too many people are being let out of jail who are repeat offenders. and when you talk to police officers, there are not one probation. and that that bill, too, that needs to be improved, changed a bit. but second thing is also you need to make every other issue that kept the streets safe have actually been weakened by the by the murphy administration. so when you look at the truck driving down the fact that there are, in fact, as you know, phil murphy trying to make sure that people under 18, if they commit a violation, the parents wouldn't know. we need to make sure that we have the get back the funding for the cops, funding for the for these judges system, and make sure that we beat people who commit crimes should face the consequences. so often. yeah. congressman, i'm sorry. i can't let go. the last answer where you said i wanted to legalize all drugs like heroin and fentanyl and stuff. that is a complete fabrication.

and i don't even know where that came from. i know you sent out a sorry, elon musk sent out a mailer claiming this, but this is not a thing. it's a complete and utter lie. and i'm disappointed in you, congressman you don't have to repeat the lies that your overlord tell you. you don't get a point for every time you use the word extremism. it's disappointing that you resort to lies in this debate because it's unnecessary. when it comes to bail reform, i completely agree that are most egregious multiple time offenders should not be getting off in bail. that is obviously not a good idea and i've never supported anything otherwise. so we need to keep our community safe. we need to fund our law enforcement to keep our community safe. and, congressman, i would appreciate if you didn't blatantly tell lies about my record or my positions anymore. got to give tom kean 15 seconds to respond to that. that was the position of the working families party just a couple of years ago when you worked for them. they are not me and that is not my position. stop. that's not.

shouldn't. when they took that position and you didn't oppose it, didn't make you have changed your position, didn't work on it in new jersey. you changed your position on. police on israel and a number of other issues. only once you became a candidate that's what people see in you. and what we have to focus here is saying person down to congress, which going to be consistent in his support and get the bipartisan support that i have had. every single police unit, as endorse me because they know that she will not have their backs. we're going to have to end it there. we're going to we're have to end it there with our with our panel, because we have run out of time trying to cover as many topics as possible. we want to give both of you time for your closing statements. from our candidates, tom kaine, you are first. you have 90 seconds on your closing statements to you. good. thank you. it's great to be with you again tonight. i want to thank the voters, the

panelists, for their questions and allowing us to talk about the issues that are important to the people of the seventh congressional district. i ran for office so i can help solve problems. i joined the problem solvers can't afford to keep government open. i tried to secure southern border. i've had the backs of cops. i stood up to support ukraine and israel and taiwan. my entire focus has been to make sure that we find those solutions that keep america strong and energy independent. once again, what you've seen tonight from my opponent is an extreme position. if you were a professional paid political activist since 19 2019, and she has positions that reflect that regret, it was only once you chose to run for office. they started to change her positions. that is one for this district. we need an independent leader like i have been in the congress and before that and state legislature will make sure we put new jersey values first.

that we fight for affordability, restoring the salt deduction. making sure that we have lower overall taxes. stop the out-of-control inflation that is driven by policies that my opponent has supported year in and year out. i'm asking for your vote. or second term because i'm trying to find the continue to find the common ground. a reflect your values. thank you. i'm asking for your vote. and you see weltman, over to you. your closing statements, 90 seconds. congressman, what we've heard in the last 90 minutes is nothing compared to what you haven't accomplished in the last 23 years in politics. congressman, with your last name, with your family's legacy, with your family's fortune, you could have been a leader in congress. you could have been someone who from the get go stood up to trumpism. you could have not voted for jim jordan. you could have not voted for mike johnson. you could have not endorsed donald trump. we have a wonderful district.

