>> production assistance for "inside washington" was provided by allbritton communications and politico, reporting on the legislative, executive, and political arena. >> we've got real differences. >> this week on "inside washington," election 2012, at six months at out. >> if i am president, i am going to take responsibility and lead and get us on track to a balanced budget. >> whatever obama's chances of keeping his job? >> no better than 50/50. >> what is on the minds of voters? >> the economy. >> ad game gets nasty. >> everybody plays hardball.

>> who has the most enthusiastic supporters? the money game. will the candidate with the fattest super pac win? and the charm offensive. candidate is more like a bull? >> -- to candidate is more likable? out like kenhanging with women. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> as we celebrate this memorial day holiday, we are almost six months away from the 2012 presidential election. we will stay away from breaking news on this one and focus on the political road ahead. our guide for the journey, pollster peter hart, produces the nbc-"wall street journal" poll that we so often referred to. he says that at this juncture, the election is no more than a

50/50 shot for the president 2/3 of the american people say we are on the wrong track. sure, the voters are still feeling very glum about what lies for them and their children. >> we feel that the first time in 13 generations, this country is going to hand the baton backwards rather than four words. the next generation is not going to be better off. if you are the incumbent president, 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 you look back on your many years covering this capital and politics, is there anything about where we find ourselves now that strikes you as particularly unique and troubling wick? >> particularly unique? boy, that is a good question.

everything is troubling. headed in the right direction, people up at pessimistic, the decline of american optimism, defining a psychic characteristic of our people -- all of these are rather upsetting, unnerving, and challenging. >> colby, what about you? anything gnawing at you, a feeling you have never had before? >> the vast divide between the democrats and republicans in washington. you have a monolithic group of republicans and a monolithic group of democrats, ideologically so far apart, un willing to give anything unless their side is going to win. we've not seen anything quite like this in modern politics. we have always had some group that gap -- would bridge the gap. >> nina?

>> strikes me as different is that there is what colby said, but we're also evolving into a parliamentary system. you overlay this kind of clarity on a system of checks and balances -- kind of polarity on a system of checks and balances, and when you get is good luck. nobody is willing to compromise, crossover. we don't have the power over a parliamentary system, where when you win, your party puts into effect its program, and if people like it, they vote out your party -- people don't like it, they vote out your party. >> charles? >> and not as discouraged by the divisiveness and rent fo -- rancor. [laughter] obama had a huge program for the left, very big expansion

of the government. it is a lot like 1980, and i don't lament the absence of moderation. with an ideologically and dishes up president mike obama, 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 you just heard. a lot will happen in the congress. it would be necessary for obama to see a democratic takeover of the house of representatives. the only way to break the gridlock is to see a shift in power on capitol hill, because of romney wins, the democrats will do the same thing to his agenda that republicans have done to the obama agenda, and that is to be rejectionist. that takes us know where, especially with the problems

facing the country. >> there are people in the democratic party who really loved seeing republicans get more and more and more to the right, because they think that ultimately, they will take over and in that way, the democrats will take over and win at way thos -- >> those are political pros. what about the people at home, thinking about the trends lives, retirement, and so forth? >> absolutely confused and unfounded. charles talks about the hard left agenda at of obama -- cap- and-trade, endorsed by john mccain, individual mandate for health insurance, originated in the heritage foundation, and the tories left wing place -- notorious left-

wing place. having said that, as charles would say -- >> actually, i've never said "having said that." >> you just did. [laughter] >> it does not count if -- >> point shields. >> what you have now are people running for office saying "i hate the congress, i hate the people in it." if somebody came up to you and said, "i have a graduate degree in child psychology, i know adolescents, i have studied them, but i hate children" -- that is what we have. we are hiring people who hate the job they are going into. i want someone to acknowledge that the person across the aisle

loves the country as much as he or she does. >> so much ever, so little time it just because health care had an individual mandate does not take with the fact that it is nationalizing health care, which liberals have dreamed about for years. cap-and-trade, control of the energy economy. the stimulus is not a republican idea. not a single republican supported it. tarp is a bipartisan idea, but it is the kind of keynesian economics that democrats believe in, and they finally had a chance to deploy, and they did not work. >> you were right about "so little time." >> ground them will be the mother's milk of politics this time, can you get people hasn't used to care as much about this election -- as enthused to care as much about this election? everything we have seen it suggest that republicans have more at stake and are more

