Amy is fair but digs deep to the polls and other election related data. And with those Echelon Insights of the next generation of those analytics and as a pioneer getting the start and the recent paper of the 2019 and then to adapt to demographic change. Because of the intersection you should sign up for it to provide unique insights. And the visiting fellow at aei and a lecture politics from real clear politics has an nba just finished a masters in statistics and now for his phd in Political Science. Sean was a coauthor of the publishing fee non introduced in 1971 to talk about individual entries and idiosyncrasies. Is not surprising that they can solve the almanac because the portrait it provides our rich detail and respectful. After Michael Speaks each will speak for eight minutes we want to make sure we have time for all of your questions at this point also to think for all the help to put this together. Just a few weeks ago writing a column on one of the ends most successful Political Parties speculating and on our shores with a death now for the Republican Party with a new book and during the 2016 election and what i call the debt literature is not onesided. Without the devise of the democrat so what seems to be a growth industry on both sides of the atlantic with a substantial volume of the two Political Parties. With a deep historical knowledge and perspective and actually step foot in all congressional districts with all angles of the poster and then to design to explain in the country. So now have a detail of historical contemporary politics and to have a spirited discussion. The floor is yours. Thank you for your kind words for those that have come forward three of the smartest people of the next generation were willing to discuss my book. And for a long period of time with the almanac of american politics with november 1971 before the impeachment that was a long time ago so to go back to my political memory going up in detroit and then the election of 1954. As it should know. And this was between the congressmen of the 17th district and of the democratic nominee and that she campaigned on a trailer. And this was the beginning of democratic majority of the house of representatives and the key thing. And this was a long time ago. And then to through a number of predictions and that fascinates me so the Democratic Party founded in 1832 and to sustain the veto of the charter of the United States as the Oldest Political Party in the world founded in 1854 with the kansas nebraska act and those over a decade in several years over achieving those policy goals. And the third oldest party to which they made reference and by the conservative party and to be on their way out and then to have another general election and so to achieve their early goals that are still operating at a time when america has grown of a nation of 20 million people. We dont have very many institutions. So i wanted to make the point to argue that is true for fundamental reasons. There are some structural factors that the politicals favors a twoparty system in the Electoral College and a singlemember district. With congressional and legislative elections but there is something fundamentally at stake at the lead jevity and persistence of these two parties. And then to adapt to those emerging issues and new constituencies. And the democrats started off as the freetrade republican was for the tariff. By the 19 forties they switch positions now trump is president they could shift their position once again. And in many ways limited government they attempted to favor local options with segregation in the south the Republican Party was more of the federal government so the parties have changed and adapted in the central argument is it is persistent of basic character and dna of each of those parties of 165 years which accounts for their longevity and resilience. Also to be concentrated around the core constituents. Even though they are never a majority. It has changed over time. But it contains from the yankee protestant to white married christians today but that is based on the core constituency. The Democratic Party is a coalition of different groups of people is not typical americans but when united make up a majority. Andrew Jacksons Party was a coalition of southern whites and immigrants. A good combination to keep separate for car democrats was a candidate for president but just for votes out of 2000 was from the kkk in a fight they are. One they are. Those who are the most loyal and those gentry liberals. And then to impeach donald trump and with those that perform samesex marriage and then to disagree there between these two groups. And these two enduring characters and that has always been diverse. And then to be a diverse country. The british colonies and when they created a constitution. And with the freedom of religion but it would not be a federal government establishment. While virginia i got rid of the religious establishment. And a religiously diverse country to provide a framework and then to concentrate on the core constituency of selected out groups given the large majority of voters in a diverse country and economically religious and racially and so forth. And then to be congenial to them and with the persistence of the twoparty system. This is part of the United States. And the two Political Parties to a score you need each other. And those are both the score you did. And with these callin shows i have been hearing about that. And with ross perot 1982 and then trying to become a third party and celebrity as a business person to create a third party movement. And then seem to be competitive with clinton and george h. W. Bush with the general election polling. And then to be president and then to be independent and then for that to emerge. About what amounts to a test case. I suspect nobody in this room remembers the election of 1912. I see jed williams is laughing. But in 1912 when articulate america talks about the appeal of progressive ideas. And Theodore Roosevelt who had the highest percentage of popular vote of any president. Sense the rivalry. And those with Proven Ability. To be highly confident and a wise candidate