Transcripts For WHYY Charlie Rose 20141104

Entrepreneurs while also getting on the road, traveling around the country and trying to build up these regions around the countries. Mark halperin, john heilemann, steve case next. Funding for charlie rose is provided by the following a decisional funding provided by from our studios in new york city, this is captioning sponsored by Rose Communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. Rose it is the eve of the 2014 midterm elections. As americans prepare to go to the polls, Republican Party appeared poised for gains in both house of congress, expected gop wins are likely to push the house of representatives further to the right. But with control of the senate up for grabs, many races there are coming down to the wire. Meanwhile governors in both parties around the country are locked in races dloos to you will ca. Whatever the outcome, the election will have great impact on the ability of congress to legislate and on the expectation of president obamas final two years in office. Here to talk with me now about all of this are Mark Halperin and john heilemann. They are the managing editors of Bloomberg Politics, also the cohost of the new Bloomberg Television program called, with all due respect. And i have great add miration for them. I congratulate them on this very new program. I am thrilled that its in the building right where i work. So i will steam their guests. I will look to them for good ideas it makes it all easy for me, welcome. Thank you, charlie. All right, were on the eve of the election. Give me the big overview. It is going to be a good republican year and there is still doubt whether there will there be a great republican year. They will pick up house seats this he could lose important governor races, if they lost wisconsin or florida, i would give democrats some talking pints and not meaningless talking points. But obviously battle for control of the senate is the big deal. Democrats thought they could hold the senate by doing three things. If they had a superior ground game where they turned out the vote f they focus on the republican candidates rather than a referendum on the president tried to disqualify the republicans, and if they could talk about the economy and suggest the voter have a better idea on the economy. They failed on two of the three. They do have a decent ground game it seems but they have not turned attention on the republicans. They dont have a good record on the economy they are pushing through to voters. Republicans point out this year they have chosen better can dats. They vetted their candidates in the primary process. Republicans wanted as good a ground game as the candidates im not sure they have gotten there. They recruited good can dats. Those candidates stayed on message, avoid avoid the gaffes that hurt republicans in the past and raised sufficient money to be in the game against the president s party. Everybody says this is about obama. That its even more about obama than it is about whoever the republican candidates are. Well, it that is certainly the republican theory. I will say one other thing to add to what he said, not only did they recruit good candidates but those can dats, those established recruited candidates won their primaries which was the big problem in 2010. A lost lost to Tea Party Candidates who ended up being fatally weak. Their ground game is not maybe as good as the democrats but better than if has probably been before. Those are definitely true. Republicans have is out to nationalize this election. Thats what out of power parties do in midterm elections. They try to make it about some big national theme. In 2010 republicans were very successful doing that. In 2016 or 2014 right now, their additional notion was they were going to try to addition that largely has not been the case. Because the law has ended up being after its initial hiccups has now become more or less a lot of republicans still hate the law and asing that to motivate their base voters. Rose whether they can repeal it or whether they want to repeal it. Totally. But its not at the centre. Are you seeing some obamacare adds late in the cycle but it is not the main thin at the end. What is inside at the nationalized not on obamacare but obama. They have gotten lucky or maybe they would say these are things that were destined to happen. But things like ebola which has created a sense of panic and fear among a lot of voters. Obviously a lot of foreign issues, isis and you jane, all the things that happen add broad have given a sense to voters not only of displeasure at president obamas Foreign Policy but generally again a sense of things are kind of out of control. Republicans have is out to capitalize on that. We done know how successfully they have done that until tomorrow night. And there are no doubt that right now, the betting odds favor republicans to retake control of the senate. But there is a plausible path by which democrat kos still hold on to their majority. And its possible most likely we are not even going know the answer until december or january when we see runoffs in louisiana and georgia. If its georgia. If its louisiana. And january if its georgia. It could be runoffs in both and we might not know the answer until then. Lets start with colorado. Its the place if republicans win, it will be the most sort of good news for them in terms of the long erm longerterm place in the party. Beating an incumbent democrat who worked hard to keep his seat who is a good cultural fit. But republicans recruited corey gardner, a house member who has been mod vate moderate in tone and demeanor, staked out some moderate positions. If he wins will get a decent share of the hispanic vote. The governors race as well, a chance to win that, but to take back a senate seat in the Mountain West would mean republicans can put that region back too play. They need to be, to be a national party. They need to do better than they have everywhere outside the south, Mountain West is probably their best bet. How about womens issues which well, i mean i think the press tends to maybe overstate slightly the decree to degree to which republicans have only run, mark udoll has been tagged with focusing exclusively on these issues. There is no doubt, i think. And i think some honest democrat was till there is no doubt they may have overplayed their hand nationally in some of these races trying to run on socalled womens issues. But there is also no doubt that those are issues where there are sharp disagreements with the republicans and if you ask Hillary Clinton as the democratic nominee in 2016 there is no doubt the democrats will return to those issues. I think the problem is you need an economic message along with that. We should say that those states are states in which romney did well, or won there 2012. Well, except in this case, for example. They state that colorado that president o bomba won both in 2008 and 2012. It was relatively close but he won decisively both times around. Rose but he lost in battleground states, governor romney won in 2012. Although those are ones that are generally were republicans are stronger. The really close ones to your