at this point. host: mildred, the vice president raised a billion dollars, she had money on her side as well. caller: but it wasn't that. she didn't go pay off the voters. or pay a lottery to get them to vote or say they would be loyal to a certain p.a.c. that's where elon musk loyal to. that is warily musk came in. the news is talking about how he only did it for the people in the swing states. that makes you wonder. host: david in frankfort, illinois. independent. caller: thanks for taking my call. host: your reaction to campaign 2024 results. caller: not surprised either way. both candidates are people. both candidates should not be in. it should have been jill stein and the green party. for those who think that is a throwaway boat, it is not a

throwaway vote. if she can get 5% of the vote, we can have a third party. it will take years from now but that is what this country needs right now. either side in office. philistine supports freeing -- jill stein supports freeing palestine. host:host: viewers can go to c-span.org/results. you can dig into each presidential contest. jill stein on some of the ballots and you will be able to see how she performed. if you click on a state, you will get the results from each of the candidates. norman in wisconsin. republican. caller: i am glad that donald trump got elected president because he represents family values according to what god says in the bible and i am glad

that the unborn have a voice. host: all right. we will leave it at that phone call. we will pick up with another conversation tomorrow morning on washington journal at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. there are several uncalled races in the presidential contest, the senate and the house for the balance of power in congress. go to c-span.org/results for real-time updates on where those races stand to follow along with the balance of power. thanks for watching. >> cpais your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including charter communications. >> charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers. we are just getting started. building 100,000 miles of new

infrastructure to reach those who need it most. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers having you a front row seat to democracy -- giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up, senate minority leader mitch mcconnell holding a press conference with reporters after republicans won a majority in the senate. from capitol hill. this is about 20 minutes.

deserve a lot of credit. they ran a spectacular race. with regards to the senate, you guys know how long i have been around. i had really hoped i would be able to hand over to my successor the majority. i have been the majority leader. i have been the minority leader. majority is a lot better. and i think based on the fact we have not got all the results in, we already know we are going to

be in the majority. we are hopeful that might actually grow some. i want to give particular credit to steve gaines. i had that job a few years back. i have never seen a better performance. he focused on getting quality candidates making sure they actually got the nomination. as i actually said, some criticism. the candidate quality is absolutely essential. also am proud of the leadership fund and related groups did. overall they were able to raise $425 million and they made decisions to invest.

we >> will leave this program for a live discussion on the 2024 presidential election results hosted by the american enterprise institute in washington, d.c.. > if you are watching online and want to ask a question, sent one to nathan.moore at aei.org or use the -- aei election watch on x twitter. we have a fantastic panel today. you know chris dyer walt with us at aei. has been up i don't know how many hours the last 24 hours. i am mentioned karlyn bowman now emeritus senior fellow but someone who comes back and joins us. an expert on public opinion for many years and the person who made this all happen. nathan gonzales who heads up inside elections where he has

been for a number of years. years ago it was the rotenberg report and he runs it today. one of the premier places that look at the house and senate races. one thing that always impresses me and you tell me we are still doing this is you interview all of these people who are looking at running for congress. some sort of insights very few people have. and sean trendy who is senior fellow at aei, also with real clear politics, has written interestingly on election demographics and is joining us today. we are going to start. i am going to throw it to chris. we are going to go down the line and have a conversation and we will turn it to you. >> this is a very fine thing that you have made for us here. and that aei does. it is a very good institution.

a very good extrusion because not only do we get people like nathan whose work i will be stealing relentlessly for the next two weeks as we wait for the last ballots in california to come in by dogsled from yosemite. because we have real people with real expertise with real divergent points of view who come together for a frank conversation and that is all very good. i will tell you what else is really good. the smartest thing i have heard about this election was said about this state -- said on the stage at a previous election watch session. at was by bill mackin turf is the pollster who does what many people are saying the best poll that he does with heart research for nbc news. i thought this was a vibes election. we are on vibes. ill mackin turf said it is a fundamentals election.

this is not about donald trump and kamala harris and their vibes. it is about the fundamentals. how people feel about the economy, how people feel about the direction of the country, how people feel about the party that is in power. i said it is vibier them that. he was right. there poll was good. i learned that on this stage and i cannot wait to find out what we are going to learn. the last thing i will say and this is not trump doing the we at 2:30 in the morning. i'm not going to keep you until the close -- the polls close again next year. this is a difficult day. if you are a republican, you are happy today. you are very happy today. a lot of you. if you are a democrat, you are very sad today. this is a really difficult day. it is not shocking like it was in 2016 but it is difficult. i would say this is a moment for

patriotic grace. . i hope as you craft your questions and take about what you want to ask that you remember if you are a republican, there are people out there who are hurting. you may not think there hurt is legitimate but it is real to them. if you are a democrat and you want to ask a question, just remember we have had an election and we don't have to have another one for two years so we can live in the world as it is. with that we are going to have karlyn start us out. she made this house. we ought to let her go first. >> thank you for those kind comments. election watch has been a wonderful tradition for me especially for the last 40 years i have been looking in the sessions of top-down results. for the first time i decided i wanted to do it bottom up yesterday and i sign up a month ago to be an election official in alexandria, virginia at my precinct.

. it was a fabulous experience. it reminded me americans have gone to the polls freely for 60 quadrennial elections. that is a record unbroken anywhere else in the world and it is a very impressive accomplishment but it was also a very long day for us. we had one rehearsal about a week, two weeks before we started. 20 volunteers, most of whom did not know each other at all. . together at our precinct at 4:45 a.m. to start setting up the precinct. we did everything from put the signs up to hook up all the electronic machines. . got them out of the big cage that had locks on it. it was an amazing experience. we worked throughout the day. we had about a thousand people come through and we had to reconcile the votes at the very end of the day looking at the machines that have blighted the votes and the machines we all worked on that check people in. it was an extraordinary experience. but also impressed me and this

was absolutely stunning was how many people brought things for the volunteers to the polling place. we got two huge boxes of donuts. one woman i had never seen before in my life said can i walk to the bakery and get coffee for you and all the people at the welcoming table? this happened over and over throughout the day. it reminded me of little platoons of how we make this democracy work. that was a very affirming experience. bottom-up versus top-down. now i'm going to go back to what i usually do any of these sessions and talk about top-down results. i'm going to go through some of things we heard so much about during this election campaign. i cannot tell you how many stories there were. the gender gap was going to be larger than it had ever been before. not true. the gender gap was 20 points in this election. in 1980 it was 17 points and to take some other recent elections, in 2012 it was 18 to

