Host of wnyc cozy the takeway. I read a lot of political commentary each week, and amy is always fair and what is more she doesnt follow the pack. She is digging deeply into polls and other election related data providing insights others dont provide. Patrick ruffini is the co founder oechelon insights. A next generation of polling and an littics terms. Patrick was a pioneer the political digital world, having gotten his start 17 years ago am recent paper for the 2019 states of change project look at hugh the Republican Party can adapt to demographic change. If you dont read his friday roundup of interesting stories called the intersection you should sign up for it. Like amy he provides unique insights on politics. I sean trend deis a lawyer by training, has an mba, finish aid masters in statistic and now all the dissertation for his phn Political Science. He likes school. Sean was a coauthor of one of the edition of the almanac of american politics, that Michael Barone introduced to the world in 1971. The book tells about america through individual entries on he politics, beliefs and itsow sin contract sis of 535 people in congress. Its not surprising reported consult the almanac before interview members of congress because the portraits the almanac provides rich dierks tailed, respect and good at heard. After michael speak, each panell will spectrum fear eight minutes and then ill pose a few questions and then have team for your questions. Aisled like to think ella and jackie for putting this event together. A few weeks ago there was a cull on the end of the successful plate at that time parties speculating as so many before hill have don on the death of the conservative party in england. Or our shores Stan Greenberg sounded the death nell for the republican part in a book called gopp. In what i call the death literature it certainly isnt one, sided. You dont have to go very far back to find the same kinds of stories about the demise of the Democratic Party after george w. Bushs election. After what seems to be a growing industry in the death of genre, there is a slim but substantial volume looking at the longevity of two Political Parties and michael is ideally suited to the task having deep historical knowledge and has set food in all 4335 congressional districts and covered politics from all angles as a pollster, a strategy irs, and a journalist author of books designed to explain our politics and country. Our panel today has a barone like detailed understand offering historical and contemporary politics and i know we will have a spirited discussion. Michael, the floor is yours. Thank you for your kind words and thank each of the young members of of the panel here who have come forward. Im very complimented three of the very smartest people of the next generation are two of political observers were willing to come and discuss my book and ill say that before they have theyre say on it. As you mentioned ive been studying with this stuff for kind of a long period of time now. I First Edition of the alma knack of american politics came out no november 1971 and that was even before we talked about the impeachment of richard nixon. Okay . That was a long time ago. And i guess i go back, my political memory goes back to growing up in detroit, once americas boom town. And the election of 1954 which was a pivotal one. We lived in ward 22, precinct 221, as a school child obviously should know the voting was at our Detroit Public School there. And this was a key race between the republican incumbent congressman in the 17th 17th district, charles oakman, and martha griffith. The democratic nominee. She won the seat, campaigned in a trailer. My mother went to trailer to meet martha griffith. And that was the beginning of 40 years of democratic majorities in the house of representatives with key districts like that northwest detroit middle income district being a key thing. So 17th district. 18. 18 stricts. Another long time ago. So, ive been doing this and i was inspired to write this book in part by having lived through a number of predictions of the demise of our Political Parties, and what fat niced me and i think most people dont understand, these Political Parties are very old. The Democratic Party was founded in 1832. To reelect Andrew Jackson and so sustain his veto of the recharter of the second bank of the United States. Thats the Oldest Political Party in the world. The Republican Party was founded in 1854, to get rid of the cransnebraska act and end slavery in the territories. And that party was both parties were successful within a decade or a does years of achieving those policy goals but theyve gone on and on. So the Republican Party is the third oldest party. Second oldest this british conservative feature which karlyn made reference. Founded at least by lord blakes reckoning and his biography of the conservative party. In 1846, zarqawi thinks its on its way out. I looked at the recent Poll Michigan and suggest they will win a 58 vote majority if and when britain has another general election in the house of commons. So, these parties having achieved their earl goals within a dozen years are nonetheless still operating 187 and 165 years after their founding. And in a time when america has grown from a nation of about 20 million to about 320 million people, we dont have many institutions aside from churches that go back that far in america. And so i wanted to make the point that these have lasted a long time, and to argue that thats true for some fundamental reasons. To there some structural factors in our political system that tend to favor twoparty system, the Electoral College for president ial elections, the Single Member district, which is not in the constitution, its a statute. In congressional and legislative elections. But i think theres something more fundamentally more at stake here. Fundamentally more causative of the longevity and per sis of the two operator persistence of the two parties. We have the seen their positions change, theyve adapted to emerging ircan to new constituent to innovative technology, shifts in opinions, world events new york leaders, take one example, the democrats started off as the free trade party. The republicans were for the tariff. By the 1970s or 80s they switched positions on that and with donald trump as president , they may be in the process of shifting their positions once again. The Democratic Party in the 19th century was the limit end government party. The party that attempted to favor local options. A party that was happy to tolerate slavery and segregation in the south and saloon in the moraling to sew matters pitch changed and adapted but at the same time, this is the central argument of my book there has been a persistent basic character, personality, dna, of each of the parties that in my view has been relatively unchanging for 187, 165 years, and which accounts in significant part for their longevity and their resilience. The Republican Party is always been concentrated around a core of constituents of people seen as typical americans, even though by themselves theyre never a majority. The composition has changed over time but continues from yankee protestants in the 19th snow shower white married christians today, but that basic character being centered on a core companiesy constituenty has kind. The direct party is different groups of people regard by themselves and others as not typical americans but win united often make up a