forth. because if in fact it is, rulemaking could make it an extended time before anything could be done. but it does turn up the noise in terms of what you were saying. all of a sudden career civil servants are being moved out, the day-to-day of what functions -- so much does not go to the white house. it happens in departments and agencies. if you think this is real, the degree to which you think there is civil service reform. >> schedule f reflects people who are gs 15 through 18, who are upper-level civil servants and the federal government. broadly speaking, i would say they are not fireball. -- fireable.

i worked in the department of justice. they are lovely people. but some of them need to move on in their careers. right now, there is no way to do that. the thing i am aware of in washington is simply post-pandemic, the number of federal agency buildings that are empty let taxpayers are paying for because so many government employees live in the suburbs and would rather work from home. i think this is fueling part of the national debt, is the size and scope of the government while we are paying for people who cannot be fired and empty buildings. i understand the desire to have some buddy like elon musk come in, who is a businessman, and say how are we going to negotiate these leases.

the pushback is to make the schedule of employees not to have life appointments. you would make them into political appointees because they can only serve at the pleasure of the president until the end of the ministration. that would be a way. the argument back is that you are politicizing the civil service. i understand the concern. there must be some way to reach a compromise. i would say there is a cost financially carrying that many members of workforce and buildings at the same time. i have to google schedule f last night. but once i saw it, i was like, i know what they are talking about. that is my take on it. >> this is such a tricky

constitutional issue and both parties honestly are vexed by it. i think the republicans and president trump has made clear that this is a long-standing republican priority. and yet both sides want to have their cake and eat it too. the constitution requires that the cabinet secretaries in the major agencies be confirmed. subsequent loss have said the number of positions going down, typically assistant secretary level, also have to be confirmed. there is value in that vetting process. on issues where congress has ongoing prerogatives, they want to be able to call people to testify and be able to engage with federal iraq receipt with people who they have vetted. presidents have wide appointment

authority. if you are a career civil servant, it is a little confusing who you should be listening to. federal law says you have to listen basically to confirmed officials. these are democrats or republicans who have a very good track record of getting through the confirmation process for all kinds of reasons, including the fact that congress is kind of broken. almost four years into the biden administration they have only confirmed two thirds of the positions that can be confirmed. that is pretty consistent with past presidents. so both sides want to appoint people into the government, but they don't really have the authority to do that. it is a big problem and it is not clear to me that either side has a clear solution that they are willing to put forward.

we need both sides to adopt a shot clock. we all love the shot clock. it has defined our defense. but at some point, you turn the ball over. on offense, if you have it. there is no shot clock in the senate on confirmation. this is one of the reasons that administrations do not get to fill their government with people they want. >> i don't think the federal bureaucracy schedule f -- as important as those issues are, to have that expertise we try to train here, in our federal government -- i don't think those are what excited or animated many of our students. climate change, abortion, gaza are the things they talked about. i suspect this election could have implications for all of them. maybe there are other issues. climate change.

what is this going to mean? >> i think there could be some really significant, significant shifts. again, the biden administration and big legislation that would pass during the biden administration has i think been looking toward the potential for the market to protect some of those gains because of the tax credit, because of the incentive for the market with regard to some of the climate change related provisions in that legislation, and some in congress -- and i think on a bipartisan basis -- have said efforts are underway. we don't need to necessarily tamper with that. i think for progressives who cared about issues, they could be looking toward the market as a potential protector.

there are certainly issues that president trump has signaled that he is very interested in looking at, including some of those provisions. some of the electric vehicle related credits. the international treaties and biden's reentry to some of those treaties also look like they will be squarely in the crosshairs for change. >> whether it is climate change, the economy, immigration, this election proves that issues do matter. one of the reasons harris lost what she talked about abortion, but that is just it. she had a very difficult time

saying she was with biden with whatever the issue was oregon state. there is going to be a robust conversation about what the mandate is. and hallelujah. scott jennings on cnn that she was in our class the other day. he says there is more to being president in the united states then just beating donald trump and she did not make that case. i think it is a great thing that we can do deep dives in all the issues. i would say i am glad the issues are back on the table. it is a great opportunity for parties to move forward, and bring in the problem solvers. >> we are going to go to questions in just a minute. before we go, i would like each person to touch on one issue.