it is one of the most highly educated districts in the entire country. it's a beautiful place full of smart, engaged people who believe in government, who believe in institutions, who believe in the rule of law, and who have no time and no energy for the vulgarity and the toxicity of another trump election. but, congressman, you haven't stood up to him. you haven't stood up to the most extremist elements of your party. you haven't stood up to them. because to paraphrase atlanta's sinclair, it is very hard to stand up against someone who's funding your campaign. elon musk funds your campaign. the national republicans fund your campaign. in contrast with us. we knocked thousands and thousands of doors every day. we are out organizing you. we have over 30,000 individual donors. our campaign is a campaign of the people and for the people. and when i get to congress, i'm not going to be represented. i'm not going to be accountable to some political party or

corporate because i don't take a cent in corporate pac money. i will be accountable to the people of new jersey seven because it is the taxpayers who we work for. and it is the taxpayers and citizens of this district that you've ignored for too long. thank. our time is up and that concludes new jersey debate night. now after a very quick break. our panel is going to be coming back with some closing thoughts, but i'd like to thank our candidates, tom kaine and altman. thank you for your time and for your responses. c-span's washington journal. our live forum involving you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics and public policy. from washington, d.c. to across the country. coming up this morning, national politics reporters vivian salama of the wall street journal and sophie chi of axios discuss the week's top stories in campaign 2024. and then newsmax ceo christopher ruddy discusses. newsmax his role in the media ecosystem and campaign 2020 for media coverage. join in the conversation live at

seven eastern this morning on c-span. c-span now our free mobile app or online at c-span north org. togh incumbent senator tammy baldwin faces off against her reblan challenger, eric rvie. in the race for wisconsin senate seat. watch that debate hosted by the wisconsin broadcasters aociate shown live at 8 p.m. eastern on c-sp. c-span and now a free mobile app or online at c-span dot org. will you solemnly swear that in the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? watch the conclusion of our encore presentation of our american history tv series congress investigates exploring major investigations by the u.s. house and senate in our country's history. authors and historians will tell

these stories. we'll see historic footage from those periods, and we'll examine the impact and legacy of key congressional hearings. tonight, in 1994, top tobacco industry ceos testified before the house that they didn't believe nicotine was addictive. two years later, they found themselves under federal investigation for potentially lying under oath. watch. congress investigates. tonight at ten eastern on c-span, two. hamas leader yahya sinr,ho was the apparent behind the. october 7th attack on israel, has been killed in an israel military operation. president biden reacted to the news in a statement that reads in part, there's now the pounity for a dayft in gaza without hamas in power and for a political settlement that provides a better future for israelis and palestinians alike. yahya sinwar was an innocent mountable obstacle to achieving all of those goals. that obstacle no longer exists. but much work remains before us.

vice president kamala harris also commented on the death of yahya sinwar while campaigning in wisconsin. here's what she had to say. just a. second. yeah. you know. today, israel confirmed that yahya sinwar, the leader of hamas, is dead and justice has been served. and the united states, israel and the entire world are better off as a result. sinwar was responsible for the killing of thousands of innocent

people, including the victims of october seven and hostages killed in gaza. he had american blood on his hands. today, i can only hope that the families of the victims of hamas feel a sense and measure of relief. sinwar was the mastermind of october seven, the deadliest day for the jewish people since the holocaust. a terrorist attack that killed 1200 innocent people and included horrific sexual violence and more than 250 hostages taken into gaza, including seven amer nearly 250s taken into gaza including seven americans, living and received -- deceased who remained in captivity. a terrorist attack that triggered a devastating war in gaza, a war that has led to unconscionable suffering of many

ellis -- innocent palestinians and greater instability throughout the middle east. in the past year, american special operations and intelligence personnel have worked closely with their israeli counterparts to locate and track sinwar and other hamas leaders. i commend their work and i will say, to any terrorist who kills americans, threatens the american people or threatens our troops or our interests, know this -- we will always bring you to justice. israel has a right to defend itself and the threat hamas poses to israel must be eliminated. today there is clear progress toward that goal. hamas isn't decimated and its leadership is eliminated -- is

decimated and its leadership is eliminated. this moment it's us an opportunity to finally end the war in gaza and it must end such that israel is secure, the hostages are released, the suffering in gaza ends and the palestinian people can realize their right to dignity, security, freedom and self-determination. and it is time for the day after to begin. without hamas and power -- in power. we will not give up on these goals and i will always work to create a future of peace, dignity and security for all. i think you all. -- i thank you all.