majority. Andrew Jacksons Party was a coalition of southern whites and Roman Catholic immigrants in he big si of the north big cities of the north. A good combination if you keep them separate. The democratics tot 108 ballots to nominated a candidate for president in 1924 and that convention by just four votes out of Something Like 2,000 votes declined to censure the klu klux klan. In a fight there. Todays Democratic Party is a coalition whose most loyal members include unusually religious black americans and up usually secular gentry liberals. They are going to Work Together to impeach donald trump so it appears, but when it comes to beto orourkes argument of yanking Tax Exemptions for churches that dont purchase smokes mex marriage i predict there will be disagreement there between the two group and i think these two enduring characters help to explain their longevity. And its that has been important in a nation that has always been diverse. You will hear a lot of commentary that says, well in the last three years, the last 12 years, we have become a diverse country. We have always been a diverse country. The british colonies then atlantic seaboard were a die versus group of colonies and the Founding Fathers recognized that when they created a constitution that retained power in the states, that provided for freedom of religion but also said there was not going be a federal government established religion. You could continue to have them in the states where some states wanted to. Massachusetts and connecticut. While virginia got rid of the religious establishment but the they recognized they knew about to the religious wars in europe and knew that unlike the european countries, the United States was a religiously diverse country, and they provided a framework at which we can do that. My proposition here is the existence of the to parties, one always concentraten on core constituency, the other coalition of selected outgroups, has given a large majority of voters in a always diverse country, diverse economically, religiously, regionally, ethnically, racially, and so forth. A choice, an avenue of expression, choice that will tend to be congenial to them. And the that has accounted for the persistence of the twomatter system. Something that is fundamental about the United States, not necessarily transferable to other countries and something that the our two Political Parties, which like to excoriate each other, and which are both of which are excoriated by many citizens, have been doing radio callin shows and have been hearing about that. Nonetheless, have performed over time. Now, the questions often asked why havent we wean third parties emerge . We have that the example of ross perot in 1992 with a reprise in 1996. Trying to become a third party, using his celebrity as a business person to try to create a third party movement. For a few months seemed to be competitive with bill clinton and with george h. W. Bush and general election polling. Donald trump may have taken a lesson from that since he decided that as a business celebrity and reality tv guy, maybe if you really want to be president , maybe you be better off seeking a nomination of one of the two major parties rather than going as an independent as ross perot had done 24 years before. Could a third party emerge . Well, i think we have had what amounts to kind of a test case of that. Suspect nobody in this room remembers the election of 1912. But i see judge williams is laughing at that but thats okay. But the we had a pretty clear test in 1912. An era when the articulate america was talking about the appeal of progressive ideas. There was a Progressive Party, and it ended up with a candidate named Theodore Roosevelt who had gotten the highest personal of the popular vote of any president just eight years before, sense the beginning of the republicandemocratic rivalry. So they had a celebrity candidate with Proven Ability in bothber national and Foreign Affairs international and Foreign Affairs, highly competent and media wise candidate. The Progressive Party ran candidates in a majority of nonsouthern congressional districts in 1912 and again in 14 election and looked like a third party was emerging as competitive. What happened . By 1916 the Progressive Party really doesnt exist anymore. 1918, its basically gone, except for thirdparty movements in scandanavia and german dominate wisconsin and minnesota. Theodore roosevelts back as a republican. The odds on favorite to one the republican president ial nomination in 1920, and if he had not died at age 60, well short of the life span of our current approximatelyat candidates by the way he had not died at age 60 in january 1919 he might have been the fourterm roosevelt president rather than his fifth cousin, whom he always considered somewhat unfear youre. In any case thats a pretty good test case for a third party and didnt work. I think also both parties have shown their resilience after devastating defeats. Those of us who grew up reading american political history thats been written, wellknown, our very familiar with the republicans devastating defeat in the Great Depression of 1932, when up employment was 25 , Franklin Roosevelts democrats won smashing vices in 1932 and 1934 and 1936 to the point there were fewer than a hundred republicanned left in the house of representatives and people were predicting the dem miles of the Republican Party. That storys been told vividly by new deal historians who are aficionados of roosevelt and terrific writer and whose books were best seller. Its a familiar story. And yet the republicans basically come back. They show resilience. By 1940 its my contention, any earlier book, our country the shaping of america from roosevelt to reagan, the republicans would have wonin 1940 if that elect had been decided on domestic issues and i think the polling shows that thats at least a likely would have been a likely outcome. Instead you hat hitler and stalin, allies, seizing control of the land mass of eurasian when that election was decided and voters opted to stay with the Proven Ability and nerve of franklin roosevelt. But the republicans were competitive back on domestic issues by that time. The democrats devastating defeat is less wellknown. I think because his most historians are liberals and dont want to talk but the devastating defeat of the democrats in 1920 after agent years of the Woodrow Wilson administration. But wilsons policies proved to be up popular. He proved to have negative job ratings after he had a stroke and was unavailable to anybody but mrs. Will son and his doctor for a period of months and months and months. He didnt have his twitter feed either. He was you had americans involved in the continued being involved in military action against the communists in russia in 1919. You had huge inflation, huge recession, a huge influenza epidemic which itself came today with the same kind of lethality would have resulted in 3 Million Deaths in the United States. This was a devastating time of uncertainty and the president s party got only 34 of the popular vote. Four years later it was at 27 . The democrats held on in the south but not even in all states in the south in the 1920s. And yet the democrats did mange some progress did make some progress even though people predicted the might not last at a party. To try to unite a coalition party, which is always difficult. They had some assistance of course in rebounding from the Great Depression in 1932 but the evidence its even that absent a Great Depression, the democrats going to remain competitive fig out how to meld the politics of al smith in the north and various democratic companieses, running mate, Joseph Robinson of arkansas in the south. And in fact they did come back. So, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, have both rebounded and both shown resilience from what seems to be devastating defeat. Theyve managed to recover. Today of course were facing what i call polarized partisan parity, both parties are about the same size. They are competitive in elections. 