>> the fact that there were people shorting the mortgage market would've sent signal that everybody says wow, there's hope the smart investors who think this thing is going to crash and burn. at the market was opaque enough to you couldn't see that the way that you can see it in the stock market. and because the way these instruments work, they were basically not betting on real mortgages, but rather on the casino version of the mortgage. >> republicans had a net gain of five governorships in the elections and now hold the majority of the state houses. next, a form on the election with officials from the republican and democratic governors associations. the lobbying and political strategy firm, dutko worldwide hosted this hour-long discussion. >> so, good morning everyone and thanks very, very much for coming. i appreciate it on veterans day. i guess let's all remember that it's veterans day. made my commute fantastic this morning. easy rows. thanks very much all of you for coming. it's great to see you here. obviously, illustrative of what we're talking about. pretty fascinating collection. i am craig pattee. i know some of you. i run the state and local part is, dutko worldwide and i'm particularly passionate. i don't know if that's the right word were talking about government and politics, the passionate about state and local work in a particular governors. i'm guessing you are too or you wouldn't be here right now unless somebody told you you had to be. but hopefully that's not the case. it's been so interesting the past six months has been the site of governors races i got started in 1993 when i got kicked out of the bush white house and feels very similar to the way it felt for the past six months. not necessarily a democratic or republican thing, but just a resurgence in the power of governors vis-à-vis you not only in the states, but also here in d.c. and again, if you're here, chances are that your bread and butter. that's what you'll do. for all very interested in the role that governors play in the states play in terms of impacting federal policy and national policy and the implementation of the policy. and for me, what was really interesting in this election was you had some of the individual races which will talk about in a minute and yes, some of the broader political trends. what does this mean about obama's administration pluck, pluck, pluck. to me the most interesting thing is this resurgence in federalism. the past five to 10 years, governors have been playing third string, but they are definitely back. we have a really active crop of new governors that are going to be very good, both for the national governors association as well as the rga in the tga and on their own. and we have a whole slew of federal policy that are coming back up again, whether it be rother it be rasterization, no child left behind for transportation funding. you know, exactly how health care reform. that all shakes down to the states now. so it's a very exciting time to see a large group of governors coming in. it will be interesting to see how the new speaker approaches and handles his relationship with governors. i think governors have felt way on the back bench, regardless of what you think about nancy pelosi. even for the next 10 years. what was so great about 1994 is not a speaker and a president and a senate majority leader at that time, bob dole, running for president, all paying attention to governors and that's what he saw such a great partnership. so i'm really excited about it. so the purpose of today is to talk to those governors races in sort of what happened and why. we've got sort of two discussions. remaking the shorter the way down in the past because everybody has got worn out last year. the first panel for going to be talking about the races themselves. and we're very lucky to have the senior folks for the rga here to talk goes through. and i were going to do some q&a and, probably take a quick five minute i opaque and then chris cillizza will be here later this morning starting at 10:30 to look at some of the political and media aspects of the races. and will be done by 12:00, i promise. i had some other notes, but they're kind of moot now. there is the sole state and legislative aspect to it as well, which maybe we will talk about another day. there were 16 states that had control within the state legislators. i'm not a lot, especially going into a redistricting year. but there's a whole another conversation to have about that. in any case, let me turn it over to the first panel and get it started. we really enjoyed doing this with the rga and vga. most of you are probably involved in the rga and you probably know that they are two of the most effective organizations in the country and certainly in washington d.c. both in terms of providing opportunities to interact with governors and staff, but providing real funny to those governors and staff as well, going well beyond the dollars they raise for the races. the reason that certain nations are so effective is because they very well run. make eric and nathan daschle run for organizations and they would love to get together. nick had to hop on a plane to go out and get ready for the upcoming rga conference, which i'm sure we'll see many of you. phil cox, political director with the rga, who is here to talk about the races. horse nathan daschle from the democratic governors association. and we've asked josh kraushaar to come and moderate the panel. josh is a former reporter for politico and now a columnist with national journal.com called against the grain and executive editor of the hot lane. i'd like to turn it over to these folks and the format really is up to the three of you. josh, i guess it's mostly up to you, but you can let it be organic and you know, let's have a half-hour 40 minute discussion and then i would love it if you could help stimulate some q&a from folks, sort of see where it goes. thanks. >> thank you, craig for the introduction and i'm very excited to be here talking about the governors races in the statewide landscape, especially now that it's a week out of the holidaycome about from time to to digest the results and get some sleep and the partisan bickering and look towards the governing aspect. and to do that i'm really pleased to be joined by two of the sharpest operatives in washington who i've known for quite a while. [inaudible] [laughter] >> nathan daschle, chairman of the democratic governors association -- [inaudible] and republican governors association political dirt, phil who has been here. they've been as many of you know as they connect to director that manages all the dga policy, finance, political efforts, you name it and under name his leadership at dga has played a pivotal role in helping the democratic gubernatorial candidates across the country and the dga really has become a force in national democratic politics especially over these last few years. so, before joining the rga service as a campaign richard burr current virginia governor donald andy engineered one of the gubernatorial victories of the election cycle. and he's been the campaign manager and consultant to over all the way down to the state legislator and also served as mcdonnell transition direct care. one of the reasons i'm very excited about moderating this panel is nathan and fell for together aggressively on the political battlefield, but this is true for the rga and dga as far as all the political committees that get along with each other outside the office. i've been a part of many panels and it's not always the case. sometimes you have to really play moderator and kind of separate two sides. a very partisan operation at times. i'm impressed with both the work of nathan and nick they can play aggressively in the political battlefield and get together for drinks and work together and there's not a lot of acrimony, so that's a real testimony to the work these guys do. you know, there's a couple big teams but the governors get lost at times but the senate race of the national attention, but the governors races are among the most important and consequential concepts that we saw this november. and i think will have the most lasting impact on the political scheme in the last few years. and the republicans picked up the key presidential backgrounds with pennsylvania, ohio, florida, you know, vis-à-vis the races where the presidential race in 2012 and then i'll have an interesting impact on how these play out over the next few years. president obama is preparing for his fall election. there's a lot of very, very top democrat and they're going to have to figure out how to move forward in this day. so i went to kind of delve into how the governors races, how they are affected and affect the presidential races in two years. another big theme that came out of the governors races redistricting. try not, is not necessarily the most thing when it comes to politics, but when you look at the house race map and the state legislative races for years and years to come, these are one of the most consequential governors races because the governor can do the bold work. if you have a democratic governor in a state with republican legislature, they can make it much for a bipartisan effort and vice versa. a lot of these big states, a lot of states where we seem governors and parties which is, they are going to be a lot of lasting impact and i want to go into that as well. there's also a lot of a lot of proven others, fresh faces, 24, 25, couple dozen. you've got folks that haven't been around before with familiar faces like california judge jerry brown and morgan john kitzhaber and a genuine tea party governor paulo page. you've got a guy who was around washington d.c. in congress they ran for president in 2005. there's a lot of colorful characters and i want to go into some of the more interesting storylines also from 2010. but first i want to take a really big picture look of the night on election night. and kind of close to similar questions. governors gained five governorships you win some, like son. he said five saves will do