washington journal continued. host: with us next is amy walter , national editor of the cook political report. the peace we are talking about is titled "volatility is the new normal." it seems like this is something we all knew but this puts it into focus. it has been a volatile couple of decades, not just years. guest: we tend to think -- i'm of a certain age.

i have been in washington now. it hurts a little bit to say how old i am but i have been in washington for almost 30 years. when i came to washington politics had been volatile but there was a certain level of stability. democrats had control of the house of representatives for 40 years, since the 1950's. uninterrupted control of the house. much of that time democrats at uninterrupted control of the senate. republicans would win the white house with a brief interpersonal by democrats. while you could see members come and go, the stability was something we got used two. after 1994, and really since the turn of the 21st century we have known nothing but volatility in our own -- what's been happening outside of politics. 9/11. the financial crash in 2009. covid.

our politics has followed suit. control of congress has slipped in 20 years. the house has slipped three times, the senate four times. it took 40 years for the house to flip once. what we are seeing is the toll on bipartisanship. what we are entering now is more of a proletarian -- parliamentarian kind of government where people vote for party rather than person. back at the turn of the 21st century we had 30 senators who represented states that the party did not win. now we only have six of those. one gets a lot of outside attention, joe mansion from west virginia.

anne susan collins from maine because they are such an anomaly. host: there is a lot of interesting information in terms of flips. in the house you are the democrats controlled the house for 40 straight years, 1954 to 1994. democratic control of the senate lasted for 25 years, 1955 to 1980. 1952 to 191988, republicans won seven of 10 presidential elections. most of those who work in politics today don't know of a time when control of the house, senator whitehouse was not up for grabs. those of the people i want to ask about. the people not necessarily elected officials but who work in offices, k street, lobbying. they know nothing but volatility. guest: this is an interesting point. there is a combination of those of us who grew up in that moment, who grew up in the

1980's and 1990's and the relative political stability, and those who came of age post 2000 and know nothing but that. it is really the members that have been the biggest change. we have very few members in the house or senate. in the house it is something like 80% have been there since just 2006. most folks don't remember not just what it was like in the early and late 1990's, but in the relatively calm period when republicans of the house for five straight terms, five straight years in the early 2000. -- 2000's. you have a bifurcation which is where this tension is between folks who are saying joe biden has been part of washington for 50 years.

he talks about how much he loved this era of working across the aisle. friendships with republicans who can bring the unity back. yet structurally washington is so much different than the place he came to when he first was elected. even the place he came to when he was vice president in 2009, or when the senate -- the last time a senate was 50-50 in 2000 you have a different makeup of senators and the time they were raised in. you have those kind of folks and new members coming in saying, what is this you talk of, this bipartisanship? what is this, this era before 2006? it is like when you were a kid and your parents would talk to you about, well, in my day we would do x, y, z.

you were talking about a time that does not exist anymore. stop trying to put us back into that box. we are not going back. host: amy walter is our guest. your calls and comments are welcome. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. all others, (202) 748-8002. you mentioned the toll on bipartisanship with all this volatility. you write a large enough -- on the large federal level. does the same happening down ballot in the states? guest: that is exactly what we are starting to see. the states are acting like the federal were more of these members are being elected really on the basis of their party affiliation more than on their individual merit.

as we see fewer voters split tickets at the federal level, very few people know about for a presidential candidate of one party and a down ballot candidates of another party. it is changing the makeup of delegations at the state level. and the expectations at the state level. states where the place that -- the laboratories of democracy. you can do things at the state level you can't at the federal level because people were more willing to be -- i guess it was more of a parochial politics. all politics is local. now all politics has become national. that is true all the way down the ballot. we are seeing county commission races that you get the national influence shadowing over it.

even back in 2010, many state legislative races, the issue was obamacare. that's a federal law. the state legislators had nothing to do with it but it was used as a cudgel by republicans against democrats and states as a signaling of the way to say if you don't like barack obama, who for me. don't foot for this democrat even though this democrat has absolutely no influence at all on what is going on in washington. host: it felt after january 6 it could have been the peak volatility. there could have been the moment where all that volatility came to a head and after that bipartisanship may be into coming together. guest: it sure felt that way.

