[applause]. We wish you all the very best because what an extraordinary family you have. And the pleasures of family were hard earned by this young man. So, all right. Thank you very much, everybody. God bless you. God bless america. [applause] forty years ago the watergate scandal led to the only resignation of an american president. American history tv revisits 1974 and the final weeks of the nixon administration. This weekend the House Judiciary Committee as it considers impeachment of the president and the charge of the abuse of power. What you have questions about for what the framers had in mind, questions about whether the activities that had been found out by the committee and by the senate, watergate committee, were, indeed, impeachable and, thirdly, can we p prove that Richard Nixon knew about them and even authorized them . Watergate, 40 years later. Sunday night at eight eastern on American History tv on cspan3. Next, political consultants, pollsters and journalists talk about the 2014 and 2016 elections. Part of the conversation looks at the effectiveness of political ads. This 90 minute event was hosted by politico. Ad [applause] good afternoon and welcome, thank you all for coming, and congratulations to steve and mike zapler and the whole team at campaign pro that has startew this Exciting New Service from zero, a testimonial to the work that theyreo doing. When we call people and say, you know, youre getting all of campaign pro, do you maybe just want to see the governors races or just see the senate races, are you getting too much, andr theyre saying, no, i want it all. So its a sign of the great coverage, so i really appreciate it. Welcome to all of you in live stream land. We appreciate your being here as we go along. Ong. If youll send us a question at Hashtag Campaign pro, ill get it here on my twitter machine, and if its a good question, ill ask it. Question, ill ask it. What a treat we have with the people on this stage this morning. I went into jims office, and i said i think we might have the best politico event ever because we have visual aids, and the people who created them. So some of the hottest commercials of this cycle so far were going to see, and were lucky enough to have on stage the people who made them. Start with mark putnam whos worked on four president ial campaigns and right now has three of the hottest senate races, mark getting itch in bell itch in alaska begich in ag, Mary Landrieu and Allison Grimes. Ashley oconnor, Founding Partner at Burning Glass consulting, congratulations. She just won the thad cochran primary. Im here everyone in this room accurately predicted the outcome of that runoff. [laughter] and she now is doing his general, and she also is doing asa hutchinson, republican for governor in arkansas. Arkansas, such a republican such a political hot spot right now. And todd harris who couldnt think of a name for his new firm, so he called it Something Else strategies. Is there ever going to be another name, or is that it . No, thats it. [laughter] we had to pay five grand to buy somethingelse. Com. [laughter] youre stuck with it. Mark does mike owe and is five for five marco rubio and is five for five in statewide republican primaries this year. First of all, ashley oconnor, while we were standing back there, you told us the best thing about the Romney Campaign. She worked at romney hq, what was the best thing about the Romney Campaign . The food. The north end of boston, we had a great location and, of course, our candidate, mitt romney. [laughter] so in just two seconds were going to take a look at an ad called squeal. This is for jodi ernst, the Republican Senate candidate in iowa. Todd harris, who wrote this ad, had the idea for it. Its called squeal, but what is it really called . [laughter] well, we call it squeal. Most people outside the campaign will call it the castration ad. [laughter] so lets take a look. Im joni ernst. I grew up castrating hogs on an iowa farm, so when i get to washington, ill know how to cut pork. Mother, soldier, conservative. My parents taught us to live within our means. Its time to force washington to do the same. To cut wasteful spending, repeal obamacare and balance the budget. Im joni ernst, and i approved this message because washingtons full of big spenders. Lets make em squeal. [laughter] todd, you wrote that, what was the germ of that idea . Well, thats what came about, this was about a year ago i was in iowa meeting with joni and one other consultant, and we were actually working on a stump speech for her, and so i had said so tell me about how you grew up. And she said, well, it was, you know, it was very normal, you know . For in iowa, i grew upping food and canning food, walking beans finish im from california, have no idea what that means wed feed the hogs, castrate the hogs, and she just kept going. Wait, what . [laughter] she said, yeah, wed castrate the hogs. And so i just made a little note of that, and then we came back to it, i think, probably the next day. And we came up with the line about cutting pork, but it was originally an idea to use a sort of a oneliner in a speech. We had a debate coming up, and so we thought, all right, lets use this in the debate and see, see if it works, and it did. And so i just filed it away until it was time to make some tv. Okay. Republican Senate Candidate, mark butt putnam, why is that effective . Because it captures the spirit, the personality of the candidate. And when you ask me what republican ads, you know, really stuck out to me, that was the ad that i mentioned to you because it, i think, first off, i think its the reason why shes the nominee. I think thats such a memorable metaphor, such a she comes off really well in the ad, shes likable. There were a bunch of unknown candidates, right . How many . There were six candidates including so thats why this was including one is a selffunder, and that was not us. We had no money. And, ashley oconnor, what does the effectiveness of this ad tell us right now about whats moving political consumers or whats working this cycle . Well, i think mark touched on a good point. I mean, you really have to capture something real. I think that there are so Many Political ads out there that voters can really sniff out if youre not being authentic. And be i think thats one of the things thats incredibly important right now, is just good, oldfashioned authenticity. Where ashley and i were actually, all three of us were joking before we came out here because weve all had climates who see a spot that weve made maybe for one client, so ive had other clients say, like, how come i dont have a spot like squeal with 600,000 views on youtube . [laughter] you should send a review and i said, fine. If you grew up castrating hogs and doesnt tell me, like [laughter] you know, then well make a spot like that. But the authenticity piece so critical, and i do think it comes through in that spot as real. All right. The second ad that were going to look at is called father son. This was a commercial for a democratic candidate for congress who lost his primary so is no longer in congress, candidate carl shortino in massachusetts, he is go ahead. And hes proud of it. Dads in the tea party. Damn right. [laughter] it was bad enough to take on the big banks and corporations in the legislature. They werent paying their fair share in taxes. And he wrote the buffer zone law. To protect women entering abortion clinics from harassment. Its gone all the way to the Supreme Court. I was kind of proud of that. But heres the one that drives him crazy. He wants to go to congress and take on the nra and the tea party. And i want to take on the gun rights. Equal pay for women and equal rights or, well, everybody. Hes been like this for 35 years. Thats why i approved this message. And i still love you, dad. Me too, son. Okay. This candidate whos a gay man living with aids, the setup was that hes coming out as a liberal democrat. Todd harris, you saw this ad, and you sent an email to the nrcc, and it said what . [laughter] when this spot came out, i emailed several people at the nrcc, and i said who does anyone know who the Media Consultant on this campaign is . And someone wrote back and said, yeah, its mark putnam, and i wrote back, i said i hope i never go up against this guy. [laughter] i love that ad. So here you are a consultant [laughter] mark, this has raised a huge amount of money. Tell us how it came about and the effect of it. What todd was saying about really getting to know your candidate. E spent time with carl, learned that his father was in the tea party, he was a duespaying member wherever you pay due toss the tea party, and was something that carl would occasionally talk about on the stump but not all that often. We in the campaign all just thought this was a great piece of his message, the idea and you missed the beginning of the ad, but he says ill never forget that day when i had to tell my dad, and the father says, wait for this. That is their relationship. Hes a massachusetts liberal. So message wise, you know, which is really the most important thing, you have to capture the candidates personality, but it has to be driven by a strategy. And message wise we needed to prove that carl was the most progressive candidate in the race in a democratic primary in massachusetts. And so we did not shy away from massachusetts liberal. We just wanted to figure out a way i to really make that interesting to people and have them watch the ad. Now, the challenge we faced was we had very, very little money. Carl budget able to, you know wasnt able to reach his fundraising goals for a variety of reasons. There were a lot of other candidates in the race who had larger shares of the district, so i went into this thinking i was going to write by the way, the ed markey district. I should have said that. Waited to make two ads originally for cable. But the idea came into my head of this conversation back and forth, i realized i couldnt do it justice in 30 seconds, so i made an executive decision were going to do a 60second ad and put all of our chips behind that ad. And we went on cable initially, very, very small buy. We got a lot of call on msnbc, and the money started coming in, a lot of money we should have already been raising, and we raised about 200,000 in a week, so i was struck, i remember the very first time i watched it and then just i watched it again yesterday, and i was struck again by the same thing that struck me the first time, theyre both so likable in it. There is so much message in it, and at the very end its clear that they love each other which, you know, so it takes all of this, theres all the political messaging side, but it ends in a really heart warming way, and they pulled it off, you know . A lot of dads wouldnt, couldnt pull that off. Ashley oconnor, these two ads address something that you told me is one of the biggest concerns of consultants right now, and that is the overcrowded airwaves. You have super pacs, ies, all advertising aggressively already. What do campaigns do about that . Well, i think that these are two great examples. You know, creative is incredibly important. You need something thats going to cut through, and both of these examples are crowded primaries. And so you find something that really cuts through. I also think that there are a couple other strategies of using surrogates to cut through or testimonials. Weve seen a lot of testimonials in advertising this cycle so far. Whats a good example of an effective surrogate ad cycle . Well, the chamber did one down in mississippi using brett favre, and i think monica [inaudible] testimonial opened her campaign was fantastic. And i think that thats probably one of the Biggest Challenges right now, is cutting through crowded airwaves. How much of a difference did the brett favre make in the runoff for senator cochran . Made a very big difference, yeah. Is that why you won . I think we won because of his record. I mean, there was a lot of time pointing out just how conservative thad is as a senator. All right. Mark putnam, you got an article in the New York Times. This is a