that they ran in non southern congressional districts in 1912 and 18 for one 40 election i look like the third party was emerging to be competitive. But then it doesnt exist anymore by 1916 and 1918 it is basically gone except for thirdparty movements with wisconsin and minnesota. Looking back at the republican who is the easy in the 1920 well short of the lifespan of our current president ial candidates. [laughter] so january 1918. So to write his fifth cousin is considered somewhat inferior so thats a pretty good test case and it doesnt work also both parties have shown their resilience after devastating defeats those that grew up reading american political history. And then end the Great Depression of 1932. And then to have smashing victories 1932, 34, 36. And of course people were predicting the demise. And astorias told vividly. And those who are terrific writers and then could come back to show resilience and with that contention with the shaping of america other republicans in the 19 forties with those domestic issues the polling shows that would be a likely outcome instead of control of that election was Proven Ability from franklin roosevelt. The republicans were competitive. And the democratics devastating defeat is less wellknown. And they dont want to talk about the democrats in 1920 after Woodrow Wilson administration. As those proved to be popular after he had a stroke and was unavailable to anybody but mrs. Wilson and his doctors over a period of months and months. He didnt have his twitter feed either. You had americans involved and in 1818. A huge recession and influenza epidemic and then would have resulted in about 3 Million Deaths of the United States. This was devastating and with 34 percent of the population four years later it was 27 percent. The democrats held god in the south but not even all states in the 19 twenties. That yet they did make some progress. Even though people predicted they may not last as a party to try to unite a Coalition Party which is always difficult. They had some assistance from the Great Depression in 1932 but the evidence is absent the Great Depression democrats would remain competitive to figure out how to build the politics and the various candidates. Thirty years ago beginning of the 90s we were told they had a lock on the presidency and had majorities in the house of representatives held from 40 years and then you get a couple come along and they are broken and the democrats have one more residential domination of the house i and looking domination f the presidency so weve got a lot of discord and negative feelings. I think however walking past some of the controversies of the day that history tells us we are going to continue to have the democratic and republican parties around for a long time to adjust to new issues and personalities. Its the political marketplace like the economic marketplace its not without its market failures some would say that it has many more but its one that has continued to work overtime. So i would just recalling conclusion that if you go back there was a committee that saidt the party system isnt very rational we have all of these liberal republicans and conservative democrats would it be more to have a conservative party that wants to respect the liberals that they genuinely believed it and in fact ive got chapters in this book about the disappearance of the conservative democrat. Well, today their prayers have been answered in the political scientists think its just terrible, so theres some way you cant just go pleasing academics and theres other things in the book that i will leave to my colleagues further commentary. Thanks for your attention. [applause] that was a wonderful introduction to the book. We will go in alphabetical order starting with your thoughts and comments. I first want to thank you for writing this book. It brought me back to the country. Over the years you brought to life this patchwork of democracy that shaped the results in the 19th and 20th century democracy including the regional diversity, religious, ethnic racial diversity as well being obviously something certainly the elections decided which country in europe people were born in and now that looks different but the fundamental principle part of this i do fear a little bit that we are losing a little pathetic texture in the electorate and it seems we are headed to what seems like this National Political culture into urban versus rural to the parties where there is very little complexity and texture some still within the Democratic Party is probably a little bit less texture within each Party Coalition than we had in the past i hope there will be something in the state to prove that wrong. I want to talk a little bit about this era and this idea that we seem to be stuck in somewhat of a deadlock we seem to have this pattern that despite the positions that reasserted itself a tears of democratic control particularly mostly having control of the house the gingrich revolution with the democrats having mostly won the popular vote in the presidency but not consistently controlled the white house in that time. Your book really demonstrates all the guardrails that used to exist and all of the from the civilrights realignment that occurred with conservatives in the south end of th south and td of switching sides with things such as the demise of the seniority rules which kept rising aspiring politicians in the south almost uniformly democratic who could go into these seats the day would hold and with a brokered political conventions all of these were things that were finally mostly dismantled that didnt work their way out of the system until the 1990s when the advantage for the market hypothesis where all of the ideological friction that happened within the parties has gone away and the partisanship now predicts the views on policies more than it ever did in 2012 and 93 of republicans voted for romney and the democrats voted for obama in terms of a partisan voting for the president ial nominees in the social clubs they get characteristics and pure ideological vehicles had been removed. We spend a lot of time bemoaning the fact and the decline of civility