i absolutely agree. there was this window where it felt as if you finally had republicans and democrats coming to the same conclusion. this was absolutely terrifying, outrageous, filled in all the blanks. a deep frustration with the way in which the president had acted that day. and continuing into the next day with the tweeting and encouraging. it looked like this was the breaking point. and then we got to the reality of the moment, which is the president -- president trump really set this new standard that there was no going back. there was no apologizing. there would be no moment where it was ok to acknowledge your own party or the leader of your

party was somehow wrong. we saw very quickly this dissolved. then talking to staff on the hill, and i'm sure you're hearing this, the environment there, especially among members and staff is more toxic than it was before january 6, because -- especially among democrats. many say i don't feel safe, not just because people came in to try to physically break into the capitol. tried to abduct or kill or do violent things to the people who work here. but that my republican colleagues were complicit in that, or condoned it in some way. my republican colleagues came back to the chamber after this violation and continued to

support these baseless allegations that the election was stolen or fraudulent. that actually -- the irony is it could have been exactly that. ok, a moment like this is where the fever breaks. instead it only made the toxicity deeper. host: let me ask you about potential uncertainty, if not volatility in the 2022 senate race with roy blunt announcing -- one of the senior leaders in a close ally of mitch mcconnell will not be running for reelection. he makes the fifth republican not to be running in 2022. how much uncertainty does that add to mitch mcconnell? guest: absolutely. this is the fifth republican retirement, which in some ways he would say what is that saying? republicans are very close to being able to take control of

the senate. they just need to pick up a seat or two and they get the majority. we see the senior republicans, the more establishment republicans, the ones aligned with mcconnell, who came of age at a different era during the era we discussed, many served either in congress or in the senate when george w. bush was president. not just since obama or trump was president. you are losing the institutionalists. the real question, the volatility question is who replaces them in the senate? these are red states. missouri will be really tough. there was a time when it was considered a swing start. it is a pretty red state and there is not a deep enter democrats in the state.

alabama another place where you're using an institutionalist and senator shelby, another deep red state. even ohio. you were talking ohio in the previous segment. that was a swing state. it is more of a red state now. what kind of republicans come out of those primaries? how engaged will former president trump those primaries? it seems more likely you are going to get more of a trump-like replacement to these establishment republicans. meaning the senate becomes much more -- the republican side of the senate is much more in president trump's damage than one that we had before he came into office. host: let's hear from the viewers. evy in georgia on the republican line. caller: good morning, amy. do you hear me? guest: i do. caller: amy, you and charlie

with the cook report are our national voices when it relates to a view that has gone on for years. you have kept your honor in that regard, and charlie as well. peak volatility of bipartisanship -- and i read the article -- being lost, but lost to her realignment of -- it's a realignment to a complicity to and ideology based on fealty other than policy agenda. i am a suburban, upper middle income postgraduate and medical doctor. my husband is the same.

i also, an african-american woman. i was part of a traditional republican bridge from the 1800s until the 1960's. i live in a community -- i'm visiting my nine-year-old mother here in georgia since covid to care for her. i live in middleburg, virginia. i know the region and i have family all over the country. we have reunions in kansas. i love downtown kansas. i think we are having a realignment of demographics as opposed to policy. it intersects with policy because -- we are retiring. my children are in their 30's and 40's who are now up-and-coming physicians. they are part of a larger society that deals with health

and education. my mother was a librarian in a 6500 town. i'm talking about how politics brings together people. i am a part of the suburban women who voted and see educated women like myself -- this is about my perspective of who it is i look up to. people who are a part of my lifestyle. i'm an episcopalian. i am a part of that bush episcopalian, presbyterian kind of republican policy and social construct we thought of back in the day that we no longer think of. republicans say they are for working-class. i changed over to voting for democrats after the daddy bush because i saw the party. i have friends who are democrats. woman with choices like you who

are educated and well-rounded and well-traveled and well-versed, we make choices based on a different thought pattern i think. i support the ideology of public education. my parents sent me and i sent my children to harvard, columbia, duke. does or private schools but we paid for it. now we have a party that wants private schools to get off public -- host: you have a lot of points and i appreciate your call. amy walter, feel free to respond. guest: evy is making good points about realignment. this is why i love covering politics and what i find so interesting is that coalitions of the two parties are not permanent. they change. sometimes they change based on big events. sometimes because of personalities, ideologies. it feels as if our identity is

much more of an issue then ideology in terms of how voters are taking their party. this has been going on for some time. i remember looking back at the 2000 election. you had al gore winning in some of the wealthiest counties in america and george w. bush winning in some of the least wealthy parts of america. the idea that economics is the driver for everybody. devote your pocketbook. that has been something of a myth for some time. that voters use values. the use cues about what they want america to be as the driver for their vote. it is not as simple as they pick a policy or go through a checklist and say which is the party that fits all my issues, i will pick that one. in the era of trump, he made it

very clear you could only pick one side. this was not a malleable thing. you are either on my side or on the enemy's side. with me or against me. there is no way you can be both. you cannot be that bridge. you talked about being a bridge. there are some things you agree with. no, we have a very clear path forward. if you believe these things, you are a real american. if you don't, you are not a real american. that divide has gotten deeper. it is not necessarily lighter but it definitely got deeper. -- wider but it definitely got deeper. we are seeing the divide driven by where you live. the density divide is what some folks call it.