point, colorado very, very close. At least the polling looks close now. Iowa, another state where president obama won in 2008 and 20 it and the race was very close. An new hampshire. So youve got plenty of lets talk about iowa. There we have a republican candidate. Who is conservative. Very conservative. There has never been a woman to win statewide. Since the union started. Yeah. Thats not lt. Governor. No governor. She is a very compelling candidate. But the Des Moines Register over the weekend said she was seven or eight points ahead. There is polling subsequently in the last 24 hours that say it is still a 2 point race. The register say partner of hours at Bloomberg Politics and has been the Gold Standard of polling in that state. And so we have a lot of faith in their polling. However, the race had been very, very close up until then and there is now this other polling that shows a two point race. She is a really compelling candidate. He is not a really compelling candidate. And you have a governor in terri brantad who is about to win by a landslide there iowa, a republican governor. And he clearly will have some coat tails it is hard, mark stated t is hard to imagine, a republican governor winning by 15 points as brantad might and have the Republican Senate candidate on the same ballot not come through. It may still happen there are democrats will hold on but there is no doubt she has the advantage going into election. Are they trending in both cases, colorado where there is a democratic senator, incumbent and in iowa where tom harken held the seat for 30 years are. They both trending republicans as far as you can tell. They both moved to a republican advantage. It will take, the interesting thing about those states are those are two states where democrats in the last couple cycles have had their strongest get out the vote operations so if there he is a chance for democrats in those two states and i think they probably need one of them at least to keep the majority t is that the ground game makes the polls kind of irrelevant. Because you remake the electorate just as president obama overperformed his polls to some extent in 2012 because he turned out an electorate different than a lot of pollsters saw turning out. Democrats are hoping they can do that in iowa or colorado. Anyway to get your hands around that and figure out whether they are . Well, you can by asking the campaign sort of plausably where do you get the extra votes from. Who are the pollsters missing. If you are absolutely dominating on the ground in the get out of vote effort, most people think you can make up two, three points at most. But that means that the other sides ground game has to be relatively weak. Democrats, i think, starting to wise up to the notion that republicans arent completely overstating the extent to which they have a stronger get out the vote operation. You look just real quick in those states, you look at the early vote totals which republicans have done quite well, surprisingly well in iowa and colorado. That is one of the things that has democrats more nervous. Although it is true they could make it up on the ground on election day, one of the places where where democrats have done well, is by being a ahead in the early slow. The Republican Party learn anything from the way president obama ran in 2012 and 2008 in terms of the ground game n terms of the way to reach out to new voters, in terms of all of that. Did they learn that. They learn that you need technology. You need modern technology. You need people walking precincts with i phones and i pasd. You need to advertise, not just on broadcast television or cable television. But on health club closed circuit tv and on i phones and everything else. And i they they also learned and you see this in the ernst race. You need candidates worst brand creates some excitement. You need candidates who are good digital, good viral can dats. If muchs got a boring, to pardon the expression 60yearold white man, less likely to reach younger voters, people who live in a digital space. I think you have seen in joany ernst and core gardner and tom coton younger candidates who i think have the capacity to be good digital brands. All men over 60 are not boring. Not all of them. Some. Some are. Go to new hampshire. Because some people are saying that you will have an early result there, 7 30, the polls close at 7 00. And in jean shaheen loses to scott brown that will send shockwaves across the country. You could have no result at 70 clock because the race is too close to call. And that doesnt mean jean will lose t could just be too close for exit polls to model a prediction projection early on. I think jean shaheen in new hampshire, kay hagan in north carolina, two democratic incumbents. Polls close early, but neither has been behind in any public poll since the race start. Never once. So the democrats concede that in both races the republicans have closed it but its going to take a national wave. If jean scheven loses or kay loses, they are going to be the 7th or 8th or 9th democratic seat to fall to the republicans rather than the sixth. Looking at it the way are you thinking about it, if you see those two seats go republican early in the night, you are going to know it will be a big ren can night. Could it be what they call a wave, whatever that is. Well, yes, yeah, whatever metaphor you choose. If those guys the analogy, they will be the canary in the coal mine, those are races that democrats lead all year. If they lose those races these other races are likely to be big republicans put big, a lot of wins on the board with relatively large margins compared to what we expected. The most Expensive Senate race in the country, some say the nasdaq yeast senate race in the country. I got to say, there is stiff competition for that because these races have been really negative and people complain about negativity all the time but this has been a race where across the country one of the commonalities around these races has been very, very, more than usual, i would say, issuefree, very little substance, a lot of personal invective a lot of not just negative, there is always a lot of negative ads but these are particularly substance free. That race, cay hagan has really focused on one issue of real substance which has been education. But the theory of that is that they want to focus on a relationship with the president. And she wants to focus on how they have run the state with respect to education. Yes. Which is of concern. But that is a substantive issue. That say rel thing to be focused on. And to some extent, you know, kay hagan being 99 voting with barack obama all the time is a real issue too. Why is that such a hard issue for people to handle. What is the perfect answer to the republican charge, are you just there for barack obama, are you in fact, you know, barack obama has already said and all the issues that you vote with him in that kind of thing. Isnt there a way to Say Something that will rebut that . Its hard when you voted with the president 98, 99 of the time. You know, the right answer is because of the polarization in washington there is High Pressure for party unity and almost