2016, 24 points. this year, 20 points. that story did not turn out to be true. kamala harris did less well with women then joe biden had done by four percentage points in 2020. if you look at the married unmarried gap and remember i need exit bowl, unmarried people are not single people. single, widowed or divorced. the marriage gap was slightly larger than the gender gap at 21 points overall. men looked very different from women. looking at the racial and ethnic makeup, we sell something really unusual in this election. for the first time since 1996 the share of racial minorities in the election did not go up. it was 29% in this election overall. once you begin to break that down and look for example, trump

got 8% of the black vote in 2016. that is up to 12% in this election overall. if you look for example at some of the subgroups overall, trump did very well with black men. anyone percent. up five points in the past could black women, seven points overall. if you look at hispanics, the big story here is the trump strength among latinos. 45% overall. very important i think. biden won that group by 33 point. in this election it was 12 points overall. a huge shift in the election overall. looking, moving right ahead to look at the vote by white and lack men and women -- black men and women. really important stories here. we have heard point a bit about them in the news overall. trump won white women 52 to 42% and he also won white suburban

women. we talked a lot about harris's strength among those groups. it did not happen at all. black men, 20% for trump. that is an impressive standing. a gender chasm between black men and black women we have seen over time. 92% of black women voted for kamala harris compared to 78% of black men. that is another story of this election. i like the question the democratic pollster john dennison asks about this area overall. here is the question. he says when i cast my vote is like having more women in office but the thing that matters to me is a democrat or a republican. someone is a member of my party. party ties are very important in american politics. we sell that once again only 5% of people defected from the democrats. only 5% of people defected from the republicans. the 18 to 29-year-olds were not

a large share of the electorate. they were more the republican then any of the past five elections overall. there were significant differences. one group i'm going to be watching going forward is seniors. they split evenly in this election. i would like to know what the rest of the panel thinks of that. something fairly new in american politics. the diploma divide continues to be one of the big divides in our politics like density, like diversity. again there were some important stories i think here overall. party idea was really important over time. this was the first time in this election republicans outnumbered democrats in all of the exit polls that have been conducted. we sell movement toward the

republicans throughout this election campaign but that is a very significant fact overall. voting by religious groups. i look at white catholics. they have a good track record of voting for the winter and i this election they voted 60% for donald trump. vote by other groups, first-time voters were 8% of all voters over time. biden won them by 32 points in 2020. trump won them by nine points in this election. a lot of those first-time voters are young. let me touch on a couple of issues in the exit poll. in 2020 51% of all voters said abortion should be legal in all or most cases. that was 66% in this election overall. we are waiting for a couple results on the abortion referenda that went down in florida as did the marijuana referendum. very hard to get to that 60% threshold overall. in nebraska there were two on

the ballot in this election campaign to which everyone gets the most votes is going to be the law of the land in nebraska. . it appears to be the more conservative. in other states abortion rights, expanding abortion availability was enshrined. there was one really interesting question i need exit polls and they asked about your family financial situation compared to four years ago. 24% said it was better and 45% said it was worse. that 45% is the worst response then the great recession of 2008. a very significant finding overtime. harris was able to close the gap on handling the economy but in the final analysis people thought trump would be a better job handling the economy. households were 19% of all voters. that is important. people who made up their minds in the last days of the last

three days of this campaign voted for trump as they did in 2016. significant i think and we did not capture a lot of those in the polls. pollsters asked about characteristics that were important to you and the candidates you voted for. change voters were 27% of all voters. voted 73% for trump 25% for harris. the other interesting one was have the ability to lead. dirty percent said that with the most important characteristic to them. they voted 65% to trump to 34% for harris. that is a quick sketch of a few groups. of happy to talk about more of them later.

very good very good. go ahead. before we go into the specific questions and dig down, i want to start this off on an optimistic note. it is a long story but i got locked out of my twitter account in february of this year and i got it back in late september. i was like david byrne talking like, what of high done? it was within 20 minutes. there is so much negativity in the country. i was on last night. i was on last night and the dunking on kamala harris was just gross. my first point is whatever you think of her and her policies, she conducted herself admirably in what was an almost impossible task. she is the equivalent of being in the super bowl and you are down 10 points going into the fourth quarter and the quarterback suddenly comes out of the game with a game ending injury and is your job only to carry the team forward but to make up the deficit the previous

quarterback had opened you up for. there are choices she could have and should have made differently. there are things i did not like. i think piling on about her candidacy. normally candidates make their wiki mistakes and defined themselves through the primary process. no one remembers barack obama's first debate was an embarrassment in the democratic primaries in 2008 because he did it in march of 2007 when no one was paying attention. he came off the stage like i got off my game. get a chance to do that. get a chance to develop his themes during the demo credit primary. harris had none of that. democratic nominee. go out and reach 150 million people and convince them you are the better candidate. i am going to start out before we get into some valid critiques tipping my hat to her. the second thing i will say, carlin stole a little bit of my thunder. she did a much better job than i would have. for all the talks about

polarization and division, this is the least divided election we have been through in a long time. donald trump is going to win with a coalition that is less heavily dependent on white votes than any republican candidate in history. the race gap is the smallest that has been since the 1950's. the age gap is the smallest it has been since the 2000s. the income gap is the smallest it has been probably ever. the union voting gaps. always gaps that have defined our politics have shrunk. that does not mean there is not nastiness and division but the real demographic faultlines people are worrying about in american politics did not show up in this election. the third point i want to make is for the democrats in the audience or watching. a cautionary tale for the republicans. the founders get all sorts of

criticism. some of which i agree with. some of which i don't. some people don't like the senate. some people don't like the electoral. we can debate those merits in some other forum. one thing they did in my mind indisputably right is -- they would have had them sworn in in march but now they are sworn in january 21 -- january 20. trump will be sworn in as president. 22 months from then, it will be another election. ok? if the republicans and donald trump don't do a good job, the american people get their chance to render their verdict 22 months afterward yet again if the do. are pretty good about not punishing them as heavily. there is lengthy political science research on how voters respond to different stimuli. this is not the end of the road.

