happens? is, if you are jim mattis, you may disagree with that, but there are many things that mrs. clinton, when she was secretary of state, and obama didn't agree on. i think he would be thinking something like this. the immigration issue, relative to what damage he could do, is pretty miniscule. you, and you are thinking, what could he do? it seems to me that you might well have stayed there and say, i don't agree with this, but that is what i've got to do. i don't know. he didn't call me. he didn't ask me anything. but that would be my view.

you take those jobs in washington, you sign on and you are in. unless you are willing to resign. i take the point that the secretary of homeland security has not been confirmed, but he's the secretary of defense. it seems, i don't know -- >> he probably -- he was the guy that said, i wouldn't have signed the iran deal, but i wouldn't get out of it now. don't torture anybody. frankly, i'm glad he didn't resign. there's principle and there's getting stuff done. that is the trade-off. it is true that in a washington job, you take that job, and you argue like hell inside for, this is what i think we should do, and when you lose, you go along with the president because that is the game.

if you don't do that, which has happened a few times, you are not back in the game ever again. >> it does seem like our democratic party, well i'm an independent too, but anyway, that we have a tendency to sort of put our heads in the sand when it comes to jobs. we seem to think that everybody when they really are not. maybe employment is up, but the people that worked in the factory are now working at walmart and are not so happy. this is what we experience. i've been in manufacturing, running a company for 20 years, and we didn't lose the jobs because of automation. we lost jobs because attacks havens, zero income tax in malaysia, zero income tax in

ireland. i'm just wondering, how do we combat that? globalizationl, is really hard to combat. first of all it is global. donald trump can do what he wants, but the chinese can do what they want and the europeans are going to do what they want. the second thing is, inequality is just going to increase. robert downing, isn't he the guy [indiscernible] head?uy or iron robert downing, right, actor. >> robert downey junior, ironman. i will translate. >> thank god for that. so on the last ironman movie, he made $80 million. how did he make that? 320 million people around the

world, he got a quarter for everyone that came in. suppose you are the best carpenter or plumber. how much can you make? the question is, how do you redistribute it? can it be done? it is a very tough issue. -- by theink anybody way, inequality, what happens is, in the old days -- so my daughter, well-educated, she is an investment banker, making pretty good money -- i don't know, $300,000, and her husband is a lawyer, and they get married. in the old days, there would have been one salary, his. now they are making $600,000. that also increases inequality. what are we going to do? are we going to say to people,

don't do that, you your job -- you say that to my daughter. i'm not. the final thing is, you can help inequality if you say, no more google, no more facebook. that will bring about a quality in facebook. >> that will bring about a revolution. at least they are going to unlike it. the democrats to talk about jobs. the problem is if you went to hillary clinton's website, it was a 28-point plan for job creation that no one really understood. you had to go to the right tab under the right menu to find the thing. was,istic as the message at least you knew what he was going to do. hillary clinton made it clear she cared, but the practical steps were just sort of more than the attention span of a lot of people.

>> on the subject of immigration and institutions, i'm an immigration lawyer and i can tell you that the tow executive orders that were issued last week, they read like statutes. they are plainly unconstitutional, both in violation of separation of powers and individual rights. they are major overhauls of immigration. what has been called the refugee ban is a lot more than a refugee ban it also affects iranian americans. it also affects a host of other visas. i can tell you from my own practice that there's a stream of about 25 emails from clients i'm getting every hour that it has totally upended immigration law. there have been four federal court issues in the last 12

days. all the reports from my colleagues are that the administration is in violation with these executive orders. it is a total meltdown of rule of law. >> why is that a meltdown of the rule of law? the president puts together a not very well drafted -- four judges, it is going to go through the courts, and i'm happy to have it solved in the courts. that is what the constitution is about. it is a check. >> i agree with that, but that he's in violation with the court orders, to me, this is troubling. the department of state -- order theges can trump administration to appear. there's plenty of mechanisms. any party who refuses to appear, refuses to abide by a court order, is subject to a series of other court actions.

presumably, the administration would be subject to those same -- >> i'm pretty sure the republican caucus is not happy with that order. inside, they are saying, this is crazy. we should back off and come down. >> from the perspective of looking at the future of the parties, what is your take on the growth of republican control of state houses? good question. it has grown. but you knew that. was, president obama, who was such a great campaigner in 2008 and 2012, the

2010 election decimated the republican party. they lost all those house seats. they lost 675 legislative seats. in 2014, they lost another 400 legislative seats. decimation,nd of and states tend to choose , sornors that kind of flip i think democrats should not be unhappy. 2018. i think democrats in 2018 are going to pick up five to seven governorships, and those are governors that are going to be there potential candidates for the presidency in 2020. it is going to reestablish some of that. the next thing -- that is one thing that is going to happen that is good. i think the other thing is the

clintons, however good they've been, they are gone. since -- that is a long time. they are out now. the democratic party is going to pick up some governorships. they are going to rebuild that way. we will see what happens. the main thing was the decimation of the 2010 election, followed by 2014. >> even party operatives will tell you they did not do a good job building their bench. it was one of these, our guy is in the white house, we don't need to worry. there was some neglect in the party to build these grassroots organizations that need to be there. so i think that one of the lessons of this election, one of the things they need to do, is to focus better on that, to use the republican playbook to some degree.