every democrat has voted with the president that frequently. I think the right answer in these times is to point out areas in the past and in the future where you do disagree with the president. Or you dont see eyetoeye with him on every detail. And they try to do that. The reason republicans are doing is it is a hard accusation to answer because as Henry Kissinger would say it has the added advantage of being true. But the case where its most glaring, the case where in alison lunder gren grooims case where she was asked repeatedly whether she voted for the president. No, no not whether she voted with the president but whether she voted for the president. In all these case, in every case she refused to answered question. Did that hurt her, if she simply said yes, and im disappointed. I would have to think on some level the answer is yechlt i think you take a hit either way. She knows barack obama sn unpopular in kentucky, you are going to take a hit however you answer the question. But if you at least figure out a way as mark suggested is i disagree with the president on xyz, a, b and c but if are you asking me whether i voted for him or voted for john mccainnd, i voted for him. But you can say i did vote for the guy who was a big outsourcer, no, i didnt. That is what is happening in georgia. You could have said that about why she doesnt vote for romney. Are you going to take a hit either way. But in this case you take the hit and you look weasle ooechlt i think projecting that kind of weakness and weasliness is never good for any candidate of any party it doesnt come off with. I dont think she benefited from the way she dodged that answer because everyone there knows she voted for obama anyway it is not a secret. Georgia, tell me about Michelle Nunn and david perdue. It is a close race, likely to go into overtime. She is a very strong candidate. He has been hurt late by a lot of advertising in her thursday that he is an outsourcer and proud. Which is the same thing the obama team did with mitt romney. To some extent, thats right. And it doesnt look like either one of them is going to get to 50 . Which means will you get to a runoff in january as we said before. One of them might get over the top tomorrow night but more or less unlikely. Then you have a really interesting case, especially if it turns out that this is the race f it is a close night on tuesday night this is the race that erm dids control of the u. S. Senate. Because in the louisiana case that could be in the same category. But this could be the one it comes down to and then you have a Massive National effort on the part of both parties to go down there. And georgia is a state that is not yet purple but it is one of the most likely states that is trending towards purple and there is a huge Africanamerican Community there. How democrats can get out that investment Michelle Nunn could easily win that race n a runoff, it is totally possible she could do it. Rose because she will get the black vote in addition. She could. Especially if africanamericans are convinced that they will control the u. S. Senate is on the line in january. Mitch mccon nell kentucky against Alison Grimes . You know, he is methodical and he always had the advantage of running in this sixth year of a democratic pit. She has run i think a Better Campaign than some give her credit for. Her huge gaffe notwithstanding about being unwilling to say whether she voted for the president. I suspect that if it is a night filled of crazy upsets on both sides that is the only way colose this at this point. In louisiana we talked about dns only a little bit. The race is likely to go to a runoff. Two republicans sort of splitting the vote. The Republican Party is very confident that they will win in a runoff. They are very confident about that. Its not clear for the reasons we were just discussing which is that the whole focus will change, again if these are if, no doubt in my mind if republicans have already taken control of the senate and democrats have no particular reason to be motivated to go out, and have a very high uphill climb to win that race. She won under those exact circumstances a couple cycles ago. So you never know. Mark bag itch, dem krakt incumbent, won barely six years ago sense a strong republican candidate, normer prosecute kerr. And i think that that is one where if democrats hold t again it will be late in the night, the polls close at 1 a. M. Eastern time. And if it closed they have returns from all over the place and you may not know for days but if it is close i think democrats have a chance to save that. And i think republicans have taken for granted that they will win that race. I think if its close, republicans may be in for a surprise and that may be the seat late at night with these runoffs notwithstanding that design defines whether democrats can hold the senate. And the place where ground game will be the story. Hes very unfavourable climate but democrats have put a huge amount of effort into organizing that state. Its a hard state to organize. There is a native population spread out all over the place, field officers everywhere. They have been focused for a long time. I think bag itch is likely to lose but its totally possible that he will win for this reason and this reason only. Tell me about arkansas, go ahead. Mike pryor another democratic incumbent with a family pedigree in politics is probably the most endangered. Some democrats will tell you along with montana, south dakota and west virginia, another currently democratic held seat which almost certainly will go to the republicans am bill clinton spent a ton of time there but the democrats are tough. As a southern state, relatively low percentage of the vote comes from africanamericans. Pryor has been tied to president obama really strong. And that has hurt him in the state. He is the last remaining democratic member of the congressional delegation, even dem krateds as i said, suggest that he will be done. Which raises the question of how well the performer president , former secretary of state and others had an impact in terms of this election cycle, either in terms of fundraising, enthusiasm, or making the argument. I think the three biggest impacts of the clintons in going out and being surrogates, one is she has performed very with. I think shes prove tone people now she can go out and give a good speech and connect to voters. After her book tour an time as secretary of state there was doubt about that. Second i think the clintons have taken over the Democratic Party. And reminded people that they will as politicians with a fingertip feel as people who can go anywhere in the country and speak, they are to you back in command there. And the last thing is they got a lot of chits. They campaigned for some people who will lose and some who will win. But they have gotten a lot of peoples gratitude for going out, both of them working really hard. The clintons the chit bank is kind of overflowing in the clinton household it is superstriking and i read a peace about this earlier in the psyche el. You know, you think about, they were everywhere. They have been everywhere, sometimes together, they have been in every