the inner suburbs that are closer to big metro areas are big for republican and now becoming much more democratic. the fewer people in a region,, small town rural america, now it's almost entirely republican. host: louisville, kentucky. bernie on the democrats line. caller: good morning. january 6 seems like it cannot be talked about enough. i was watching c-span that morning with pedro. i had a busy day. he suggested i get the radio app. i listened to the radio and every thing is going to plan. people are doing their speeches. then all at once something broke. at that point i had to rush home. it felt like a 9/11 moment.

it was just i had to get home. i had to be with my wife to watch what was happening. it was terrifying. it seems like back in 2010, with the tea party and newt gingrich, we had some of the same volatility going on. i did not know. i have to ask, i see a picture of gwen ifill behind you. are you the new host for "washington week"? this is a softball question. we have been through a lot of different hosts and you are fantastic. guest: that is so kind of you. yes, behind me that is the postage stamp put out last year in her honor for black history month. that is blown up and framed. a friend gave that to me.

it sits behind me as a reminder she still sits on my shoulder. she was my mentor and friend. i still continue to think of her every day, every moment and try to imagine how she would be processing this era we are in. you made a good point about january 6. i was in something of the same boat. i had c-span on because i knew it would be a big day in terms of listening to the speeches. i wanted to hear how republicans were sort of processing -- this is before the attack. how republicans were making the argument about overturning the electoral college votes. i wanted to see how many republicans were going to be supportive of that. i wanted to see how democrats were going to counter that. if i'm being honest, i was focusing more on the election that happened the day before,

the runoffs for the senate race. the numbers and trying to make sense of that. out of the corner of my eye looking at what was going on on the hill, and like you i was drawn to it in a way that felt very similar to september 11. hearing from friends and staff who were there at that moment, the amount of trauma and terror they felt was quite remarkable. i do think it has had an impact. i think for americans outside of washington they saw that as a critical moment and i think it is impacting the way folks are dealing with each other. the difference between 2010 and now is the feeling that these forces are out of control now. when you saw the tea party and

we will take washington back, it was rhetorical. now you hear those things and you see people coming to state capitals with machine guns or other weapons. they are not actual machine guns but bigger guns that can do a lot of damage. you see more and more threats against members. listening to the hearings about january 6 from both the fbi director who is saying we are seeing unbelievable explosion in domestic terrorism threats, especially white supremacist groups. you hear from the chief of the capitol police saying the number of threats against individual lawmakers west through the roof. this feels like a very scary time. i think -- i am here in

washington. i live close to the capital. these things are very personal for me. i think for folks who don't live in and around this region, the idea there are people now who do believe so firmly the only way to succeed is through a level of violence, that makes its way to other places. and against out of just the washington -- and it gets just out of the washington focus. that is a worrying trend. i hope because the fbi has been focused on this, other law enforcement, that he gets tamped down. -- it gets tamped down. when you see it kidnapping plot against the governor of michigan, i worry this could not just be an outlier. host: we are talking about the volatility in politics with our guest amy walter, national editor of the cook political

report. nelson is next in florida, republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. ms. walter, i listen to you every monday on pbs news hour. i know you try to be objective. you do a pretty good job of it overall but you do also have your biases. one of your comments was essentially blaming president trump for the scenario that exists today and the hostility of the different political parties and the way people think. yet i remember in 2016 dachshund 2016 i was a never trumper and i voted for gary johnson but in 2020 i voted for trump.

in 2016, they were talking about impeachment before he was sworn into office. a lot of what has been going on today regarding the right wing aspect of the movements you are talking about is indirect reaction -- in direct reaction to left-wing movements taking place in the last five years. particularly antifa and black lives matter and their continuing riots to this day in portland, oregon and other regions of the country. all the law enforcement should be used in order to prosecute those individuals who invaded the capital but the same should be done for those individuals who attacked public buildings in those other states. that is not being talked about and that is not being emphasized

on the part of the government. particularly the democratic party. host: amy walter? guest: appreciate your comments. the first is, yes, i agree. donald trump did not invent the polarization. this has been around for a long, long time, for this volatility. this really can go back to the turn of the 21st century. i do think the deepening of it -- he played a role in that in encouraging this divide and encouraging the sort of way in which he approached politics was a zero-sum game. all or not. he did not invent it but he also did not tamp it down. he helped to keep that flame brewing.