republicans i think learn to some tough lessons in 2018. maybe they did not learn them but same thing with democrats in 2010. in 2008, the big message was barack obama had built this unbreakable coalition that was going to dominate american politics for the next 30 years. i'm really not exaggerating. if anything i am understating the case that was being made at the time. no. 22 months later the american voters decided they did not like what they were seeing and throughout 63 democratic members of congress which was a record going back to 1938. for the democrats, you will have your chance to make your case in another 22 months. for republicans, you need to do your job pulling a record you can sell to the american people. >> break it down for us, mr. gonzales. >> it is great because i like to break down elections with 35 minutes of sleep. all of it took place on an airplane. they all took place in an

airplane next to the largest person on our airplane. it is always live and in front of lights and cameras. what is remarkable about this election so far is there are some -- feels like 2016 in some ways. i remember in 2016 virginia was not called at poll closing time and that ended up being a sign of things to come. there are big differences any that no one should have been surprised trump could have won this election because everyone was saying it was a close race. what became a surprise was some of the non-battleground states where the margins were a lot closer. new jersey, illinois, maryland closer than what anybody expected. when you go to the senate and the house and you start breaking it down, there are some key races that have not been called yet. our projections and projections of our friends and competitors were pretty good. on one level you have more

uncertainty with trump at the top of the ticket and how he performed. the senate and the house so far have been acting pretty normal. coming in, the republican senate with the most likely outcome or the most known outcome. that ended up being the case. still we are waiting on nevada and arizona. republicans will be at least plus three. could be plus four, plus five depending on the outcome. very close calls in wisconsin and michigan. one of the things we have learned is personal brands, the idea of political brands only takes you so far. there is only so far you can over perform. we heard from 24 months about jon tester. he always wins in montana. sherrod brown, he always wins in ohio. it turns out there is a limit to a whole they can dig out of that was being dug at the top of the ticket by harris.

she was able to keep it close enough in wisconsin and michigan to make the difference. we are waiting to see whether it is going to be plus three -- plus four or plus five. that margin. matters. if we look to 2026 since we have 2024 figured out, 2026, there are very few takeover opportunities for democrats. a backlash midterm election is a possibility of republicans overreach. we are looking at main, susan collins. i don't think she is going to run for reelection. north carolina. tell us is up for reelection. then the race starts to get significantly different. texas. it is alexa -- it is alaska. we are kind of reaching if you're a democrat even in best case scenarios. keeping it close is important for immigrants even though they lost the majority of what's go to the house.

-- let's go to the house. this is going to end up young closer than the presidential race. we were watching 65 house races. i have been trying to keep track of what has been called. there are 28 of 65 that have still not been called by a major media entity. i would rather be republicans in terms of holding the house by seat or two but there is still a path for democrats to get the house. it would not be by a large margin. coming into the election projection was anything from a republican gain of a seat to a democratic gain of nine seats. democrats needed four to get to the majority. it feels like based on how everything house as been -- every thing else has been going, they will end up coming up short by a seat or two. we have to wait and see. in california hopefully we will know by christmas how these

california races count. they count one ballot a day. let's call it a day. one bigger picture thing and i will hand it back over. every election i am constantly, we have to watch what lessons the parties learn from the election. we can tell you today what we think happened in the election and hopefully we are connect -- we are correct and insightful but in a way that does not matter as much as what the two parties think happened in the election. that is going to guide their future actions. for example at 2:35 this morning when trump took the stage in front of 7000 flags -- i was impressed with the number of flags behind him -- he talked about a mandate. america has given us -- it is always a strong mandate. i'm not convinced even though trump's victory was broad and

impressive in the coalition that meant voters really understand or know what mass deportation looks like or wanting fluoride out of their water or eating rfk jr. in charge of vaccines. i am not -- i think it was more about a rejection of on the comfortability with the economy. if republicans pushed too far, we have that correction in the midterm elections. looking ahead to 2026, if democrats can keep the house close, getting the house back in 2026 looks like it would be within reach depending on how republicans act. last thing i will say about lessons learned. we have to listen to how democrats process this election. right now it feels like they have gone dark. they don't know how -- with biden at the top of the ticket things were in a death spiral politically.

harris breathed new life into it. they did everything in their minds in their power to make this happen. i was talking to our neighbor across the street. he was talking about being in philadelphia this past weekend and knocking on 600 doors. they did everything they could. it was not even close. they are trying to figure out what happened. how democrats process, do they think this was a message problem, a messenger problem, all of the above. that is going to guide what they are going to do as a party moving forward. >> i think nathan laid out some of the things i'm going to talk about. i want to talk about voter turnout. we anticipated and i think we were right although we don't know the exact number that this would be our second-highest voter turnout in at least modern history. we have done pretty well since 2004. we have been getting 60 --

percent of the eligible voters voting. 2020, nearly two thirds of voters. we are going to land in 64, 60 5% range. some of that is determined by the fact we don't know how long it is going to take california to count these votes. we are expecting a pretty good number. some of that is you are right we are a country of extreme intensity in these elections. intensity of feeling is what drives these things. . not all the reforms we do or even the parties. the parties do matter in swing states. we sell turnout overall that makes sense from a perspective that people care about these elections and they don't like the other side. one thing -- i'm going to echo

what nathan said. this resembled the 2022 midterms. doesn't seem as a is appointing a term for republicans but overall republicans won the house vote. they did not win it by as much as they should have all of the sudden in these key states they lost all the important races. some of that was prep we aid -- was probably a better demographic. they had resources and they put them to these things so a combination of resources and educated voters meant to they could win in all these important places while the trends were still against them. the other thing i will add that seems similar to the 22 election is we had this on even sort of turnout or uneven results in this election. the results in florida, in

texas, in new jersey, in new york, a lot of the most progressive new england states of massachusetts or maryland or rhode island were massive swings. swings of 10 percentage points from the last election. what we saw in the swing states was an important swing for trump. relatively narrow swing. very contested places. some of them extremely surprising. wisconsin arguably is one of the most surprising. wisconsin, the most republican of the three blue wall states the last couple elections was the least republican. the closest of all the seven states it looks like donald trump has barely won. that has spilled over to the senate seats where you can look at republicans thinking nationally we did very well. we might have swung the national popular vote -- we don't know whether trump won national popular vote.

