assume control of the house of representatives republicans increased their seats in the senate. this has been noted as the most join us as the 116th congress cap into session. watch your member take the oath of office, unelected of a new speaker and the congress beginning its work. new congress, new leaders, live on the span and c-span two. >> this is the magic editor of sabato's crystal ball, and joining us to talk about campaign 2020. good morning. guest: good morning. host: what is it like looking at these situations coming into the 2020 campaign, especially with elizabeth warren's announcement this week?

guest: it feels like 2016 on the republican side where you had candidates getting in. in that race there was not necessarily a big fish that dissuaded other candidates from entering the race. the only major candidate who dip -- who did run on the republican side of 2016 was mitt romney. he just got elected to the u.s. senate. jeb bush was able to push out mitt romney but was not able to push out anyone else. you saw what happened with bush and in that big field, you had that outsider candidate donald trump, who some party leaders did not like, getting the nomination. you could go back to 1976 and the democrats, that was a big field and jimmy carter came out of that, and he is not an establishment person. so one wonders in the very big democratic field, if this race may throw us something up a curve ball and someone may emerge that we do not expect. host: does it indicate getting a name out first? how does that work? guest: i feel like the 2016 cycle started in mid-december of 2014. so about roughly in this time in

the calendar, very early in the cycle, and that is when jeb bush got in, mid-december, and elizabeth warren getting in a couple of days ago, that is pretty standard right now. the presidential campaign if you get the nomination, see eventually, a two-year proposition. look, we had democratic candidates eventually running for president, people like kamala harris and others sort of making it kind of clear they are going to run, cory booker. elizabeth warren sort of formalized it. one reason maybe she got in -- only she knows why she decided to announce when she did -- there may be something of a scramble for staff at this point and maybe by getting in a little bit earlier you may have a better pick of staff because a lot of democratic consultants and other folks are involved in and -- these campaigns, there are only so many good people to get. that is part of the conversation and maybe we'll see more democrats getting in the next couple of weeks here. host: our guest will be with us. if you want to ask him questions about potential candidate whan

-- and what they face, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. let's hear a little bit from senator elizabeth warren in her announcement. senator warren: we can make our democracy work for all of us. we can make our economy work for all of us. we can rebuild america's middle class, but this time, we got to build it for everyone. no matter where you live in america, and no matter where your family came from in the world, you deserve a path to opportunity because no matter what our differences, most of us want the same thing. to be able to work hard, play by the same set of rules, and take care of the people we love. that is the america i am fighting for. that is why, today, i am launching an exploratory committee for president, the outcome of this election will depend on you. >> this is what democracy looks

like. senator warren: in the past 20 years, millions of people have done more than they ever though they would to protect the promise of america. here is what that means. if we organize together, if we fight together, if we persist together, we can win. we can. and we will. host: a little bit about those themes -- not new for her, but i think we saw a lot of standard issue democratic themes in this message and actually one of the messages that i with associate with bill clinton in the 90's was work hard and play by the -- in the 1990's was work hard and play by the rules. people who work hard and play by the rules can get ahead and one, -- and warren sort of used that exact same terminology, although i think warren is a candidate who is more left of the spectrum than hillary clinton four years ago, certainly as bill clinton as a candidate and president in the 1990's, you know, that is where the democratic party is headed. i think we have seen both parties get a little bit more

ideologically polarized and increasingly, the democratic party, i think, is a little bit more liberal. but also i do wonder -- this is not addressed in the video -- you know, we do have a president who kind of sounds lake democrat on trade, for instance, also, who has been a little bit more dovish on foreign policy. how are these democrats going to try to differentiate themselves from the president. it is natural, whoever the democratic nominee is, it is going to be on the opposite side of donald trump on any issue. that is something that is hashed out the many presidential debates we will have in the summertime on the democratic side. host: we hear the phrase exploratory committee a lot. what does that mean? guest: that is something that is hashed out to get the campaign going without being a candidate. i remember jeb bush sort of held off on the official declartion for awhile and part of the reason for that he was able to