what are the prospects to help unify this country? bill, you are nodding. >> we were thinking about this regarding us of who won the election. typically, presidents get four categories -- who they appoint. does he put a democrat in the cabinet? from my perspective, a democrat that is committed the eight democrat, so rfk junior does not count -- who is committed to being a democrat, so rfk junior does not count. and an issue to work with -- it could be anything. it could be tax credits for the environment, something that a lot of democrats care about. three, is he willing to acknowledge values that democrats hold that he sees to be valid?

in his rhetoric, does he acknowledge something on the democratic side? and forth, are there symbolic things he could do? going to visit the home of a former democratic president, a home or library. harry truman, give him hell harry, there could be some residents in the middle of the country if he were to do something like that. >> other thoughts on prospects, what he could do on rebuilding? >> i think this is really tricky. people look to their political leaders to decide what positions they are going to take on a lot of issues. right now, a lot of our political leaders are deeply polarized. i think to reach some kind of compromise for us to stick together requires that our leaders, not just everyday citizens, but our leaders, are willing to reach across the aisle.

they are willing to take broader positions and pass bipartisan legislation. given the political environment and current political climate, i think that the likelihood of us seeing that is not impossible. but i think that i am at least pessimistic. >> i would say some of the literature i have been reading in the last 24 hours is all of these things that have not happened since george h w bush, when we won in 1988. other people say the party of george h w bush is now officially gone and this is a whole new era of the republican party. i would say that one of the things i am seeing is this new coalition, this multiracial, totally different working-class coalition that has emerged. that presents a tremendous opportunity. we studied in class. there is a professor in stanford

and we talked about party sorting. since the days of george h w bush, parties sorted more. you used to have liberal democrats, moderate democrats, conservative democrats, liberal republicans, moderate republicans, conservative republicans. that is how we got all the sweeping landmark legislation passed. you could get the conservative democrats to pair up with the conservative republicans, or the conservative democrats would get the liberal republicans. that has disappeared. everyone who is a liberal is in the democrat party. everyone who is conservative is in the republican party. this new coalition that has come forward -- maybe we could start moving back to less party sorting. most conservatives say donald trump is not necessarily conservative. i think there are working-class voters who consider themselves liberal who are supporting trump. i think there is a bit of a backlash.

trying to bring them back to the center -- i think there could be all kinds of working governing majorities that could start emerging on various issues and legislation. that could help unify our party gridlock. it could be a great thing. >> i was thinking about much the same. as a partisan, you want your party to win their election. i think the person who cares deeply about democracy, that the idea of every vote being in the mix, that you have to compete for every vote and you are looking across different geographic, demographic lines to try to build those coalitions to win is a really exciting and interesting prospect for both parties.

two, i think the point that both you and ashley and bill were making about the kind of legislation that can come out early in an administration is very important. not only focusing on what the needs are of people, what they have articulated as their deepest concerns and fears, but identifying bipartisan coalitions to try and move that legislation -- i know. i mean, when i came in in the obama administration, we had the house and senate, the white house, and i understand what it means to have that kind of a mandate. parties will act on that, and they do have that mandate. at the same time -- i think this opportunity exists and we have seen it across different administrations. there are big pieces of legislation that can and should be moved that are bipartisan in nature.

that sends a strong signal. i think the other thing and one of the most powerful tools that a president has has nothing to do with legislation and has everything to do with the megaphone. so a president is the singular actor that people turn their attention to. the messages that they send, the tone that they send -- all that matters. that is an opportunity if chosen and if used to start to drive a different tone, a different narrative, and a different conversation in the country. >> let's take some questions. do you have a question? >> a quick agree and disagree, just for fun -- i agree that george h w bush was absolutely the master of this. he did so many different things. the thing that was most effective is he worked with governors. he went to a summit at uva on

education. there was a governor from arkansas that was the chair of the democratic governors committee, bill clinton. on that and on senior legislation, he negotiated big bipartisan agreements with governors as well as through the house and senate. most presidents have at least one bipartisan thing they have tried to advance. george w. bush did no child left behind. i'm sure melody could talk about some of the obama -- >> the serve america act. and others. >> in the biden administration, he had infrastructure, chip, and a number of other things. another place i will agree with mary kate is he did not have a political strategy to capitalize on that. nobody thinks about joe biden as