better than a lot of the expectations for democrats heading into election. so i want to -- nathan, are you satisfied and how do you think it does for the upcoming governor's races? >> well, thanks. first let me thank dutko for this. they also want to thank all of you for coming. as craig said, normally they give this world races and i used to seem some people interested in governors races. when i want and i assumed i was in the wrong room and almost turned around while checkout. it's great to see so many people here because it's just sad, the governors races that have already taken place are going to be the most significant in our political landscape for the next decades comes to talking about what they mean is very important and very useful. and also, i want to say to josh's point, to committees have a long history of mutual respect and sincere. and i do respect a great deal of work the rga did over the past cycle. at a phenomenal cycle and you saw the statistics come the money they raised. fill himself ran probably the best campaign of the two years. so really it is an honor to have both of them. they'll talk about the question at hand. the question just asked as i was satisfied with that gain on the republican side of five governorships. the answer to that is yes. we've spent much of this year bracing for much greater republican views. opponents predicted we were going to get annihilated. people were saying that his eight, nine, 10. there was one statistic that within my head every single night went to sleep, which was that according to the university of minnesota, smart politics bob almond democrats were poised than at any point in 90 years. site by then i had at that, going to spend this? [laughter] maybe i can tell people we had a record-breaking year at dga. fortunately -- [laughter] fortunately, we did not have that outcome. i think phil will admit this point, has said publicly they were expecting it to be in the 30's when all was said and done. we kept them 25. the reason that's a victory for us is we enter the worst political environment since 1994. we were up to spend, outmanned, outgunned by the two to five -- 2.5 to one ratio by the rj -- rga. historical average was 5.5 governorships. the fact this environment we were so that we could keep them to honor historic average, i think is a victory for us. and so, we ended up feeling very good about the fact that we're still in the 20th. but in the twenties i mean 20. [laughter] it sounds better if you say in twenties. and you know, we were able to flip side states from republican leadership to democratic leadership. the reason i think that is significant is the only place in the country were democrats made significant inroads in changing seas from republican to democrat on the state level and will probably get into whether that's true. but being able to flip side states the republican leadership to democratic leadership in this climate not only as a victory in itself, that says something that i think is still a lecture at worth it to democratic electorate. it is looking for commonsense leadership and still wants change and right now when i said the last election as things in a different government. before the election you talked about the big four states, california, new york, texas. all four of them. how disappointed, excited? >> everyone knows that as vermont and hawaii go -- [inaudible] [laughter] no, we clearly wanted to win florida. we've spent $6 million in florida. does a very, very important race to us. we came within 50,000 votes. think we did everything we could peer the climate and environment just wasn't right then. that one was less of a surprise because ted stroup had been chilling in the polls for the entire year. he did come up strong at the end, but wasn't enough to win. so obviously i'm disappointed in both of those, but those losses would've made it a whole lot worse had we not then better in new england states are not putting out one important states like minnesota and oregon and of course california as well. thought to ask another corollary to that question. look in all the exit polls, all the surveys before the election. i mean, this is looking like a republican white house. he got every key demographic, republicans for the first time, women in the exit polls, white voters like 20, 25 points. this is one of the most lopsided elections in quite some time. the fact that you didn't quite win some of the big states, california, the 30 seats -- haley barbour set 30 seats. was that disappointing or we are expecting some of the candidates not been strong and get that historic number? >> before i avoid answering your question, let me thank the folks at dutko. so many of you been so helpful to us over many, many years, especially the western virginia and the cycle, so appreciate you having us. nathan, congratulations on completing your cycle as executive director. i can tell those of you to watch that stuff in d.c. beating the same committee is tremendously difficult challenging thing to do. it just doesn't happen these days and you conduct yourself if i had a great professionalism for actually five and a half years. we look forward to many good things to come. i couldn't be more excited with the results of the election. i mean, we set out at rga really to have an impact on the key presidential battleground states. going into the election, we held two of 10 key battleground states, walking out was that nine of 10. we invested over $50 million in those races. we were able to raise over 100 million -- than of $100 million this year as nathan mentioned. so i think the story for us is really looking at those presidential battleground state, looking particularly at the midwest, you know, you look at wisconsin, michigan, ohio, pennsylvania. you know, these are states that world democratic-controlled states, democratic governors with key presidential battleground states in 2012. and you know, they'll now have republican governors since many good candidates. we talk about some of our governor? , folks like scott walker, rick snyder and tom corbett. i think we've got some really exciting people, john k-6 who has got more energy than my 4-year-old niece. it's a lot of fun to watch, john, go to work. so look, i think getting the neck in a five, sometimes we'll give it a six because of florida, nathan. and 29 is great. and i think we need to take a step back. this was a truly historic election cycle. and even what degree i think that governors races really to drive a lot of what happens down ticket. and the fact we were able to deploy $100 million for students taking spend $14 million for example in new england i think helped her candidates throughout down ticket. and we picked up by the levites of 13 right now stands at 13 congressional seats in new england. we made gains on the congressional side and picked up almost 20 seats in the midwest. so you know, we suffered rue himelfarb 610 to eight and i had to sit on the postelection and they work fine. you look at it and you know for a lot of times the national pundits are saying the republican parties is now a regional party. you know, the south and the midwest. well, i think democrats really have that problem now. but got some bastions of support on the coast and in new england, but they've got a real problem in the midwest and we made gains in places that i think that they just weren't expecting. craig had mentioned something that's critically important, which is state legislative races in the state houses. there were 19 state houses that slipped from democrat to republican. nineteen. talk about an impact on the districting. in 680 seats that went, state legislative seats to at least a minimum of 680 that republicans gained across the country. i think that's going to have a lasting impact over the next decade. so you know, look, we're very pleased with where we are. i can remember growing up playing hockey new england that we were losing the other team scoreboard. and you know, that's 29 races is something that we're very pleased with and particularly where they are think is going to have a huge impact on redistricting and also 2012 in the presidential cycle. >> i want to talk about some of the names of some of the people that were elected governorships, that the concept that pass for the presidency, the current president excluded, but most of them come from governorships and we're already seeing it in new jersey chris christie being mentioned and touted as a possible 2012 competitor in 2016. but you're going to be seeing a lot of these first-time governors being mentioned as national contenders for the presidential in 2012 and beyond. i want to go to both nathan and phil. who are the rising stars in this freshman class of governors? >> the rising stars would have to be some fresh faces, jerry brown -- [laughter] neil abercrombie -- [laughter] i would say i think that john hickenlooper from colorado will be a star right off the bat. he is a really interesting person. he breaks the political mold. he's socially liberal, fiscally conservative for most of america is quite frankly. he want any part of the country that democrats have not traditionally done well in. in the last decade from really started to taper off. and most importantly, he's an interesting and fun person to be around. he's real. like so many governors, he's a real person and it's got interesting ideas. what is funny about him is that he ran an ad that showed him on a horse. and it was kind of a parody ad saying if you run for governor of colorado, all your consultants tell you that you have to be right in a horse. and he's the mayor of denver. he's not a cowboy. funny thing about yet is the total six months ago, you know, i'm thinking about this at. and it's me in a horse. and you know, he basically drawn up the whole thing himself. but that's the kind of guy he is. he's very creative. [inaudible] >> that's a retake of the one he did in my own race. the shower ad is excellent for those of you who haven't seen it. but i would say -- [inaudible] >> that may have been one of the most memorable ads, john