>> what do you think of when you see a tree? a treatment for cancer? alternative fuel for our cars? do you think of hope for the environment, or food, clothing, shelter? we do. weyerhaeuser, growing ideas. >> we've got real differences here. >> this week on "inside washington," election 2012, six months out. >> if i am president, i will take responsibility and the

lead. >> what are barack obama's chances of keeping his job? >> no better than 50/50. >> what's bugging voters? >> the economy. >> ad game getting nasty. >> everybody plays hardball. >> the ground game -- who has the most enthusiastic supporters? the money game -- will the candidate with the fattest super pac win? and the charm offensive -- which candidate is more likable? >> i like hanging out with women. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org--

>> as we celebrate this memorial day holiday, we are a six months away from the 2012 election. we will stay away from the breaking news and focus on the road ahead. our guide is peter hart, who produces the nbc news-"wall street journal" on which we rely. he says it is a 50/50 shot for the president did 2/3 of the american people say we are on the wrong track. lousy number, but ahead of where we were in november of last year voters are very glum about what lies ahead for them and their children. >> this kind of attitude makes people on certain trade for the first time in generations, this country is going to hand the baton backwards rather than forwards. if you are the incumbent president talking about forward, the problem for the country is are we going forward, can we go forward?

>> we will get back to peter later. let me ask you washington insiders, as we look back on your many years of covering this capital and politics, is there anything about now that strikes you as a particularly unique or troubling? mark? >> particularly unique? that is a good question. everything is troubling. the fact we are headed in the wrong direction, people are pessimistic, the decline of american optimism, which has been the defining a psychic characteristic of our people -- all of these are rather upsetting, an unnerving, and challenging. >> colby, what about you? the feeling you have never had before? >> it is the vast divide between democrats and republicans in washington. you always had partisan activity, but now you have a monolithic group of republicans

and a monolithic group of democrats, who are ideologically so far apart, unwilling to give anything unless their side is going to win. we have not seen anything quite like this in modern politics. you always had some group of each group was willing to bridge the gap. >> nina? >> what strikes me as different is that there is what colby said, but we are kind of evolving into a parliamentary system, except we don't have a parliamentary system. you overlay this kind of polarity on a system of checks and balances, and what you get is total gridlock, because nobody is willing to compromise, cross over, which is the oil of a democratic system, and we don't have the power of a parliamentary system, where when you win, your party puts into effect its program, and if people don't like it, they a vote out your party.

>> charles? >> i am rather encouraged by the divisiveness and rancor. [laughter] obama take it off with a bold and ambitious program of the left -- national health care, stimulus, cap-and-trade. you got the reaction in the 2010 election. a lot like 1980. i don't lament the absence of moderation. with that ideologically ambitious president like obama, you are not going to get it. if he loses, we will have a new direction. if he wins, he will have a mandate to continue. >> if you long for the mushy middle, tough. >> i don't quite agree with the analysis we just heard. a lot is going to happen in the congress. there is a possibility, and it would be necessary for obama, to see a democratic takeover of the

house of representatives. the only way to break this gridlock is to see a shift in power on capitol hill, because if romney wins and we still have this kind of congress, the democrats will do the same thing to his agenda at that the republicans have done to the obama agenda, and that is to be rejectionist. that takes us know where, especially with the problems we face as a country. >> there are people in the democratic party who really love seeing republicans get more and more to the right, because they think that ultimately, they will take over and when that might -- win that way and the republicans will sideline and themselves for a generation. >> those are the political pros. what about the people at home, thinking about where the country is going to go, but planning for their children's lives and retirement and so forth? >> they have to be absolutely confused and confounded.

charles talks about this hard left agenda of obama -- cap-and- trade, republican idea endorsed by john mccain, individual mandate for health care, came out of the heritage foundation, notorious left wing place, and the stimulus, a product of the republican president and republican secretary of the treasury. having said that, as charles wood said it -- charles would say -- >> actually, i've never said it "having said that." >> you just did. [laughter] >> point shields. >> what you have now are people running for office saying "i hate congress, i hate the people in, i don't want to serve their." if somebody came up to you and

said, "i have a graduate degree in child psychology, i know adolescents, i have studied them at a distance, but i hate children" -- that is what we have to we are hiring people who hate to drop a bag are going into. i want perso -- we are hiring people who hate the job it they are going into. i want a person who acknowledges that the person across the aisle loves the country as much ans he or she does. >> much error, so little time. cap-and-trade it is control of the economy, and the stimulus is not a republican idea. tarp is a bipartisan idea, but it is the kind of keynesian economics that democrats believe in and finally had chance to deploy, and it did not work. >> you are right about "so little time."