a unifier that he set out to be, even though he passed these things. i think whenever a president does bring the country together, if they really care about it, they have to continue to campaign on themselves as unifier's. people don't sell it anymore the way george did. >> we have not talked about the role the press may play. let's get some questions. right where you are standing -- there is a person there. try to keep your questions brief so we can get to some of them. >> i was wondering if you can speak to what are the potential impacts of this administration on the judiciary. it seems likely to me that this administration is going to get one, maybe two supreme court appointments. so i was wondering what you think trump's impact on the judiciary will be and the lasting effects on the country. >> great question.

and i also think you are correct. both parties focus at least inside the party apparatus and in the white house -- they focus on the judiciary. recognizing that there is a legacy that lasts long past any president's term in office. i think the republican party has been particularly good at -- on the senate judiciary committee, i used to spend a lot of time with my republican colleagues. quite collegial. we would go back and forth and talk to one another about what we were thinking and where we thought the other one had done something really strategic. and thinking very intently about the usefulness -- of its judiciary. the opportunity potentially for a supreme court justice -- they are getting up there in age to potentially retire.

younger conservative justices were sitting there front and center. that is something that is probably being considered. appellate and district courts as well. president trump made great inroads with regard to the judiciary when he was potus 45. i expect he will do the same as potus 47. >> thank you. i think we will do one question from each side of the aisle. raise your hand hi if you have a question. over here. >> compared to the democrats, the republicans in the past have a really hard time keeping their caucus in line. do you think that trump is enough of a unifier to bring them together? i make reference -- the big one is may 22, when they could not decide on their speaker. >> and we will take one question

on the site here. is there a mic back there? >> two-part question. >> right there, thank you. >> i just want to shout out the karsh institute for fostering the engaged dialogue through the student dialogue fellowship. on that note, i was wondering how does the generational divide play out in the demographics of this election, and what issues do you think appealed to the first, second, third time voters in this election, and how do you think the parties could have appealed to these issues better to try and get generation z to come out and vote. >> keeping members in line and young voters. >> keeping members in line, like i said -- i think there are going to be leadership votes in the next week. mike johnson, if i was going to predict, will probably remain in the top job on the house side for the republicans.

there we go. thank you. because he seems to have been able to lower the level. i have not heard of anyone coming against him. mitch mcconnell is stepping down. there are all kinds of players interested in that job. but i would doubt there is going to be the level of fireworks that we saw in the house again. probably they learn from that lesson that that was a really dumb thing to be doing. younger voters, i totally agree on the student dialogue fellows. i think it is a great program. the understanding from exit polls -- correct me if i'm wrong -- i believe trump one the voters from 18 to 25, which nobody expected. the fact that as a mom i am worried about the level of student debt -- i am worried about whether my children can afford their own houses, and

with the $35 trillion in national debt is going to do to their taxes over the course of their lifetime -- i am extremely concerned about this. i am extremely conservative. that generation, the best thing we can do is help them economically. free-market, not a bigger government. but free market solutions to help them live the life they want to live. >> my data shows that trump was up seven points from 2020 from voters in that demographic, but did not quite carry it. >> i'm sorry. >> bill mentioned that the turnout of four years ago -- i believe it was 158, as high as 160. the reuters number for this year is 141, maybe 140 and a fraction . there is a vote coming in from

california. it might go up to 142. that is a 10% drop in turnout. i wonder if any of you have given any thought to how that 10% drop off is distributed geographically and demographically in the united states. my guess is that the youth vote dropped off, that the use vote, concerned about gaza and whatever, just stayed home. the second question i have relates mostly to democracy. mary kate has mentioned the notion that the republican party is on its way to becoming the party of the working class. many of us will doubt that. however, the important thing about democracy is to look at what portion of the working class is in fact living in the shadows. if we have 10 million dreamers, multiplied by the parents, we