very harsh article, its what we call tough but fair. The headline was political adman finds the personal in democratic hopefuls. It talked about your effective use this cycle of real people. And unless im misreading it, the subtext is that youre a little bit turning on its head the assumption of us and a lot of you and only negative ads work. Candidates hate them, they talk them down, but in the end they work, youre doing something different. Well, again, i think it gets back to capturing whats unique about your candidate. And with all the super pacs and the ie advertising out there, the airwaves are filled with plenty of negative information about your opponent. And thats not to say a candidate still doesnt have a responsibility at times to point out what they disagree with in their opponents record, but we have this unique thing in the race which is we can capture our candidate and why there are positive reasons to to vote for them. And those ads actually in this flurry of negative advertising do stick out. So one of the campaigns that that article talked about was mark begich in alaska. He has a unique story to tell. Starts with his father and his history and legacy of Public Service and also his own sort of doggedness at getting things done for alaska. Those were stories that we could tell using senator begich and having him really tell his own story. No ad maker behind the scenes making things up, its really him. And those types of ads do stick out, you know . Yes, the negative advertising and comparative advertising by other groups does have an influence on the race, you cant argue that it doesnt. But i think it elevates the importance of the positive advertising because thats really the only chance that voters get to hear from their incumbent or a challenger. Mark putnam, one of the high wire acts you pulled off was president obamas election eve 30 be 30 minute commercial. Seven networks, watched by 35 million people. And when i was reading this New York Times article, as is often the case, the most interesting sentence is in the second to the last paragraph. Im going to read it to you, and youre going to tell me what it means. It says democrats who have worked with him say he can be reluctant to give up on his concepts even if they dont test well. Ad testing is not perfect. [laughter] i mean, there have been examples where, you know, ads that, you know, do okay in testing end up catching fire. Testing i respect testing. A lot of uses for it. But what people will tell you is that if i think i have a good idea, im going to push for it. In the end, its always a Team Decision as to what a campaigns going to do or not do. Ing with a consultant, you cant just rule the day. But i am dogged. If i have an idea i think will work, im going to give it a shot. So whats an example of something that tested wadly but worked well badly but worked well . There was some advertising a number of years back that we had done for john kerry in the president ial campaign. We worked on the dnc side of things, and there was some advertising that got a decent response, but then when we actually put it on the air, we saw numbers move. Pull back the camera to talk about a concept or technique, is there something that you found always works better on the air than in the lab . Where your gut maybe is better than the data . Thats the thats a good question. I think sometimes campaigns are a little bit reluctant to have their candidate Talk Straight to camera, you know in i actually think once you figure out i think the main thing is figuring out how a candidate is most successful to television. Sometimes its speaking to camera, sometimes its narrating. There have been times when there are some concepts that candidates are a little bit a good example is governor richardson when he was running for president. There were a lot of people that questioned the series of ads where he was interviewing for the job for president. And they were funny, and he was selfdepracating, and he lived at this unique intersection of really being greatly underestimated as a candidate, amazing resume, and a great sense of humor. And so there were some in the campaign that werent so sure that he should be shown that way. But we put those ads on the air, and they tested okay. But we put them on the air, and in iowa and New Hampshire we jumped up about 12, 14 points in two weeks time. So we were on to something with that. Now, in that race we had john edwards, Hillary Clinton, barack obama at the top, we had to break into the top three. History shows that was going to be very difficult to do. But we put him into the consideration set with a technique that people werent 100 sure about in the campaign, but when we did it, it really worked. If i could just add to that, i know when we do ad testing, the stuff that always seems to underperform in the test is the softer stuff. Its some, maybe its the candidate either straight to camera or interview style, and theyre telling a compelling little story about growing up or their mom or their dad or whatever. And you show that in a focus group, and the people say, well, wheres the substance . I like to hear about policy. I always research everything, you know . And so then the whole group goes on this tangent about how, you know, there need there needs to be more facts and more meat in the spot because thats what focus groups do. But then you put the spot on television, you put it in the context of a crowded environment with a lot of clutter, and thats what cuts through. Now, ashley, you were about to jump in. Yeah, i would just say we had a similar experience in 04 with the wind surfing ad of john kerry. We caught some news tootage of he was footage of he was out wind surfing, and we set it to blue danube and through testing it was like, oh, yeah. It didnt poorly, but it didnt test off the charts. But i think its that point that when youre in a crowded field, to put something up like that, it really caught peoples eye and, you know, they kind of got the message. That ad really was a game changer, and why was it so much more effective than you might have thought in the lab . Than the data might have suggested . I think sometimes taking risks, to marks point, you really have to trust your gut. And in focus be groups that people will be very critical of what theyre watching so what was the reluctance about the wind surfing ad which can in retrospect seems like such a home run . No, i just think in focus groups youd hear people sort of say, well, i dont know, i mean, it just didnt test off the charts. Interesting. But it goes with the point of following your gut. We sort of thought this captures something here, and its message driven which is, you know, the greatest point of all. Ashley, something you did in 04 that got a lot of attention was the keynote video for the 2004 convention. It was called the pitch. Tell us why even networks picked up that up. Tell us why. The pitch was, its the film that introduced the president in 2004 at the convention, and it was actually something that came together late in the game. We had put together a different convention film, and we thought, okay, thats great, you know . But what else . And we went, hmm. We sort of sat down and started thinking what can we really, what can we really tell about the president that people dont already know . And theres these amazing photographs from the white house, so we really just dove into that and took moments, you know . These sort of telling, pivotal points about his presidency and kind of what happened at 9 11 and interlacing real people through it. And i just think it was very, very personal and told, showed a side of the president that people had forgotten about. So my thanks to christine and the [inaudible] for making these clips possible. We have another set of clips that were going to queue up right now. We want to go in a different direction. We want to have an america that celebrates success, gets jobs for people who are hurting and that stops the war on coal now. It is a brand of coal, and thats who we need in washington, d. C. Mitch mcconnell does have the experience. Senator mcconnell is our voice for coal. Barack obama will be gone in three years, but coal will still be in the ground. We are going to have a future when we get past this administration. [applause] im Mitch Mcconnell, and i approved this message. And this is don disney from clover leaf, kentucky, and he has a question for senator mcconnell. Senator, im a retired coal miner. I wanted to know how you could have voted to raise my head care costs 6,000 medicare costs 6,000. How are my wife and i supposed to afford that . I dont think hes going to answer that. I approved this message because i work to strengthen medicare, not bankrupt seniors like don. Mark putnam, i think that that ad was just called the question. I believe its going to be one in a series. Tell us, well give you the idea for what youre trying to do there. Well, first off, shes celebrating regular kentucky people and giving them a voice and a platform that they would not ordinarily have. Senator mcconnell is notorious for, first off, hes not campaigning much. Its hard to find him, hard to see him, hard to ask him a question, so this is giving regular people a chance to ask him a question. It is; obviously, delivering information that people need to know about his record, but without the usual harsh attack ad with the figger in somebody finger in somebodys face. What gave you the idea for the dog . I think you could hear during the pregnant pause almost as punctuation for it, theres a dog barking in the background. Well, we were being clever. Maybe that would be the hound dogs from 1984 when he first ran. We just wanted to accentuate the silence, and sometimes you need a Little Something in there to make the silence apparent. Make the silence . Apparent. And tell us about the fire truck that was behind them . Ll u we shot these ads in small towns in kentucky, and we found that location and thought, oh, this looks great. So, you know, its really trying to capture a little piece of kentucky americana. Now, todd harris, you told me that you think there is ar spending ceiling for super pacs, that the pace of spending has, this curve has a limit. Spending not that there was a spending ceiling but there was an effective ceiling. Spending is going up year after year, but i do think that you reach a point of diminishing returns when you have outside groups after outside group throwing these pure post spots and it just means spots with a v. O. And editor uses the stock images. It is a stereotypical negative campaign ad. And i need these office in 2012 in the last two, three weeks we saw outside groups in the house and senate side from both parties literally just throwing money onto the airwaves with ads that if you had actually six months earlier kind of plot it out the spot that we want to put, you know, a Million Dollars behind the last week of the race come of answer would be no. And if i do think that there is a limit to how effective the outside spending can be in the current context that its in and one of the reasons mark alluded to before is the only people who control the candidates themselves is the campaign. We have the ability to take the candidate and put them to interview formats and put their kids in with their families and of this really matters in the statewide races. For congressional races if the bar to get to know actually who your member of congress is but people do want to have a sense of who you are and most super packs have a hard time delivering that kind of information. We all have tivos or some version of them and try to speed through the best work. What are ad makers trying to do to counteract that . I think broadcast has always been the broadest reach in television and certainly they become more targeted at a more effective way to reach voters but its interesting to watch the role of digital grow as well because we target both geographically and demographically through the advertising. And to me it is truly a combination of all and of course radio i think radio is also effective in different areas