Competitive Senate race, the governors races, everywhere in the country arch welcomed everywhere. There isnt a single candidate that didnt want the clintons one or the other to campaign for them as many times as possible. Compare and contrast that with president obama who is welcome virtually no where. And they say that with no edge to it, just a fact. He campaigned in one senate race, in michigan. He has not been in any other Competitive Senate race. They dont want him. That is what im saying. It a role reversal from 2006 when he was welcomed in missouri, and rural florida and ef where else. Now the clintons have it. In 2006 he was just a senator but the most popular surrogate in the Democratic Party. Now he is not the most popular surrogate if the democratic part and they are. He is obviously respecting their wishes and obviously the campaigns made determinations we do more harm than good there was a period of time when they thought he would help with africanamerican turnout and base turnout but it turned out he was so unpopular with undecided voters particularly in the polling they all came to the conclusion that what they lost in undecided voters, they would not be made up by what they gained in turnout. Rose this is interesting to me. Here you have in 2012 an election in which he won reelection as a democrat. And people said my god, the republican brand is at its lowest end. Its lowest. And now were two years later, in 2014, and republicans stand to gain house seats. To the highest level since way back when, 1940s or sometime. And skeblingdly secondly to control the senate. And yet at the same time, people are still saying that the brand is has trouble, even republicans are saying that. Yet they may control both houses of congress. I believe rand paul said it sucked. To put it bluntly. The republican brand was in shambles in 2009. It still is. When barack Obama Took Office television was in shambles it was . Shambles then again in 2012 when he won reelection it is in shambles now. The dince is the president has no one to run against. When he has someone to run against hes good at making the republican brand look bad. Romney the issue, or bush the issue in 2008. What he has not been able to do is define the Democratic Party in such positive terms that can overcome it becomes a referendum on him. Correct that is what he avoided in 2012 because he had romney as a foichl he has not found the foil this time. In as much as democrats have put money and effort into trying to change the electorality, theres only so much you can do. The truth is there are just different electorates that vote in president ial years and nonpresident ial years. Democrats challenge was how do we make this look more like a president ial year electorate. That is to say, liss white electorate and younger electorate as opposed to the older and whiter one in offyear election. They can make some progress but it will be really different than in 2012 or 2016. Im trying to get at this. What is it about barack obama s it issues, personal, passion for the game, what is it . I talked to someone from colorado who said the president has paid no attention to us in colorado. No attention to us. Hasnt came out here in 2008 for his Big Convention and since then, nothing. You know, president clinton felt in a primal way he had to establish a personal relationship with all 50 states. And every american. Right. And traveled and traveled to do it. Loved by every one of them. I think he went to california like 110 time its as president. This president just not as interested in making friends in washington, in european capitols. But why does the smart guy not understand that . That in the end, in every thing, the human dimension is essential. At this table, this conversation has been had, at tables across america, not only elite tables but people have discussed this quite a bit. Its going to go down in history regardless of how his presidency is judged in the short term or overall in the longterm, going down in history as a huge mystery. And a huge flaw. It may end up being the biggest flaw of his presidency. Yeah. In terms of accomplishments. The white house, people closest to the president say oh, this is all just chattering class and elitism. I say that thing about one million elvis fans cant be wrong. All the elites cant be wrong. If you did a focus group with israeli politicians, british politicians, german politicians, democratic senators. Former cabinet members, Current Administration officials, they would all say the compaq same thing. We all cant be wrong. Its just impossible. Leon panetta said to me, i want to him and said you can win this battle with boehner and with the republicans. Just hang make deals, hang tough. You can do this. Didnt want to do it. It is really a riddle. And you know, again, i think it also is a riddle. The guy who has no one disputes, he has an extraordinary communicative gifts. He won two i dispute that. I dont think that is what his gifts are. I think he is a first class mind. And i think he has a real sense of courage. Managed to inspire a lot of people in 2008. Because of as operational speeches written by well, maybe. But again, its not as though he is a bad talker. But the fact that he has, in a consistent which been unable to get more than 50 of the American People is to favor his policies, in a lot of cases he also has been unable to get his policies enacted when 80 or 70 of the public is in favor of them. You can point to republican intransigents and there is no doubt that there has been a lot of republican intransigents, they deserve a ton of blame. But at the same time, you should be able to by hook or by crook, you should be able to win on an issue where you have 75, 80 of fun lick support on raising the minimum wage. Thank you, lyndon. You think about the results of the midterm, the prospect of gridlock breaking the last years of his presidency. Assume best case if you want brid lock to break, boehner and mcconnell, speaker and new majority leader if they win majority, absolutely committed. We want to get things done, mr. President , even then he will have to form a personal bond to get it done. Will you have to form a compromise on lose votes on both extremes, joint whip operation. I have given up thinking that all of a sudden he will have the patience to become trusting comrades with john boehner and mitch mckonl, just isnt interested. Doesnt interest him . He didnt want to put in the time to do it. Rose what about immigration reform. If there is gridlock, he will have spent five of his eight years in Office Getting nothing done of significance on domestic policy. Rose what is he going to do if he does executive action on immigration reform, they will kill chance. I think you put your finger on what to me is the most interesting question beyond the election. We will know the election tomorrow night, whether it is or is not a Senate Majority for the republicans. They are to the going to have 60 for sure. So youve still got the issue for most legislation. Yeah. Appointments. The question for me is, how does this president respond to a new congress for the last two years. And what will be the nature of the compromise. He