s that wereuper pac going to help him win with the nomination, and it didn't work out. but look, elizabeth warren starting the committee and running for president. there are certain legal itches about it you know, we can sit her and say she is going to be a candidate. host: going to iowa this weekend. guest: of course, you got the traditional states starting up the calendar, iowa, new hampshire, california, the biggest delegate prize, they moved up to march. early voting will start in california several weeks before that, so the calendar is a little bit compressed, which it will be interesting to see if detracts from iowa and new hampshire, getting as much attention as they usually get. host: our first call for you comes from marion. she is in virginia, democrat line. hello. caller: hello. happy new year to everyone. host: happy new year. go ahead. caller: oh, thank you. my question to you is, what is going to change? we have lobbyists, we have big byey, and the donors that

our politicians in both parties -- even though i am on the democratic side, i know it happens with the democrats as well. state street just said the lobbyists are starting to move into bride the democrats. the big donors -- i understand need all thiss money, and is what is concerning. there are two's, we have the team of the workers, the 99%, and the 1%. if they are in charge and have the power and are making all of the laws and all of the money is going to them, we do not have a chance. they are not going to represent us, and that is my concern. can you address that, please? guest: certainly, the influence of the well-heeled and powerful industries, that has always been an issue in american politics and i am not here to prescribe ways to deal with that, necessarily.

i do think the democrats are going to be talking about some of the things that you talked about in your weston during their debates, and i wonder if democrats will be pushing for things like public financing of elections, which i guess hypothetically could reduce the amount of big money or coming up with some sort of legislative response the citizens united supreme court decision for that from several years ago, but sometimes these reforms don't necessarily work the way you intend. ,he mccain-feingold campaign finance reforms, they intended to make the parties a little less powerful but you still see big donors having influences on these elections. --o not know if it is certainly, democrats are more in favor of these campaign-finance restrictions that republican. republicans see it as a free speech issue, and this supreme court, which is more

conservative then we have seen in the past, might view these campaign-finance issues as first amendment questions. even if democrats got total control of washington and tried to do wide sweeping campaign-finance regulations, i do not know if the court would go along with them on that. it is a tricky question. host: republican line from mississippi, this is wayne, hello. caller: good morning. i would like to ask a question if i could, please. which one of the democratic candidates is the most socialist? i will hang up and listen. thank you. guest: well, i guess you could say bernie sanders because he uses that word to describe himself and he is not technically a democrat. he just got reelected as an independent in vermont, but, you know, obviously, he has pursued the democratic presidential nomination before and very well may do so in 2020. i will say -- again, i think this is going to be a liberal leaning field, whether it is

"socialist" is up to your own you would, but as expect, the democratic nominee to be a fairly left-wing candidate, more in keeping with where we have seen the democrats recently, i guess, as opposed to bill clinton, who at least -- perceptions of him when he was a candidate was that he was this third way, more of a moderate southern democrat. those folks don't necessarily exist in the democratic party is and i think bill clinton a more liberal figure now that he was 25 years ago. host: what is the likelihood of joe biden being part of this field? guest: it sounds like it of 50-50 and he is mulling it over as we speak. someone like biden doesn't get need to get in as early because he has the name i.d. he will probably be able to build up an organization. in fact, he kind of has an organization right now in the post vice presidential life.

so we are still waiting to see, but you look at all these democrats, there is no one in the field who is the clearly dominant figure, and therefore i think that would lead to more candidates getting in as opposed to fewer candidates. we are hearing about house members getting in, traditionally house members do not do a lot in presidential contest. house members, senators, governors, people who might not be in government, like michael bloomberg, the former mayor of new york city. some other folks may decide to get in. i do think it will be a pretty big field. you mentioned michael bloomberg. he made a comment on one of the sunday shows about his ambitions and what he would like to. let's hear from that. mr. bloomberg: um, there is no rush to do it. everybody wants to know what you are going to do and the bottom line is, i am not sure yet. i care about a bunch of issues. i care for my kids. i care for this country that has been so good to me, and i want to see how i can help the best.