interested the democrats. there is a 10-point differential. >> member barack obama's in activation? remember -- barack obama's inauguration? whereas all that nbc has and gone? >> -- where has all that enthusiasm gone? >> to it the recession, or least the slow recovery. there is no doubt that republicans care about getting rid of barack obama that democrats do about keeping him. democrats, for reasons that escape me, have been passively optimistic. they just think he will get reelected. there are lots of reasons he won't. >> we will continue to see an

ugly campaign ads. >> so many people just say, "i don't want to vote for anyone, because everybody is bad." >> there you go, everybody is bad. >> historical, and negative campaigns depress voter turnout. if you are trying to depress voter turnout rate convincing people that mitt romney ran in the pirate, and daddy were box ran -- bain capital like a pirate, daddy warbucks, you are trying to depress turnout. if john mccain in the swing states, according to peter hart's own numbers, about the same number of votes in 2008 that george w. bush did in 2004, when george bush carried those states, but barack obama, because of enthusiasm and

intensity, had a bigger turnout, i don't see that same kind of enthusiasm in 2012. >> if mark is right that may shift campaigns depressive votes, and you are barack obama and you want turned out, aren't you defeating your own purpose? >> i see it slightly differently. for the last 3.5 years, republicans and fox news have painted barack obama as the devil incarnate. >> the -- >> may i dr., krauthammer? >> i did not say a word. i and silently rolling my eyes. >> keep rolling. they want to get this son of karl marx out of the white house, but they have to be careful. if there is a feeling he is

being treated unfairly, it is seen that they are trying to take michelle obama and the nice kids out of the white house, there will be people who come out and turn out. we are early in this part of the campaign, but you can count on the nastiness to fire up the base. limbaughs will let it all hang out, and there will be a reaction. now i stop and pause and wait. >> i mean, give me a break on the fox news. i'm flattered cox news, of which i am a small part, is so powerful and accepted. but come on. what mark was saying, the numbers for john mccain, it was the increase as them and turn out of the base that was so important for obama. 2008 was the dream.

now you have a reality. no enthusiasm, that is pretty obvious. he was the most charismatic candidate in 2008 than we have had since reagan and even more. it was a perfect storm -- financial collapse, war weariness, eight years of republicans. the italian communist party could have won the election in 2008 -- [laughter] some say did hewin the election. >> from karl marx to the italian communist party, this is "masterpiece theatre." >> let me return to earth. "the washington post" had a good analysis of the campaign. barack obama will start out with 237 electoral votes, if you look at the electoral college. ronny falls far behind that.

barack obama's stands a good chance of getting a big chunk of the that -- >> fox news will fix that. >> which of these two candidates as the better message? >> finding solutions and opportunities in an environment of the change and turbulence is what i learned during my career, and it is something i want desperately to bring to the presidency. >> he thinks that experience is going to help our economy? >> at the end of the day, we are talking about what you can do in the future, how you can bring me and my children forward in this country. >> who has the best shot of making that sale? charles? >> who can manage the economy but i don't it is a particularly strong argument for romney to say "i was a businessman."

it is a way to establish or persona of a man who is solid and reliable. the implicit negative, is that he is a guy who has never run a candy store before. romney has to add to the persona of "i am a businessman." he needs a program. if the embraces the ryan idea -- think the country is ready for a debate about entitlement reform, tax reform. the more ideological it gets, the more it helps republicans, because the more it they can make the current election every play of 2010, they will win. >> 2010, colby. >> it will not be a replay of 2010 for couple of reasons. cthe economy will not be in the same place as in 2010. democrats have an opportunity, particularly house democrats, to run a campaign against the ryan

plan, and they have optimism there. and there is this sleeper issue of gay marriage. something will happen below the radar. people will start to form their positions around is because of where barack obama positioned. he is almost a proxy -- >> 31 states prohibit it, north carolina, which already prohibited it, pass a constitutional amendment -- >> and the polls show that sentiment is moving in another direction. we will probably see that at the polls. >> i suspect it will 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