30 years ago, beginning of the 90s we were told the republicans had a lock on the presidency. Won five of eye sick timed the democrats had eye internal majoritied the house of representatives for 40 years. Then you get a couple babyboomers named bill clinton in gingrich come along, the locks are broken and since then the democratics have wonmer president ial elections and to republicanned have won house majorities more often than the democrats. But theyve been close reaches. Much closer than in the period of democratic domination of the house and republican domination of the presidency. So, we have a lot of discord, a lot of negative feelings. I think, however, looking past some of the controversies of the day, that history tells us that there will be were going to continue to have the democratic and the republican parties probably around for a long time. Sometimes it takes one or the other of them, some period of time to adjust to new issues isd new personalities, null events. The political market place like the economic market place is not without its market failures. Some would say it has many more but one that has continued to work over time. So, i would just recall, in conclusion, the go back to the 19 other 5s, committee of emanant political scientists, academics that said our party system is not really very rational. We have all these liberal republicans and we have conservative democrats. Wouldnt it bit more rational have one clearly liberal party, one clearly conservative party . One suspects most of the political scientists were liberals who thought the liberal party would win but the genuinely believed this, and in effect i have chapters in this book about disappearance of the liberal republicans and the disappearance of the conservative democrats. Well, today theyre prayers have been their prayers have been aned and the political pundits the political scientists, think its just terrible. So, theres some great you just cant go pleasing academics, but with theres other things in the book but ill leave to my colleagues further commentary. Thank you for your attention. Thank you, michael. [applause] that was a beautiful introduction to the book. Its slim and substantial so it would make a wonderful holiday present. Now going to t. At the seesor generation, go in alphabetical or are starting with patrick. I want to thank you for writing this book. Its really remind met, brought me back to reading our country which is still on my desk. Still an essential history and you have brought over the years certainly to life this vivid textured patchwork of democracy. That has shaped the results of elections in the 19th and 20th century, dem dem michiganography, including reginal diversity, ability nick diverse but Ethnic Diversity being something that the definition which has changed over time. And we have had certainly a elects and swings in elections and decided by which country in europe. People were born in. Now that looks different. But the fundamental principle remains the same. Part of this is i do fear a little bit that we are losing, at bit of that texture in the electorate as it seems that we are headed to what seems like this National Political mono culture, that pits urban versus rural, two perfectly sorted parties, where there is very little complexity and texture, little maybe a little bit of some interest in the Democratic Party but a little less texture within each Party Coalitions that than we had in the past, but i hope youll have something here that proves that wrong. So, i wanted to talk about this era of that michael calls polarized partisan parity. This idea of we seem to be stuck in somewhat at least interest of a deadlock. We seem to have this pattern that despite all the pundit preimmigration disk that reearthed itself in the last eex, eight years of democratic control in the white house followed by eight years of approximately control followed by eight years of democratic crawl and see next year if the pattern holds up. Followed by a tendency not universal, democrats still have a chance but certain lay slight republican lean in congress in the senate, and but particularly haves control of the house since 1994, gingrich revolution. With the democrats having mostly won the popular vote for the presidency but that having consistently controlled the white house in that time. I think your book really clearly demonstrates all the guardrails that used to exist in all the sort of all of from the civil rights realignment that occurred, with conservatives in the south and liberals in the north switching sides, with things such as the demise of southern the seniority rules in the house which kept these old bull Southern Committee chairman in line and which kept rising aspiring politics in the south almost uniformly democratic who could go into the safe seats they would held for life and eventually become exitey chairman out of, and the fall of brokered political conventions. All of this were things that were finally mostly dismantled by the 1970s, but didnt really work their way out of the system until the 1990s, when the incumbent si advantage for those who had grown up under thank you system was sort of swept away by the 1994 gingrich revolution, and everything ever since then kind of bears out why would i kind of like to think of as the efficient market hypothesis of politics and all the ideaolal friction and transaction costs, here trading that happened, has gone away, and our partisanship now predicts our views on policy, hutch more cleanly than it ever did. Preknights will vote for president in 2012, 93 of republicans voted for romney, 93 of democrat voted for obama and that was the Highwater Mark in terms of voted forth president ial nominee. In 2016 monks senate no state voted differently for senate than for president s. And so bit by bit the guardrails that have moved the pears from being kind of the social clubs a little bit and characterrics of social clue into pure ideaolal vehicles. I think we spend a lot of time bee b. B. Mone be a moaning the fact and the decline of civility in politic especially congress, since that 1994 election which saul the republicans break a 40year spell of democratic control. And ever since then what have we had . We have had the rebirth of partisan media, which was clearly not something new, was a major factor in american politics. Look what they said in the 1800 election, nothing kind of like nothing like what at the russians were saying in the 2016 election i can tell you that. And terms of vitriol and parts of hatred but were somewhat muted in the 20th century by the growth of broadcast media, with the rise of the three Television Network city royce of god Network Anchor that standardized Media Coverage across the country, but still heavily immediatated Media Coverage, still Media Coverage where its hard for partisans, necessarily not the