hickenlooper, not exactly the most charismatic candidate, but these into that and he puts on his hidden jumps jumps in the shower. >> was at a pivotal point of getting his identity out there? >> yeah, it was. the key point is he was fully clothed. >> alice's first ad in this race. and you know, i think it was an important ad because it wasn't negative. it was funny i don't want to do a negative vibe vibe. i want a positive campaign. he identified himself as somewhat optimistic. i think about how bad voters still respond better to optimism. not the campaign tactic, negative works. but if you can find a way to have an optimistic message, voters will respond to a better and that's why i think hickenlooper was able to set himself apart soberly on this race. i would say dan lloyd, connecticut will be a rising star. and of course andrew cuomo, everyone knows who he is. he's got a great resume. i can't speak to this, but doherty has been taken on some bigger roles. i agree with your premise but on both sides that will be about his leadership coming out of this. i want to quickly follow up on colorado because of such a key battleground state. immigration is a major issue that democrats were very successful in many cases i think. how do you look at that as kind of a bulwark for democrats starting in 2012. >> yeah, that's very, very competitive territory. no party has ownership of that part of the country. we've proven we can win there. we still have the governor in montana. we do have a governor of colorado. we had a governor in new mexico and arizona in recent years. we can win in that part of the country. it obviously takes a certain brand of democratic leadership that i think still exists in person or party, but yeah, that's an important part of the country. i think president obama can win that in 2012. and i think having people like john hickenlooper, brian schweitzer will make that happen. >> great question and i could probably talk and answer the question. we have so many new governors first of all. governor donnell was talking this week. he said not one of the senior governors, which is kind of crazy to think about. this was really an historic election for the rga. when you look at the fact we elect the first woman hispanic governor of state and susanna martinez, india american woman and mickey hayley, for women governors, hispanic and brains sandoval in a key state like nevada, really important election for us, for our party going forward well into the future. i think we're going to have a lot of emerging stars. i look at our current crop of folks that haven't been inaugurated yet and eight think obviously about governor barbour as someone who is a possible candidate for president in 2012. he's been not only an exceptional governor and the state of mississippi, but he's got a great strategic mind and i think you'd be obviously a powerful force in any republican nomination for president. you know, you got folks like governor general who has done an incredible job, especially in the wake of the cold spell, oil spill in the louisiana. he's got folks like chris christie and bob donnell who have had just incredibly good first years, you know, balancing budgets by cutting spending, not raising taxes. chris christie has taken on the unions and is really turn this state around a new jersey. so i think we've got a lot of potential candidates. i think most of the candidates for 12 already out there. you got governor fulani, governor barbour wang, former governor romney running. but i think you're going to have a number of potential vice presidential that will be interesting on our side. you're going to look at a susanna martinez or a brains sandoval because they're both from swing states. they both have great stories to tell and i think the list is long. i mean, we could probably go on and on, but it's great. i think the other thing that's interesting is for rga at least, this incoming group of governors is pretty tight knit. they talk to one another a lot. so you're going to see a high degree, i think, of policy cross-pollination. and i'll governors across the country are doing with the same set of issues right now, which is how do you balance budgets and a terrible economy? and you know, they're looking at folks like jindall and barbour and mcdonnell and fulani who have done these things over the years. and also i should mention rick perry who by the way we were doing the back of the envelope sort of assessment of governor perry. he said $285 million in negative advertising spent against him over the course of his career. 285 billion was in incredible amount. the state that dga thought they had a shot at and invested some money in. >> had i known that 285 number, would probably would have not -- [laughter] >> you know, governor. it's been an incredible leader in taxes and somebody who's going to be very prominent i think on the national scene as well going forward. >> phil, i'm struck that you mentioned a lot of these up and comers in the gubernatorial class, but surely talking -- i remember governor's class where we were already about potential candidates on a presidential ticket. you really think after being in office for two, three years they could be seriously considered? >> you? >> you look at chris christie and what he's accomplished. look at his national profile. look at some of the things mcdonnell has been able to do. it's have to be in for a year, but i do think that our current crop of presidential candidates are probably -- i think they're all white males. correct me if i'm wrong. i think we're going to be looking for some diversity on the ticket. and i think we've got that and our current crop of governor select. >> do you believe chris christie? >> yeah, i take governor christie's word that i don't think he's going to run. 2016 is another story. >> i was going to say, i think that it's very possible all the candidates he mentions will be possible 2012 candidates were maybe 2016, but sometime in the near future. and the reason i think it is something about makes a governor so compelling, but compelling in this environment. our trust -- are used to users of powerpoint and we talked about how bad the problems are right now and then how will public trust in government is. and that creates a real problem, particularly for folks in d.c. you have to think about washington d.c. because our problems are increasing, but her faith in government to fix them is decreasing. but think what that is created as the faith in government is probably at an all-time low. that's why i think we're getting so many people identified independents, not democrats or republicans. democrats are slightly different breed in the sense they are closer to people, most importantly outside of washington d.c. they think for a lot of people, type of leadership we've seen is more like what you want to get the federal level to the leadership in congress. you know, while many times you think two years as a governor is not enough experience, i guess it doesn't surprise me so many names to be considered just a big governors to have so much more of what is compelling to people right now. >> i mean, you have a lot of governors coming in, a lot of the governors you mention. it's such a budgetary environment and it's not going to be you cannot benefit from spending a lot of money. a lot of cuts will have to be made. to think they can survive politically? ed rendell, one of the most popular governors two years ago when he leaves office with approval ratings in the 30's, low 40's. do you think you can survive the subprime? >> absolutely. and i think they can thrive. and i point again to both make donnell, christie, jindall, barbour, governors would've done it to make deep cuts. you know, one of the things that was certainly the wind was at her back. you know, if you look at some of the issue matrix for the selection, two thirds of the likely voters going into election day, jobs and the economy as the number one issue and spending as the number two issue. and we have, you know, democrats in congress and the president to thank for that, but that was the same issue environment we face it in virginia last year in september and october. bumbling governor's race, but experience in virginia, with the most single out on education and the entire election cycle, which if you had told me that in the governors race i would've said you're drinking too much that day. but you know, the issue was certainly in our favor and voters generically trust the republicans on the economy and on spending. if you look at those governors that have made hard decisions balance budgets by cutting spending, not raising taxes, even, you know, looking at education and health care in areas that traditionally, you know, voters don't like to see us cut, those governors have a lot of support. donald cut $4.2 billion in his first year. he is a $400 million surplus in virginia and he's got a 60% job approval rating. chris christie, same thing. and now, and even worse environment. so i hope and pray and encourage all of our candidates or governor select to really look at what some of these other governors have done and make those cuts, make them now and hopefully the economy will come around in the next couple of years and mobile to reinvest some key priorities. >> i want to get to audience questions and a little bit, but first i want to do a lightning round of questioning. what were the biggest surprise is? every election you've got some shockers. i was certainly surprised by some of the governors race outcomes. nathan, what was the biggest surprise for you on election night? >> biggest surprise for me probably was illinois. >> you told me he thought it was almost over a few months before. >> yeah, that was between you and me. [laughter] he was trailing for most of the selection, you know. and you know several points behind grady. in fact, julius was out pulling him. and to close that cat back i was just amazing and a real testament to him. we did have one person on our staff who insisted for months that he was going to go this race. he told me were by and large