quick question. as far as dealing with the current administration, this is a very biased question, but all the papers that have come out, the marches and so forth, in your view, what is the best strategy, speaking of strategies, for trying to preserve some of the values that were in the obama administration? >> moved to green bay. [laughter] >> good answer. >> thank you. as a wise man once said, move to green bay. it is hard. because we are in the bay area and our congresspeople, it is not like we can go out and root for a more liberal member of congress or senate, so there is some limitation to the grassroots things we can do. to some degree the best thing

you can do is donate to organizations you feel are under threat, planned parenthood, the aclu, etc. in the bay area, there's not a lot of doorknocking to get any further left. off and going to sauce send us into the ocean. marching of course. it seems that trump does respond and he is interested in numbers and bigness of crowds. i think it really hurt his feelings, frankly, to see the women'sturnout for the march and march is elsewhere. [laughter] >> i know, but if that is what you want to do, get out there. it does matter, the size and the number of women's march and march is elsewhere. [laughter] people who show up. those would be the things i would advise. >> i agree with all that. the republican party.

watch what they start to do. if there are people doing the thing you want, right them, encourage them. they should do something about that. are under some pressure. one last thing, all of this about trump's way or the republican party, let's be realistic. he's starting with the lowest, ever since we did gallup polls, he starts with the lowest approval rating. the lowest. up in our poll, and over the weekend, when all this went on, he fell to 38% on the refugee thing. , 51%ll to 38% approval disapproval. and among republicans who voted for him, and democrats who voted for him, and i think we kept

independents out, but 48% thought he handled it very badly. that that is what you've got to look for. you've got to contribute to the causes you believe in. ain'ter, politics beanbag. it is hard. it takes time to do it but the great thing is we have elections every two years. and the filibuster. >> at least for now. >> this is a two-part question. df hillary's motto ha been rebuild america, would that have strengthened the hand of democrats? and if the democrats got behind true infrastructure redevelopment, would that compensate in part for the loss of jobs in things like coal

mining, energy, globalization, and modernization? pathway for the democrats? the stronger together, you know, in retrospect, may not have appealed to everyone. not everyone wants to be together. sometimes they just want to buy a house. should the democrats focus more on infrastructure? now, the democrats are in an enviable position. i interviewed nancy pelosi about this. she said, we want to get behind an infrastructure bill. there's this great new deal idea of putting people to work, kind of an fdr recipe for bringing america back. but she said, the republicans,

the only thing they want to do is build toll roads and put yunis abilities and the federal government further in debt and benefit large financial institutions. then the democrats are going to be in a position of saying no to an infrastructure bill for a lot of working people. jobs, andwe want the the democrats say, no, it is a municipal bond. even if they are for an infrastructure bill, not just any one will do. that could get them back into a corner. republicans are pushing for more of a public-private partnership, emphasis on private. >> i think that is right. >> smart man. [laughter] >> then i would like to ask each of you, do you want to make a closing comment or thought? >> i don't, particularly. [laughter]

>> i think the people in this room could use some good news. you are the professor. i'm just lame stream media over here. i think they could use some happy news. have we gone through worse in history? >> come on. we had presidents who kept lists meanemies, watergate, i this country has been through quite a few things. -- why do i have to do this? aboutlatively optimistic how our institutions will handle this situation. quitek the probability is high that there's going to be a break in the republican party. there will be a sorting. that will stop a good deal of

what might have happened. that's it. my job is to be an analyst. i'm not a preacher. latin]ng go in peace, children. >> on that note, melissa kane, david brady, thank you so much. [applause] guest iseekend, our kentucky senator rand paul. he talks about republican efforts to repeal and replace the health care law, including his own proposal. he's also asked about other issues relating to foreign policy and surveillance. watch the interview sunday on c-span.

>> sunday night on "q&a" -- >> in all these years, i've never seen a case, where so uncritically, journalists have accepted information from a single source, edward snowden, who is in moscow, under the control of the russian government. >> investigative journalist edward epstein on his book, how america lost its secrets. >> he did enormous damage. i don't even know if his supporters say that he did no damage. they say he did enormous good. that is their view. because did some good he started a national conversation. he opened up a subject of interest. trump isnk where certainly right is that this man

has not faced justice and he deserves to face justice, whatever we decide. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." >> president trump welcomed japanese prime minister shinzo abe to the white house for a meeting in the oval office. they discussed trade policy and global security. while taking questions from reporters, the president was asked about his executive order on immigration and his reaction to the ninth circuit court of appeals ruling that keeps the government from implementing the order. this is 30 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states and the prime minister of japan.