same partisan media of today. Now fast forward to 21inch century that breaks down and we have the rebirth of are partisan media thank to the internet and cable news. Im very somewhat pessimistic about having seen the empact of media eco systems within the Republican Party in terms of getting the incentives are very much such that republican members of congress, and were starting to see with the rise of the aoc type primary challenge, that certainly very incentivize ed regardlyless of what they want to believe in congress, very incentivized to vote and behave in ways their particular votersing a amly identified by the partisan media echo chambers want in their parties. And thats very different than the type of politic we had up to the middle of the 20th 20th century, very regional pom the patchwork of different relations, ethnicity, rivalries. Did cam to be the case that cities turn out to votemer democratic while urban while rural areas tend to vote more republican. Not too different than what it was today. But that was replicated on a each of the regions through the country kind of had the same structure, and you had states as a result at the state level with this same mix of city and country were pretty competitive outside of the south in 1960 even with the massive demographic upheaval the kennedy candidacy and you have four in five characters voting the first catholic to hold the office of the president that even sewso in that upheaval, you sea most of the big states throughout the northeast decided by ten points or less, being relatively up for grabs. In 1976, 40 state were come pet enough one form or another. Fast forward to the 2000s when we work on the george w. Bush campaign, we considered 18 states competitive and now the list nose more than ten and no more than ten because to use a kind of Charles Murray metaphor where you had kind out there little belmonts and little fish towns scattered throughout the country. Here now we seem to have one big belmont and one big fish town. A country polarized and divided by culture. You have the coasts and throughout the athlete, the west coast certainly entire states, dominated by urban course that make it very difficult for any republican at any level to compete where as a result lots of democratic voted or wasted in the Electoral College where it does no good, for Hillary Clinton to win california by two to one and much of the rest of the country, the majority of states and the states with the majority of Electoral College vote actually moving in the opposite direction in this new political alignment which has created a potential for continued disconnect between the popular vote and the electoral knowledge. But this sorting is national in character. The economic and educational sorting that we have seen, the fact that kind of moving forward, the democratic strategy, until maybe to where particularly with urban areas having moved so far, democratic in the 2016 election and that having being reinforced in the 2018 election. Youre having big states like texas potentially at least discussed tangentially as swing states, or target states of the future, sooner than we thought would be the case and its based on the shift of educated white voter ands the prepares of large metro. These large metros in the south, like dallas and atlanta, behaving more and more like their counterparts in the north. Less and less regional variation to the extend theres regional variation. You can just kind of look at the National Statistics and look at the statistics on the number of degree holder in this very little distinct less distinctiveness but the particular areas, they seem to be sort of the National Dynamic and microcome. In the 2016 election by county level, twothirds of the swing from the 2012 election could be explained purely by national by government statistics, census data, health statistics, statistics about education, maybe a little bit about how democratic they haye had voted in the past. Very few local factors in that race. The exception maybe being the mormon revolt, minirevolt against donald trump. The fact Third Party Candidate gets 22 in utah but overall the swing in that election very much explained by this sort of cleavage, the cleavage among whites by education. And accordingly i think at the level of the individual partisan, issue positions becoming more and more correlate with Party Affiliation over time. Economic perceptions since the late Bush Administration and early Obama Administration have been guided by partisanship such that its unclear what the political cost would be to donald trump if there were to actually be a recession, if his base continues to believe he had no role and no part in it. And political range the range of political job approval shrinking with every successful presidency with the exception of 9 11, such that the a Donald Trump White House the trend line looks flat in terms of job approval and impeachment has not budged the his job approval number by a percentage point. So clearly i think the only this wasnt actually the conclusion. Was actually the conclusion. His party equals ideology i think one thing you might be able to do was enter pries political leader, somebody with a background in business, might be to say to change what the definition of the ideology means and to get basically your partisans onboard with that and so we saw conservativism maybe used to mean more about used to mean national defense, used to mean free market, traditional family value. Now means america first, controlling illegal immigration, those issues become more prominent, the party gains votes and loses votes as a result of that, but youre seeing essentially everything falling into line with that but potentially a Movement Towards controlling sort of this ideological definition rather than engineering the shifts based on changing demographics or changing local differences we used to see in the past. Sean . So, just a little aside to start with. The Political Science literature that michael referred to about wanting partisanship think named them responsible parties. You can ask yourself how responsible these hyperpolarized parties are behaving and that tells you a lot about the Political Science literature i have been reading. Anyway, theres a few things in life i genuinely find terrifying when i was small child i wandered wandered into a wasp nest so stinging insects. Clowns which i dont think i have to explain. And then what karlyn asked me to do, which is to respond to Michael Barone. Im not a stranger to responding to people smarter than me. Thats most of the time. But i am a stranger responding to people who have forgotten more but elects than ive ever anyone and that is the task today. So what i think im going to do a little instead is take some of the genuine also tough apologies the book is right. The pears are sun parties are sunle and talked over time and part of the reason is theres a Cottage Industry in this time its really over, because people just want to believe it. Those books sell. And i think especially on at the progressive side, there is an implicit commitment to this idea of progress, tears Promised Land ideaoly were getting to and the g. O. P. Will go extinct, the g. O. P. We die soon but the cruelty is were really bad at predicting what the directions of the parties are going to be because theyre so adaptable and responsive. So to kind of illustrate this, i would ask people to go back in time, i guess now 94 years to 