right now, my foundation and my company, i give 100% of the company's profits, or my share of them, to the foundation. we support an awful lot of things that we are doing that let us explain to people how to do things and give them options, not telling them what to do, but i think i can make the world a better place in the private sector. can i make it a better place the public sector? i think so. i had 12 years in city hall. i think it is fair to say most people liked what we did in city hall. do i think i could be a good president? yes. i am not the only one that could be a good president. i disagree with the current president on so many things, i don't even know where to start there. >> i assume, are you trying to figure out if democratic party you? ng to accept am bloomberg: well, i much closer to their philosophy, although i don't agree with any one party on everything. would you have to run as a

democrat. would you have to get a democratic nomination. if you go out and you he explain to them what you do. keep in mind, i got elected in new york city, an overwhelmingly democratic city, and overwhelmingly minority city. i got elected three times. i must know something about this. guest: he has an unlimited amount of money. the question is could you actually, you know, use that money and actually generate support? i think there are a lot of about bloomberg and some of the maybe heavy-handed police tactics in new york city that would be something other candidates would use against bloomberg. 20, 25, ir it is could sit here and badmouth the chance of 20 to 25 of them. but i would be right. somebody has got win this nomination and there is no clear frontrunner so i can't sit here and say, oh, well, elizabeth warren has no chance, michael bloomberg has no chance. i mean, i don't know.

i think there are a lot of people with credible resumes who could run credible campaigns who will decide to run and a long campaign to go, a year or plus before people start voting. host: in bloomberg's case you have to deal with what to do with the news division as he is running as a candidate. guest: there is a thought that they would not cover politics if they were running, and of course bloomberg is a very big and covering news company, american politics, specifically in the past five to 10 years they have beefed that coverage up. host: this is from new jersey, moulton, new jersey. liz, hello. caller: good morning. i watched mrs. warren's rollout yesterday and i was quite impressed with it. i have been following her since before she was a senator and when she tried to stand up the consumer group that, that she founded, more or less, after the last crisis.

i think she has a strong case to be made and mainly that unlike many of the people who want to be populist, she actually came from a working class/poor family. i think she has walked roads that donald trump never walked, that hillary clinton never walked. she was not supported throughout her life by her father or his largess, and i think her knowledge of both the economy and law make her pretty viable as far as looking to the future as to what to do with the american dream that is not working for many people. host: ok. thank you, caller. guest: i think the caller makes sort of the case that elizabeth warren wants to make. she does come from humble beginnings. she has interesting biography.

actually, her ideas about consumer financial protection and other things are really intellectually very important, i think, to where the democratic party stands on those kinds of issues today. i think she is a pretty important member of the democratic senate caucus. i also think that frankly, one of the lessons maybe from the 2018 primary season was that i think democratic primary voters -- when given the option to vote color orle of also white women sort of liked having that option and the democratic party is becoming more diverse. it seems certainly possible that the democrats, for the second time in a row, actually the third time in a row, would not nominate a white male to be the presidential nominee. so again, there are lots of positives, i think, for warren, one of the things that tripped up warren has been this question about her native american ancestry. she and her team decided to release information on the dna

test she took a couple of months ago. that was not particularly well received. theoes not seem like president will ever be mollified on that particular issue. he will continue to refer to her as "pocahontas" which again -- rightly or wrongly -- he will keep doing it. we know enough about the president that he will not give that up. and i think a lot of people questioned why she decided to bring the issue back up, but that was not part of a rollout video and what was part of a rollout video was really very modest beginnings and you know, rising impressively in the career. so i think there was a tendency to kind of underestimate her chances, and i do think she is a credible contender. do you think she is the favorite for the nomination? no. there is no favorite for the nomination. host: you hinted thet new york -- you hinted that new york connected to the

fighting cancer initiative, that goes on from there, including divided foundation. do all of these become potential sources for the campaign should he decide to run? guest: i would think so. there are a lot of people you would associate with biden world in the very places -- in these various places, and that could sort of meta-more -- se into a campaign. i do not have any protection on biden, but only he will be a viable contender, along with these others. host: when it comes to funding, what about this idea of a pure campaign funding of all dollar donation -- of small dollar donations, not funding from corporate. who is making those kind of promises? can they be kept? guest: i think part of it is whether you can actually raised the small dollars. i think elizabeth warren would be able to raise the small dollars. battle over rourke, the former texas house member who ran a very good campaign against ted cruz, although he lost, he has