is said to want three things. Wants to focus on one, trade, income tax reform, emly Corporate Tax reform and infrastructure. I mean those are not partisan issues, i dont think. But flip it around though, because that is a totally interesting question. But there is a anticident that which is how will republicans pursue if they are in power in both houses. How will they pursue their next two years, right. If the party, if there is an argument, i think mark and i both have to think there is some chance this will be the case. That a pretty establishment arian mitch mcconnelllead senate with a not a big crazy right wing component, but there is some, but plenty of mainstream republican approximates in the senate, who want to legislate on things like tax reform, immigration and many of the other things you listed. If you they decide to do do what mcconnell has been saying, weve got harry reid dic state dictatorship, well put bills on the president s desk and see if he signs them. Do they put, do they actually do that, do they do that, and can they get the much more fractious part of the Republican Caucus in the house to agree to some of those mainstream republican kind of centrist business. And then present them to the president. Or do they decide to do something else, ie, either they cant get it together as a party or they decide to pursue politics over legislating that will be the first question. And then the question will be f they pursue actual legislating then we will see what the president does. And those will be really interesting. Do you think the lets assume republicans control the congress. You think the president is prepared to come forward as bill clinton would be prepared to come forward, as he was, after 94 with newt and, you know, and say, you know, i hear you. I hear you. Its the new time and lets talk about what we can do for the country. He didnt do it after 2010. No. When it was significantly bigger than it would be under the worst case for the democrats it december to the question whether he wants to get nothing done the last two years. Rose how could he not want to. I mean well, part of the one of the riddles of the presidency also is the president is liberal as harry reid and nancy pelosi. No. He is probably not. And yet hes allowed both of them to dictate some of the decisions that get made when democrats are strategizing about how to deal with the republicans in kochblingt i think that the president , john said you know its up to the republicans in the first instance. I think its up to the president to reach out to them. Does he call mckonl and boehner tomorrow or wednesday and say. Rose you think that would be the smart thing. But more than a pro forma call. Does he call them and say lets really figure out. Lame duck session. Lets get going. Here is the problem which i think people underestimate when they try to game this out. Anything of any significant is going to take until oingt or october or november to get to a conference committee. Two months away from the Iowa Caucuses at that point. Are republicans really going to on the press i business of picking their next president ial nominee are they going to make a deal that will rep barack obama and the Democratic Party. But that is kind of the point i am making. Whether or not obama makes the phone call, the question then, it would be great if he did but the question is whether there is followthrough. Republicans have to pass the laws or not and the question is whether they want to do it in the political context of 2016 coming up. I have significant doubts about that myself. With all due respect, the television program, we have bloomberg on every night at 5 30, we broadcast at 8 00. 5 eastern, 8 western, what is it about. Its about politics being important, nonpartisan, fun, interesting. And conversational. Do people care about politics in deals, january, february . Or do they only care about politics during election. It is the only lead 24 7 yearround. Is that right . Yeah. Politics in this country has lots of rabid followers but its also, our democracy fosters great participation. People are interested in the personalities, the narrative of the story but also the issues. And its one of the many things were doing Bloomberg Politics. But there is a web site and in the president ial cycle will you see more from us, all part of that same brand of try and tell the Great Stories of our time, inform voters and engage people. You have time to write this book you write if you are doing all this tv . Stay tuned, well see. Thats a big job. I dont know. There are people who host three television shows. Who still manage to do all kinds of really great things. How do you see your complementary talents. Dow simply have the same talent and just, you know, by combining them its 2 plus 2 equals 5, or do you complement each other . John . I like to think we have set off when the current course of writing these books that you mentioned, that we see politics off then a very similar ways. And we are neither one of us is a partisan. And we talk about the show, are the show is not partisan. We recognize politics is partisan but were not. Rose other than engaging the american. Were focused so those, but were very animated by storytelling and by stories and about the kind of high human drama politics and the humor and the fact that politics can connect n a broad sense of what politics ask. Politics the way most people live it is not just about what happens in washington, right so all of those things we share in common. On any given day we have Different Things that lead our fire and we obviously have different personalities. But we think really . We have different personalities but i think the core mission of what we try to do is we have a lot of commonality about what we think is important. You know, the best critics are best critics of any food, everything else, are people who love t best movie critics, people who love it best political analysts are people who love the game. Im glad are you there, it means i simply watch you for 30 minutes a day and i need to do nothing else. Thats all i have. Just keep me up to date. How about that. We suggest you find time for a nice meal and a nice cocktail. But other than that, you are good. I normally do. We are the basic sustenance of life. Back in a moment. Stay with us. Steve case is here, the c. E. O. Of a venture capitol firm called revolution, as the founder and c. E. O. Of aol, he lead the companys mailed failed merger of time warner in 2000. He has been known for his advocacy of entrepreneurship. In 2011 he was appointed president Obama Council of jobs and competitiveness, a driving force behind the White House Initiative start up america it is a Public Private partnership aimed at promoting entrepreneurship. I am pleased to have him back at this table. Welcome. Great to be back. Good to see you. If somebody says to you, what is it you do, mr. Case. What dow say . Well, the main thing i do, as you mentioned, we invest in people and ideas that can change the world. Thats the main event. But the broader theme is i want to do what i can do. How i can contribute. Try to make sure we remain the most innovative entrepreneurial nation in the world. I dont think its a guarantee. 