have maybe 30 million people who have been working in the united states, paying social security taxes, paying income taxes, 415, 20, up to 38 years, the last time immigration was directly addressed by the congress. you have got, what, a quarter, 20% of the working class in the united states that is disenfranchised. we are talking about the same proportion as during slavery and during jim crow. you have got a substantial, important portion of the working class that cannot vote, does not vote. they have prime interest. somebody who has worked here for 30 years, raised kids. >> fantastic point. i can take the question only. turnout drop off -- undocumented

or disenfranchised. >> on the first, it will be interesting. it will be a little while before we get past the exit polls and those numbers, and we start to get the really nitty-gritty numbers so we can see who was there, and why. my guess is that you are probably correct. i think maybe bill raised it early. one of the things the harris campaign had been counting on was high turnout, and did not get it. that posed a challenge. this goes to the democracy issue as well. for many people, there is a sense that this does not work. this does not work for me. they don't care about me, so why should i be here? one of the things we have to do is through policy and engagement and by listening, to show people that they do matter, that we do hear them across the board. that is just good for healthy democracy.

i think on the immigration issues you raised, you raised some very interesting issues. the data shows some interesting correlations between immigration and inflation, and helping to tamp down inflation to some degree. it is a really interesting issue but i think it ultimately flows to something you pointed out. it has been a long time since we passed a comprehensive immigration reform issue that not only addresses border issues, but we will see how that unfurls in the coming months and years. >> i will say that maybe perhaps surprisingly it appears the turnout was back up among youngest voters. it looks like 18 to 29-year-olds ate up a bigger share of the electorate this year than they had in the last presidential election. we are going to be really interesting when we have the

data we need to see who did not show up. one thing i am thinking about is the fact that a lot of trump voters were really excited to vote for trump, and more harris voters were voting against trump than were voting for harris. you can imagine that some people in that situation may have simply chosen not to participate at all. >> we are out of time. i want to thank everyone here for a robust discussion. demonstrating what we can do in this country after a hard-fought election -- we can start talking policy and politics. next steps, hopefully. challenges that we will face. i want to thank our audience for your questions, your attention. you are continuing to stay engaged. i have great faith that we can achieve our aspirations. i think we can do it here at the batten school.

i think west virginia is a great place. thank you. [applause] >> congress returns tuesday for the first time since the election for legislative business and votes, with a busy month ahead. wednesday, house and sat republicans will both hold leadership elections. house republicans will elect their nominee for speaker and

senate republicans will pick their next lear ter retaking the majority in the upper chamber. newly elected members will also be in the sea orientation, including selecting their offices by lottery. the house and senate are also returning tuesday, facing a government funding deadline, and must pass additional federal spen legislation to avoid a shutdown. the house is back tuesday at on eastern. later in the week, gestation to transparency of ballots,yto--- quing tracking barcodes. also, making fafsa available to students eac on october 1. the senate ao turns tuesday at 3:00 p.m. eastern. tors will vote later in the week when several of president den's judicial nominations. and the director of the federal office of government ethic watch live coverage of the house

on c-span, the saton c-span two. also, watch all of free video app, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. visit c-span.org/results for comprehensive coverage of the 2024 campaign results. get the final electoral college breakdown in the presidential race and see which states each candidate carried. dive into our interactive map to explore the outcomes and senate, house, and governors races, and monitor the final balance of power in congress. watch acceptance and concessio speeches on demand, anytime. stay up-to-datwi c-span, your unfiltered view of politics, at c-span.org/results. sunday on "q&a," former domestic policy adviser to president carter and u.s. ambassador to

the european union under president clinton shares his book "the art of diplomacy," in which he discusses his career and the impact the civil rights movement had on him. >> we go to eat, and black students are sitting in. you can google this. that is when the sit-ins started in greensboro and durham. i said naively to my for eternity brother, why are they doing this? he said, "what universe are you living in? it's because they can't be served." it is like someone lifted a veil from me. i got so used to the segregated world, i didn't question it. i got active in the civil rights movement at unc, and when i was with president carter, we supported affirmative action. these kinds of transformative events when you are young sometimes carry over to your

career and they certainly did for me. >> stewart eizenstat with his book "the art of -- "the art of diplomacy" on sunday's " q&a." >> since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress, from the house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings, and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front-row seat to have issues are debated and decided, with no commentary, no interruptions, and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> next, british prime minister keir starmer congratulating president-elect trump