probably a swing from 4.5 votes from the democratic direction to a point or perhaps more in the republican direction. and yet these senate seats moved only a little bit. republicans are going to lose at least a couple by less than a percentage point. maybe more than that. in many ways this looked like a big wave election in lots of parts of the country. one interesting perhaps exception is nevada which did move a fair amount. the most democratic of all the states to the second in 2020. we don't have all the ballots in. perhaps the best state for republicans. one thing to watch. we don't know if the senate race will go with him, with trump. we might see the republicans get that.

house districts, i feel the same way. we again have very few seats. i don't like to attribute things to gerrymandering having not so many competitive seats. the number of seats was very small display these waves in places. waves washing over florida. there were no seats to be had. waves washing over texas. in theory they could have one some on the border but they did not. generally speaking there were not waves of seats to be had when these waves are over in strong direction. a small change in the house. perhaps almost no change in the house even though we see these big trends. two left things. i think it was a well-run election. i follow a lot of how we run elections. i spent a lot of election day talking to secretaries of state and other election officials. some states not counting the votes very quickly.

it has now become a thing we will not know the -- who controls the house of representatives until a week. there were some good messages put out by people, people who say it is ok to wait. there are some systems out there in california and arizona in particular which the combination of set of laws and procedures means there are a bunch of ballots that don't get counted quickly. it would not be too hard to fix some of these things. even maintaining a lot of voting by mail. we are seeing this delay and delay. if we were to look at something that did not go as well, we are still any parts of the country not doing a good job at that. >> i am not feeling this from nathan. i will feel lots of nathan's work in the coming weeks.

he touched on something crucially important. it is not what happened. it is what they think happened. what to they think happened? i'm going to tell you a story. donald trump created chaos that eventually fertilized the garden in which the flower of his second term could grow. in january of 2021, donald trump went down to georgia and acted crazy. he went down to georgia and he made sure the republicans would lose both of those senate seats in georgia. you don't usually want to do this. he told people not to vote should that they could not trust the elections process in georgia. burge is a pretty republican state and georgia is represented by two democrats in the senate to one of them very progressive. how is that possible? the answer is because trump would not accept the results of

the election and went bananas. that gives the democrats the senate. joe biden who ran as a caretaker president arrives for the beginning of his term in the aftermath of january 6 and the historians begin to whisper. they say are you more like fdr or are you more like lbj? what is it going to be? what are you going to do? now to democrats in control of the senate he says we got to go big. we got to go big. we have a mandate from the people. we are going to make this happen. instead of playing small ball, and doing things like the popular bipartisan infrastructure package, they focus on a bunch of other stuff and they got very aggressive and they pushed hard. they ripped out all the immigration restrictions they could. they went for sweeping change. so to sean's point, what is supposed to happen in two years after you do that? you take a beating.

the american story is you come in, you overreach, you get spanked in the midterms. you readjust and you win reelection. that is the story. it happened to ronald reagan. at happened to bill clinton. it happens. the only president who did not have that experience was george w. bush. that was on a part because of 9/11. donald trump says hold my beer. he comes in and as republicans are poised to clean up in 2022, he says i want you to meet herschel walker. i want you all to meet and to know herschel walker. what about dr. oz? he had some beetroot supplements he thinks will make things better in pennsylvania. right? they had a bunch of really odd -- the term of art in washington we say candidate quality. candidate quality was a big

issue for republicans in 2022. instead of having the year they thought they were going to have, what did they get? they got a fizzle. so we run the tape. we already talked about what would happen if joe biden did not have a thin senate majority for the first two years. tell yourself about the story the republicans come in and whack them hard in midterms. does joe biden even run for reelection? does the drumbeat in the democratic party become so intense after a shellacking? this guy is too old. we have to have a primary. we have to do all the stuff. they got away with it. what democrats concluded was, trump isn't us. donald trump is sufficient to motivate our base. to dissuade and frighten persuadable suburbanites. he can get it done. they got the results in 2022 in their minds donald trump was sufficient for them.

what we saw this week, what we are seeing this week is an election that is not about donald trump. we solve this week an election that was about the democratic party. we saw an election that is about immigration, migrant crisis stuff. we saw an election that was about the high cost of everything. we look at the rio grande valley. we go down there and we see -- what are we talking about? 15, 20 point swings? these giant swings in these districts that had not been won by a republican since the 19th century. what is that about? some of it is about, harris being a woman. there is some of that there. there is a bunch of everything in there. basically we thought this was like i said at the beginning, we thought it was -- it was a referendum on the party in power. the party in power took a beating. i want to ask starting with nathan. that is what i think happened.

republicans, i don't know what republicans think happened. whether elon musk spaceship gave them a victory or joe rogan delivered a victory. i don't know. i want to hear from everybody. what do you think democrats think happened? >> i have been giving democrats a break. i have tried to reach out to a few. i don't know they have answers. in reaching out it is not an accusatory way. if they are sharing polling numbers, that weren't surly accurate although we can talk about that as a separate question. it certainly was not intentional. i don't know they have answers. in the immediate aftermath, the harris campaign you might have seen did not have any guidance for surrogates. i don't think they really know. in their mind or in their power they did everything in their power. they were putting people on buses in new york to go to philadelphia. they had the operation running.

it was not sufficient. if they do that self reflection at some point which they should after this, i think they will see it is not -- it is the message. it is the messenger. the branding. they are going to have to move beyond the woke soft on crime all of those issues but it is going to be hard as a party to shed that label when you don't have the levers of government to enact some policies. young in the minority were out of the white house they will have an opportunity to show this is what we are for. this is what we are for because we are not going to have power in the immediate aftermath of the election to do that. >> i talked to and elected democratic woman today and she said that the democratic party will never nominate another woman for president again. the conventional wisdom -- they will say that did not work to they did it twice and they lost

twice and now they're going to be put off it. how do we think about -- the gender gap is really interesting here. i'll do we think about in terms of how did gender play into both attributes of kamala harris but also the way the electorate broke? >> one of the interesting things americans have been saying in polls about supreme court justices, presidential candidates is it is not that important anymore to have a woman in top job. it is nice but not something they feel is absolutely necessary. the public has moved significantly on those kinds of questions. there is still some misogynistic things in this electorate overall but i think they could easily nominate a woman. there are sniffing and number of democratic women who could become president. or republican women. >> why wasn't the gender gap bigger?