democrats who had made up their minds yet and they would eventually come home for pat quinn and he was right. and as just enough margin. >> is very larger lesson that phil brady ran back very outspoken conservative candidate in illinois in the key to winning a lot of elections is the suburbs. there are lots of these other states in the future and if their campaign strategy that quinn uses? >> well, yeah. i think with that ratio is that there still is when we have a greater tolerance for mainstream there still a breaking point, particularly in states that have been history of electing moderates. in illinois you have a history of electing moderates from the northern part of the state. phil brady is not one of those. i think it shows even though it are greater tolerance for kansas we still have a breaking point. >> do you think illinois was an unpleasant surprise. i think i would agree with nathan that we thought we had a really good shot coming down the stretch the last couple of weeks they are. that's a state where the partnership you see in a lot of cases between the dga and the unions really pay off, whereas we literally had been some reports had 4000 paid workers on the ground in cook county leading up to election day. in cook county i think the turnout was higher in cook county over the senate race. and really i think at the end of the day, that was the story but there is a better turnout observation based on union support. i think the other surprise that was a pleasant prize for me personally was one of the states that i was dealing with everyday was florida. we came through just a bruising nomination contest, where we had over $70 million spent, you know, 95% which is a negative advertisements. and you know, as our nominee, rick scott had a negative image going into the general election until late primary -- and you know, he was upside down. and you know, we sort of thought alex sink had the makings to be a good candidate. didn't turn out that way. i think the skype team ran one of the best campaigns i saw in the country and what is obviously a critically important state. the rga has spent over $98 billion in florida and i know dga was heavily involved. so 50,000 votes will take it. it was, you know, incredibly important to win florida. >> emerged in florida, rick scott tens of billions of dollars of his own fortune in california. make would've been spent 120, 130 -- the same amount of her own money and lost by eight, nine points. it wasn't even close. do you want self-funded candidates or could that deeply backfire? >> i think it doesn't easily backfire, but it can backfire. if i remake with men, men, this is on hindsight. there are smarter than people come by think in hindsight she should've taken a break. she should've let the election cool off of it. after she won the primary emotion eyebright backup on tv the next day. and so, she had nominated the areas for six months and i think she became her own worst enemy because few of us are tired and they built in this narrative she was trying to buy the election rather than earn it. so i think in that case the smarter thing would be to have her beat the budget, take the summer off and let people pull down and started again on labor day with the new brown was going to win. >> brown was somewhat conventional in many ways. the book, i think california is an example. at the stay where we ran a number of these races where we had income that democratic governors who were retiring. doyle is a good example, who are in the 30's were the 40's and job approval rating. you know, rendell in pennsylvania. in this case, you know, we at schwarzenegger who i think his job approval rating was literally in the high teens, low twenties. canosa testing. i think the democrats in brown's campaign did a good job linking. there was one ad for they had the same thing. they did a good job sort of linking to schwarzenegger and that was the killer. i also think, you know, the housekeeper issue, kind of when it came up sort of park to celebrate the middle of the last 60 days of the election. certainly did not help. and we paid the price with the hispanics. i think the overall exit polling showed that we got i think it was 13, 14% hispanics. >> all right. well i wanted to open up the questioning to the audience as i know you all probably have a lot of questions that nathan and so would love to answer. so raise your hand or that they know who wants to ask a question. >> two questions. [inaudible] does having jerry brown and not having the problems or having the problems california is going to have to face, is that a good thing or a bad and for both of you? >> return of the disco era if you will. >> i'm originally from ohio. could you talk more about the downstate because there was a total flip up by think republicans on all of the state races except senator brown in both houses. thank you. >> i think california for all of us in this room, for everybody across the country is a little scary to think about the problems that state is facing from a physical standpoint. i mean, at some point in the next couple years, they are going to be, you know, asking the feds for significant amount of money and questions whether or not we do it. and i think jerry brown's has got a huge, huge challenge on his hands. the people of california have sort of decided we're not going to win races in states where people want higher taxes and, you know, they sort of decided that's what they want. and so, i'm concerned, you know, as a citizen, you know, looking at the economy and the way things are going. look at all the unfunded liabilities in the state of california has. i'm just not sure, you know, how jerry brown's and that legislature is going to dig their way out of the hole. as far as ohio goes, i mean, that was obviously a huge success story for us. we invested heavily in that race, heavily and early. you know, one of the lessons from ohio inmate and i'd be interested to hear what you think about this, literally the last couple weeks, the lessons of that campaign. normally have to deliver 1000 gross rating points to deliver a single message. in a state like ohio it's literally probably 2500 or 3000 statewide because there was so much going on on tv. all the outside groups come in and so it's obviously a national election. we saw that any member states of states across the country. to the early money there mattered. we invested heavily at rga and early voting, and the infrastructure and state party and some of our key states and ohio. that definitely pay dividends down ticket and across the board. and i think that's obviously a key state in 2012 and we're really excited to have john k. fick, you know, who is going to be a great governor, but also somebody who is not going to shy away from building the party infrastructure. i think that's going to be really helpful to her nominee in 2012. >> can anyone hang on for more than one term? >> i think so. i think the story of california is also being told in most other states, probably to a greater deer in california. the fact is most states have to drastically cut their budgets because 49 states have a balanced budget requirement. if you look at the spending fiscal year 2011, overall state spending is 7% less than two dozen eight, which is lester before the recession. all state governments are cutting spending. california has additional problems because there's so hamstrung hamstrung by the referendum requirement. but look, i will quote our chair, governor jack markel of delaware who left in 2008. in a time like this, why do you want to be governor? his response is that the timely is what you need, more than ever, good people to be governor. if you believe in your candidates, which i do, this is the time that you want them in office. it's a whole lot easier quite frankly eight years ago because you have to say yes to everybody. it was easy to be popular but a political capital. times like this on the right deficits knife to cut budgets and go back in july caddick and, it's a lot harder to be popular. now is when you need real leaders. if you believe in your candidates, this is when you want them there. the final thing i would say phil is right. one of the things they learned is that relatively speaking you can make a bigger impact earlier out a new kid before because i don't understand, there's some there's some 520 specimens that spent their entire budget the last week of the elections commotions of waste of money. at that point in time, one can be a competing with airtime, everyone of the universe. and to come if voters elect me and all of you, you're not listening to political ads. you're turning them off. i think the smart thing to do, which i think both dj and rj did effectively with start earlier because you get an earlier when people are paying a little more attention. >> question. >> yeah. >> make sure you get some exercise this morning. >> question for both of you. politics in the united states, particularly looking at geography, the southern region, the south of the democrats. basically got wiped out on election night. democrat operative, republican operative, how do you see that? i've seen enough of this too now i remember when i talked about the republican a lot for president, but there's always resurgence. there's always a way to come back. the kind of looking down the road, you know, how do you deal with that in the coming years? >> well, let me say this. i don't think it's quite as bad as it might look. in the way of elections, you will think it's plus five around the country. so you're already down a couple points. you're not going to win that we fear. so it's very tough to win in the south to share. that doesn't mean in a different year we can win. we already for the country and the way the election on top of that is very tough. consider however alex sink came in with 50,000 votes of winning the largest state in the south. another surprise we didn't mention is jeanne shaheen came very close. roy barnes didn't come quite as close as i thought he would, but held his own and important state. so we did run three competitive