i think it is more about building an eco chamber so that voters can see you through to tv and cable if they are according through the commercials you know you are serving them through ads online and the radio and there is having that eco chamber. Now we are going to look at a final set of clips. Ive seen a tv ad of a celebrity and it made my dad a little jealous. My dad gave me a good name. A lot of common sense. He said it dont spend what you dont have. Stand on principle even if you have to stand alone if you have to eat you have to work. When youre done with politics give me a hand. I approved this message. Are you a once a week christian . They say senator mark pryor is saying he made a negative statement about his faith challenging him on that faith. Im not ashamed to say that i believe in god and i believe in his word. The bible teaches us no one has all the answers, only god does. Im mark pryor and i approved this message because this is who i am and what i believe. Break this down and tell us what works and what doesnt work. What did you notice as you walked through the mechanics . I thought the father and son approach is an example of what works. You have seen a lot of ads over the years of the candidate and their parent and often times they are corny and forced into too much affection between the two and it doesnt feel real or there is tension between father and son. I did a series of ads with senator landrieu and her father and they are kind of riveting each other. There is tension that is reflective of how a family really is. So i like that piece of it. The congressman comes off as likable site features him in a personality to get a sense of family and i think that works. I think the response from senator pryors campaign is effective that when you dont want to go into is questioning somebodys faith. That is a third rail that can get you into a lot of trouble. That is something the campaign might regret. Do you agree . Its probably accurate. We have a question on the flipsidflip side of what we havt been talking about that has ever been a political ad or is very wellknown add not one of yours but one that is notorious in the profession that tested well but flopped . Like t [laughter] im not going to name any names but they put a bio spots featuring the candidate and the only thing on the air and the negatives went up. [laughter] did that candidate win or lose . The candidate won. They fire the media team. What other trend should people in the room we aware of either that you come up high in the air or that you picked up on . One of the things you and i talked about is reaching people in other ways than over the air tv. While i think i touched on this earlier that seeing the political ads in every medium and how they are going to start to follow you around and that echo chamber in targeting so that they are constantly being exposed to the message so that is near the cycle. Of ththe different platformsr meetings. You will have broadcast tv which is the most effective way to reach. And in cable if you can target a message with different voters and through online you have the banner and the targeting where they are now finding you and being delivered to you. I agree with all of that. The digital side is in a lot of ways the wild west and its technology and the ability to target people in a lot of ways is outpacing the ability to measure it and so it seems like theres a new story about whether it is the thoughts that are jacking up the number of the views that the video has or that you are buying an Online Network and you think that youre going to be placed in a certain place and way and it turns out that what you bought was resold it to somebody else and by the time you get placed its not at all what you were getting and so you are making huge strides and the cycle was better than it was in the last cycle but when we buy tv we have a really good sense of what it is that we are buying and how many people are seeing it. Digital is still getting their. One sentence. You told me that another trend that you are seeing is earlier spending. You told me they come earlier and this is an important conce concept. The reason you are seeing more spending early on number one because there is so much spending now theres so much clutter being up earlier allows you to move numbers in a less competitive market so you can get lower rates, and the second is we are seeing this more and more, you know, there used to be a pretty even slope in terms of your spending where you max out your television spending. But now the add event of the billions of dollars from those being spent by outside groups everyone has a pretty good sense of when the outside groups are going to be polling. They are going to be polling at the end of august and september. So it behooves you to be doing really, really well when those outside groups are taking the pole because thats when they will be deciding that they are going to invest in that race or not. And so, i know the campaigns that are kind of rolling the dice to get the numbers up ear early. Last question. You are a marathoner. What is a running tape . Im a swimmer. Its a long race usually and you cant judge a race in any snapshot in time other than a horse race it really is a Long Campaign in the pot is right. You have to play an earlier game and still be there at the end. And every race is different. They want to thank you for being here and mark putnam, ashley and todd here us. My boss at politico and all of you for the interest in the campaign. Thanks for a great conversation. [applause] [inaudible conversations] thanks to mike allen and everyone for joining us. Before we get started on stage, a quick reminder to everyone here. You can send questions at hash tag campaign pro. I have a great starstudded lineup of panelists here. We dont have visuals like you did the last one because they didnt make for good visuals. We mix the visuals and you will have to listen to us talk. I have two colleagues that are star reporters. Senior political reporters for politico. John is the founder and ceo of social sphere inc. At the Harvard Institute of politics and the doctor later he at the university of Virginia Center for politics and editorinchief of the crystal ball and also a columnist for politico magazine. It now befornow before we get sw many of you are addicted to politico . For how many of you is that your first read in the morning . The honest. And for how many is it your last read at night . And how many of you are politico readers . Thats great. And youre happy with it . Yes, no . Good, good. Well i cant tell you how to respond and the interest at starting something from nothing to something thats really become a must read for a lo a lf people so thank you for your support. Now, todays an important day for all of us here because today is the day of the release of the second politico poll that we did with johns firm and its gotten huge pickup around the country coming and weve been really excited about that. And i want to ask john to open up and ask first about how whats different about the pole and why we think or hope it stands out from others. Thanks for having me. There are a couple of things that are different. I guess the first thing is it is a complete collaboration with frankly everyone on the panel between larrys coastal ball in terms of where the competitive districts and states are. We also work very, very closely with your team to tell us what they are hearing on the trail but what makes i think its most unique is most of the polls in the country do a fine job of measuring Public Opinion on what all of the adults think or likely voters in the Midterm Elections. Four out of four are likely measured in one form or another. What this poll does is for three out of four people that are not going to participate in the competitive district or the house race while what we are doing is focusing on the people that are most likely to vote in the competitive districts only specially 25 to a third of all voters across the country their votes wont really matter in terms of shaping the shortterm view in this country and that is what we are focused on. And we all sat down and did a journalistic exercise where we said what could the headline possibilities before the pole even before we went into the field . Can you talk about that process click the headline ended up being stay out of ukraine. We didnt really know that would be the headline. We didnt know we had a hunch when we started talking about doing the pole. It was clear that things were out of hand in iraq and syria. Things were not as out of hand in ukraine as they are today but the trend lines were not great even a month ago and so it was clear that this was emerging as an area of vulnerability for the president and discomfort for the Congressional Democrats and within the Republican Party but we didnt really know what the voters thought about all of this. We knew that the president s Approval Rating on Foreign Policy was dropping but we didnt know what people would like to see him doing that he wasnt already doing so we decided to go in and in addition to a couple of the questions we asked on the previous poll of the president ial approval and the horse race ballot with the congressional races and the president healthcare law we did this much more detail policy question about the foreignpolicy and National Security, so not just do you like what the president is doing generally speaking but should we be more involved in iraq and less involved as we are now and ask that any member of the sort of global hotspots some of which have gotten hotter since we went into the field. And i think that you might have guessed that the public is not overwhelmingly enthusiastic about the idea of the adventures at this point. I dont know that i would have guessed they were this enthusiastic about the engagement to the point that you have a big majority of republicans saying they support the plan to get everybody out of afghanistan across the age groups and geographically consistent saying what the rest of the world deal with its problems. How might this be relative . The foreignpolicy as we know doesnt always play. [laughter] who was it that said that . Tip oneill back in the day. Its an interesting tension in that we ask people how important is the foreignpolicy or is it important in the terming the vote and you had nine of ten respondents say it was somewhat important or very important and many of those people are liars because they see that its either somewhat or very important but then when you ask them what is the most important issue to you or what is the issue that comes to mind that is important to you and you can go down the list of jobs for economic growth, taxes, deficits from immigration before you get the foreignpolicy described as the Foreign Policy is like 2 . If you add a foreignpolicy National Security defense spending, terrorism, you get to 11 . So the gap between buying of ten people saying it is important and 11 of people saying that somewhere in that set of issues there is something that might be the top three or a come of it is a huge gap. So i think you looked a couple of states and congressional districts in particular where maybe the military bases or big populations. In mississippi last month and in the primarendedthe primary thera huge issue just within the Republican Party and as the democrats voted as well the state likes being conservative is a huge beneficiary of the federal defense contracts pending. So i think that you look to those places and then in addition to sort of moving individual votes you do look to these issues as setting up the larger atmosphere people feel like things are out of control. Speaking of the foreignpolicy, there was interesting findings about her tenure at the state department. Johns numbers brok broke usn a way that you dont see in the polling done so far. Typically its been an up or down for the tenure of state. This is an excellent good fair and poor category. So if you combine the two difference is that most people tend to come of the net for good was 43 i believe, 42, 43. And the net for fair