republican women leading came home the same time as women who had not been there for republicans the way they should have been in tony 22 came home to the republican party. >> that is right. >> what do you think democrats think happened? >> it is kind of like the stages of grief and right now they are like anger and denial. oath parties go through it after a tough election loss. what i am seeing is a lot of falling back on the narratives that have defined the democratic party since obama. it is about race, it is about gender. it is tough because i don't deny there is racism and sexism in america. that is more or less a constant to it is not like it often pops up where it is the election that matters. i think you need a better story to tell. it denies the obvious things.

joe biden had a 40% job approval. presidents don't win when they have 40% job approval. she was the vice president in an administration with a 40% job approval. when asked what she would do differently, said nothing. easy. that is just such an easy story to tell. but because the democratic -- at least the activist space of the democratic party has become so dependent on these identity-based stories. i think it is very difficult. . these identity-based stories that have kernels of truth to them but don't have the overall explanatory force they put behind it. it is almost like -- it is almost like religious fundamentalism. you can have a soft belief in god or a strong belief in god but you don't have to make it a totalizing ideology. it has become a totalizing ideology on that side. it makes you rigid and unable to

see alternative viewpoints. >> thinking of totalizing ideologies, donald trump and the republican party. the number of republicans and i hope you will address this first should the number of republicans who secretly were hoping donald trump would lose this election were many. they were many should some of them are in the united states senate. there were many who said -- you talk to them and i'm sure nathan had the same conversations i did. when he talked to them, they would say trump is probably going to lose but if we get the senate, that will be ok. whose party is it? it has got to be donald trump's party. and what do they think happened? what is the story republicans are going to tell? >> it is interesting because we have trump coming in as a now one term president/he cannot run again. we.

know there is going to be a race after this. we know there is going to be original democratic side. to answer both of your questions, one way -- our politics is different from the rest of the world is we don't just now say we are going to put in a minority leader and put our message up. we sit for a few years. we have these primaries. the people decide. there -- sometimes things don't turn out the way we expect them to like in 2012 when we were doing the autopsy and we end up with donald trump as the nominee. . there will be a little of that. on the democratic side quickly, that is a more significant thing. a little unfair to kamala harris because i agree she was put in a difficult position. her concession speech was very generous in all sorts of ways but she also said the movement continues. it is going to be very hard for kamala harris herself to be that person. i don't think she is going to be seen as leader of the party. i don't think she will do super well. on the democratic side, we have

all these people people were talking about that seemed attractive. gretchen whitmer and josh shapiro. they will probably be around. there is a wing, at least there is a place maybe not for a winner but definitely a place for a progressive candidate. it is unclear who that is. i assume we have bernie sanders and elizabeth warren -- probably too old to play that role in 2028. i think that is what is happening. on the republican side, i think it is trump's party. i think the people who are thinking it is going to snap back to a pre-trump republican party are wrong about that. but it is a broad party. it is not like a european party where european or right-wing populists are in small party. it is kind of a coalition of establishment and populist people. the populist a bigger wing. we are going to have this race in 2028. i think the winner will be somebody who sounds something like trump.

trump will be around we assume. maybe will put his hand on somebody. that is the other thing we have to consider. that he may not just step off the stage and not the part of that. i think it will be a trump like party. maybe the person can't fulfill that role very well but i don't think is going to be stepping back to pre-trump. >> jd vance and nikki haley with a sergio leone backdrop as they prepare for a four year long dual. >> there is a chunk of republicans who believe trump is ushered in a semipermanent reforming of the parties. . the coalitions have fundamentally changed. i'm skeptical. i am skeptical this coalition trump just won with is transferable to another candidate. when we have seen other candidates try to be trump, it does not work. people look meaner or they look silly.

it looks like a cheap copy of the original. republicans won. have your day but i think there are still big questions about the durability of this coalition when -- >> took carline's point on the others, democrats did not seem to and we will learn a lot more -- so the windfall from trump are the suburbanites. i called them the youngkin biden voters. the windfall for the democrats are these affluent educated suburbanites who should be available to the democratic party and the democratic party has not been able to make them part of their coalition in the way republicans have -- i did not expect to see a mixed martial arts improper tour on the stage. republicans have enthusiastically embraced enthusiastic voters should can

democrats absorb the suburbanites? >> they have to close the deal because i think when biden came into office, there was democratic overreach like you talked about. for voters, i'm thinking about orange county, california. that voted republican for a generation or two, pushed trump away they were not in favor of trump but when democrats. into office, remind them of why they did not vote for democrats for so many years. that is the tension republic -- the tension democrats are facing. >> i swear we are going to go to questions. i am very greedy. it is late -- it is nate.moore at aei.org. #election watch aei. if you have a magnificent question, people are saying it

is the best #so you should do that. do that straightaway. >> thank you for correcting me here. >> nate makes up the questions. we will get to your questions in a moment but after i do my one more greedy thing which is, the republicans are super excited because they are not losing minority voters at the numbers that they were. how much of 2016 and 2020 were in that way? george w. bush got 40% of the hispanic vote. it was not weird for republicans in the not so distant past to get a decent chunk of the black vote in the united states. how much of this is returning to normal and how much of this is building a new coalition? >> a lot of it is building a new coalition. i think the one thing -- patrick was a guest of election washed and he has talked about those constituencies.

it appeals to both groups, particularly economic opportunity. a lot of things republicans have talked about for a long time. particularly among hispanics. we have overlooked the fact a lot of hispanics are second and third generation americans at this point and they do not look like first-generation immigrants overall. in that sense that may be something more permanent. >> geographic differences. >> a lot of diversity in that community. >> i share nathan skepticism that may be trump is able to pull this together. two things. i think the republican party is going to go. some evidence that perhaps there might be a path. i look at florida and new york. both the left couple of elections. trump did really engineer a big florida win in 2022. that was desantis and others pushing that. new york, whoever you want to

give the credit to. they have done well again. i don't know if that is lasting but it is a kind of suburban voter we are not thinking of. it is ethnic's it is also old ethnics >> john is going to call on the first person as soon as john -- on has asked for a moderator. >> the thing about the w win versus -- with hispanics versus this one gets to where i think democrats are having hard time processing this. w won the hispanic vote by identity politics or at least that was the story. he treated hispanics as hispanics and pushed immigration reform. spoke kind of spanish.