the big difference with him what happened at the capital and what is happening in portland or other cities with antifa, joe biden never encouraged, supported anything that suggested people should go and take over -- take things into their own hands. we had a president of the united states who has an obligation to defend every one of those institutions and defend the united states capitol. the events of january 6 was not just a language the president used that day. he was the language leading up for all the election was a fraud. baseless claims that had eroded faith of the public in our voting institutions. that is very difficult to get back. when you lose faith in democratic institutions, that

leads to a very dark place. i think we are now moving into a new presidency. we will see continued polarization. we will see the parties divided, but i'm hoping we see it is not encouraged. the flames are at least tamp to a much lower level. host: on voting rights, erwin from madison, wisconsin. do you believe hr-1, the voting rights bill will affect local politics. amy walter, you have states passing tougher voting laws. georgia just passed a couple of bills yesterday. and the efforts by the biden administration, executive orders coming from the president on voting. what is your view of this? guest: the federal government;s involvement -- government's

involvement in voting is not as significant as the states. states set so many rules for everything from the times the polls are open to who can vote by mail and who can't and the requirements for voter id. those are set by the state. we have a federal system and that is not going anywhere. the bill that passed the house is unlikely to make its way through the senate. the filibuster goblet. i think the laws that will be the most significant in 2022 and beyond are the ones passing now in places like georgia. the real question in my mind is, these are laws that are basically a reaction to the left election were democrats did much better, voted much more frequently by mail. what happens when we are not in a pandemic? what happens when it is republican voters who say i want to vote by mail but it's gotten

a lot more complicated? for there are many more rules i have to follow, i guess i will just not vote. it may hurt their own voting base more so than they think. host: one more call here. alecia in columbia, maryland. caller: good morning, bill and good morning miss walters and good morning america. before i say what i want to say, let me thank you and also would you kindly answer a question? maybe i misunderstood. did you say when you have any airings of the hearings and other things from the white house -- not the white house, the house, that they approve or ask you what to run on c-span,

or does c-span have its own -- host: we make our own editorial decisions. we are committed to running the house and senate gavel-to-gavel coverage of the house and senate. every other hearing or white house briefing ,our team makes a decision on a day by day or hour-by-hour basis. let me finish with you -- caller: let me finish with you and then i will leave my comment. host: ask amy walter a question. caller: i have senior moments so you have to forgive me for my long pauses. there was a hearing on the -- about the 6th. you ran multiple stuff.

however, when the defense came on friday you did not show the tape of -- you showed most of what the democrats had said -- host: i am not familiar wealth what we ran or not that day. everything we covered would be on our website. if you can move to your question for amy walter we would appreciate it. you can find everything we covered at c-span.org. caller: i wanted to make a comment. you are young enough to be my daughter. i came through washington the first time in 1960. president eisenhower had invited me for children and youth conference. that was the first time i saw the big city. i'm telling you, being from our

-- my eyes were big everywhere. because of the influence washington and the way they influence, i went to the capital and so forth. a senator showed us around. i got very interested in politics. as soon as i got out of college, i started writing to the senators and representatives. they would always respond. i have gotten some things from my own way. host: i will let you go. amy walter, some final thoughts? you have been doing what you

have a doing since 1991. other than the volatility you write about at the cook political report, what are your observations? guest: i appreciate what she said about being wowed by this place. i think that is what keeps me going. this is still a really inspiring place. it is a lot bigger and busier than it was when i first came here. it felt a little sleepier back then. you are surrounded by incredibly talented people. all of whom come here because they believe they will make a difference. you may not agree with the issues they want to make a difference on but you should have some support and encouragement for people who think they can make a difference. that they can still come and have a role in our democracy. that i appreciate. just the final thing, one reason

i love covering campaigns is i get to meet these folks as candidates. it keeps you humble and keeps you really in touch with how diverse america is. the folks who come run for congress look a lot like america. to understand and appreciate that, come here, meet some members. don't just read reports about the two or three they get all the attention. they really believe they will get something done. they don't get a lot of attention. they don't get a lot of fame or instagram followers. they are just here doing their job. host: amy walter, national editor for the cook political