and the polarized nature of the politics since thats 94 election result they broke the democratic control and ever since then, what did we have . We had the rebirth of the partisan media which wasnt something new but look what they were saying about the 1800 thing like they said in the 2016 i can tell you that ended in terms of the vitriol but somewhat muted by the growth of broadcast media with the rise of the Free Television network into the voice of god networ network anct standardized Media Coverage across the country but still heavily mediated where its hard for not the same partisan media of today but now that breaks down and we have the rebirth of the media thanks to the internet and cable news so im somewhat pessimistic than the party in terms of getting the incentives are very much that republican members of congress and to a large degree Democratic Candidates incentivized regardless of what they personally want and believe in this patchwork of different religions and ethnicities and rivalries they turned out to be more democratic while the local area boats were republican that isnt too different than what it is today but each of the regions in the country kind of have the same structure and you have states as a result of the state level with a mix of the city and country we are pretty competitive in the south in 1960 with a massive democratic of people of the candidacy and the fact they are voting for the president ial nominee to hold the office of the president and even so in back of people. Fast forward when i worked on the george w. Bush campaign we considered them competitive and now it is no more than ten because to use the metaphor where you have throughout little belmont and fish towns scattered throughout the regions in the country and here we seem to have one big belmont and a country polarized and divided by culture we have the coast and throughout the northeast and west coast in the entire state dominated by the corners that make it difficult for any level to compete where they are wasted in the Electoral College and it does no good from the Electoral College standpoint and he hoped california by 21. As a result of much of the rest of the country the majority of the states in states with a majority of the Electoral College but actually a moving in the opposite direction in this new political alignment that created potential for the disconnecthe potential for thedr vote and Electoral College but outsourcing is national in character. The economic and educational sourcing that we have seen and moving forward on the democratic strategy until maybe particularly the urban areas having moved so far and having to be reinforced you have states like texas potentially at least discuss tends we thought that would be the case and its based on the shift places like dallas and atlanta was senseless reachable variation you can look at the National Statistic and theres less distinctiveness you have in the county level two thirds could be explained by the government statistics and physics about education and maybe a hell of democratic they had voted in the past. The very few local factors makes the exception maybe many revolts against donald trump and 20 in utah. But overall its very much explained by the education and the level of the individual partisan issue positions becoming more and more correlated over time, economic perceptions since the early administrations have been guided by partisanship even though it is unclear what the costs would be if he had no role or part of it with the exception of 9 11 such the end of the trend line and the impeachment hasnt budged by a single percentage point. This was actually the conclusion that party now equals ideology. Somebody with a background in business might say to change the definition of the ideology and ticket basically your partisans on board with that so we solve a conservatives could be used to mean more about National Defense and free markets and family values and america first. It means controlling immigration and stop the political correctness. But you see essentially everything falling in line with and potentially the Movement Towards controlling the definition rather than engineering the shift based on what we used to see in the past. They named the responsible party. You can ask yourself how responsible these parties are behaving and that tells you a little bit about the Political Science literature that ive been reading over the past year. Theres a few things in life i genuinely find terrifying when i was a small child i walked into a wasp nest and singing clowns which i dont have to explain but then to respond, im not a stranger to responding but those that have forgotten more than ive ever known if thats kind of the task today. Its also tough because this book is right. Part of the reason there is this cottage industry. Especially on the Progressive Side there is a commitment to this idea of progress and the Promised Land ideologically we are getting too around the corner and it kind of fits into that ideological standpoint that we are bad at predicting what the directions are going to be because they are so adaptable and responsive such kind of illustrate this i would ask people to go back in time i guess now maybe for years as a discussioit wasa discussion abos and where the country is going. And you would take it to the bank that the democrats were just doomed. The only time they won the presidency recently is when there was a split between the progressives and the gop and there was another between the progressives and the gop in 1924 and democrats got about 90 of the vote this time but he would also look at the demographics. I would stand here and say there are three things you can absolutely take to the bank first as africanamericans are always going to vote republican and you are seeing this first migration is going to increase the republicans standing in the north. I would tell you the south will always be democratic. Its always been democratic since the civil war thats not going to change and then finally i would say working class whites. Its come around to the gop. For the first time in the partys history because they had