there was the argument to get black voters he had to push on civil rights. to get women you need to push abortion rights. donald trump just like -- that was the rnc autopsy in 2012. someone whose name rhymes with wendy blew up. donald trump really blew it up. he is like i'm going to make. progress with these voters. it is not going to be treating blacks as blacks, hispanics as hispanics and women as women. i'm going to make an argument on how the culture should look. i'm going to make an argument by abandoning some of the economic libertarian positions on social security and medicare which drives a wedge between the republican party and that works too. that is incredibly important. that to the extent i do think we can start to call this the age of trump versus the age of obama which i kind of put w into a little bit. completely changing the emphasis on how demographic groups in the

electorate are dealt with. >> thank you, wendy. we are going to go to -- let's go here. please identify yourself. ask a question. >> i wanted to ask, at the last event before the election, i suggested there might be a silent majority in opposition to the more extreme positions of the democrats. to what extent do you think this result is from voters voting against the policies and the cultural changes they refused to accept? >> as i recall last time your question was about abortion specifically. >> those and issue tabs that -- >> and sometimes it was weed and sometimes it was whatever else. ballot initiatives. what can we tell about and if

you would guide us, what can we tell about where the electorate is based on states where donald trump won handily but pro-choice referenda passed? sort through the social and cultural issues. >> it appears that there is a slowing of the access to abortion measures. 60% threshold in florida made that a little -- contributed to that slowing. in general i -- you talk about a majority in this election, trump looks like he is going to have a majority finally. he was consistently at 46 point 1% in 2016 which was enough to win the electoral college and 46.8 which was not enough in 2020. now he more broadly is going to

have a majority. i think that is a reflection of the democratic party not being in line with the majority of voters. i don't have the -- some of the other individual ballot measures of states in front of me. i don't know if anyone else does. >> i only had two hours of sleep. that was pretty good for 30. does the internet want to know anything? >> we have a viewer online wondering about the jewish and arab-american vote. >> oooh, juicy. >> everyone remembers 2000 where we had nuclear war in palm beach county and all the hanging chads. that is where al gore focused on. he focused on the most democratic counties in the state and paul beach in broward county were 65% for gore.

donald trump almost carried it. he only lost palm beach county by like, five points. that was like, my head exploded, this is not going to go well for democrats. it is one of the most heavily jewish areas in the country. >> he also won dearborn. >> kamala harris got 50% of the vote, didn't she? there's some pressure on the trump coalition as well. but it gets to the point you are making that these elections are about the party in power. donald trump doesn't necessarily have a way to make his jewish supporters in his new arab supporters happy. but neither did joe biden. that is why the harris candidacy was rejected. >> i don't think dearborn, if they didn't like the perceived pro-israel bias of the biden administration, they are really not going to like what they are going to get in the trump administration. but it may be enough to punish

the incumbent. you picked up a piece of paper meaningfully. >> trump got 21% of the vote among jews, harris 79%. that looks pretty similar to the ap votecast, 68-30 in 2020. >> but that could be geographically concentrated. the story could be different for jewish americans. the new jersey numbers, bananas. the huge swing in new jersey, large jewish population in new jersey, large jewish population in suburban philadelphia, and of course new york. >> ok. let's go here. >> i know we talked a lot about ticket spreading last time as well, especially in statewide races. it is almost always the presidential candidate and

statewide candidate from the same party. what happened in wisconsin and michigan, and why are we seeing ticket splitting at higher levels down ballot as well? >> i think here, one obvious point is this rule against ticket splitting cannot be so strict. these were close races. we thought they would be further apart from the presidential candidates, and they ended up closing up. a lot of senate candidates were running very similarly to trump, but they fell slightly on the one side of one line or another. ron johnson was not one of these cases, but he in the last election won very narrowly. it is more important to think about these other candidates who are far away from the presidential candidates. we are probably only going to have one after this election. susan collins be by far the candidate who looks different

from her state on the presidential level. everybody else will be kind of around that. it is not like we broke some rule because we were just across the line. >> and unless something has been called since i have been up here, which i hope they are not doing without me, we are going to end up with ticket splits in wisconsin and michigan. >> wisconsin and michigan, potentially arizona, and we don't know about nevada. i think john is 100% right. susan collins was remarkable because the delta was so big. donald trump won maine by so much. we thought she would be lucky if she can hang on by her toenails, and she did much better than that. she beat expectations widely. what we saw in these states was the senate candidates trued up

to the partisanship of the general electorate. and in the end, reflecting the partisanship of the general electorate. that is why jon tester lost. that is why sherrod brown lost. i think we are still waiting to call pennsylvania. but it got real close in wisconsin, and it got a lot closer in nevada. and it is because they reverted to their partisanship. >> democrats will be ticking -- kicking themselves about texas where there were trump/colin allred voters, but harris got clobbered. >> what is another $100 million spent on a texas senate race? >> one interesting thing, andy kim -- it was an open seat, he won by about eight. of course trump did extremely well, lost by only about five.