whose supporters are more fired up, mitt romney's or barack obama's? >> ground game is the mother's milk of politics. can you get people to care as much about this election? everything we have seen suggests that republicans have more at stake and are more interested than democrats. there is a 10-point differential right now. >> remember barack obama's inaugural? the enthusiasm of that huge crowd? people knocking on doors? it was a crusade. where has all that enthusiasm gone,? nina? >> into the recession, or the slow recovery from the recession . there is no doubt that republicans care more about getting rid of barack obama and that democrats do about keeping

him. democrats, for some reason that escapes me, have been incredibly passively optimistic. they just think he will get reelected. there is a very good chance he won't. >> let's go to a couple of voters. we will continue to see some lovely campaign ads. >> so many people just say "i don't want to vote for anyone, because everybody is that." >> -- is bad. >> there you go, everybody is bad. >> historically, negative campaigns and ads are intended to depress voter turnout. if you are trying to depress voter turnout by convincing people that mitt romney ran bain capital like a pirate, daddy warbucks, didn't care about those down below lost their jobs in pensions and health care, you

are trying to depress turnout let me. be a fascinating thing. -- that may be a fascinating thing. john mccain in the swing states, according to peter hart's numbers, got the same number of votes in 2008 that george w. bush did in 2004, when george bush carried those states. barack obama, because of the enthusiasm and intensity, had a bigger turnout and was able to carry those states. i don't see that same kind of enthusiasm in 2012 -- >> if mark is right and negative campaigning depresses votes, but you are barack obama and you want turnout, aren't you defeating your own purpose? >> i see it slightly differently. for the past three and half years, republicans and fox news have painted barack obama as the devil and credit -- >> charles is rolling his eyes -- >> may i, dr. krauthammer?

>> i did not say a word. i was silently rolling my eyes. >> just keep rolling them, because i am going to keep rolling. they have reasons to get this son of karl marx out of the white house, but they have to be careful about how they go after barack obama. there is a base out there, and if there is a feeling that he is being treated unfairly, that they are trying to take michelle obama and those nice kids out of the white house, there will be people who will come out there and turned out. we are early in this part of the campaign, but you can count on the nastiness to fire up the base. the nastiness is going to come out, the lindh nows -- t he limbaughs will let it all hang out, and there will be a response to that. now i stopped and i wait. >> give me a break on the fox

news. i'm flattered that fox news, of which i am a small part, is so powerful and accepted. but come on. what mark was saying, look at the numbers for john mccain -- it was the enthusiasm and the turnout for barack obama that was so important. the man was the most charismatic candidate in 2008 that we have had probably since reagan, perhaps even more. it was a perfect storm -- had a financial collapse, war weariness, eight years of republicans. it was over before it started. the italian communist party could have won the election in 2008 -- [laughter] and some say did win the election. >> karl marx, italian communist party -- this is "masterpiece theatre."

>> "the washington post" had a good analysis of how to look at this campaign. barack obama is probably going to start out with a roughly 237 electoral votes. romney it falls far behind that. if you are up for -- a few are up in the air and barack obama has a chance to get those. >> fox news will fix that. >> finding solutions and opportunities in an environment of change and turbulence is what i learned during my career, it is something i want desperately to bring to the presidency. >> he thinks that experience is going to help our economy? let's take a look. >> we are not here to talk about what the person has done in the

past, we're talking about what you can do in the future, how you can bring me and my children forward. >> who has the best shot of making that sale, charles? >> who can manage the economy. i don't think it is a particularly strong argument for romney to say "i was a businessman." it is a way to establish a persona of a man who is solid and reliable. the perceived negative of obama is that he is a guy who never ran a candy store before, his weakness is the economy. romney has to add to the persona of "i am a businessman." he has to add a program. mark has indicated that it is risky if he embraces the ryan plan, but i think the country is ready for a debate about entitlement reform, and the more ideological it gets, the more it helps republicans. the more they can make the current election a replay of

2010, they will win. >> 2010, colby? >> it will not be a replay of 2010 for couple of reasons. the economy will not be in the same place as in 2010. the democrats see this as an opportunity, particularly house democrats, to run a campaign against the ryan plan, and they -- or is optimism and there. there is this other sleeper issue of gay marriage. something is going to be happening below the radar on this. people will start to form their positions around this because of is being positioned. -- does of where barack obama is being positioned but he is almost a proxy -- >> 31 states already prohibit it. north carolina has passed a constitutional amendment -- >> and the polls show it is

moving in either direction. with the debate we are going to have, we will probably see the polls move even further. >> i suspect it is is going to be a wash. with both of these guys, it is a question of reality over hope. a lot of people voted for obama with great hope, and the reality has not been as good as the hope. you look at romney's promises, and you sort of hope, could not fix the economy, but ideas the same policies of the george w. bush administration, which put us into a terrible mess. >> super pac money? >> message first? obama's message is far better, far more salient. in it and pulling -- independent polling. obama's message is a fair shot for everybody, everybody plays by the same rules, no special privileges, everybody pays his and her fair share. the romney messages back to the

future -- remove regulation, get government out of the way, keep tax cuts for those who need them the least -- he would not say that, but those who are job creators, by his definition. i don't think there's any question that the obama message would carry against the romney message. the messenger does matter, however. >> the idea of a fair shot runs into a little bit of empirical trouble when you talk about the crony capitalism, solyndra and all that. there are huge amounts of favoritism and cronyism in this administration. but i think that is right, that is the message, and the reason he has to run on the fairness issue, equity, is because he cannot run on the record or storage of the economy or a vision. what is he offering? the buffett rule? that is not going to do anything about our economy.