or poor was 53. That was so that was a net majo. That is a big difference than host of the public polling that we have seen over the course of the last year and a half in the state department. And i think some of it is because it isnt being asked and up or down . The do you approve question tends to be easier and what category do you put it in and tell me if you disagree that takes you to refine your view of little bits. So you can attribute it to a couple of things. Number one, as alex has said that length and he is right the world is a very messy place at the moment and the trends have been heading that way the last several months but have a feeling of growing up in the last couple of weeks now Hillary Clinton has been i reject the fact she isnt separating herself on the economy but she certainly has on the foreignpolicy. But i think what the numbers suggest is that isnt necessarily going to matter when things are very messy because she has been out there having to answer questions at having realtime about a foreignpolicy issue that she is no longer involved in and having to defend for instance the recent that doesnt look so great right now in light of the current events. Number two, the port number was the biggest one. For 32 and i think as much as theres been a discussion on twitter and blogs today about whether we were emphasizing the negative too much i think when you have a single category that is that high there is a certain definition and its hard to take it away. I also think as much as i do not think that benghazi will be the reason people do or do not vote for her there is a case to be made with a lot of people have heard about her has related to that. Either poor or positive. Her folks will argue very strongly that the negative isnt sticking that i think that the numbers do suggest there is at least some sense among the voters of something happening. You brought this story on the chapter in her book. How skillfully do you think they have handled were anticipated the attacks on her position . I think thats the benghazi issue and a lot of the foreignpolicy pieces for the most part were not handled thatt well both in the book its been swamped by the discussion of her gaps in wealth, but her critics have actually not laid out a huge glove on the book itself. They would also argue because there isnt that much in the book but generally speaking, in terms of benghazi, she gives a pretty thorough telling that at least gives a roadmap for democrats that are hearing about this in the 2014 election. Where is your crystal ball . I left it in charlottesville. Can you still take a chance and help us without that . I can try. Can you talk a little about your sense of foreignpolicy and how that might be playing out in november . Iab lead in analyzing both president ial and Midterm Elections from 30,000 feet actually after last week i dont think that is a safe place to be. But essentially, the higher your url looking down on the landscape of the election, the more likely you are to detect a general movement in one direction or another. The most interesting thing that i saw the most revealing as usual is a generic ballot because i believed it was plus two republicans. It was plus seven, and i think thats about right and i think other surveys have been showing that, too. Its very important for the midterm Congressional Elections because it tells you basically where it is in midjuly so you have to be careful. But we take a couple observations that are important about the midterms and have nothing to do with foreignpolicy and surprisingly little to do with most domestic policies. This isnt where i thought it would be at this time last year or even for that matter january. I didnt think it would be anything like 2010 because they are already scooping up in the house. They lost a few of them in 2012 but it i isnt what i thought it was going to be. I thought since president obama was in the low 40s depending on the season and some other factors that this would be a predominantly maybe a very good republican year. I think it is mild. At least in midjuly. Now it can be late. You can have them develop in late september and october sometimes they are developed in august in 2010. We were the first to call the house or the republicans what we said by the white margin at least 40 seats in august because the generic ballot was moving so strongly in the republican direction. Well, that is not happening. When you look at the house and the republicans will probably pick up a few seats i think it will be a wash plus two in the democratic direction of zero change and you will have some incumbents that will be the headline everybody says the western civilization collapsed into the fact of the vast majority of incumbents will be reelected. It is the senate that is revealing. And this is the best map for republicans since 1980. They shouldve run a big margin based on the conditions that ought to be present in the sixyear election. It isnt happening so far. It isnt happening. I cant see them gaining fewer than four. So that will be a mildly good year. I can see them getting five and i can see them getting six and if you stretch me i can see at seven but they will not run up the margin big enough to sustained 2016 if the turnout is as democratic as it has been in the last couple of elections. So that is my view from. It isnt as interesting. Its not nearly as interesting as 2006 and im sorry to say i know i said the wrong thing but thats my view of it. How is your view a little closer . The point that larry raises to sort of give you a back story on the poll, we got the numbers back last week. We were a little concerned about the sample that we ended up getting because what you do is you and you know, select a set of voters randomly in the ballot in the states and see the response to the polls. And you can wait the population going into afterwards youre not literally going to tinker with while we would like to see more women in the sample even though they want more women so we are going to multiply it by nuts and bolts kind of stuff. This is the methodology we use. So we got back this swing in the sample, and i at least, i know john a little concerned are we going to end up showing motion on the generic ballot that isnt really motion, its just a different sample that we drew, and we ultimately decided all the movement was within a margin of error, so were not going to just junk this poll because it doesnt feel identical to this poll. Epu in 2012 republicans got a lot of polls with a, you know, we saw over and over again these public polls showing more democrats participating than republicans and a lot of this in the media t thought should be participating. And there was the whole, you know, unskewed polling phenomenon, right . If a poll came back showing more democrats or more black votersng or more young people than feltoe right, the temptation was lets exclude this and go for what we think is going on. As it turns out, a lot more young people and africanamericans and minorities and democrats participated than we thought were going to participate. Sometimes when you end up with a different sample than the one s youre expecting, thats because its going to be a differentffer electorate than the one youre expecting. So we dont just throw out a poll because theres been movement throughout the marginit of error. T basically, i think the question this poll raises and its the one that larry is sort of is sketching out is maybe this isnt going to be the kind of election where democrats just stay home because theyre so d discouraged, and republicansnd come out with overwhelming enthusiasm. Maybe its a little bit more of a 50 50 test of wills. And i glee with larry this isup not agree t with larry this s not shaping up to be an epic Midterm Election the way we gote in 2006, 8, 10. Month, we seen the Georgia Republican primary tonight, weve seen it in a couple of gubernatorial campaigns is that tactics wednesday up being worth a lot more. Back to 2010, there were a number of campaigns we could say, well, this democratic Senate Candidate really ran a much, much Better Campaign than the republican opponent, but they were never going to win this 2010. I think thats much less likely to happen this year across the board. John, could you tell us some takeaways from the poll for november . Yeah. One thing i want to touch about, talking about republicans, one of the reasons were all kind of agreeing, at this stage 7 of republicans think barack obama, you know, is doing a good job as president , but only 53 think republicans in congress are doing a good job, right . So unlike 2010 we see disapproval of republicans and democrats at a far greater extent than we saw in 2010. In fact, there was two times moappr bot ur. Of consistently, we see two times as much disapproval among democrats but three times among republicans. So just incredibly upset, volatile electorate, and we dont know who yet will, obviously, participate. We also see, again, in this all should be taken through the lens of one out of four or one out of three voters in america. So its not surprising that, you know, as an example secretary clinton will be viewed harsher through this lens than if we included california, massachusetts, etc. So i guess what i would say is that democrats need to begin to reconnect over the economy. This is something thats very, very clear kind of throughout the poll, and republicans have a hard time, you know, alex talked about republicans talk about Foreign Policy, but when you ask republicans what the policy should be specifically in russia and iraq and syria, they dont know. We have slightly more republicans thinking that we should be less involved in russia than more involved prior to last week. We see similar numbers for iraq as well as syria. So i guess the question, and its still very volatile, rick. I do think Foreign Policy will play a more significant role than perhaps other people on the panel. Not necessarily because of the specific issue, but because of the overall context in terms of do voters share the overall world view in terms of should we be engaged or should we not be engaged . Not necessarily the policy, but especially among young independents. Maggie, can we talk a little bit about the intersection of 2016 and midterms . One of the, some of the results also showed, talked about the hierarchy of surrogates that candidates or people want out there. Can you talk a little about that . Sure. And i would like to, if i can also ask if, john, you would tell me whether you think im reading your numbers right. But president obama still remains the democrats most potent surrogate which i did find striking given the fact that his approval numbers are not great, and there are people who would rather not campaign with him and begin this is a battleground poll. Blibt and Hillary Clinton are the next bill clinton and Hillary Clinton are the next two. There was a steep dropoff for joe biden. 