been talked about as a contender. he is someone who could raise small dollars donation because he did so great in the fund-raising in his 2018 senate race and i think a lot of this just has to do with can you actually raise the small dollars? you know, someone like michael bloomberg can write a check. so that is a positive thing for his candidacy. if you do see some other kind of maybe more corporate figures getting in this race, they don't have to worry all that much about fundraising, but you know, not everyone will be able to raise a ton of money with all dollars, and then it he comes, who do you take money from? that is not a sensitive subject on the public inside, it is on the democratic side. you will sometimes see candidates say they will not take money from certain kinds of tax. i'm sure that will be an issue in this campaign. host: our guest with the university of virginia of politics the managing editor of

sabato's crystal ball. what is that? guest: a weekly nonpartisan newsletter. we talk about elections, and try to handicap the winners and losers as we get closer to election. that comes out every thursday, free to sign up. host: this is from michigan. independent line, bob, hello. caller: yeah. this is a comment regarding elizabeth warren's advertisement of her all inclusive america. um, if you could roll the tape again, i bet you a dime to a dollar you won't see a white male in it. all females. and all -- ethic racial groups. not one white male in the advertisement. that is elizabeth warren's all-inclusive america. host: there actually was -- guest: i watched the video yesterday. there were white men in it. i think warren is trying to put together a multiracial coalition, although that we know that white men are the weakest

demographic group for democrats, but you know, white voters still make up majority of the electorate. getting some support from whiteman, not getting totally crushed by the demographic is important, especially in some states like michigan, wisconsin, that are going to help determine the next president. -- thosees are states are whiter than the national average and in some ways, or working-class than the national average. if you look at the key swing voters in the 2016 election and in 2020, you are looking at the democratic voters the midwest that decided to vote for donald trump, perhaps reluctantly, and trying to get those voters back is crucial for elizabeth warren. foreign halfd the minute video, those folks do appear, but it is presenting as sort of a multiethnic coalition that she is trying to get, and that is what the the democratic

party is. host: what is the likelihood that a republican rises up to challenge donald trump? guest: good question. you know, new hampshire. we've seen this in the past inch -- and even for a sitting president who gets renominated. new hampshire can sometimes trip him up. we have seen pat buchanan in 1692 ran to the right of george h.w. bush, and got 35%, 40% of the vote in new hampshire. going back a little bit further, lyndon johnson only got, only won by sort of unprimessive tally over gene mccarthy in 1968 and johnson decided not to run. if he did have someone like john kasich or jeff flake, and that person decamped to new hampshire for your, i can see new hampshire casting a protest vote against the president. it may not mean the president would lose the nomination, but it could be a sign of weakness going forward. you know, also, there is the possibility that because of the mueller investigation or some other factor that the president isn't even running in 20 or has to resign or something -- i am

not predicting that, but i am saying there is a wide range of possibilities. there is also a possibility that the president will get reelected. you know, just a lot of uncertainty now. but the president still refans -- still retains pretty good approval ratings with the republicans specifically. 80% plus. that is not the kind of, that is still strong. and you cannot expect him to lose renomination at this point, but he may face some opposition and may be than token opposition. host: here is russell from north carolina, democrat line. caller: good morning. how are you all doing today? host: doing well. caller: i have a question -- now, what about a three-party 2020? and as far as immigration, when everyone is talking about all inclusive, but again, still they are supporting that of keeping people who are refugees from coming in to the country to joy -- to enjoy this american dream or, you know, at least pursue it. the third party in 2020. is there a -- we have a pendulum.

right, it will cut your head off, and left will smile at you while we do it. what about a party that would balance this out? some cry about oh, you messed up the election in 2016. no. that was not the case. the case is that people are supposed to in a democracy to vote for who they choose to best represent them. host: thanks, caller. guest: you may see someone like john kasich decide to run on a third party. i do think that there is going to be a ceiling on third-party candidates this year because -- you look at 2016, a year where you had to pretty unpopular presidential candidates, the third-party vote was only 6%. i would not say those candidates ine particularly strong, but an election year, assuming that donald trump is the republican nominee, that would be an up or down referendum on the president, which to me would suggest maybe a small third-party vote, but that is also assuming there is not a major third-party candidate.