races in the south, but in this way of elections where this is the hear from republicans not only have to log down, but they need to in the purple states, too. the purple states have a 50/50 state. this is when you're the party benefiting us to witness with elections. we feel alright we can hold onto some of those purple states and again as we talked before, all of them to some modest gains. i think it was probably too much to ask. i think were going to start making inroads and was traditionally difficult territory. >> states like georgia and texas, you know, these are competitive states. i mean, we think about them now. they're southern state, republican states. texas is going to be a minority, maturity state within the next few years. and no, i think that's probably one of the reasons why dga took a serious look in the battle of texas. georgia is a competitive state. and likely would be in good campaigns and have good candidates. but you can't take a think the same thing on both sides. we came within, heck, if you look at new england, you know, you are chewing connecticut and new hampshire and vermont with the three states who came within 20, 30,000 votes of winning all three of the states. so to me the story is more about kindness, you know, what our suburban annex urban voters across the country? how they act in? what are they responding to? and how are you communicating their? i think that is really a critical, you know, swing area. when i woke up everyone in my usher in virginia thinking about how do in prince william and loudoun county and fairfax county? had you in you win those areas? what issues do you communicate on quite exciting for both parties, you know, we have to caution against thinking yeah, we've got x, y or z in the bag because we have seen things change rapidly. >> any other questions from the audience? >> given the swing towards the republican side, not just in the gubernatorial races, can you speculate about what you think the implications might be for health care, both national policy and actual execution on the ground in the states? >> and were very republican republican governor strike to put sand in the levers of the health care law. it's going to be good at what are the implications? the >> yeah, i don't think so. i think would be more interesting to see what happens in congress now that they've taken over the house. i don't think there's going to be any germanic changes in large part because i think as time goes on, particularly to the benefits of health care become relays, people will come not more accustomed, but more appreciative of what it is the democrats passed. >> how long does it take for the benefits to become realized? >> you know, i think the jury is out on health care. i was a bit. i mean, we've got 29 republican governors that are going to be speaking with a very loud, probably more unified voice that we've heard in a long time. you've got really strong policy leaders like governor barbour and jindall and donnell and others and perry who are taking the lead in trying to sort of unify that group and speak with one voice. and so, you've seen a lot of -- using the governors consulting with speaker boehner and others in congress. i do think they're going to play, you know, a more forceful role. it's interesting on health care as you've got governors that campaign certainly this year against, you know, against a health care plan, either repeal or reform. and so, they have to prepare to implement on one track while, you know, also continuing to fight it on another track. and so, you know, that's a challenge that's going to be interesting to see how that plays out and i'm not sure how it will. >> phil, just to follow up, was health care come without a law in any any of the races? >> absolutely. i think, you know, more importantly, you know, someone described the election to me as more of a restraining order on obama's policies. and, you know, i think taken as a whole, you know, health care was an issue certainly in certain states. cap-and-trade was a big issue that maybe was somewhat underreported, especially in a lot of coal producing areas across the country. it was a big issue in our race flashier in southwest virginia in the rota valley and on down into the ninth district of virginia. but overall, you know, it was the economy and lack of the confidence of the economy. i think the wrong track number going on election day was 67%, which is the highest percentage in the last five years of midterm elections. and then spending. you know, the president's overall approval rating was i think nationally around 43% going into the election were the democrats were able to hold onto governors races, was in those areas for the president's approval rating was five, seven, 10-point, you know, about sort of the national average. >> well, i think were just about out of time, but i wanted to really give a gracious thank you to nathan, phil, dutko, craig for putting the panel together. i think we learned not just a lot about what happened on election night, but what results will mean. i think were in for a pretty entertaining but newsworthy couple of years. >> it's always entertaining. >> yeah, thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> gang, we've got about five minutes here is people need to check their crack very and then were going to start the next panel in about five minutes. it's getting a little warm, so feel free to take a stroll and come right back. thanks. >> one of the newly elected governors is susanna martinez in new mexico. the first hispanic female governor in u.s. history. the 51 euros former district attorney, your public and exceeds democrat bill richardson who was term limited. and the incoming governor of new york is democrat andrew cuomo. most recently he was the state attorney general and in the late 1990's served as housing secretary. he is the son of former governor mariel cuomo. this form on governors races, hosted by the lobbying and political strategy firm, dutko worldwide, also at the "washington post" political reporter and blogger, chris cillizza. this is a little more than a half-hour. [inaudible conversations] [applause] >> thank you, folks. appreciate everybody sticking around here. we're going to shift the topic you're a little bit. obviously we were doing some analysis on the races but the rga and the dga and were not going to focus in on what worked and didn't work. i was kind of fascinated that you could spend 200 million of your own money and not get a leg to it, proving that the candidates and the message really does count. it's not all money. so hopefully the senate got that message as well. i wanted to introduce our next speaker here, chris cillizza. houston is the number of times it does. i was very entertaining. if you want to be really entertaining you should go to youtube, enter chris cillizza base camp bp debate night on youtube and it's kind of disturbing. but very funny. he's appealing to the younger audience there. [inaudible] [laughter] >> seriously, it's very funny. chris runs a weblog called the fix for the "washington post." i'm sure many of you have seen it. if you haven't, you need to. and during the campaign season he runs a commentary called the friday light which is looking at the top 10 races at least according to hand and what's interesting about them and why. so you've been deeply involved with all of these races and paying very, very close attention to what worked and what didn't work. and so, in the past were the best thing to do here is to let chris grip on his observations and then use that to stipulate discussion. he's very good at the q&a and very engaging. so let's let them take it from here. thanks, chris. >> thank you, sir. all right. so, i guess i won't talk for long because the president sitting here anything. does everybody say that? i won't talk for long. they probably do. bill clinton. and finally -- [laughter] anything until i'm sure covered a lot of it. but i would say is this is true at the gubernatorial level and the senate level, too. i think what we saw affirmed last tuesday, which i always think it literally feels like six months ago. i don't know why. it's like time stretches once the election is because it was not very long ago. i think what we saw is candidates in the campaign really do matter in statewide races. .. i would say that's not true problem of the house level by the way. i would say at the house level particularly in a we've election it in some ways if you are the are that's good enough i think you saw that happen a lot of places and in labrador we got elected in idaho should not have won the primary did nothing in the general election who did everything he was supposed to do. it matters less in-house candidates or less money is spent than people pay less attention. it's more of a charlie cook said in the house a parliamentary style collection. it has nothing to do with the two candidates. i would say the what the gubernatorial level the candidates do matter. i was thinking about campaign and candidates i thought were good. there's always less i think that our good them are bad. that is a depressing thing about politics but i think sometimes you see a kind of race to the bottom. i don't know if you watch the nv samet debate. i have to. they pay me. the only reason i did watch it and it was really not good. you were kind of like i can't believe these people are going to serve. harry reid i think is an able politician i think even his biggest allies would say he's not super telegenic or charismatic so i think there were some bad campaigns. i do think there were good campaigns and i was writing them down and it's funny a lot of the good campaigns this may run counter to the point i made i thought one of the best campaigns in the country was ted strickland and ohio. i thought he did a lot of things right. he was in a very difficult situation, 400,000 jobs lost in the first four years as governor. the industrial co midwest, very difficult for democrats to win when as was proven here but i thought he did a lot of very good things i thought they