1925, and imagine were having this discussion about demographics 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 split between the progressives and to g. O. P. And has hand about another split weapon the progressives in g. O. P. In 1924 and yet the two pears combined for 65 of the vote. The democrats got 35 of the vote this time. But you would also look at demographics i would stand here and say there are three things to absolutely take to the bank. The first is that africanamericans are always going to vote republican. And youre saying seeing this fir migration north. Its going increase the republicans and lock the democrats out. Lately the democratic will always be democratic. Been democratic since the civil war. That was not going to change. Fortunately i would say working class whites was come around to the g. O. P. The republicans cared manhattan in 1920 and 1924. The first time in the partys history. Because the had increasingly appealed to the recent round of immigrants and would say taking this together the democrats can dod and as rick perry might say, oops. That joke has like three more years on it so i have toite as often as i can. By 1928, the prediction about the White Working Class would be wrong but the democraticked responded by nominating al smith, actually flipping rhode island and massachusetts which at the time were seen as rock ribbed republican reedouts. I actually didnt plant that alliteration. That worked nicely. The next thing to go would be africanamericans. That would shock people bruce the 1924 Democratic Convention deadlocked over whether to condemn the klu klux klan, and yet in Herbert Hoover in 1932 was the last republican to carry the africanamerican vote with dont have exit polls but the systems are fdr won 70 of the black vote in 1936 and it really hasnt dipped below that very frequently since then. And finally, by 1956, the south was the vote for the republican for the fir time since the end are reconstruction, what is interesting, something michael alluded to, only one of those changes can be directly attributed to the Great Depression, the shift of africanamerican voters from republican to democratic. The switch of the south was in part because of part a reaction to movement of africanamerican voter ands ande south become wealthy, ban voting like wealthy northerners did and the shift of White Working Class vote effort preceded. I so 34 year all of mow pre ricks were dead wrong. In 1967 ladd wrote there was not a single positive sign for the gone if the drops became an every man party. Young boomers who were this giant mass of voters, waiting to come into the electorate, hat swung democratic. George mcgovern carried the 18 to 24yearold population and the young voters the reason that jimmy carter managed to win his election in 1976. Older voters voteed for guilder gerald ford. In 2008 the book came out prediction that republicans would be in the wilder for 40 years, two years later the republicans had the best mid term election for any party since 1938. The truth is that parties are le and re sillent. Theyre very good, better than question expect at identifying facts on the ground and responding to them and not only that, this is something i dont think gets enough credit but the voters often better than the people who run the parties at identifying where things go. This is something that i will attribute to clay character, my fellow aei scholar who told me in 2008, its really amazing that in this horrible environment for republicans, both parties voters have responded rationally in an opposition to what the party elders wanted. The Democratic Base realize is this is a great opportunity, were going elect the more progressive candidate, nominate him, barack obama, and a lot of specially of the old view democrat times who were really scared he would blow the election, he won by seven. At the same time the republicans nominated the most moderate candidate they had running in my view from doing so kept it from being a 12 or 13point republican loss by going with someone like john mccain. Of course the most the biggest example would be donald trump in 2016. I was convinced in february or march that donald trump was heading towards the goldwater style blowout and i think lot of people up here probably had similar thoughts. Now if i had to debate it im unsure any other republican in the race could have won the election. I think Marco Rubio Might have gotten a higher popular vote share, done better with hispanics, but that wouldnt have gotten the Electoral College win if the couldnt nip the upper american states that donald trump had the unique appeal. To something i certainly did not see but a lot of republican primary voters saw. As a final kind of off topic shifting gears thing, its an interesting observation in the book. A lot of Political Science models and the model wed generate when we are trying predict elects this ties into what patrick was saying are check in models the old saw that people vote their pocketbooks. But in truth, if you go back our data only go back to the 1950s on this stuff. Before that you dont have very good polling and the Economic Data we rely on are spotty. If you go back before that, though, elects like 1908 where republicans held ton power handilydespite the fact we were right after the panic on 1907. Dont fit the mold. The 1910 midterm elections dont fit that movement elects like 1819 or 1876 where we were in really bad depression, dont fit that mold. And one observation this book has is that for most of the time that the data have been collected, was a time period where a majority of the electorate had living memory of the Great Depression and world war ii that followed it. And just like a little light bulb in the head, the models have not been as good and people said maybe its polarization, noticed that Donald Trumps job approval doesnt move but what if awful these model wed built up were really measuring that we head a unique event in American History that people remember and now that has kind of passed from our collective memory, these economic model are about to fail. That is something that keeps me up at night now or will keep me up, and it is a really astute observation from the book. Amy. That was a really excellent point. Im writing that down. Hi. Michael. Hi. We used to work right next door to each other, so i have very good memories from national journal, the Cook Political Report back in the olden days and i would literally read i dont thick read cover to cover but spent a lot im in the almanac of american politics and what made come alive aim a dork, the person that as we drive anywhere in this country tell everybody in the car what congressional districts were driving through so im not totally normal. But even somebody who is not obsessed with politics could find within each of, say, chapters that michael wrote, some incredibly interesting fact and understanding about that part of the country. Its why i loved used to cover the house exclusively and i loved covering the house. Much more interesting than anything else going on in washington. In part because of what patrick called the texture. Each one of these districts have something unique about it that putting it together and thats america, and i learned more about america by interviewing house candidates than any other experience i could have had in covering politics because each of them browning a regionalism and also their brand of what that party was, and i