1992 was a referendum on george h.w. bush. you had ross perot coming in and getting 90% of the vote. if someone credible were to come in, you could see a lot of people defect. let's face it. i don't think, as the callers have alluded to, the americans are pretty polarized by party. i wouldn't say the two parties are extraordinarily popular so maybe there would be an opportunity for someone to come in, although that person may and you woulde not expect this person to win or carry any individual state. host: from culpepper, virginia, democrat's line, wilbur, go ahead. caller: happy new year, gentlemen. host: happy new year. caller: first of all, i would like to say joe biden, he would never get my vote because when -- he put clarence thomas on the supreme court when he was the chairman of the committee back in the days. now, my dream ticket would be kerry maccallum, the x governor

of this state, and kamala harris, california. that's the dream ticket for the country. because we're going to need the southern states, our southern government can go down to the south and have some votes. for is my dream ticket, everyone across the south. remember joe biden? he put clarence thompson on the supreme court. thank you. guest: i think the caller does get at that point, that joe biden has long history in washington and a lot of stuff to pick at and a candidate who i think the past has looked better on paper than actually in practice. and that is something to consider, even as joe biden is likely to be leading polls. he led a hole in iowa, a national poll from cnn. if he were to run against the other candidates, they would team up on him and start picking away at him, because he is also probably a more centrist or less left candidate than others in the democratic field, and terry

mcauliffe is another potential democratic nominee. i think he is interested, even if joe biden does not run, and the former governor of virginia beingis most known for affiliated with the clintons, and i do not know if there will be a desire for that. i think he would be a credible person as well. we are talking about a lot of house members and senators, john hickenlooper is the outgoing governor of colorado, those are two names to watch from the governor's group in terms of possibility. senator kamala harris of california is another contender. i could list probably 20 more people who are talking about running and might be credible candidates. host: when do we start seeing debates? guest: i think the dnc said they would be starting in june, maybe june or july. and remember, the republicans had such a big field they had to have the grownup table and the

kids table, they had an undercard debate because they can only accommodate 10 people on the main stage. doocrats might split it up, back-to-back nights, have some sort of lottery, so maybe you would see joe biden in one debate and elizabeth warren in the other one. that seems a little more fair, although it is a hard problem for the parties to have to deal with. it is easy to say that the republicans did not handle 2016 correctly, but it was also uncharted territory. -- if thee that democrats are able to come up with a more equitable way of including candidates and determining which debate they are a part of, if you do have more than 10 credible contenders, which i think you probably will, just in the summer of 2019, march, april 2020 might be a different story. host: kyle kondik, sabato's

crystal ball, check it out. thank fos for your time. thanks for your time -- thanks for your time. guest: happy new year. ♪ >> the united states senate, a uniquely american institution. legislating and carrying out constitutional duties since 1789. >> please raise your right hand. >> tonight, c-span takes you inside the senate, learning about the legislative body and its informal workings. >> arguing about things and kicking them around and having great debate is a thoroughly american thing. >> the longer you are in the senate, the more you appreciate that cooling nature. >> we will look more at the history, conflicts, and compromise with original interviews, key moments in history, and unprecedented

access, allowing us to bring cameras inside the senate chamber during a session. >> do you have a script? >> right here. >> follow the evolution of the senate into the modern era, from advice and can end to their role in -- from advice and consent to their role in a impeachment proceedings. "the senate: conflict and compromise." explore the unique traditions and roles of this american institution. premieres tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span. and be sure to go online to c-span.org/senate to learn more about the program and you interviews from senators, farewell speeches from the party members, and take a look inside the senate chamber and other exclusive locations. >>