prosecuted the case against john quite well in the long run came up short think he ran a pretty credible campaign himself. it wasn't a huge disparity like i would say with harry reid a great campaign. other people and trying to remind myself. i thought scott walker was good in wisconsin. he's the republican. he ran a smart outside campaign, good ads. this goes to show conventional wisdom isn't or smartness isn't all contained within the bounds of washington. he had a firm -- immediate firm didn't do political tv, something i don't forget the name of it but it's like red box or something it made me think of those places you get the disease, something like that. his ads were quite good. he ran a campaign the brown bag campaign. he brings his lunch to work every day, drives like a 19922 leota silica, this whole idea that government spends too much and we need to rein in, really good, smart message. i would say especially, who lost to him ran a pretty good campaign. look, it is an odd campaign, but jerry brown did a pretty good job. he kind of tit -- looker, when you're running as someone who married a multibillionaire in a state like california in which tv -- there's lots of states where there is diminishing returns. it's like how much money can you spend on television i know what? as hillary clinton and barack obama proved the answer to that is lots. but i do think -- look, i will use my home state of connecticut. there's only so much money you can spend. you can buy a lot of new york tv and reached the southern part of the stick and spend billions of dollars. linda mcmahon is going to have spent 50ish million dollars. but there is no amount you can spend to get diminishing returns in california. talk about $5 million a week, try more than that, to run any significant statewide television , for get and direct mail, a conservative, hispanic radio, which she did. she did everything literally you could possibly do. and i think jerry brown, it's hard to run against that because you are running against somebody you run 10,000 pints of tv, she can run 20,000 points of tv, you run 20,000, she can run 40,000. so i think that he's smart we tried to shrink the campaign and he took a lot of criticism for that. he's not doing anything, she's winning, it's a disaster. he shrank the campaign because he figured i can't match her and money left but we need to have a short campaign so that i can match her as much as i can on television but some help for waiver of their which he needed and i think ultimately meg whitman didn't turn out to be as good candidate -- -- obviously i am by bias here -- we are not important, everyone ignores us. it is hostility at times toward the press, and there's a great youtube clich if you are at youtube looking at my idiocy you should also search meg whitman, there's a time she does a round table at e-business -- some kind of like green jobs please come and reporters clearly think that when this is over with reporters mostly go to events not because they care deeply about green energy jobs necessarily, but because they want to have a chance to address the candidates especially in california where you don't get as much access. and the meg whitman people didn't want her to ask questions so the shepherd and greet escort out of the room but then somebody, god bless the flipcam, they are like she has to go to another event. she's just like standing in the other room and then they put up a screen to block her so that they couldn't. so those kind of things i didn't wear well or they don't give her the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the media. you know, i think in california it may matter a little bit less because it is such a television state and you just spend money on tv and it didn't wind up being enough. i think california proved that even in a year like this which is a wonderful year for the republicans nationally and is still very, very hard to get elected as a republican. you know, i would point at arnold schwarzenegger but let's be honest he wasn't elected as a republican he was elected as a celebrity. elected kind of it would be cool to have that guy as governor, not because they believed in the principal he espoused. many republicans say he doesn't espoused republican principles. so i think it's difficult to get elected but i do think jerry brown does deserve to have credit for the campaign he ran. courts seals i have. i thought blonden was good and nevada. hispanic federal judge that harry reid gave to make sure he never ran for office. do you run for office? i mean i think he is a star and solve a lot of republicans elected. i don't know how much skill and meeting talked about this but the governors level he saw a lot of republicans elected to lie still and will play a prominent role in the national party. susan martinez, the first latino woman ever elected, very good campaign, very steady, very solid rga helped her in the primary, smartly to get to the primary financially, and i think she will be nicky hailey won by a smaller margin than i think a lot of people thought she would ultimately -- my wife is a field hockey coach and there are ultimately no moral victories. the end of the year it doesn't feel like 8-4 and three we should have won. laughter could either says 8-4 or 11-7. you can argue but i would put -- you have jindal has gotten into the but maligned after his response to the press in 2009 it wasn't particularly good but i would point back to lots of people that have given poor response is. the only people who watch that are people like us. regular people, my parents consider now, my parents barely watched the speed of the union. i don't think they watch the other party's response. we have a tendency to overlook those sorts of things like the think that there is a lot of interesting talent coming up particularly on the republican side and the governors and some very able people. sign going to stop because i would rather take your questions and continue to meander. but if you have questions on anything i will take them. >> i will ask the first one, chris. you are a very wide savvy guy and leveraging the aspects of the digital and social media. to talk about the web campaign and the youtube fata. which candidate do you think really leverage digital and social media well and to their advantage, the past go around, always going clever stuff? >> but question. i think some of it is difficult because everyone was trying to do -- i think the social media became the internet of the 2010 campaign. and 06 and 08 or in 04 we've got to get on the internet. we've got to do internet fund raising and so i think everybody was trying to do lots and lots of that. so no one frankly stood out. the one that stood out and i don't know if this for good or bad at the gubernatorial level, charlie did a lot of good things through davis with some viral with stuff and i don't know whether there was good, bad or indifferent. i mean, demon sheep -- if you ask random people who follow politics a little bit, that's probably the thing they remember most about the campaign. i mean, it was like a phenomenon again, i don't know for good or bad. i guess i would say rather than a specific thing the thing i learned as i used to be a recovery dismissive of wed videos, like, you know, it is a press release basically that they put in video and they would always say you know, people pitch me stuff to read about and say we've got this web video coming out and i like, they cost you like $100 to produce it and it's not the same thing. it's not the false equivalent to a tv ad in which you're putting thousands and thousands of dollars behind in focus group etc. i would say that clearly during this campaign, there is the possibility for those with the videos to have a genuine influence on the debate that the way in which information now moves through twitter and facebook and every other, you know, thing out there socially, they do have power. you can't ignore them in the way that i once did. so that's kind of a lesson i learned. i'm trying to think there's anybody -- look, whitman -- it wouldn't surprise you the people better self funded did the best/most on media, they did the best/most of the singles. when you spent 200 million or -- the last time i checked she was at 142 million of her own. i assume it's going to go we more than that but it's all said and done. when you spend $140 million of your own money on a two year campaign, you do everything well. and from a kind of tactical perspective. linda mcmahon, same thing. use and $50 million on the senate race you're going to do it pretty well. i thought rick scott did a lot of good things, again, because he spent $60 million of his own money. so i'm not sure that any -- i'm not sure that tells us anything all that valuable other than if you have a lot of money you can do almost anything and hire smart pr. that doesn't tell about smart media. every candidate now has a twitter handle. every candidate has a facebook page. does that matter any meaningful way? i'm not there yet. i think it matters to a small number of people. it seems to me like everybody announces everything viet water now. nancy pelosi announced she was running for the minority leader over twittered. steny hoyer announced he was running for cover he's running for, minority whip, michele bachman dropped out of the conference chair grace via twitter. so i think it's something as a reporter you have to stay tuned in on but i'm not sure that it is a persuasion technique just yet. i know its name but i still think the best thing you can do for your candidate is -- is this on television? will this be broadcast, by the way? okay then i won't swear. so, you raise a lot of money and do everything they can to put it on television. i mean, i know that's still, leading ultimately -- why did rick scott in the florida governor's race? because he spent a lot of money on television. a lot of money, as did the rga, as did the vga and alex sink. that's why he won. he was able to find thousands and thousands of dollars in television ads in a state in which television ads are a massive