250 years ago america itself was a startup, just an idea. Now its the leader of the world because it has the leading economy and we need to make sure we are investing in entrepreneurs all across the country. And celebrating the work of startups because they really are the innovaters it that are going to create the product services, create the jobs that drive our economy. And youre here to say its not just in Silicon Valley, its all over the country. Absolutely. Silicon valley is awesome. I think it will continue to be awesome. Sort of the pride of america, the envy of the world and theres a lot to celebrate about it. I actually think there is too much focus on what is happen until Silicon Valley or here in new york city or boston, a few places and not enough focus on what is happening all around the country. There is great cities doing great, great things, Building Great Companies all over the country. But theres a disconnect because this year were 76 of Venture Capital is going to three states. California, new york and massachusetts. Yet 76 of the fortune 500 companies are in the other 47 states. And so the economy spread all over the country but the investment capitol ask only focused on a few places. If you ask them why Silicon Valley, they would says thats where Venture Capital is, a. But also thats where you have the most cross fertilization of ideas. Thats the primary reason. Thats true. And that will continue to be the case. Whats changing though is it is now easier and cheaper to Start Companies. Are you able to outsource more to Amazon Web Services or others so you dont have to hire as taken people, build as much infrastructure. And as a result, people can now Start Companies anywhere. And some new legislation including the jobs act that passed a couple of years ago legalized crowd funding. Now you can raise capitol for the internet and that is leveling the Playing Field and people have more of a decision about where they want to start their company as opposed to figuring they have to be somewhere. By the way, if you look at the history of america, 50, 60 years ago, detroit was Silicon Valley. It was the hottest technology time, a hundred years ago, pittsburgh was Silicon Valley because it was the steel capitol, powering the industrial revolution. So these things kind of ebb and flow as a nation. We shouldnt have all of our eggs in the Silicon Valley basket or new york city basket. We should have it more broadly spread so we are creating jobs and growth and opportunity all a close the country, not just in a few places. So what is the risk of america losing its innovative, creative, entrepreneurial lead. I think there is a risk. Im optimistic. I think we have a lead and i any we can continue to maintain that lead. But not if we dont recognize that were seeing essentially the globalization of entrepreneurship. 50 years ago we saw the globalization of manufacturing and some of the implications there. 25 years ago we saw the globalization of capitol markets. Now the globallization of preb entrepreneurship. And other countries all around the world have kind of figured out that the secret sauce that has powered this american story is startups. Entrepreneurs, innovation and theyre trying to change their policies around investing in research or investment incentives or immigration policy to attract talent. All kinds can of things to basically say we want those companies here. We want those jobs here so if we get complacent, then we will lose that lead. And we need to figure out a way to support entrepreneurship all across the country and not just affect entrepreneurship, by the way, some of the most successful startups in the last 10, 20 years are Companies Like chipotle, underarmour. Cochobai yogurt, so there are Different Companies that have been building all across the country and thats part of the message of the rise of the rest. But we also need to do a better job of getting the folks in washington to Work Together in more of a bipartisan way to make sure we have policies that enable uls to remain the most innovative nation. Its not just about investors, not just about entrepreneurs, although that is obviously a lot of focus. We also need to make sure that we do, you mentioned china, the direction was how to become a startup nation. Our directive needs to be to retake our lead as a startup nation nay global world that rex the power that startups have in creating jobs and driving growth. Exhibit 1 f you look at gridlock in washington, in terms of infrastructure and a whole range of other pry priority items, science, research, all of those kinds of things are being caught up in the gridlock and sequestration and all of that. And thats a problem so i think if we only invested from a venture standpoint in a few places like Silicon Valley we will miss our opportunity to lead. But also we dont figure out some way to come together and some sensible bipartisan way to get more of these things done. And make sure we have the right regulatory climate. Make sure we have the right investment. Do we have the right regulatory climate . No, it varies by industry but we have to figure out a way to expedite getting products into the market swrechlt to create more incentives for risky startup investment capitol around things like capitol gains. Mostly we need to make sure we win what is now a global battle around talent by having a sensible immigration system. What is our Corporate Tax rate compared to other countries . Its higher. Highgrowth companies. Highgrowth companies are different. There are some there are some incentives around some Startup Investing and actually a few years ago when there was an economic recovery bill that passed congress there were strong incentives around investing in congress, that has passed and we need to make sure the right incentives are there. Not all investments should be treated the same way. Its not just a shortterm longterm capitol gain, its also more investing. The reason its so important is the data is pretty compelling that the startups, these young highgrowth Companies Account for really all the net job creation. The Kaufman Foundation sayless the last three decades, 40 million jobs from startups. You want to get the job growth thing moving. Place the focus, startup, get the Economic Growth moving. Most startups are Small Businesses tap. And its always been argued that more jobs are created by Small Businesses than large businesses. Theres three sectors of the economy there is the small business, main street, restaurants, very important, account for a lot of jobs. The large businesses, fortune 500 companies, obviously theyre important as well. The real leverage in terms of Economic Growth and job creation is these young high growth companies. Not just tech companies, any kind of companies that are really focus on innovation and driving growth. This is from the Financial Times today. Speaking of taxes, i want to use this, steve balmer who was just here, stands to gain as much as 1 billion in tax benefits as a result of his 2 billion purchase of the clippers basketball team, helping to explain item microsoft billionaire paid a record