increasingly appealed to the recent round of immigrants and i would say taking this together they are just doomed. By 1928 they were flipping rhode island and massachusetts which at the time we are seeing this republican readout and i didnt plan that iteration it worked nicely. The next thing to go with the africanamericans and that would shock people because the convention deadlocked over whether to condemn and 1932 was the last republican to carry the vote. We dont have exit polls put the estimates are that he won about 70 of the black vote in 1936 and finally by 1956 the south. Michael eluded to only one of those changes can be directly attributed to the Great Depression of africanamerican voters from republican to democratic. This witch of the south was the reaction to the movement of the voters but also became wealthy and begin voting like the wealthy northerners did and white workingclass voters so within 34 years all of the predictions would be wrong. In 1976, the aei scholar wrote after that but there wasnt a single positive sign for the gop to be had and again this was a very astute observation. They were the reasons theyve managed to win over voters voted for gerald ford and then things looked very good for the republicans. In 2008 a book came out. The republicans had the best Midterm Election for any party. The parties are resilient. In this environment for the republicans, both parties and voters have responded rationally in an opposition to the party elders wanted. The most moderate candidate they had running in this environment and in my view kept us from being the 12 to 13point. Marco rubio might have gotten a higher voting share and maybe one colorado but that wouldnt have gotten the college win if he could afford some of the upper midwestern States Donald trump had the unique appeal to something i certainly didnt see that a lot of the republican primary voters saw. They were shifting gears and its an interesting observation in the book its what we generate and this ties in with what patrick was saying or the economic models but in truth the data only goes back to the 1950s and before that you dont have very good pulling into the Economic Data that we rely on our spotty. If you go back before that, those like 1908 were they held power despite the fact those like 1819 or 76 were in really bad depression dont fit that mold and its that for most of the time the data had been collected to time. Over thhow were the majority han living memory of the Great Depression and world war ii that followed it and its like a little lightbulb in the head. People said maybe its palletization. We noticed it doesnt move but what if it is just all these models we built up and now that its back from our collective memory in these economic models they are about to fail. Thats something that keeps me up at night now orwell and it is a really astute observation from this book. That is a really excellent point. We used to work right next door to each other. I tell everybody. Even somebody that isnt obsessed with politics could find in the chapters some incredibly interesting facts and understanding about that part of the country i find it more interesting in the texture, each one of the districts have something unique about it that pitted together and i learned more about america by introducing the house candidates than any other experience i could have had in covering politics because each of them brought their brand of the party was. And i had a great image and this is what we were all the moaning. This is what makes politics to me so much fun is whats in the parties you have different brands of liberalism and conservatism and you brought a regionalism to washington when you came from another part of the country. I remember heading back one was running for congress outside of jackson mississippi, so really hed been with the commissioner and what i ask what he is running on, four lane highways, thats it. People in the districts need to go to jackson for jobs. I had a hard time understanding. I get out of the meeting and it really is just like pure Infrastructure Economic issues. I dont remember where he stood on these issues. I cant believe that he was publicly supportive on social issues. He was running in suburban Portland Oregon and because he was at Harvard Law School and dropped out i cant remember if he does in medical school and then dropped out and went to law school and he was a software attorney he was talking all about the information superhighway and the new technologies and how it was going to impact the economy. Two people, same party, different agendas they were going to bring. That is what made covering politics so much more interesting. Now you are going to find mostly candidates from the two parties that represent they may be different from south east or west but they will represent a kind of constituencies and issues that are very generic. And its not just an east coast west coast everybody in between. Its becoming much more about the kind of place you live, not the region of the country in which you live which feels different than other times when we have been geographically polarized as we always have. We always found a way to be divided but the northsouth division was pretty clean. Now it is driven by density. Whether that is dallas, denver, Orange County california you are more likely to be voting democratic. They were very much by the new economy, the new information economy. But oregon more rural areas are drivedriven by, agriculture, eny extraction, manufacturing. The agenda of those two americas normally can fit together pretty easily if it is in the party system it is hoping to explainw we got to this place of ar irritation and again that is driven as much by it isnt the even just pure ideology but the sense that everything i understand that is my worldview and anything else is helping in washington to at least help to broaden that. Thats fine for me as a constituent. I dont need a to understand the economic or cultural views of people all the way across the country in different parts of the country then i am different parts of the community but a different system should be able to balance that