persuasion tool. so in some ways i feel like it is a the more things change the more they stay the same kind of deal. it's cute and interesting and helpful at the margins to be a social media. i did you have to play in that the world, but it's just like i would say for my journalism, ultimately if what i did is right semi pithy things on it would hurt it might not mchugh a successful journalist, it might make you successful on a twitter person but there has to be something they're ultimately. >> a number of key senate and gubernatorial races this year became a three-way race is, colorado, florida -- do you think this is kind of a onetime phenomenon or is this a trend we are going to see going forward? >> yeah, it's a really good question. because if you look at -- you know, if you ask people which party do you identify with, the fastest growing by far is unaffiliated, which, i mean it's not a party, but you get my point. you know, only one independent, only one house, senate or governor's race and that's lincoln chaffee. i don't know he would have won rhode island had they not got in a huge fight with the current president of the united states a week before the election. it's never a good thing in this did the president won 62% of the votes to get in a fight when the swing vote in the state between you and your opponent is a book. so, only one. eliot in may and came close, finished second. he almost won. the hard thing for me is i think what -- you know, we've seen success in the past, angus king got elected as dependent and whatever party, u.s. reform party of lincoln minnesota. we've seen kind of this happen here and there. the thing for me i think is that it would have to happen at the presidential level think before we saw a real extended trickle-down. i think there are certain states, minnesota is one, mean is another where there's a history of kind of an independent candidate being taken seriously. but i think until you see the presidential level i don't know that it will be any more than kind of drops in -- you know, kind of random occurrences, as opposed to there's a real party. because i think people like the idea of a third party because they are sick of democrats and republicans, but of course if there was an actual third party that had a set of core beliefs and the platform they were running on other come to other parties that are bad, it would aim at the people called the conundrum, it's like you have this party but by having the parcel kirsanow there are some people who don't agree with that and they go somewhere else. so i think there is a desire for it. i think you need some of the presidential level to do it and form a party and i don't know who that would be. and obviously i think the most likely thing is for it to be an extremely wealthy person because that's the way that you run the fast advantages that the parties have in terms of organization and just like basis of getting your name on the ballot and all these things that matter and that take time and energy and money. so if you need a wealthy person to go out there and say i'm starting this party with iran when president or not i'm going to fund this for the extended future and no one really does that because it's usually a personality, the ross perot, and i think that's part of the problem. there are people who could do it financially. michael bloomberg. i don't know if running is the defender of the business community is a platform that works in an environment like this. but i would say to need someone who wants to invest not only in their own candidacy but if they come up short to invest in a broad attempt to build it. i've just seen lots and lots of these things kind of go by the wayside. i think we will continue to see -- it's most likely we will continue to see occasional appearances in which an independent candidate is able to break through a three-way race and win with 39% of the vote of the state, particularly states that are more open to that sort of thing where there is a history of it, you know, where the two-party structure is not as strong. i always thought it was funny that people thought dagget in new jersey could win last year. new jersey is the most, you know, the two parties in the party infrastructure is like they are very powerful, it's a very organization based state. the idea that someone could run that is hard to believe and in minnesota or mean or even rhode island for an example. so i guess i'm skeptical because i feel we've been down this road before if you look at the number of unaffiliated and think why don't we have a party? the affiliate's don't fit in one party. >> thank you for coming. i am an ohio constituent and i also work for the senator voinovich, and obama came to ohio 12 times this past election as well as clinton and joe biden. how do the work on their 2012 to improve that? >> i'm sure that nei thing and still debated who won on -- because they naturally both could make a little bit of a case. i think myself and many other people including many republicans expected them to be over 40. they are at 29 and probably stay at 29 in terms of seats they control. but on the other hand and this goes to the ohio question this isn't a majority thing. you know it's not like the house and the senate. it's not all governors races are created equal. some just a matter more. i'm from connecticut so i will put connecticut in there. connecticut doesn't matter as much as texas or pennsylvania or illinois or certainly a high your florida. it just doesn't. big states matter more, especially big swing states that is slated to either gain or lose seats in redistricting. ohio fits all of those things. it's clinton lose two seats probably in redistricting to the governor's office matters there. and it's a huge swing state at the presidential level. look, i always say this, the president doesn't randomly go places. people are like it's kind of quality went to go in for tom. he's going there because they think they can win. they went into all how you as much as they did because they understand how important it is. it was a state that went for him obviously in 2008 and bush in 2004 and remember we were fighting for them i still remember john kerry people we can still win and you're down by 100,000 votes. he's not going to just pop around. [laughter] that was my favorite thing. two times in the post election a bag of uncounted votes were on found. that is the word that was used, bag. how she is that? in connecticut in the governor's race that turned in a whole bag of votes they found a whole bag of votes. that's a total sidebar. i think that, you know, the problem for the president, and i don't think 2010 is necessarily -- in 2010i can't get reelected. to me, they are separate things. that doesn't mean there are not concentric circles and i would say the two biggest problems the president is themselves if i was the president's team, one is the struggle among independent of the party. use all democrats won independent by 18 points in 2006. president obama won them by eight and they lost by 18 nationwide. it was a vast loss, and there are places. portman running easily in the senate race he won independent by 49 points. that's stunning. lee fisher didn't from a good campaign. there's a lot of -- 39 points is a lot in a swing christianson that's one independent and the second i would say is the industrial midwest is a problem for them ohio, west virginia, pennsylvania, parts of new york, illinois, iowa isn't really the belt but it's not a great. pete did the kind of manufacturing belt is a big problem in a high of at the heart of it. i think they lost southern ohio badly. charlie wilson lost in southern ohio, who a month before it was a month ago i would be like you might want to keep an eye on charlie wilson but i don't think he lost 12 house seats to zero. they lost every competitive house seat with the exception of one and was a wealthy guy who had some kind of a republican running come out about a month before the campaign and he lost. but had that not happen i think he may have won about six seats. so, you know, if you're the white house and look what happened in ohio you have to be very concerned. it doesn't mean the president is not going to win ohio. we know what the presidential turnout means. african-american turnout will be much tighter than it was this time. that would obviously help but they can't lose independent in a kind of reagan democrats the way they lost them this time. i would say the same thing for florida it's a different constituency but they can't lose florida -- they can't lose the kind of voters they lost in florida this time again. remember the president got elected with three ander 65 electoral votes. this wasn't a 272 electoral vote victory we have seen a out of a lot. he got elected out of a vast margin. so he still has room to give away a few of the north carolina, virginia, indiana kind of states and still win, but when you start losing big constituencies in big states like ohio and florida i think you've got to worry about it. >> i would say by the way john d. serves a lot of credit. there was a really good race actually. i think that was -- you can debate whether ohio or flora was the most important governor's race. i think ohio was. either one of them was a sports. just because you wind up losing it doesn't mean necessarily did anything wrong, the other day i just did more good. >> were there any surprises in terms of turnout among the various groups of females, hispanics, and was the president's strategy to increase turnout in the end, was that successful? >> you could argue both ways. i would say the answer to that is probably no. youth vote turnout dropped drastically which again isn't terribly surprising. if you have kids, you know. somebody once compared this -- i thought this was a good way to think about it -- he said the presidential election is like the super bowl, right? people who -- you may not care about football, but you watch the super bowl, right? a midterm election is like a midseason game between the lions and the packers. it's like if you