announcer: next the president of

ipsos clifford young talks about his book polls, posters, and public opinion. the conversation includes challenges to pulling accuracy on the role of pollsters. hosted by johns hopkins university school of advanced international studies in washington, d.c. this is about one hour and 10 minutes. >> ok. good afternoon, everyone. and thanks a lot for joining us as part of our continuing america's focus area lunch speaker series. today, we actually have one of our own, dr. cliff young joining us. he teaches a couple classes here at sais, one of which he will talk about but the other which

is also our capstone to brazil. we have invited him here. he is currently the president at ipsos of polling and societal trends. before that he was a cluster president. he has had a number of years at ipsos. polling is his expertise. so we are really proud to have him here. he has recently released his new book polls, pollsters, and public opinion. i highly recommend the book. he really goes into depth as to what the role of pollsters are. to be quite frank, i am consumed by news and always watching the polls of upcoming elections whether it be the presidential election here or any other presidential election or referendum down in latin america. and i thought i quite understood it until i read this book. you do an amazing job talking

about what polling is and what are the roles of pollsters. you can call them data scientists, fortunetellers, and spin doctors. an important way of talking about all the different roles. i don't know if you wanted to maybe share with us what was the motivation for writing the book and then may need -- and then maybe go more into detail on contents of the book. dr. young: great to be here doing this talk at johns hopkins sais. the book is for someone like you. maybe you thought you knew everything about polling. hopefully it give you insight into what a pollster actually is. a pollster is someone or something, an organization, that measures and analyzes public opinion. a pollster is not an a pollster -- an upholsterer.

i had a long conversation with an aunt that asked me if i wanted the reader her -- redo her sofas and sitting chairs. i'm not an expert on that. the motivation at one level is the memorialization of my own journey along 25 years of doing what i do as a pollster. i, like all baby pollsters, are confronted with a series of challenges. by definition it is multidisciplinary. we are data scientists, social psychiatrists, economists, we are decision tree experts. we are statisticians. different pollsters are trained

in different ways. i was trained as a sociologist and statistician. i trained in a number of other disciplines. we were challenged with the issues at hand because we didn't have all the tools needed at the time in front of us. the profession of a pollster is very artisanal. it is very much hands-on. it is very much an apprentice-like profession. what i wanted to do was i wanted to improve the learning curve for young pollsters and analysts, and i will come back to that in a second. so that they didn't have to go through all the trials and tribulations i went through. that there was one place that was synthetic in nature, that laid out the profession in a way that made sense from a practical perspective. and ultimately on that journey,

i have had 16 or so years of students here, for 13 of those years, students at the university of columbia university that were my guinea pigs, and where i tested out materials and frameworks and ways of thinking about being a pollster and how to organize it. ultimately that is what the book is. the book is memorializing my own journey. it was a journey as a young pollster to understand the profession. the professionalized profession. ultimately it is not just for the pollster. at the end of the book i say it is for the non-pollster, for the mom like you want to analyze public opinion data but we tell the story through the eyes and the lens of the pollster. mr. marckwardt: thank you for that. as i was reading the book, when i first started stinking about polling, i think of it more as

just the science. numbers, statistics. i think what you laid out really well, you talk about in the beginning, you had your first client and you looked at your data sets and your biases and looked at how the interpretation was made and you presented it. what i found was in this book at least there is a whole other side of it, if you will, maybe the art of it, which is using some of your own know-how and experience to figure out different questions that might be asked of you or understanding different biases you might not have thought of before. i don't know if you want to talk about your first story when you went up to the client and the asked you questions you are not even anticipating. dr. young: i will jump in. the book has four vignettes for the four sections of the book. those vignettes are these initial experiences in my career