that you sort of hope, could that fix the economy, but it is the same policies of the george w. bush administration, which put us into a terrible mess. that is a fact, too. >> super pac money. >> message first? obama's message is far more salient. messages fair shot for everybody, everybody plays by the same rules, no special privileges, everybody pays his and her fair share. romney's message is back to the future -- get government out of the way, keep tax cuts for those who need them the least. 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. >> well, the idea of a fair shot -- you run into interco trouble when you look at the credit capitalism with a slant -- empirical trouble when you look at it crony capitalism with the solyndra and all that. but that is the message, and the reason he has to run on the fairness issue, equity, is because he cannot run on performance, storage shed, the economy, or on a vision. he does not have a program to rid the buffett rule? that will not do anything about our economy. it is all about shiny objects, a way to distract the public from his record and the fact that he does not have a program for the second term. >> the election breaks down on the two elements that the president ran on four years ago -- 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 and i am going to change things in washington. >> what you are cheering the obama campaign do is start added from. take he will cite a number of jobs created, he will talk about the housing market coming back he will talk about the auto industry and where it stands now. he has something to say, a message to send out will probably drop some of the criticism -- >> romney will sate it is all hogwash. >> romney 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 campaign are spending,

and that is not accountable money. it can be a big asset, and it can also come back because you are responsible in some ways for stuff you did not do. the one thing people agree on overwhelmingly is they hate this. they hate the money stuff, they 8 citizens united, and they will have to live with t it. >> cracking influence of money? > -- opting influence of money? >> you get money from the party and the party is interested in your winning the house of representatives. it is an umbrella. a different kind of republican wins in maine, mississippi. that is what party is built of. when you get these single issue

6- and a seven-figure contributions, and they are coming, and they hide behind 501 (c) (4), which means you don't have to give your name, it is one single cause they care about. that just further fragments our politics. >> all that is true, but there are two other considerations. i they're going to be laws that say you cannot take out advertisements during the election year, the most all, ont year forof politics? i cannot see how that will be done. second, we will probably end up even republicans and democrats. republicans will have a bit more outside money, democrats will have a bit more inside money. in the end, it will be a level playing field in terms of money,

and whatever happens will not be because one side has more than the other. >> the part about this that i find most offensive is the lack of accountability, lack of transparency, lack of disclosure of who is giving the money. the public has a right to know who is providing the money, because that tells you something about the influence behind it and the influence they seek to exert over the candidate. at this point, we don't know. >> let us remember that their answer to all campaign finance reform is full, immediate, and total disclosure. that was the republican solution. find a republican in the senate who will even vote for this. they have abdicated moral responsibility. >> i will tell you why did i like disclosure, but look what obama has done in listing the donors to the romney campaign and have these people have -- on the website and elsewhere.

it is intimidation, and i am somewhat skeptical of disclosure. >> remember peter hart's question years ago? who would like to have a beer with? >> mitt romney will balways be seen as a person of wealth and privilege. barack obama has got to be able to show people he has the backbone of steel and plan that is going to work for american. >> in april, peter hart asked voters which candidate they found the most easygoing, likable, cared most about average people, the most impassioned, consistent, honest, straightforward. anyone guess who came out as likable? >> barack obama? >> ask us a hard one. >> cares about average people?

>> of course obama is going to win on that. >> consistent? >> consistent, probably obama, because of the press -- [laughter] wait, i've got one word to say. obama on same-sex marriage, right? in favor when he ran for state senate, a post when he ran statewide -- >> he evolved. >> that is not a flip-flop when you are republican -- >> exactly right. >> how about its record? > -- straight forward? >> i give that to romney. obviously, fox has failed again. >> john f. kennedy was a person of courage, but people like him because he was a real person. >> what does that mean? >> you know what that means big

he looked like a real person, not a ken doll. >> this kind of hagiography -- "he looks like a real person"? >> romney has been playing before -- you look at the people standing before barack obama, the kennedy audience, another picture of america. a romney audience, you see -- >> kennedy fitted humphrey in the primary not because he was so but because he had a father who was a billionaire. >> oh, -- >> we can talk about the west virginia primary some other time. >> romney's problem is this. we have the democrats, the party

of the rubble, the uneducated. and like to nominate aristocrats, who come from ivy league school spirit republicans, for the well-to-do, the connected, nominate people who come from humble origins -- ronald reagan, richard nixon, gerald ford. mitt romney reinforces the republican stereotyped as the rich taking care of the rich and only caring about the rich. he has got to break out of that. >> thanks very much. enjoy your weekend. see you next week.

announcer: the new pbs for ipad app.