52 of democrats wanted him to campaign for them, and then very interesting, Elizabeth Warren had a much lower number, 30s, right . And 22 of democrats [inaudible] thats right. And i was very struck by that. One in five democrats and 22 in the overall sample had never heard of warren. So name id is a big factor here, and she is relatively new politically even among democrats. Among republicans it was still, you know, a former nominee, mitt romney was the most popular among republicans, next was, i believe, jeb bush and then rand paul. Rand paul not far behind. Rand paul not far behind was really striking to me given that he remains pretty much the most interesting person to watch on the republican side for 2016 right now in terms of the moves he is making. The other number that i was struck by, independents across the board said every single one of them would make them less likely to vote for them than more likely which i took as a throw the bums out approach defite the fact the share of despite the fact of the share of independents available has dwindled. That was a number that jumped out at me. Would you disagree . No, in fact, it speaks to the mood. Fewer politicians in my face, the better right now. Right . But if you have to have one, have rand paul, the clintons or obama. And who is the most active out there of the possible president ial candidates . Not Hillary Clinton. The, among the possible president ials it sort of depends. They all have different priorities in terms of where the intersection is. You had Chris Christie go to iowa last week to campaign for Terry Branstad which theres a Gubernatorial Race there. That is as much about the intersection between what Chris Christie needs in terms of a rehab and what Terry Branstad is trying to do in iowa with the Republican Party. You have had rand paul doing some midterm campaigning. I think youre going to see marco rubio doing a lot more. I think you will see jeb bush do very little because i think that he would like to not start the clock on himself as much. On the democrats side, warren as i suspect most of you have been reading has been very active. Joe biden has been very active. Martin omalley has been very active. You know, where people go going to iowa is easy and going to New Hampshire is easy, but its sort of the more surgical targets that i find more worth watching. Could you talk a little about as the foremost Hillary Clinton watcher on reporters, you were on her book tour, youve covered her for years, shes about to go on vacation for three weeks. Are we going to hear from her at that point . Are there planned one of the things, so one of the things thats been striking, theres a couple of things that shes shes been adding like crazy interviews which is not she has done this rollout sort of backwards in terms of the book tour, i would argue, for how you would handle it in 2014. I forgot what year it was, its not 2016 yet. She just did jon stewart last week, right . I could make an argument that you probably would have wanted to start with jon stewart. So theyre adding these events because the book is not, you know, lighting on fire. Its selling fine, but its not selling the way living history did, and thats not surprising given that its about a very narrow context as opposed and why is that important . I mean, book sales are nice, but why her people have been very preoccupied with the book sale issue for much of the last six months heading into the writing of it and then the rollout of it. They were afraid that if it didnt sell, that it would be viewed as and certainly described as a reflection of her popularity. That isnt what it is, but that is what theyre worried about. And there is, as it happens, a pretty big chasm between what her last memoir sold in its first month which was a million copies and this one which has sold about 300,000 copies. So she has been adding these, shes got a Facebook Chat later, shes doing a twitter interview, shes been adding these events sort of on the fly. She is supposed to on saturday be the understudy for george w. Bush at a paid speech for a financial conference, and then she goes on vacation for three weeks, and i dont think well be hearing that much from her. She has some paid speeches at the end of august. In kentucky one local official said that he expects her to be campaigning this fall for Allison Grimes. I dont think thats a surprise given their relationship with her father. But so far they have yet to announce exactly what her targets are going to be, and i think theyre going to be more limited than sweeping. Larry, can you tell us about some surprises, upsets that may be in the offing for the fall that may not be on our radar . Oh, i think most of them are on our radar. Obviously, people are looking at iowa. Were getting ready to move that to tossup. We were waiting for this partnership to begin. I think its been obvious that its become a tossup. And colorado is close to a tossup. I suppose that might be an upset. In some peoples minds if it happens. You know, the key races in the senate have been well known for some time now. Look, you never know when somebodys going to be indicted. You never know [laughter] when, you know, someones tongue is disconnected from the brain and they Say Something incredibly stupid and it ends up throwing away a senate or a house seat. So, you know, those are probably the upsets we dont see coming because the event that will precipitate them hasnt happened yet. But, you know, again, were focusing weve been focused for a long time on the maps. If there are so few competitive house races, its pretty easy the gauge whats going to happen in the house. Youre not going to get the numbers exactly right, but who cares . You can run the majority of the house on three like the republicans did in 20012002. So it doesnt matter. Governorships matter a lot, but youve got a ton of incumbents, i think 29, running out of the ones elected in 2010, and they have a natural edge in the vast majority of cases. Corbetts an exception, couple of other exceptions. But, you know, the senates really what were where it matters, where an upset really matters. And, you know, its obvious where both parties and the Interest Groups are going to pour their money, those Southern States plus alaska. Democrats are going to try kentucky and georgia. Good luck, you know, with both of them because i think itll be tough. In both cases. But theyre going to try those two. Other than that, theres really nothing the democrats can pick up. Theyll be lucky to pick up one of those two. The republicans have all the opportunities. We already know, really, which ones they are. So its a question of where the electorate moves, you know . Does that generic ballot number move up or down between now and the time that things start solidifying in september and october . Speaking of money, alex, whats different this time with the midterms and the big donors . Well, i think whats, what were going to see change over just the next three and a half months is that the balance of spending in this campaign is going to start shifting away from the outside groups and towards the actual campaigns and candidates. The folks you heard from on the priest panel, youre going to previous panel, youre going to start seeing a lot more of their work and a lot less, or relatively speaking, less of the work of the very fine consultants not that far from here who are sort of cranking out these ads with unlimited money. A lot of people are talking about this news from cnn yesterday that Sheldon Edelson may spend tens of millions of dollars. I think we always knew the money was going to be saturated. What matters most is how is it going to get spent, and if the difference was going to be unlimited, outside money, we always knew that money was going to be in play. You do have among incumbents in particular in the senate and incumbent republican governors just unbelievable hard dollar fundraising. So you have these senators. I remember, im old enough to remember when it was a big deal to raise a million and a half dollars in a quarter of two million or two and a half. This quarter you had people like mark udall and Jeanne Shaheen and Allison Grimes raising three, three and a half, four Million Dollars in a three month span. Thats crazy. Thats just a crazy apt of money. So you amount of money. So you do start to see more of that handtohand combat between candidates mattering more than it did three months ogg, six months ago or a year ago. What Mitch Mcconnell does today and what Allison Grimes does today matters more. Its part of why iowa is more of a tossup race, that joni ernst has been very, very clever about how shes run her campaigns, and bruce braleys been a lot more passive, and colorado, at least from the people i talk to, is not probably in the same category because mark udall, the very well funded democratic incumbent, has just been murderously brutal on his challenger when it comes to these social issues that have been so devisive in colorado. And corey gardener who was correctly thought to be quite a strong republican recruit has taken time responding. Thank you. Maagty, im going to put you on the spot a little bit. You talked about how Hillary Clinton is doing all these events. How accessible is she to you, and how does that compare to the accessibility of another politician you cover a lot, thats Chris Christie . I mean, its night and day. And for, to some extent for specific reasons, and some of its stylistic reasons. But what has been really striking about Hillary Clintons book tour is she has not taken a single question that i know of at least from the events ive been to from reporters who were attending. Which is not to say that her aides have been difficult and or unkind which certainly has been the hallmark of other campaigns, both hers and other peoples she is giving very controlled interviews, these are very controlled settings. There is very little that is sort of up in the air and unexpected about them. Christie in iowa last week to be fair, its not like he was holding a conference every day after bridge gait be, i mean, he bridgegate, i mean, he really shut down. He has started coming out of it more. But when you are traveling with him in another state, you can get right up close with him. You just cant have that with clinton, and i remain really amazed at the that that lance traveling with her. Its not understandable, but it does not headache you feel like how many, like, can you give a sense of the scale . She was on stage at a gw event recently for a q a with someone, and at the end she stayed and was shaking hands with the audience, and there were four what looked like Service People or security people but standing next to her. It was on the one hand, it makes her look like an incumbent which she is often seen as running like, but on the other hand, it does not create the feeling of being able to reach out and connect. Let me ask you all just a very few quick questions. John, lets talk about polling right now. Were overwhelmed by polls every day. Some reliable, some not. All kinds of methodologies. How do you personally know who to trust . I think were certainly in a transition. Two or three things i look to. National polling, i look to see, obviously, are cell phones included . So cell phone versus land line telephone is an important thing for me. Also i also look at language. Hispanics play an incredibly Important Role in our nation and about half of hispanic voters we talk to prefer to take their interview in spanish, so i look at bilingual polling as well. And like everybody else, i look at consistency over time as well. And why some of these barometers are of particular use if you dont have one poll you can count on. Do you think the state of polling in america is Getting Better or worse . I think its better than it was, but its still in a transition. It obviously depends who you ask. I guess one note, on most of the National Polling that i do and certainly the polling we do together is done via the internet, so actually dialing the clock back to the days of George Gallup when we went from door to door. Thats how were actually selecting the samples based on not what kind of phone you have, but where you live. They can take the poll whenever they want. They want to take it add midnight rather than during their time, thats the prerogative, and i think its a more natural act. So is, but not everybodys able to do that yet. Larry, im curious, how much do you personally get lobbied by candidates or or campaigns for saying why did you rate me this way . [laughter] thats why i have great people like kyle condit, tim robinson, they take all those calls. [laughter] im always out of town when they come in. What if its a really big name . Im still out of town. [laughter] especially when its a big name. But they try. Well, of course people complain and whine, and they should, you know . Their livelihoods are on the line. I dont blame them for that one bit. I mean, you got lots of calls, right, in your other role prior to this, and im sure maggie and alex get lots of calls. The key is to ignore them. [laughter] you know, unless they have interesting information. And just let me add one thing on this polling. I am amazed that reporters still write stories based on partisan polls produced by campaigns or