that was a little surprising, but it showed he was following the party rather than his own brand. we will go right here in the front. right behind you. >> my question is how much did media play a role in the vice president's defeat, given that biden was not handing her over because she was more unpopular than him? but after biden backed off, media just made her some kind of prophet. my second question, i went to montana and philadelphia knocking on doors for trump. most people don't like the idea of changing the sex of children, and having taxpayers to pay for it. similarly they don't want the pentagon to waste their money on

changing people's sex. we thought this abortion issue would favor democrats, but actually i don't know if it went against them. >> so, part of the question is about the way transgender issues interacted with this electorate. and i have to tell you, did a one here watch much college or pro football in the past few w eeks? if you did, you saw in heavy rotation one of the most effective ads, and mean, mean and effective as that i have seen, which was about transgender is him in girls sports. what is the tagline? she's for -- >> he's for you, she's for they/them. >> yeah, mean. and they played it in heavy

rotation in these football games. now i can tell you this about the way people consume media. football is the last thing other than the local news, thank god, that americans will watch on television. everything else is there is 900,000 people watching a squid game episode and that is about it. the only thing that gets mass audience anymore, look at the list of the most-watched television broadcasts every year and eight or nine out of 10 will be football games. and the trump campaign zeroed in on those games and pushed in on this message about transgenderism. who is the target? men, men, men, men, men. and when we look at these numbers and we look at the data and we see young men coming in for republicans in ways that we had not seen in the past, and

you can tell us the exact numbers, but it dick schaap. there are a lot of -- but there was a big shift. you are right that the messaging around transgenderism was a big deal. as for the media piece of this, i second my colleague's emotion on how well kamala harris did. she ran about as good a race as a human being could run under those circumstances. she moderated her positions. she said she would shoot somebody if they broke into her house. she was for fracking. she was for securing the border. she said clean slate, let's go ahead. republicans said she didn't do interviews. in the end she did a lot more interviews with legacy outlets than donald trump did good -- did. donald trump would not do a

second debate. she wanted him to do a second debate, he would not do a second debate because he lost the first one. in terms of kamala harris and the media, i don't know. but what i do think is interesting, we will never talk about media in a presidential election exactly the same way because what donald trump figured out was he doesn't need it. he doesn't need us. you don't need to do the 60 minutes interview because you can go on theo vonn's podcast and have him describe to you what it is like to be on cocaine and donald trump can go, taht's amazing. you don't need to do cbs and look important. you can just go on and riff with people and circumnavigate, or circumvent the mainstream press. >> because you brought up that ad, maybe one of the youngs can correct me on this -- >> standby.

>> i believe the host was charlamagne tha god. which older people here are like, huh? it's that hammering home. and he is black. it is not just men targeted with that ad. >> if you didn't see the ad, it is just clips of -- so it is charlamagne tha god in the breakfast crew, one of the most popular on african-american radio, most popular morning radio shows in the country. it was them having a very normal discussion about what they think about transgenderism in sports. they took the real audio, credit together, made an ad out of it, and it is just what you said. >> and that is not just for the merovingian vote. >> 15 seconds as a memorably media, i get frustrated about the narrative the media was working in concert to promote

vice president harris. i have worked in media outlets. i have worked at places where i don't even know what the person three cubicles away is doing let alone coordinating with other competitors and news outlets. i understand it is a nice narrative but it is crazy. >> one other briefing on that point, i kind of don't ever want to hear another argument that the media swung in election for democrats. i don't think they collude, but most people in the media are democrats and you cannot completely set aside your priors. it influences how you evaluate events. kamala harris especially in that first 1.5 month just got fawning press coverage, absolutely. some of it was justified. it was a big deal, i get that. but if you had pulled media folks before the election about who they thought was going to win, 99% would've thought harris would win even though the data didn't support that.

and it didn't matter. donald trump still won, like, a bigger victory than 2016. so the media think does have a strong bias. but i do not think it matters. >> the republicans are arguing it is a that doesn't exist anymore. the republicans are mad at a media that was the way it was when it was three networks and huntley and wrinkly and this is how it was. i am here to tell you it is long gone. there is no media anymore in the sense there is a monolithic entity that exists in new york and washington and calls the shots. it is atomized, dislocated, decentralized, and individual audiences are much smaller. and as we found out this year, who has more listeners or viewers, whatever, it is always in flux. you know what else didn't matter this year? yet again, money.

kamala harris had enough money that she could have bought elon musk. she had raised all of the money in the world. she had raised all of this money. and they spent it and it did it all. and, no. we now have election after election. jeb bush raised half $1 billion to run in a republican primary. please clap, nothing. we go through and we see the cash advantage that people perceive makes the difference. when i travel places and people say, what about the money? not anymore. barriers to entry are very low. i don't think just having a cash advantage makes a difference. anything else? oh, the internet wants to know. >> do you think democrats will go through a significant policy reckoning, a shift towards the center a la bill clinton in 1992?

who might leave that shift? >> we're in the beginning of the recrimination space right now. this will go on for a while. the recrimination space seems to be blaming it on joe biden. that's going to change a little over time we will see who the leader might be. >> this goes back to the original question which is about what they think happened. if democrats believe that trump is a baron, he's the black swan that came in and he did all that stuff. they could push off thinking seriously about how to rebuild a coalition for another four years, is that right? >> i am trying to think of what democratic leaders are going to be remaining. hakeem jeffries will be the leader in the house.

who knows what the senate will look like. i wonder if democrats are going to try to look for an outsider. one dynamic we have not talked about at all is that trump continuously benefits to being held to a different standard because he is viewed as an outsider and not a politician. the voters have such a low view of voters and politicians that because he has a brand as a successful businessman and celebrity -- if anything does -- if any politician does one thing he has done or said, their career is over. >> i do not think it will be mark cuban. >> maybe they try to look outside instead of within, go to the governors that have been mentioned. >> if you go back to the election week in 2004, 20 years ago, george w. bush won, i forget what we were talking about that year, nascar dads were security moms. it was more fun, we used to give different nicknames to different demographic groups. it was cute. it was more cute.

but the conclusion was reached that republicans had won by getting people on social issues. god, guns, and gays. the narrative that came out of the 2004 election was -- i am from west virginia, if you want to know how much realignment there has been this century, west virginia was a swing state. it'll be the second or third most republican state in the country this year, and it is a state that one for michael dukakis in 1988. but the conclusion among democrats, you can read the article in the new york times, they said he is giving them nascar dads. will it be mark warner in 2008, as the democrats look to the future? should be a red state, should be a moderate, someone who can appeal to -- you know what he said? probably a guy with the middle name hussein who was not yet in the united states senate, it will probably be him and he will

win the biggest victory for democrats since 1996. >> one thing that is important, i use the analogy that hard-core social progressivism is like fundamentalist religion, and i think it does operate that way. a lot of what seems weird makes sense. when we talk about how to change, when you say something like maybe you should back off the transgender care for kids, that's a little out there. you can get 99% of the deal and probably get most americans on board but that is too far. trans kids in sports is kind of unpopular. the corollary i always come back to, to use the religion analogy, i would always hear people say republicans just need to moderate on abortion if they want to win. i would always think, ok, maybe, but how do you ask someone that

things abortion is murder to moderate? this is something they believe sincerely. >> but they did this time. >> they sure did this time. he built up street cred. then i would say, what advantage do evangelicals give? it's the same ask for strong progressives to ask them to back off of their strong progressive views. there are things they believe deeply and strongly in, and when you ask them to back off, you are asking them to back off something that is very much part of their core. like, can you give up on the baby holocaust for an election? no, of course not.