have this great image this is we have been bee moaning the lack this is what made politics to me so much fun was that within the parties , you had different brands of liberalism and conservatism, and you brought a regionalism to washington when you came from whatever part of the country. And i remember very expressively in the 90s having backtoback interview we two democratic candidate, one was a guy anytime ronny running for congress in outside of jackson, mississippi, so really pretty rural exurban jackson mississippi help had been the commissioner of roofeds, and when i asked him what his issue was, what he is running on, fourlane highways. That was it, fourlabel highways attempt he done and was beg to bring. People need to go to jackson jobs. They cant do it if the roads are bad. Had a hard time understanding him. I needed like an interpreter, is aing a send was really thick. Subtitles. Get out of the meeting and it is just like pure infrastructure, economic, issues. Dont remember exactly where he stood on a whole bunch of other social and cultural issues. I can believe he was probably supportive of gun rights, much more conservative on social issues. Okay. Fine. By the way he does win. But then literally the next minute i meet a guy named david woo who was running in suburban ported, oregon, a chinese immigrant, bus hey was born at Harvard Law School bored in medical school, then dropped out and went to law school, and he was a software attorney in burgeoning Software Industry until all of those companies out move out of ported he was talk bet in information super highway. All about free trade, all about new technologies and how it was going to impact the economy. Two people, same party, very different agendas they were going to bring to washington. Thats what made covering politics so much more interesting. Now youll find mostly candidates from to two matter whoa rep may be regionally different, north, south, east, west, but represent the kind of companies constituencies and issue thatter generic. Not just an east coast west coast and then everybody in 2007 at pass train pointed out this is becoming much more been the kind of place you live, not the region of the country you live which feels different than other times when we have been gee graphically polarized, we have always offend a i would to be divided in the can you true, formized but a northsouth division was pretty clean. Now its driven by density. The denser the area you live, in that is dallas, whether that is denver, whether that is orange county, california, you were more likely to be voting democratic. The less dense, whether its rural south, rural maine, or north dakota, youre going to be voting republican. And so what do we also know about those regions . The more dense areas usually urban, metroplexes, their economy is driven pretty much by the quoteunquote new economy. In the information economy. What are the more exurban, rural areas driven by . Agriculture, energy extraction, manufacturing the agenda of the two america normally fit together pretty easily if you have a party in the party system you have representatives of both of those economic models working together. So, you have debts from ag based areas, and communicating with democrats from big cities and they together can create an agenda that is not excluding one portion of the country. Now, those folks are no longer there. Theyre not the farm state democrats, not the suburban republicans and as such i think that is helping to explain how we got to this place of polarization that is grinch as much by its not just even purr ideology but the since that everything around me, i understand, thats my world view and theres nothing else that is helping to in washington, at least to help broaden that. Thats fine, for me, as constituent, i dont need to understand the economic or cultural views of people all the way across the country or a different part of the country than i am, different communities but the political system should be able to be balance that, and its broken down there. Overall, though, i want to in talking about the parties i agree with everybody up here about the rye sellens of the parties and their able resilience of the party and their ability to be to transform and as such stay relevant. But i will make this point. I think that the Political Parties are dead but partisanship its alive, and by that i moon the Political Parties in the way i see them as campaign operators, influenced on campaigns and influence on what the party does agendawise. The parties used to be the gate keepers and determined who was going to be the nominee and who wasnt. Now those are the primaries. Primaries allow who to make the decision we said this was great. This progressives said this is important. Dont waft to have closed door, smoke filled rooms determining who gets to be chosen to well let the people decide. Now in the people who decide are the most liberal or the most conservative. Turn out in primary is is ridiculously low in house primaries Something Like 5 turn out. So, the people who are being elected to congress, talk about this political parity, knost districts are really red or really blue. Theyre being determined in a primary and the people who choose those folks are not choosing the person who happens to be someone who is, lets say, the more moderate, and i dont just mean in ideology. Also mean maybe in temperment. The person who will get the most attention will get the most votes, by people who are the most invested in turn out to a primariful also no longer the gatekeepers for money. A time when it was really hard to raise money as a president contractual candidate if you didnt have the party behind you and the Party Apparatus behind you. They closed as men doors as they wanted to opened as many doors day wanted to big, big donors. Thats gone in part you the soft money ban was helpful for people who ranted to run as outside parties. Remember meeting with a Party Campaign person in the soft money days when a party could coordinate with campaigns, who said to a candidate, this is not your race to lose. This is our seat. This is the democrat seat. Its not your seat. I will determine whether you lose that or not. Im going to spend money there we, as the party, want to spend now because it is our seat. Well, now you see Bernie Sanders has raced mow explore ha more cash on hand than the former Vice President of the United States of america. Joe biden. Bernie sanders is not raise midnight with the Party Apparatus. So,. Hes not a democratic. Hes not a democrat either which is the third point can i think most folks have made. And michael made at the point will there be a third party president. I would argue there is a third party president. His name is donald j. Trump. And i dont mean that to be facetious. I honestly he was not a traditional republican in any sense of the word help had been many different parties before he was a republican. And yet here we are not only did the party embrace him and vote for him, to win the election, with 90 whatever percent the republican vote, but he continues to have a hold on the congress and voters with a democrat im sorry on the republican side, despite the fact that his style, the positions he takes, almost everything he does, goes against some core what we thought were the core values of that party. And Bernie Sanders falls into the same category. Not a democrat. And not that long ago democrats would have said, byebye. This is