that i did not have answers. and that indeed set me on the journey to organize this book. the first vignette is about my first paying client that was nine. i lived in brazil for 10 years and it was my first client ever. it was the brazilian horse racing club of rio de janeiro. and yes, i did a poll for them. there was a presidential race going on in the club. and yes, those individuals spent money on polls to know who was up in front in that race. they had a lot of money and resources, obviously. it is horse racing, and people going to a horseracing club probably have resources. so i organized my poll. i did the sample design, the questionnaire, are the questions unbiased. have i organized my analytic framework so i am ready to tell

a clear story at the end? i got it all together and i actually did not brief the client in person. i did it by phone. i tend to do it by the phone quickly comes to politics. i didn't speech portuguese at the time. i was learning words while they were talking, that is how sketchy my portuguese was. they ultimately asked me, so, who's going to win, are we going to win or are they going to win? i sat there and i didn't have an answer because i didn't know. i did a robust poll done in a scientifically rigorous way, but i have no idea if they are going to win or not. i didn't say that. i was unclear. i said, let's reflect on that. you are always better off staying 50-50 if you really

don't know. that is what we are doing today, no one knows. but ultimately, that was really the first challenge of me realizing that i had some of the tools to exercise the profession of polling, but i didn't have all the tools. i didn't have rules of thumb or context or any way to talk about the relative odds of winning. and that was jarring. the next day they call again and they are like, the other side, we got the other side's poll. i am like, oh my gosh, the other side has polls too, this is incredible. they are running for the presidency of the club and they both bought poll. they said their poll says the other side is going to win. so which poll is right? yeah, once again, another

example of not having the requisite gray hair, not having the sufficient amount of apprenticeship, knowing what those rules of thumbs were. just going back a bit about your initial question, this book, i would not call it art. i would call it context. what this book does above and beyond the technical side of saying what a margin of error is, or what's a good or bad sample, how you correct for bias, that is the more technical aspect. a lot of the book is about content. because we only understand things within context. how do we contextualize elections? how do we contextualize changes in public opinion? how do we understand if public opinion appears unstable? and so the book is really about frameworks to provide meaning in context. mr. marckwardt: what i really

enjoyed about how you break down the book, you cover the different vignettes, and really the vignettes are based on your own experiences. you talk about different biases, you talk about the nonresponse bias, coverage bias. you talk about these specifically as it comes up to the 2016 presidential election. you talk about how you felt a lot of confidence over the years after that first experience at the racing club. and then your entire community, not just yourself, polling professionals ran into the 2016 presidential election, and how that shocked the whole entire industry. i don't know if you would like to share some thoughts about that. dr. young: yeah. we ultimately have an external benchmark for the profession, which are the elections.

if we get it right we are awesome, and if we get it wrong we are bums. i use the example of -- 2008 is when i first came back from brazil, i had been in brazil for 10 years. i got to do the obama win, which was historic. i was there for lulu's win as well. we were high on the hog in 2008 because we nailed it. we didn't nail it more or less, we nailed it to the decimal point. you fast-forward to 2016, we w ere wrong like everyone else was wrong. i think it is an interesting case study. same pollster, same country, but ultimately two very different results. sometimes that happens. sometimes that happens. what we do as a profession is we

reflect on our method and assess in more detail about specifically what happened. it is just not an individual like myself who does this. it is also professional associations like the association -- american association of public opinion research. every other country has similar associations. but honing our craft, assessing why we made mistakes is article. the last point i will make is reemphasizing the three personas. i call it the three hatted pollster. multidisciplinary. the first hat is the data scientist. the second is the fortuneteller, that is the persona that predicts. and the third is the spin doctor, which is aligning with public opinion. i use spin dr. kind of tongu -- spin doctor kind of

tongue-in-cheek because it is really hard to -- going back to the data scientist, that is really the focus on our craft. how to make polling optimally robust. what are the biases associated with polling. assess where we got it wrong and correct what we need to correct looking forward. mr. marckwardt: in that section you also talk a lot about the different types of biases. one question i had issue talk a lot about bond response bias that was really evident in the 2016 campaign. that is to say, a lot of people who were going to vote for trump preferred not to respond to the polls, which then gave you a bias, especially in swing states, that was a lot more evident. and so, is that continuing today? how are you adjusting for that?