price for the club do. We use tax incentives well . I think everybody would agree that the tax system is antiquated and needs to be fixed. You need to maybe start with a clean sheet of paper is overly optimistic. But we need to figure out some way to get some rationality to it it is true of other aspects of government. People complain about more centralized power in the white house, the creation of czar, things like that. But the reality is we have a very distributed government. And any attempts to try to unify functions under certain people is usually resisted by congress. Then they complain about more Central Power in the white house. And its been true for decades. Its not a republican or democrat thing. We need to take a fresh look at how to organize government and how to get things done so that we can have the policies that enable us to have a Strong Economy and continue to be the most nation. I thought you were the person they were listening to in washington. That is what i thought this is from Bloomberg Business week. They call you d. C. s favorite businessman, quote. How case pulled this off, how he went from corporate punching bag to Tech Industry role model and washington wiseman is partly about americas inner capacity to forgive entrepreneurs. Its partly a remind their billionaires write their own rules but mostly its about cases refusal to internalize much if any fall for what went wrong agree with all of that, disagree. I agree with some of it. I have spent a lot of time. I lived now in washington for 30 years so i have tried to establish kind of a not even bipartisan but a nonpartisan position. But you have to come, steve, i have known you for a long time. You have become in a sense a recognizable business force. Not lobbying, per se, for a product as many are. But basically someone who the president wants to consult with. I mean you are a player down there. How did that happen . I think over a few decades. I was involved in the 1990s. The internet was coming of age. Working with president clinton on issues around internet policy. Making it safe. And trying to do it in a bipartisan way. And work with president bush on some things, more recently president obama. I have seen the senate and house change hands a bunch of times. So ive seen the rhythms of how washington works. And i think there is reason to be optimistic. Occasionally there is soming pro rechlts i mentioned the jobs act jumpstarting our business startups act that basically passed the house and senate a couple years ago with a strong bipartisan vote. That really did make it easier for entrepreneurs to get access to capitol whether through crowd funding or the ipo markets so Young Company kos go public that was done in a bipartisan way so it can get done, we just need to focus our attention on other issues and my hope is other entrepreneurs, i happen to live in washington. I have been there for a long time, i understand that. But would come to washington not just asking for something specific for their company or their industry, but trying to be a positive force while moving the country forward. Getting people, coming to washington with that broader public purpose, i think, could help move the needle. And getting people, we have seen politics kind of move to the edges on both on the left and right but we need to rebuild sort of a sensible center. We need to get people talking to each other again and compromise which sometimes is criticized because are you kind of giving up your valley. Compromise is fundamental to a functioning democracy and we feed to get back to finding, knitting together a coalition to get stuff done to move the country forward. Obviously the most important area i think relates to the economy, relates to jobs which therefore ties in with my passion around making sure we pass policies to support entrepreneurs, while also getting on the road, traveling around the country and trying to build up these regions around the country. Do you think its going to be easier if we have a Republican Senate and house. Hard to say. Well see what happens after the election. I think right now things are not moving too quickly on some of these issues. Immigration there was a lot of progress last year. The senate did pass a by part san bill, a comprehensive solution. It did kind of get stopped in the house it didnt ever really come to the floor for a vote. So hopefully, and people immediately started planning for this election cycle, hopefully after this election happens, people will get back to governing and not just shift their focus to the 2016 president ial election. The issues were dealing with, theres an urgency to them. We really need to make sure we take action now to make sure this country can, in fact, remain the leader with the most innovative entrepreneurs. Other countries have figured this out. And we cant get complacent. What is the best example of other countries have figured this out. Israel has done a lot of things. Sing more singapore has done a lot of things, yand is becoming very entrepreneurial. We are seeing a lot of people boomer range effect that people maybe came to the yoonlted states for an education, worked here for a while. Some company now going back to india. And in that way. Some of it because of immigration policy. Exactly. One company went public, started in cambridge, massachusetts. They wanted to stay but they were kicked out and that company which has created hundreds of jobs directly, probably thousands of jobs indirectly, this is crazy. If we want to remain the most innovative nation we have to make sure that entrepreneurs have the resources they need. Nothing is more important than talent. You know why you do it, you have good education. So that people want to come there and want to live there and work there. You know. And you have a relationship between public and private that searches both. I agree with you. But this last few months i did a bus touferment went to nine cities, detroit, pittsburgh, cincinnati, nashville and started up again in madison. Minneapolis, des moines, kansas city, st. Louis. Nine great cities. What you are seeing is a boomer age, people grew up or went to school in those cities. Great universities in the cities who for a while thought they had to be in california or new york. Now they are, so there is a beginning of talent moving back, and its capital starts following that talent and great ideas are formed there. Will you see enormous momentum there are hundreds of Great Companies around this country. So i welcome more investors focusing on what is happening here. Pure venture capitol. You give capitol and they give you a piece of the business. We think differently. We partner with them. We also try to roll up our sleeves an help build the company. We dont we are not actually, dont view ourselves as investors. We view ourselves as Company Builders partnering with entrepreneurs particularly in the rise of the west regions. So what dow bring to its table, your experience or do you bring a whole range of individuals who are there that say well help with you Human Resources w financial planning. Well help anyway they can but were really trying to help them take what is now a big idea, but