parties. They are garbage. Its a joke. And why anybody pays attention to them, i dont know. They have ulterior motives. Do you all agree with that . Yeah, yeah. Thank you. Alec, i have a question for you thats a twitter question. What are the chances for romney to enter the 2016 race, and is santorum next in line given that the Gop Convention history . Well, ill take the second question first, and the answer is, no. [laughter] you know, i think you can say that i think just this notion that republicans always nominate the next guy in line like, yes, thats true technically, but its really more complicated than that. If its true that the runnerup always got the nomination, then in 2012 which would have been Mike Huckabee which hell tell you himself if you ask his delegate count was higher than mitt romneys. I think santorum has a constituency. Is he the default candidate . Certainly not. The odds that romney runs, i was talking to a republican recently who said they were convinced romney was going to run because he kept saying he wouldnt in the 2012 campaign, and that persuaded him you cant trust a word the man says. [laughter] now thats not my personal view of 2016, but, look, i think this notion that if you go to a conference hosted by mitt romney and ask a bunch of people who are mitt romneys guests should he run for president and then they all say yes, that this is some kind of groundswell of support, the host, right . Hes standing right there. Of course youre going to express sort of interest in him as a candidate. The only scenario in which i can envision mitt romney running is like if every other mainstream candidate gets hit by a bus, right . And maybe not a bus, but it could happen that jeb doesnt run, scott walker loses reelection, marco rubio, for whatever reason, decides his family is not, you know, ready for the campaign, and then and right, christie, you know, continues to face the u. S. Attorney investigation and then next thing you know youre looking at a lineup of candidates that looks a lot like 2012 minus mitt romney, right . And then if theres just sort of like you know in cartoons where wile e. Kite owety will coyote will run through a wall, there could be a mitt romneyshaped role where theres not mainstream, business businessoriented, inoffensive, conservative, you know, somewhat conservative man with terrific hair. [laughter] and then theres an opening, right . But the notion that, like, the wheels are moving or Something Like that just doesnt, doesnt scan i mean, correct me if im wrong, maggie, but that does not scan with what im hearing at all. No, no, no. Id say everything you just said was absolutely on target. I mean, at a certain point be i think the moment you would start to see some of this run, many it, run stuff mitt, run, stuff, there are some owners who dont attend those conferences, but for those who are like, well, i could back him, i think the minute you would start to see that come to a halt would be when romney openly says im really considering this. So i agree with everything alex says. Because really, im sorry, which is [laughter] mitt romney has a lot going for him as like a human being, as like a government administrator. There are a lot of republicans, and its easy to romanticize the 2012 election sort of in retrospect, right . But when you think back at what an amazing opportunity that was for the gop totally. Right . And the fact that he didnt just lose, but actually lost by a pretty big margin in terms of modern history. Only the second time in 25 years that any president ial candidate has won an electoral heart. You know, the argument for, like, strike up the band again and lets do this a third time starts to get pretty limited. Right. And not just lost, to continue on this theme, but not just lost with a huge opportunity, but a lot structurally had not changed within the party since 2012. If you look at that rnc autopsy or whatever Growth Opportunity report they put out afterwards six months or so, eight months after the election, very little of it has been addressed including their endorsement of immigration reform. So very hard for me to see where romney becomes the candidate of the future based on what were looking at. That having been said, alex did Say Something i thought was very important, and i wonder ored about looking at your numbers, especially talking about the Younger Voters who now feel more warmly toward Hillary Clinton. There is a tendency when i talk to supporters for them to say, well, a lot of people have buyers remorse about obama. Okay, but that doesnt mean were redoing the 2008 election. While i do think this is not 2008 again and i dont see a candidate who can do what obama did, i think that the idea that we are doing a reprisal is really a mistake. And so for her supporters who think that, for the candidates sake, one hopes thats not something her advisers actually think. Larry, one final question for you that came in. Do you anticipate, i mean, the primary seasons almost over, but do you anticipate any more mississippis . Tight challenges but also outside pending wise . Oh, you know, i think i dont think Lamar Alexanders in trouble. Pat roberts, i suppose theres a possibility there. If he had had one of the republican congressmen running against him, i think he would have lost renomination. Milton wolfe is not the strongest candidate in the world , but you never know whos going to show up in a lowturnout summer primary. Therell probably be a couple more surprises. Again, looking at the big picture which reinforces the idea that less is more in this particular midterm, were well below average in the number of incumbent primary defeats in both the senate and the house compared to the entire postworld war ii period. That doesnt suggest to me an election that redefines american politics. Nothing, nothing close to it. That doesnt mean 2016 will be boring. Theres almost no connection between a midterm and a president ial election even though we all strain to find, to find some connection there really isnt, you know . Just give you an example. The email that i got over and over again in different forms after 2010 was each my dog could beat president obama. Well, we found out, didnt we . We found out how misleading a Midterm Election can be, and a lot of them are that way. Final quick question for alec, just came back alex who just came back from california where he wrote a muchtalkedabout piece. Its time for some genxers, right . Tell us about the political dynamic there is. Its a state that is younger than the country as hold, it is twice as hispanic, three times as asian, half the population lives in the los angeles area, and the two senators, the governor are 70 years old and up and all from the bay area. Theyre all white, and if you look at lineup of statewide officials in california right now and then going back 20 years, overwhelmingly they have been from northern california. This is what you call, you know, its what the folks out this at their fancy conferences call a moment prime for disruption, right . [laughter] this notion that you would have this state that is home to, you know, hollywood and Silicon Valley and sort of this, you know, allure of youth and innovation that theyd be represented entirely by this cast of characters literally from the 70s and 80s 1970 and 80s in addition to being in their 70s and 80s, that just doesnt line up. Youre going to start to see this change. Jerry brown will probably win this election this year, youre going to have a democratic bums rush into that job, and in 2016 the question is will Barbara Boxer run again. You could have two successive psychs where the state attorney general, they all suddenly have to decide after playing this waiting game for, like, tenplus years they suddenly have to decide which of these available offices theyre going to run for. And this is important because the next big demo bigcr statewide job in californ, like youre looking at someone who will be immediate contender for the presidency. It is just, part of the reason why i got on this story story in the first place it is bizarre the by far the biggest straight in the country. Democrats get so much of their money from there. It is demographically the future of the Democratic Party need to see replicated coast to coast. Only person that the democrats in california have produced who would ever for 15 seconds considered a president ial c candidate was grayon davis. That folks, doesnt add up. Final concluding question for maggie haberman. And this isnt your personal opinion,yo but if you, i would like to get your take, if you polled the press corps covering the president ial campaign in 2016, who would they want the two nominees to be from purely, purely journalistic point oft view, justof for the fun and story . For the journalistic point of view or the fun . Iac think for the fun point of view, i think that they would want an Elizabeth Warren versus Chris Christie. I think that for the no joe biden . Sorry, thats right. That is actually true, yes, that would be joe biden versus Chris Christie or and or rand paul. Ch it would have to be, probably edge woulded go to rand because one of the things of people who cover him in the senate will often say he is very, very, very, undisciplined in terms of like what he says Walking Around the halls. And so, i dont mean that is something, he often talks to reporters. His aids would rather he doesnt and he becomes sort of hard to control. For reporters that kind of thing would be a lot of fun. S how about for pollsters and for crystal ball analysts in terms of who you would like to see. I think, i think marco rubio would be interesting for pollsters to understand because where the future of the hispanic vote goes. Important part of electorate. That would be interest and challenge for us. Who i would like . I dont pick candidates. That is up to the parties so, pr ill work with whoever they pick. I would prefer to think about thepr future of the country ratr than the future of the two parties or what would make great journalism. God help us, if that becomes the standard. He larry is being modest in his heart of hearts he would love to say he called the scott walker nomination in 2013. Thank you. So true. The 70s were a great decade. I need to tell you that. Thanks, everyone. Thanks for a great panel. We covered the waterfront here. Appreciate it. Thanks. Thanks for coming and for watching. N [applause] 40 years ago the watergate scandal led to the only resignation of an american president. American history tv revisits 1974 and the final weeks of the nixon administration. This weekend the House Judiciary Committee as it considers impeachment of the president and charge of abuse of power. What you have here are questions about, sort of what the framers had in mind, questions about whether the activities that had been found out by the committee and by the Senate Watergate committee were indeed impeachable and thirdly, can we prove that Richard Nixon knew about them and even authorized them . Watergate, 40 years later, sunday night at 8 00 eastern on American History tv, on cspan3. Cspan2 providing live coverage of u. S. Senate floor proceedings and key Public Policy events. Every weekend, booktv now for 15 years the only Television Network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. Cspan2, created by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a Public Service by your local, cable or satellite provider. Watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. And on this wednesday morning the u. S. Senate will begin its day in just a few moments. Lawmakers expected to debate and hold a test vote at 11 on a bill providing tax breaks to businesses that bring offshore jobs back to the u. S. 60 votes are necessary to start formal debate. We could also hear about Appropriations Committee version of supplemental spending bill for Border Security in response to the president s request for emergency funding dealing with influx of unaccompanied minors. Now to live coverage of the u. S. Senate here on cspan2. The presiding officer the senate will come to order. The chaplain dr. Barry