>> political scientists sometimes talk about the party decides, meaning party leaders are really shaping who the next candidate is, they are picking people. that happens occasionally. in recent history, george w. bush is the only case where a lot of people deferred to him. who is that person out there? there are going to be people we don't know about. there are people who are likely candidates and they seem modestly strong but there is not a front runner among the various governors and put -- and pete buttigieg. >> you don't think it is shapiro? >> shapiro will be something but the american people don't know who shapiro is. there is this little moment where people said we could have one with him, but people don't know him. i think there will be a progressive. part of the argument, and i don't think it would be a good idea for democrats to fully go this way, but there'll be someone who says we need a progressive voice. all those people we are talking about our kind of moderate-ish democrats. there's nobody in that lane,

that has been occupied pretty well by bernie sanders, elizabeth warren, getting good chunks of the vote. >> in 2012 after the republicans lost, there were those who said we must moderate. we must moderate. and then there were others who said hell no, we've got to crank this thing up. donald trump was not the most extreme candidate for republicans in 2016. he was not the most far out on policy questions. please that the year tom tancredo had an ad of a mexican terrorist blowing up a shopping

mall? >> there were multiple psychos. >> or when herman cain wanted alligators in a moat at the u.s. southern border. the danger for democrats is that if the conclusion is that kamala harris lost because she was to moderate, which sounds wrong, because it is, but if the progressive left says you sold out. if you would have been pure and true, you might have won. because republicans certainly went through that in 2016, and oddly it worked out for them. >> i am going to put a flag on the ground here. abigail spanberger, congresswoman wins a high profile race next year and pushes her into the conversation. if it happens, remember this day. if it doesn't, let's forget this ever happened. >> that is an excellent point. >> my flag -- what? >> exactly the right kind of woman. >> my flag in the ground will be john fetterman. >> whoa. the wwe. he and vance will just wrestle. >> or he and shapiro. >> you want someone who has outsider cred, someone who can speak to average people, who seems like he at least might be able to take a chunk off of the

trump voters. i put my flag down for that. >> i am seeing right here. one second. >> does all the sophisticated polling and expensive single issue advertising actually keep voters in the dark about many serious issues our country is facing, and in some way, kind of corrupt democracy? one more comment. i worked at the polls, it was a wonderful experience. but when i changed to become a note, i cannot work at the polls anymore in my state. >> on the question of -- are there secret issues the american people care about we were just ignoring, or were we tapping the pulse? >> the horse race is everywhere.

it takes the air out of everything else. but certainly the polls polled on many important issues throughout the campaign. they just got no attention. >> we should also point out that no one knows anything. so, whatever you believe, whatever a person believes that they care about the most, confirmation bias is very powerful. so if you believe that donald trump won because of joe rogan and jellyfish chemical enhancements or whatever, if you think that is true, if you believe in those things, then you will see it in the numbers and say that's why. the american electorate does not really give up its secrets. we do a lot of survey work. the associated press does this magnificent vote cast data that we will pour over 115,000 completed surveys.

and we will pour through that data and try to come to conclusions and it will be mostly horse hockey. we will be squinting at images on the wall and say, well, i think maybe if they like that that they didn't like that then maybe it is this. i love the american voter because they are a jumble. you have people you say ok, let's talk about the pro-gay marriage second amendment enthusiast. who are you? what are you doing in here? the way that our politics works is it flattens it from a great distance. this is what republicans are like, this is what democrats are like. that is not the case. what you see in these elections and part of what is really affirming about the elections, talk about the rio grande valley and these big swings, they didn't change. they are the same people. circumstances changed, candidates changed and they

contain multitudes. so we should not flatten each other out either. the parties and the campaigns flatten us out we should not flatten other out. we should see each other's humanity, decency, standing as a fellow child of god or nature in your fellow american. and it is very easy to do and i will shut up talking about the same thing i started. >> we have time for one more russian. pick a lucky person in the audience. >> right up front. you were right here. >> in the campaign, was there anything that you heard donald trump say that you believe he believes is more or less an approximation of the genuine truth? and if yes, what was it? [laughter] >> everyone forgets that this was donald trump's fourth run for the presidency. he ran in 2000 briefly for the

reform party nomination, prospero's venue. what did ross perot want? he thought nafta was a disaster. the guy who won that year was pat buchanan. his shtick was build a wall. immigration and trade i think our core beliefs of donald trump that he is 100% sincere about. beyond that, i don't know. >> we are getting ready to find out. the wall street journal does not do endorsements but in the peace the wall street journal wrote basically endorsing trump, they said he is crazy and dangerous, but we think he is bad at it. we think he will be ineffective at doing this but we think that kamala harris will be extraordinarily effective at doing the things she wants to do, which are maybe less dangerous she will get it done. donald trump will fail to

achieve the things he wants. part of the reason donald trump won is that when democrats said he is going to have a mass deportation force, he's going to do this and that, people said when he was president he said he was going to do all kinds of stuff. i don't know that voters take trump neither literally nor seriously. i think he has become a hood ornament for a republican party. in the u.s. we have a gas pedal party and a break party. in the break party is the one that says too much, too fast, i don't like it, pull back. i think that is what they were voting for. we will find out literally as we walk out of here. which donald trump do we have? i have no idea and i don't think anybody else does either, whether he is going to be the guy who democrats have been warning about, or is he going to be this ineffectual would-be guy

the wall street journal describes. >> could has been a long year. we have had a number of election watchers in our series. we would like to thank our panel. what a wonderful ending to this to have. also appropriately, the founder of election watch going to the beginning. thank you panelists. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

announcer: c-span's washington journal, our live forum involving you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy, from washington and across the country.

ng