and its broken down up there. Overall, in talking about the parties, i agree with everybody about the resilience of the parties mobilities and their ability to be, to transform and stay relevant but i will make this point. I think that the Political Party are dead partisanship is alive. As a part of the campaign operators of their influence on campaigns and influence on what the party does agenda wise. The parties used to be the gatekeeper they would determine who was the nominee an is the no wasnt. Those are the primaries. They allow to make the decision . In some ways he said this is great but the purpose of said we dont want to have closed doors in a smokefilled rooms determining who gets to be chosen. We will let the people decide. People that decide or the most liberal or conservative. Turnout in primaries ridiculously low with a 5 turnout. Its someone who happens to be the more moderate and i dont just mean in the ideology but also in temperament, the person that is going to get the most attention will get the most votes by people who are the most invested in turning out to the primary. They are also no longer the gatekeepers for money. There was a time that it is haro raise money as a president ial candidate if you didnt have the party apparatus. They closed as many doors as they wanted and open as many. Thats gone and part became helpful for those that wanted to run as outside parties i remember explicitly meeting with a Party Campaign person when a party could coordinate with campaigns for said to the candidate this is not your race to lose. This is our seat. I will determine whether you lose that or not. How about we as the parties want to spend money because it is our seat. Well now you see Bernie Sanders has raised more money and has more cash on hand. Pretty sanders isnt raising money with the party apparatus. Is not a democrat either which is the third point that most folks up here have made. And michael made this point before therapy a thirdparty president. I would argue there is a thirdparty president named donald trump and i dont mean that to be facetious. He wasnt a traditional republican in any sense of the word. Yet here we are not only did the party embraced him and vote for him to win whatever percentage of the vote its the position that he take us to the very thought that it would be of course they did. Shes the democrat. Thats what we do for people who are democrats. We dont need to support all these other people just because they want to use us as a platform. And that goes to the other part about who drives the platform. It used to be the Party Platform that was done at the convention with delegates of the parties. I dont have the last time anybody read the party delegation. There is no fight over it which is really silly to me because they dont matter. But, the individuals now drive the policy of the parties and again, technology plays a big role. The fact that a freshman member of congress and Alexander Cortes from new york has more agenda or at least 14,000 votes. And we are talking about the issue more than anything else on the Democratic Party. Its pretty remarkable. To be fair the only way that it does work or whats say the system and congress does speaker still has control over what gets to the floor. With that said, she has control over what is getting into peoples computers or whatever. Much more than nancy pelosi was ever able to do. Technology has changed the way we see institutions and so institutions are either fading away or have to evolve. The parties themselves have become less important in determining a lo the a lot of te issues, but the partisanship is more important than ever because those are now the key that we use to understand our world. This is a confusing issue i am hearing all of this back and forth or is this right or is that right, whos telling the truth and whos not, a democrat is telling me that okay i will believe it. You see this all the time in pulling. You ask a question of folks saying if you knew this would you support that. Of course. You ask another set of people the same question but put the name trump for obama and suddenly opinions of that issue change dramatically and have nothing to do with the underlining issue. To open up for questions and comments pr at this place and trying to figure out and i agree the country he folds and we are a country that is incredibly resilient and its while we aree in that moment it feels incredibly uncomfortable and theres no way to say i can tell you where we are going to go on the other side. We would like to invite you all and afterwards michael sign books, so we have a question over here. In the political realignment. We are always in political realignment. You look at the difference between the president ial election the other 47 stayed the same. We are in less of a period of realignment and more polarization to somewhat of a surprise that the electoral changed which few people anticipated. It was a percentage of the country in the area that had not whos textured most political actors had forgotten and some of them were taken for granted. There is little change in the 1960s and 70s and i talked about the 20s and 30s then we see today. Its not going to stay this way forever but how many are changing between 2016 and 2020. You take those that once went 5545 and then 6040 and about 70 foucault 30. They get 51 of the vote but claims we were headed towards a republican natural majority and not a democratic natural majority neither claim so far has been vindicated. I will be brief so we can get more and that there are some underrated shifts going on beneath the stability. A 13. Nevada has gone by something that had a tenuous hold in the 80s and 90s to one that is seen as increasingly blue. Texas i think is the shift is the real deal. But these are not the realignment that you worry about in under a grabbed the arm or localized or regional. Question in the back. Should we draw any inference from the fact that authorities are themselves less popular and independents or people who say none of the above are increasing in number . My answer is no. I think the data is pretty clear that a lot of people that say they