the controversy in 2016. In another era the fact that democratted put a thumb on the scale, the dnc put a thumb on the scale for Hillary Clinton would be of course they did. She is the democrat. That is what we do. We support people who are democrats. We dont need to support all these other people. Were here just because they want to use is as a platform. And that goes to the other piece here about who drives the platform. Again, used to be the partiment the Party Platform was done at the convention with delegates of the parties. I dont know the last time anybody read a party delegation. Still fights over it which are sillily because they dont matter, but the individual now drive the policy of the parties, and again technology plays a big role in this. The fact that a freshman member of congress named alexandria ocasiocortez from new york has more influence on the agenda or at least the she is 14,000 votes. And were talking about her issue set more than anything else that is going on in the Democratic Party. Pretty remarkable. Now, to be fair, the way the party system does work or lets say the system within congress works, the speaker still has control of what gets to the floor. That said, she has controlled what is getting into peoples tv sets, computers, instagram, whatever, much more than mike than pelosi was ever able to do. Technology has changed the way we see institutions and so institutions are either fading away or going to have to evolve. So i do think that the parties themselves have become less important in determining a lot of these issues, but the partisanship is more important than ever because those are now the cues we use to understand or world. Gosh is this is really confusing issue. Im hearing all this back and forth, or is this right or is that right . Who is tell neglect the truth and who is not. A debt democrat is telling me that . I believe that. A republican is tell michigan that . I believe it. You this all a them in polling. Ask a question of folks, say, if you knew x, y and z would you support that . Of course you asked another set of people that same exact question e queue but the name trump it in or the name obama in it, suddenly opinions of that issue change dramatically. Has absolutely nothing to do with the underlying issue that is driving us. So, just im happy to open it up to questions and comments but die think were all sort of aft this place trying to figure out i agree with michael that what would we do in a country that is al polarized as this . We have been as polarized as them time and time begin and the country evolves, that we are a country that is incredibly resilient and we find a way to see whatever the other side is. Its just while we are in that moment it feels incredibly uncomfortable, and theres no easy way to say, i can tell you where were going to go on the other side. Thank you very much, and thank you to all of the he panel. Its time for questions. Only have about 15 minutes left, some wed like to invite you a wine and cheese reception afterwards where michael will sign book. We question over here. Are we in a political realignment . Well, were always in political realignment. You look at the difference between 2000 and 2004 president ial election. Three states switched therapy electoral votes and the other 47 stayed the same. I think were in less of a period of realignment and more of a period of polarization, where to somewhat of our surprise, the kind of key electoral vote changed in 2016 which few people anticipated. I think trende did, writing wrin 20130 14. An area decline thing demographic percentage of the country, an area that has not whose texture most political actors have frothen and which some of them took 0 unduly for granted, and it switched i think theres relatively little change. We saw men more votes change between elections in the 1960s and 70s and i talk pout the 1920s in and 3s so than we see today. This is not going stay this way forever but how many voters are switching between 2016 and 2020 . Or just coalescing. Not realigning. Youre taking areas that maybe once went 5545 and then 60 40 and how to theyre 70 30. We had two the last two president s were reelected with a 1 of the vote. Spark claimed we were headed towards a republican narl majority and then a democratic natural majority. Ther in claim so far has been vindicated. I do think some of the shifts are ill be brief but center underrated big shifts going on underneath the stability. West virginia, become being carried by 13 points. Donald trump by 50. Nevada has gone from a state that was seen as something democrat hath tenuous hold on in the 80s and nines no one that is seens increasingly blue. Texas, i think is the shift is there is the real deal. But, yeah, these real alignments are north re realignments you learn about in undergrad. Their more localized or regional. Question here in the back. Should we draw any inference from the fact that the parties are themselves less popular and that independents or people who say none of the above are increasing in number . And my answer is, no. We actually i think polling dat is pretty clear that lots of people who say that are independents go in and vote for republican up and down the line or democratic up and down the line, and they like to say, im independent. I think about the character of the man. But they really are one party or the other. The large majority of them. And some states you get called an independent if you dont register in a party to float a primary, as amy says, primary turnout is low so theyre might better be called indifference rather than independence. People are less willing to i think you have a point about people less willing to identify with parties, in part because we have seen this rise, something we call negative partisanship. Folks are identifying with parties, but a they say i love the issues or the ideology of my party, but i hate the other side. Its driven by dislike, why are you a flub i dislike democrats. People who call themselves independent dont feel comfortable calling themselves a republican or democrat, even if they vote 100 of the time with that party, because at their core there are still big problems with that party. Either too conservative, not conservative. It means whatever is going on in the party that has now become like this big blob, what is the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, all these different tend kells. Dont know what i tentacle us but dont like the democrats and vote following their republicanize, annal is a look at the intersection of notes, moderates and undeseedded voter and no more than 2 of the american public. Question back here and then up at the front. Think thanks to the penalty and michael bait beyond comments and reading the first page of the book looks terrific. I love the discussion that you all made about the surprises, the bad predictions, especially by the academics and this makes me think of my own field, finance, which predictions are universally bad. And it seems to me maybe the two domains actually share a lot. Theyre both markets. Theyre both based on expectations of behavior and predictions of behavior, which in fact create other expectations and change, actions and the result is makes it highly unpredict aim. Seem like a fair comment . Yes. Typically perceptive, alex. I think i talked but the political market place as well as the economic market place. They both have market failures and they both have we both have