a small company. An grow it. And turn it into a big company. One of the key things i think this next wave, the third wave of the internet will be about is Strategic Partnerships. The first wave, obviously played a role with aol but there are many other companies, sysco and others is building the internet. Happened from soft 85 to 2000. The second wave, the last 15 years has really been building on top of the internet, apps, product services, twitter. So the third wave is really integrating the internet in ef row day life, using education and health care and transportation, re are you not going to be able to did those in a significant scaleable way without Strategic Partnerships. There is an african proverb that sort of talk to us. If you want to go quickly, you can go alone. If you want to go far, you must go together this third wave is going to be about Strategic Partnerships. One of the things is who would the Strategic Partners be that could change us. The other aspect of this ties in with government, is i think policy and engaging with governments will be much more important in this third wave. I dont think you will reinvent food or agriculture or health care, education works having a discussion with a government where the government is going to be a regulator. And in many cases Like Health Care and education, the government actually is the largest customer so it requires engaging with government. So the second way which was about product and people and passion, things like that, will continue. But the third way will add things like partnerships. Add things like policy. And frarjly also Something Like perseverance because the big ideas in the third wave will take long tore develop. Just as Companies Like aol and the first wave took a decade before we really got traction it was hard work for a long period of time. The second wave is more of a hits business. The third is perseverance, i think entrepreneurs are going to have to understand the rules are changing ins this next wave. Rose you see any possibilities of a bubble . I think there are some sectors and places that are a little posty. I think that is beginning to get selfcorrected. It goes back to my hypothesis, my thesis, my passion on the rise of the rest. Nobody is talking about a bubble for startups in some of the places we visited on this rise of the rest tour this redesperate for capital whether at the venture stage or growth stage. Valuations are more moderate than if those same companies were in palo alto or manhattan or cambridge. There is some people including economists and financial wall street types who say we have a new normal the head of the imf talked about a new mediocre looking at global growth. Do you have any sense of that i think that say little fatallistic. I think we should play offense, not defense. And we have to make sure we are attackers, not defenders and that makes sure making sure we are innovative and have policies that support entrepreneurship. I think there will be rise and fall, next wave. This country is wellpositioned to continue to lead the way. We lead the way in the agricultural revolution. We lead the way in the industrial revolution. We lead the way in this digital revolution. I think there is the potential to lead the wave in the next revolution but only if we recognize the central roles. What dow call the next revolution. I think it will be a mix of things. Really transforming important aspects of our lives like how we learn what we eat, how we get along, get around, using technology, particularly the internet but it increasingly seamless ways. I always thought the internet really will have come of age when its invisible. When its no longer email, just mail. When it is something built in to different products. And were beginning to see this with sensors. Rose we are also beginning to see there is talk about email and google is talking about how email is going to change that kind of thing. Dow text or email more. I email more. My kids text more. But this is not a surprise. Even when we started aol almost 30 years ago, the doer of what we were doing was communication functions, always accounted for more than half of our use, email, instant messaging, chatroomsing things like that. It is the sole soul of the medium. People like to talk to each other. And thats been the story for the last 30 years. Instead of calling it community as we did t is called social media. But the power of interacting with people and creating new ways for people to connect, is always going to be a core part of this five things would you like for the country to attack after midterm electionses would be immigration and what else. I think immigration number one so we can inwith the global battle of talent. The number two would be continue the work of the jobs act, legalize crowd funding. They havent written the rules, third would be regulatory policy. It is true in general. But particularly true in certain sectors. Health care, for example, how do you make sure things can come to market quickly. As they do overseas. So those would probably be my top three. Number four, if i added one would be how do we all as a nation celebrate our entrepreneurs. And this seems obvious here in new york or obvious in Silicon Valley but travel around the country. Entrepreneurship is risky and there are many communities that are cautious and ris ago verse and dont really celebrate entrepreneurs and dont really rick that the risk taking is core to building and rebuilding cities in our country. The thing i would add to that, i agree with all of that but i would add investment in science. On the part of nih and the rest of them because you know, science is the catalyst for change. And education, particularly k12. How do you shift it so it is more about encouraging creativity, innovation. Kids when they start kinlder gartain are pretty creative. By the time they graduate we taught them to paint by numbers, stay within the lines that is not the skill set we need. Thank you again. Thank you. Steve case, thank you for joining us. See you next time. For more about this program and earlier episodes visit us online at pbs. Org and charlie rose. Com captioning sponsored by Rose Communications captioned by Media Access Group at wgbh access. Wgbh. Org hi. Im rick steves. Today were heading off on a very special adventure, traveling to three of the most exciting cities in europe florence, rome, and venice. Italys my favorite country. These are my favorite italian cities, and youre about to see why. Ill be with you during each intermission sharing special tips on traveling smartly as together we celebrate the value of public broadcasting right here in our communities. If youve got any friends bitten by that travel bug, give them a call or text them right now, because weve got a wonderful itinerary planned for you. In the next two hours, well share not only the marquee attractions of these great cities, but well get to know the back lanes, the edible delights, and the locals, so proud of their heritage. Now raise your travel dreams to their upright and locked positions, because together, were heading for italys cities of dreams. Our first stop florence birthplace of the renaissance