it is in which to distract the public from his record and the fact that he does not have a program for his second term. >> with the election brings down is on of the two elements the president ran on four years ago -- and going to make the economy better and i am going to change things in washington. for both of those elements, mitt romney is ahead at this moment. >> going to make the economy better, colby, and change things in washington. >> what you will hear the obama campaign do is start from a different one, where we were when he took over and where we are now. he will cite the number of jobs created, but he will talk about the housing market, it back, the auto industry and where it stands now paid it will it be enough to overcome the other arguments? i don't know, but he has something to say, a message to send out, that will probably knocked some of the criticism. >> romney will say that it's all

hogwash. >> romney it will say it is not enough. >> i am still very interested in the role of money in this campaign. it used to be that whatever money you raise, you are responsible for. we now think that the super pacs will spend more money than the actual campaigns. it is not accountable money. it can be a big asset, and it can come back and hit you in the face, because you are responsible in some ways for stuff he did not do. the stuff is basically coordinated anyway. the one thing that people agree on in public opinion polls, overwhelmingly, is that they hate this. they hate the money stuff. they hate citizens united. they will have to live with it this election year. >> corrupting influence of money? >> when you get these six- and a

seven-figure contributions, and they are coming, and hiding behind a 501(c)(4), a way of saying you don't have to give your name, and it is won a single cause they care about -- they just care about the single cause -- that france our politics. >> -- that fragments our politic s. >> that is true, but there are other considerations barred are we going to say you cannot run average guy is men's during an election year -- run advertisements during an election year on political issues? i don't see how you can do that. and republicans and democrats will end up even. republicans will have a bit more outside money, and democrats a bit more inside money. i think in the end will be a level playing field in terms of money, and whatever happens will not eat because one side has

more than the other. >> the part about this i find most offensive is the lack of accountability, the lack of transparency, the lack of disclosure. i think the public has a right to know who is providing the money, because it tells you something about the person's behind it and the influence they seek to exert over the candidate. at this point, we don't know, and -- >> the republicans' answer to all campaign finance reform was full, immediate, and total disclosure. that was the republican solution. find a republican now in the senate who will even vote for disclosure. they have abdicated their moral responsibility. >> i like to disclosure, i think it ought to be out there. but look what obama has done by listing the donors to the romney campaign and how these people have been a cell that an attack on the website. to is away to do -- a way

do intimidation, and that is why i'm skeptical about disclosure. >> mitt romney is always going to be seen as a person of wealth and privilege. he is going to have to figure out a way to get a connection to the average person. for barack obama, he has got to be able to show people that he has the backbone of steel and plan that is going to work for america. in >> april, peter hart asked voters which candidate they found most easygoing and likable and cared most about average people and was most consistent and honest and straightforward. anybody want to guess who came out on easygoing and likable? >> barack obama? >> ask us a hard one. >> cares about average people. >> of course obama is going to

win on that. >> consistent? >> probably obama, because of the press -- [laughter] wait, i've got one word to say. obama on the same-sex marriage, right? in favor when he ran for the state senate, opposed when he ran statewide -- >> he evolved. >> that is called a flip flop if you are a republican. >> exactly right. >> straight forward? >> i give that to romney. obviously, fox has failed again. the power of the liberal press. >> the thing about john f. kennedy is that people knew he was privilege, but people like him anyway because he was a real person. >> what does that mean? >> you know what that means. he looked like a real person, not a ken doll.

>> give me a break. [laughter] this kind of hagiography -- "he looks like a real person"? >> romney has been playing before conscripted american population, as opposed to the kennedys did look at the people standing in front of barack obama, at the kennedy audience, you see another picture of america. look at our romney audience, which he can change perhaps during that general election -- >> kennedy defeated humphrey in the primary not because he was real, but because he had a father who was a billionaire. >> oh, that's -- >> we can talk about the west virginia primary another time. --romney's problem is this we have two stereotypes of parties. democrats are the party of the

rabble, the uneducated, and they white to nominate aristocrats. republicans, because they are the party of the privileged, they nominate people from humble origins -- ronald reagan, richard nixon, gerald ford, john mccain. mitt romney reinforces the republican stereotyped as the rich taking care of the rich. has got to break out of that mold. last >> word. enjoy your weekend. see you next week.