problems making predictions that are always true. Question mere and then need some questions from the other side of the room. Just want to ask about the process, the change in this period, the way in which districts are shaped and designed. The sophistication which with the process is done and the result seems to be theres a less willingness to compromise when you come to the house. I think the problem its more with the voters than the districts. Democrat ford 40 years conditioned have any problem with tree district egg when it favored their party. Now we suddenly hear its other violation of democracy, its terrible, that people are choosing their the candidates are choosing their voters and so forth. My view is that the wreckile, the Supreme Court sort of seems to be adopting is that if you force people to torred a here closely to the population guidelines, equal population of each district, a party designing districts and this includes somebody socalled independent commissions which tend to be gamed by the democrats. Neutral political scientist device that. How many neutral political scientist are there . You the party cannot benefit itself so much that its invulnerable to challenge within the tenyear period between the census, and i can cite you newman rut examples. Ive studied with the 19670 cycles, the 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, and 010 in anticipation of the 2020 so ive been through this a little bit and ive actually designed districting plans myself. So, we are now going through a regime of more of these independent commissions in states which will still Favor One Party of the other. Usually the democrats. Not always. And the fact is that any party that has overall whelming support in the very dense jury overwhelming support in dense areas will haved a disadvantage at equal population Single Member district plan. Because no matter how kind convoluted you draw the line lookty illinois democratic line in the last round of redistricting or the Maryland Democrats line as well as republican plans. You cant benefit yourself all that much. The party that wins districts with 58 is going to get more districts than the party that wins districts with 88 . And that is a rough description of where the dem nothingography demography. If was advising the drastic party, youll may want to talk but changing the constitution. Thats kind of a difficult process. Or you may want to create an independent commission which may or may not do what you want. What you really ought to do is try pitch your matter a little more towards people in these nondense areas where you seem to which used to get 44 of the vote now getting 28 of the votes. Maybe those people are hitting he coverty over d donkey over the head and they have ruled that. Electoral college. Want to win elections, maybe you other should go to the place where the voters are that you need in order to win instead of saying im going to tear the temple down because i didnt win this time. Question back here. Ukraine a little bit about the lack of third parties in this country, how rare it was, and so forth. How much of that is related to the fact that we are i dont want to zay say unique but the minority in that we allow people to win without a majority. To what. Win without a majority. Most other democracies require runoffs and if no one gets a majority. I wouldnt say most. Some do. Mexico doesnt. Brazil doesnt. Many do and how much does this canada we just saw the party that has the is going to continue in government that got fewer popular votes than the party that lost. Bass thaw didnt get the right number of southeasts. In this case was the party more to he theft was the beneficiary and the party of the right which gets the huge majorities in the Prairie Provinces was the nonbeneficiary. The Electoral College tends to give a majority. Well, no the argument for the Electoral College. Allow a candidate to win a states votes without a majority and what does that prevent third party from come peel i think the answer is clearly has played a role in preventing third parties from competing and the voter says why should i throw away my vote. This candidate is getting 10 in the polls and im going to pick the winner. But i think theres something also fundamental about the character of our government our parties and of the Electoral College. The Clinton Campaign didnt fail to carry the Electoral College because they didnt know there was an Electoral College. Did somebody find that its in the constitution. They knew about it. They were trying to get 270 electoral votes and failed. Ill dissent from the failure to have runoffs hurts thursday parties women have states with runoff elections for congress, louisiana, california, washington. California has 53 of the elections elections and we dont scenarios parties win using, some third parties i can remember having breakfast at the hotel avalon in berlin and at the next tame was a man who was arguably the most politically powerful people in the German Federal republic. The head of the Freedoms Party which for 20 years about 5 or 6 of the popular vote me and decide personally whether the christian democrat or social democrats would have the premiership and the got to be foreign minister for 20 years on 5 of 6 of the voted if guess he was a pretty deposit guy but that doesnt really leak lime gods best system. One final question in the back. Judge williams. If someone who is thoughts are not at all representative of a particular party, can get that partys nomination for president , does that speak ill of the prospects of the parties playing a powerful role in the future . Well, you know, we had donald trump not endorsed by the previous republican president ial nominees or by previous republican except for bob dole did enforce him. You look black to William Jennings bryanin 1896, the incumbent democratic president did not enforce the 36yearold former nbc collegeman for nebraska congressman. He was for mckinley. A break can be damaging to a party. People say donald trump only got 46 of the popular vote the Electoral College split his way but it was real close in three essential states. Its a risk to a party when it shifts like that, i think. But its not there. Let me just say in conclusion, i was struck by all three panelists comments about the texture that we may or may not be losing, about the the idea they fortify my longterm thoughts that politics has divide americans more often along cultural lines than along economic lines. Thats something i believe forever and ever as far as i know, and i just related to my comment about the 1954 election and ward 22 precinct 221, which after that my mother explained to me that the catholics tend to vote more often for the democrats and protestants tent to vote more often for the republicans, and i can remember at ten years old thinking, why should this be so . And ive been trying to answer questions like that for the rest of my life. Thank you. Please join me in thinking the panel. [applause] every year book above booktv covers become fairs and heres a look a events coming up. Three days of Nonfiction Author programs. On monday, secretary of the Smithsonian Institution chronicles the creation of the National Museum of africanAmerican History and culture. Republican senator rand paul of kentucky discusses socialism. Washington Times National security columnist reports on chinas efforts to become a super power. And journalist naomi kline talks consumerism andli