are independent go in and vote for republican appeared down the line for democratic up and down the line. They like to say im independent i think about the character of the man, but they are really one party or another. The large majority of them and in some states you get called an independent if you dont register to vote in the primary as the primary turnout is low so they may better be called in indifference rather than independent. You have a plaintiff people being less willing in part because we have seen this negative partisanship folks identify with the party and say i love the issues or the ideology of the party but i hate the other side. Where ye republican, because i dislike republicans. A lot of people who call themselves independent dont feel calling themselves a republican even if they dont vote 100 time with the party because that their core there are big problems with the party either too conservative, not conservative or liberal it just means whatever is going on in this party its now become i dont stands for anymore but i dont like the democrats so im going to vote for the republicans. They had the intersection no more than 2 of the american public. Question here then at the front. Thanks to the panel and based on your comments im reading the first pitch of the book and it looks terrific. I love the discussion you all made about the surprises especially by the academics and this makes me think of my own field of finance it seems the two domains share a locked they are both markets based on expectations that create other expectations and change actions as a result. It is typically perceptive. I talked about the political marketplace as well as the economic marketplace they both have economic failures and we both have problems making predictions that are true. I dont ask about the change in this period in which the districts are shaped and defined in the willingness to compromise when you come to the house. Its more wit marvelous to vn the districts. Democrats for 40 years didnt have a problem with redistricting and now we hear that its a violation of democracy, its terrible candidates are choosing their voters and so forth. My view is that it seems to be adopting if you force people that adhere closely to the population guidelines, equal population of each district a party designing districts and this includes independent commissions with natural political scientists how many neutral arbiter, come on. It cannot benefit itself so much that its honorable to challenge between the sentences and i can cite numerous examples of a back to the 1960s cycles, 2000 and 2010 in anticipation so ive been through this a little bit and we are not going to the regime of these which will still Favor One Party over the other, usually the democrats, not always a. Oa. The fact is any party that has overwhelming support in the area is going to be at a disadvantage in the equal population of the Single Member district clan because no matter how convoluted you draw the line the districts with 58 get more then the party that wins the districts with 88 and that is a rough description of the democracy now. If i were advising the Democratic Party or the Electoral College, one thing i would say is you might want to talk about changing the constitution. Constitution. Thats kind of a difficult process where you may want to create independent commissions that may or may not do what you want. You want to win the elections you should go to the place the voters are most other democracies require runoffs. We just sold the party that has the continuing government that got fewer popular votes than the party had lost because they didnt get the right number of seats and in this case it was more to the left that was the beneficiary and the party of the right that gets the majoritys in the provinces with the non beneficiary. The Electoral College tends to give us a majority. To win the states votes without the majority and to what extent does that prevent them from competing its played a role in preventing them from competing in the voters say why should i throw away my vote if the candidates is getting 10 of the polls im going to pick the winner. But as i said i said to be corrected fo. Correcting this soe fundamental about the character of our government parties and the Electoral College. They didnt fail to kerry but they didnt otherwise. They are trying to get the electoral votes and failed to do next was arguably the most politically powerful in the german republic the head of the Free Democrats Party which for 20 years got about five or 6 of the popular vote and he decided personally whether they would have the premiership and he got to be the foreign minister for 20 years on five or 6 of the votes. He was a pretty decent guy but that isnt the best system. One more in the back. If bob dole did endorse him you look back to William Jennings bryan the incumbent democratic president didnt endorse the former nebraska congressman for president. He was for mckinley. Thats kind of break can be damaging to a party and people say he only got 46 of the popular vote and the Electoral College split his way but it was close in the three essential states. It is a risk to a party when it shifts. Let me say in conclusion i was struck by all of the panelists comments about the texture we may or may not losing but in the thoughts that politics have divided americans more often along the cultural winds began along economic lines thats something that ive believed forever and ever as i know and i just related to my comment about the 1954 election and precinct which after that, my mother explained to me that catholics tend to vote more often for the democrats and protestants tend to vote more often for the republicans. And i can run under 10yearsold in why should this be so ive been trying to answer questions like that for the rest of my life. [applause] almost three years now and donald trump understandably remains a figure of daily controversy. You could name any of the other of public life and behavior and there is a chance that he has produced scandal in that sector and now swirling around at the impeachment proceedings but in all of that turmoil