black will lead the senate in prayer. The chaplain let us pray. Eternal god, help us to follow your commands so that we may experience abundant living. May our lawmakers steps never stray from the path of integrity nor waiver in following you. By your mighty power, rescue our world from the challenges that overwhelm it. Protect those who love you as you would guard your own eyes. Lord, hide us in the shadow of your wings. Today, help our senators to remember that their steps are directed by you, as you work for the good of those who love you. Inspire them to stay within the circle of your will. Give our legislators the reverential awe that brings life, prosperity and protection. We pray in your sacred name. Amen. The presiding officer please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The presiding officer the clerk will read a communication to the senate. The clerk washington d. C. , july 23, 2014. To the senate under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable edward j. Markey, a senator from the commonwealth of massachusetts, to perform the duties of the chair. Signed patrick j. Leahy, president pro tempore. Mr. Reid mr. President . The presiding officer the majority leader. Mr. Reid what is now before the senate . The presiding officer the senate under previous order is now in leader time. Mr. Reid mr. President , following my remarks and those of the republican leader, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 2569, with the time until 11 00 a. M. Equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. At 11 00 a. M. , there will be a roll call vote on the motion to proceed to invoke cloture on the motion regarding the bring jobs home act, s. 2569, followed by voice votes on the following three nominations confirmation of julia aikins clark to be general counsel for the federal Labor Relations authority, confirmation of Andrew Shapiro to be ambassador of the czech republic, and qirnlings mr. President , i have a colloquy between the republican leader, senator boxer, and me. I ask consent it be placed in the record. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Reid mr. President , i now ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, with the concurrence of the republican leader, the senate proceed to calendar number 468, h. R. 5021, the highway and transportation funding act, that the only amendments in order to the bill be the following wyden 3582, carper, corker, boxer, 3583, lee 3584, toomey 3585. Further, that each amendment have one hour of debate equally divided between the proponents and opponents, that there be up to two hours of general debate on the bill equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. That upon the use or yielding back of that time, the senate proceed to votes on the amendments in the order listed and no seconddegree amendments be in order to any of the amendments prior to the votes and that no motions to commit the bill be in order. That upon disposition of the toomey amendment, the bill be read a third time as amended, if amended, and that the senate vote on passage of the bill as amended, if amended. Further, that the secretary be authorized to make technical changes to amendments if necessary to allow for proper page and line number alignment. Further, that the amendments and votes on passage be subject to a 60vote threshold. Finally, the bill as passed the senate proceed to the consideration of h. Con. Res. 108 which was received from the house and is at the desk, the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection, so ordered. Mr. Reid i ask that we now proceed to h. R. 4719 because its my understanding that it is due for a second reading. The presiding officer the clerk will read the title of the bill for a second time. The clerk h. R. 4719, an act to amend the Internal Revenue code of 1986, and so forth. Mr. Reid i would object to any further proceedings, mr. President. On this matter. The presiding officer objection having been heard, the bill will be placed upon the calendar. Mr. Reid mr. President , more than a century ago, a small drugstore opened for business at the Barretts Hotel in chicago, illinois. A pharmacist not yet 30 years old and a veteran of the spanish american war borrowed 6,000 to open this drugstore. His name was charles walgreen. This was his first store but certainly not his last. As the chain grew, his pharmacies became a fixture in american culture. You know, mr. President , the vintage image of a soda fountain, milk shakes, drugstore counter. They would mix their own drugs to give pain medication and other products to people who came in that drugstore. This is how walgreens started. Now 113 years rates, the year later, the walgreen family no longer heads the company, but there are over 8,200 walgreen drugstores around the country. They still bear the walgreen name. That company that charles walgreen started is reportedly strongly considering a renunciation of its american citizenship and a move to switzerland. Why . To avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Reestablishing foreign corporations, walgreens would parafair share of taxes. This practice is called inversion. Wait a minute, its just a tax trick, a loophole, a tax trick. Of course walgreens wont actually move to switzerland. Instead they plan to acquire a European Company and officially make switzerland home to their new headquarters, but in reality, they will stay in chicago. Right where they are now. Thats because walgreens doesnt want to actually leave america. Why would they . Why would they want to leave america . We have the most sophisticated work force in the world. Why would they give that up . America has an infrastructure that although in need of updates is still the most extensive in the world. It provides walgreens with the roads and transportation it needs to supply its stores. Why would walgreens give that up . Why would they give up the fact that we have a legal system that we can trust to enforce its Business Contracts and uphold intellectual property protections that they need . They wouldnt turn their heads and walk away from that. America has a medicare system that pays for seniors to buy pharmaceuticals at walgreens. Im sure that walgreens wont be turning away that cash, and thats what it is, cash. Lets not forget an american enjoys the Law Enforcement apparatus that protects an american companys assets. Why would walgreens want to give that up . Our military which is second to none will continue to protect the country where all those Walgreen Stores are located. Im sure that walgreens wouldnt want to give that up. Not to mention the fact that america is a pretty good place to live. So why would walgreens executives ever want to move their families across the world . That would be foolish, wouldnt it . Walgreens leadership will probably stay right where they are now in their fancy homes here in america, and while they remain here, walgreens will still expect american tax credits, even as it dodges as much as 4 billion over the next five years in taxes. Thats what inversion is all about. So essentially what walgreens is saying, we love america, we love being in america, but were not going to pay for it. The dictionary defines the word exploitation as quote the fact of making use of a situation to gain unfair advantage. What a perfect explanation what walgreens is planning to do. What the Walgreen Company is doing sure seems like exploitation to me, mr. President. After all, this is a corporation that made 16. 7 billion from medicare and medicaid last year. 16. 7 billion, and they are going to move overseas. Sadly, walgreens isnt the only corporation jumping ship. Major American Companies like metronic and others have already announced plans to give up their Corporate Citizenship. Who will be next . A decade ago, the senior senator from iowa warned of quote unpatriotic companies that dash and stash their cash. End of quote. Now were seeing this dash and stash game become common practice for corporations that dont want to pay their fair share of taxes. In fact, the two largest transactions to move American Companies overseas in history have taken place within the last month. When these companies reincorporate overseas, it is, simply put, unfair. Its unfair to the american taxpayer, the american government, the Many Companies who refuse to engage in this deceptive practice. Why should other American Pharmacy chains be disadvantaged because walgreens blocks paying its fair share of taxes. Uphold our Free Enterprise system and ensure that american businesses are playing on a level playing field, congress m. S. Close this loophole. We have a new chairman of the finance committee. The senior senator from oregon is known to be a man who is fair and to make sure that people dont take advantage of others. Hes made a commitment to me and anyone who will listen to him that this must change and it is going to start with the finance committee and start very soon. I have been encouraged by his statements who has indicated that he will work to close this loophole for these hundredaway companies. The chairman of the subcommittee on investigations, the senior senator from michigan, has also been a leader on this issue. He has been talking about it for a long time. Two strong leaders, the senior senator from michigan, the senior senator from oregon have locked arms and is going to do something about this. Senator levins legislation to stop corporate inversion act puts a twoyear moratorium on inversion by u. S. Companies. This will give Congress Time to thoroughly and thoughtfully consider the issues. Mr. President , i dont need a lot more thought on it. Im ready to roll on this one. We need to get this done and done quickly, but i will settle for the two years. Frankly, mr. President , i am open to all ideas. What i am not open to is an idea that this corporate exploitation of the american taxpayer is somehow acceptable because its not. Today were considering legislation that would amend the u. S. Tax code to fight outsourcing, to protect american jobs and to create job creation within our borders. The bring jobs home act would end senseless tax breaks for outsourcers while offering companies a 20 tax credit to help with the cost of moving jobs back to america. Much like the bring jobs home act, ending this Corporate Citizenship scam will encourage American Companies to pay their fair share. It will also let corporations know that cheating the American People with a tax trick is not a viable business plan. Benjamin franklin said this quote tricks and treachery are the practice of fools with not wits enough to be honest. Close quote. If corporations want to leave america, its their right, but american taxpayers shouldnt be forced to foot the bill when u. S. Corporations want all the benefits of commerce in this country without having to pay their fair share. I ask unanimous consent the republicans control the time from 3 30 until 4 30 today and the majority will control from 4 30 until 5 30 p. M. Today. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection. So ordered. Mr. Mcconnell mr. President . The presiding officer the republican leader. Mr. Mcconnell there is a lot we can get done in washington when democrats are willing to put the politics aside and Work Together for bipartisan results. We saw an example of that yesterday when the president signed a bipartisan Work Force Training bill into law, legislation i and others proudly supported. Unfortunately, though, weve rarely seen such bipartisanship from washington democrats these days. Working toward Bipartisan Solutions and helping the middle class, it always just seems like such a chore for them. Just look at what president obama and the majority leader have planned for the coming days. The president s off campaigning for a Work Force Training bill hes actually already signed. It makes no sense. But this is a man who just cannot stop campaigning. And apparently is suffering from a similar condition. Hes busy turning the senate into a campaign studio. Owe wants to spend more of the senates time on a design to failed campaign bill loves to trot out before every national election. Weve seen this proposal a couple of years ago before the election. And then for political purposes they pray that it will fail. Look, this is the time that would be a lot better spent helping the middleclass families that are struggling out in our country. Instead of worrying about designed to fail legislation, we could be addressing things like the highway bill which already passed the republicanled house with massive, massive, bipartisan support, or addressing the humanitarian crisis on the southern border. Thats where our focus should be, thats what the American People expect. The Border Patrol estimates that as many as 90,000 unaccompanied children will have crossed our border by the fall. Its a dangerous journey to the border and many have suffered heartbreaking mistreatment and abuse. Thats why anyone who wants to help these children should be working overtime to spare them from this journey. A few weeks ago, the president made some modest policy recommendations that should be a part of any legislation that deals with this crisis. Unfortunately, the far left objected and the president has since wobbled. Thats led to Top Democrats in congress balking at even the most modest of reforms. They now seem to prefer a blank check that would preserve the status quo instead and the president will barely lift a finger to encourage his own party to support these simple reforms. Remember now, this is the same president who keeps telling us about this mythical phone he plans to use, so what were saying is, use it. Call the members of your own party who object to what you said you wanted, and what we all know is needed. Call the leadership of your party in the senate who despite the footage on the evening news pronounce our southern border to be secure. Get them to support the policies you told us would address this crisis. Frankly, it would be a much better use of your time than campaigning for a Work Force Training bill youve already signed. Because sending these children all over the country for indeterminate periods of time just isnt an answer. We need to humanely return them to their homes as soon as possible. And president obama needs to show some leadership to help us get a longterm credible plan in place to do just that. He owes the country at least that much. Remember, news reports suggest that the president could have intervened long ago to address this problem before it turned into a fullblown humanitarian crisis. But according to the washington post, he prioritizeed politics over helping these children. The paper cited a congresswoman who admitted her fellow democrats recognize the urgency of this crisis but kept mostly silent because they didnt want to cause problems for the administrations political priorities here in congress. And democrats didnt want others to be able to point out that the president s policies had failed. Its really quite shameful. The post also cited one source who said the Administration Staff were concerned about the growing number of children but they, too, were effectively overruled by the white house political concerns. Heres what the source said was the white house told there were huge flows of Central Americans coming . Of course they were told. A lot of times. Was there a general lack of interest and focus on the legislation . Yes. Thats where the focus was. In short, it appears that the Obama Administration knew about this problem a long time ago, did almost nothing and the country is now faced with this crisis. So the president needs to get serious about this now, not some other time, now. What were saying is cut out the campaigning, tell your partys leadership in the senate to get serious, and work with members of both parties to get this addressed. The presiding officer under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. Under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 2569, which the clerk will report. The clerk motion to proceed to calendar number 453, s. 2569, a bill to provide an incentive for businesses to bring jobs back to america. Mr. Durbin mr. President . The presiding officer under the previous order, the time until 11 00 a. M. Will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. The senator from illinois. Mr. Durbin mr. President , i listened carefully as the republican leader came to the floor to talk about the issues before the senate and he failed to mention this issue. Senate 2569. Well be voting on in one hour and 10 minutes. In fact, weve listened carefully, theres not been a single republican senator who has come to the floor to literally debate this issue or to disagree with this bill. What is this measure that is the source of such a mystery on the floor of the senate . Well, its an effort by senator john walsh of montana, senator Debbie Stabenow of michigan to bring goodpaying manufacturing jobs and other jobs back home to america. Wouldnt you think that would be worth a comment from the republican leader or perhaps from one of the republican senators . I hope it means theyre going to join us in a bipartisan effort in a little over an hour to bring this measure to floor. What does it say . Simple. We will give a tax break to companies that bring jobs home from overseas. We will reduce the current tax incentives for companies to ship american jobs overseas. There it is. Straightforward, clear, bring the jobs home. I would think that this would be so bipartisan it would get a unanimous vote at 11 00. But the fact is, despite the support of all democratic senators, were still struggling to find five republicans who will join us so we can move to this measure and do something in the tax code to help bring american jobs back home. Instead of shipping them overseas. Senator reed, our majority leader, spoke this morning about another aspect of this issue. Sadly, in my home state of illinois, a major company, abbvie, the eighth largest pharmaceutical company, announced last week they are going to relocate their corporate base of operations to an island off ireland. Ireland is a beautiful country, but to think that American Companies like abbvie are prepared to desert america is worth a little reflection. Senator reed raised an important point. Pharmaceutical companies in america depend on taxsupported organizations and agencies. The National Institutes of health, the leading Biomedical Research agency in the world is supported by american tax dollars. And pharmaceutical Companies Like abbvie with blockbuster drugs such as humerira which has earned them over a billion dollars so far this year rely on the n. I. H. For research and then on the taxpayersupported u. S. Patent office to protect their legal rights. They also count on the food and Drug Administration supported with u. S. Tax dollars to do the testing necessary to bring this drug to market. Its said that the approval of f. D. A. Of a drug in the United States is really the gold standard. More than any other country. So here is a pharmaceutical company, very profitable, with over 4,000 employees, based in the United States, based in the state of illinois, for virtually its entire existence, now picking up and leaving. Why . Theyre leaving to avoid paying taxes in the United States. What is the definition of a corporate in ingrate . I think it would start with a company that has become immensely profitable because this United States of america and the agencies of its government that support that company now turning its back on the United States. Across the street the Supreme Court tells us with regularity we have to view corporations now as persons. Theyre no longer legal creations, they have some personhood under the constitution. According to five of our Supreme Court justices. Personhood that entitles them to freedom of speech under the Citizens United decision. Personhood which entitles them under the hobby lobby decision to have religious freedom as a corporation. So if we are going to give personhood to corporations, what can we say of this decision to renounce your american citizenship by Major Companies to get a tax break . I think what we can say is these inverters are deserters, to quote alan sloan and others who have written the about this issue in the past. Im troubled by this, and im troubled that there isnt a sense of outrage on both sides of the aisle. Senator reed has spoken to this issue, ive spoken to it, senator levin of michigan has been a leader on this issue, and yet the republicans are strangely silent. Do they believe its in the best interest of the United States for our major corporations to pick up, cut and run . Go to some foreign land, claim that this is now their new headquarters and avoid paying taxes in the United States . This process known as inversion is a clever tax dodge. At the end of the day, who loses . Well, i can tell you. The taxpayers of this country lose because valuable revenue and resources are no longer there to sustain our great nation. Whether its the defense of this country, the building of infrastructure, great teas like the National Institutes of health, the list goes on. There will be money lost. Who were the winners . Well, the winners are those investment bankers, folks that are buying up these corporations and coming up with these tax dodges and incentives to raise stock price at any cost. I often wonder as i look at the list of members, the board of directors of abbvie and walgreens, if there wasnt in their boardroom one person who held up their hand and said does anybody else feel a little sick about this, that that we would give up on america, that abbvie would announce its american citizenship, that we would listen to those who say stock price is more important than loyalty to the country that we live in, the country we have prospered in . Was there one hand in the air to dissenting from this from this corporate desertion of the United States . I think thats this is worth a debate, worth bringing this bill to the floor, senate bill 2569 and in a little over an hour well have a chance to decide whether it can come to a floor. There arent many things we do around here that have an impact on the lives of americans. This one will. Senator reid suggested we move into the inversion, i support that, im a cosponsor of senator levins bill. That to me is overdo. Last week the secretary of the treasury, jack lew, issued a statement warning us this was just the beginning. 50 or 60 corporations now working on this. One of the Corporate Leaders on wall street, jamie dimon of Jp Morgan Chase said in fortune mag we magazine we shouldnt moralize. He characterized it as a protest against the unfair tax code. I would like to remind mr. Dimon and the c. E. O. s and members of the board of these corporations this tax code which certainly should be reformed is the same tax code that has generated recordbreaking corporate profits and record breaking c. E. O. s salaries. I didnt hear complaints about that socalled unfair tax code when these corporations were making recordbreaking profits or giving compensation at recordbreaking levels. And it troubles me, too, that many of the corporations that are now rationalizing abandoning the United States not that long ago were counting on this government and taxpayers all across the United States to bail them out when the wall street banks were failing, when a. I. G. Was flat on its back. Did they turn to ireland or switzerland for help . No, they turned to washington and the United States of america and to the taxpayers who came through with billions of dollars to save them from their perfidy. That is the reality of history. A reality which many of these corporate deserters are now ignoring. I have trouble with this clearly, a great deal of trouble. Im going to offer an amendment, should we get on this bill, called the patriot employers act. Very simple. Here is what it says if you have a corporation in the United States headquartered in our country and you have not moved jobs overseas and you pay your employees at least 15 an hour, which means they dont qualify for federal benefits, just their paycheck, if you will give them Quality Health insurance as required by