like the alliance for the packers to probably watch it, right? if you really like football, you watch it, but if you are a casual fan there's no chance that you watch it. that's kind of a midterm election. just turnout drops. it just does. it dropped in pleases the were very difficult for democrats to win. use all older voters make up the larger percentage. those are people who are most skeptical about the health care bill. those are people who -- white older voters have always been barack obama's most difficult constituency, particularly in places like ohio, indiana, illinois, west virginia, pennsylvania, southern illinois. that's where he struggled the most. so those numbers went through the roof, the younger voters dropped. so as a result -- then you had the independent going domestically for the republican. so you combine those three things. i think republicans are going to wind up winning the overall votes cast for the house, by 546 points total. that's a significant victory. it's about the democrats one bogden 06. as a composition in the electorate clearly favored the republican party and favored the republican party and those people who were republicans who wanted to go out and vote it was a hell or high water kind of thing. they were going to vote no matter what. there was interesting things here and there. black turnout in carolina was very high. you saw joe wilson being a somewhat serious race in a district that's quite good. again, you saw nicky hailey when by not nearly the margin people fought and a lot of the was turnout. i don't know why to be totally frank i'm not sure why it was high. it is pretty standard across the board otherwise but i would say the attempt to recreate the baala coalition i think the white house and the dnc that they were never going to get all the way there because it's the super bowl versus the winans versus the packers. they didn't get close enough to mitigate some of their losses. >> we have time for another question. last question. >> i will ask it. so along that same line, chris. was there in the states of the gubernatorial level that you saw where the tea party really made a difference in the general election? obviously we know it made a difference a number of primaries, and that affected the general and maybe maine, but for their states besides maine where the tea party vote really helped drive the election one way or another? >> i think it helped drive and a couple of places based on the primary. colorado, you know, i'm not convinced that scott was going to win that race anyway. but when he was in the nominee, dan maes was, then you have tom tancredo who is a tea party-like candidate running as the american constitution party. i think he took some of the vote. i would say it seems to me less obvious in the governors' races than it does in the senate races. i think part of that is just because what 80 doherty is based on is reduce federal spending, shrink the size of the federal government. it is less relevant in the governor's race than when you're in electing someone for the senate or the house. i think that said, republican candidates benefited broadly from the energy and enthusiasm in the tea party movement on election day than the most important thing this is so clich i remember watching tv the last week before the election and they say it's going to come down to the turnout. of course it is. laughter could that is the most obvious thing in the world. so, the person who gets the more votes is going to be the person who wins. okay, deep analysis. but, you know, i think it has to do with how the composition of the electorate and basically you had republican candidates benefiting from the fact that the tea party was very energized and willing to come out and vote for whatever candidate -- or voting against and a lot of ways, the democratic candidate. i'm not sure they were voting for the republicans, but republicans benefited in the fact it is a by a very -- by mary choice. if you don't like a contador voting for b. you may not like b and the polling would suggest people didn't like b or at times they are historically low levels but when the choice you decide you're not voting for when you're voting for the other by nature so i think the tea party helped to but i don't think they cost the republican party seats in a way that on the gubernatorial level i think you can point to certainly in delaware. you can see everywhere else whether, like sharron angle wasn't a particularly good candidate so i'm not sure they had agreed option. i'm not sure if chey norton, lisa murkowski is going to win in alaska even though joe miller be heard in delaware clearly it cost them a seat. mike castle was going to win, christine o'donnell was not going to win. there's nothing at the gubernatorial level i look at that says that cost them a race. colorado is the closest thing but scott wasn't to a candidate. on the level more on the candidate picking a level of the gubernatorial side. >> thanks chris. >> thanks, guys. [applause] spec all right, gang. it said. hopefully you find this helpful and interesting. don't forget to check out his blog. i making the plug as hard as i khanna. gough to youtube. we will see next week on the rga in san diego and of course the dga at christmas, which is the key d.c. event that is what, december 1st? yes, december 1st. thank you very much for coming and see you all soon. [inaudible conversations] president obama 2008 campaign manager david plouffe says the next presidential election will be much different than the 2008 election that brought mr. obama into office. at the university of delaware, he said that he believed president obama will win a second term in spite of democratic losses in last week's elections. this is an hour and a half. [inaudible conversations] >> good evening. welcome to the university of delaware national program. i am ralph begleiter, director of the center for political communications. last week's elections throughout predictions made for many months about the american people. they hate congress and the think the federal government generally is broken. so american voters picked up their remote controls and changed the channel. after voting overwhelmingly for a change just two years ago the american people voted for change again last week. all across the country republicans picked up dozens of seats in the house of representatives and a half a dozen in the senate. the house majority leader will be a republican in january and the change will mean a clear shift of power in washington. president obama himself called it a shellacking. george bush called his own midterm setback in congress thumpin four years ago. tonight with president traveling in asia, his advisers are trying to figure out what's next. how will the president governor over the next few years? what can be accomplished if anything? and how can it be done? joining us to try to shed light on this one of mr. obama's closest of pfizer's, david plouffe. david was a bomb's campaign manager in 2008. if you were a democrat in 2008, you might have received regular e-mails from david or text messages on your phone. after the 2008 election, david took time off to be with his wife and his young family and to write his book, the audacity to win the inside story and lessons of barack obama's historic victory. by the way, david's book will become it is on sale after the program tonight and he has agreed to sign copies if you wish. but taking time off didn't last long. david was summoned back to active duty over the summer, and he's been advising the obama team in the run-up to this fall's e election. and if washington's wishes are to be believed, david is expected to return next spring to help plan the president's reelection campaign, which begins in formally right after new year's day. there might be some of you tonight who don't know that david plouffe is an alumni come along with vice president biden, the kaine campaign manager steve schmidt and chris christie all of whom went to u.d.. the group forms the designation as the epicenter of politics. i bet some of you thought i wouldn't get into tonight. [laughter] you don't know me very well. david has been extremely generous with his time and expertise for the students and for the center for political communication. please welcome the visit plouffe back to the university of delaware. [applause] >> thank you fun coming back to delaware after 2008. it has been a pleasure working with ralph and all the faculty on the center for political communication and they're wonderful students who are going to be out there leading the way in both parties in the future coming out of delaware. now, if you turn on the tv or computer or newspaper for those of you who still do that, you know it's filled with people already predicting it is going to happen in 2012 what happened last week. i learned a long time ago not to, you know, partaken the prediction business so i'm not going to tell you what i think is going to happen. i'm just going to offer observations because none of us know what's going to happen. this time in 2006, right after the 2006 elections, there were very few people in quoting myself that thought a barack obama would run for president much less succeed, and in 2004 it was widely believed that the democrats simply faced an impossible situation in the electoral college that they simply couldn't break through. four years later barack obama wins a landslide in the electoral college. in 2002 after the republicans had some to gains and after redistricting the conventional wisdom the republican party will never when the house of representatives in that decade and obviously in 2006 and 2008 we had huge wins and built a majority so many of the things being talked about today that they're going to be facts will come to pass. there's things we know now and many things we don't. so i will just offers some observations. first of all the republicans obviously across-the-board nationally had a very good light on november. not to me this is not a surprise and was something right after all the elections it was clear to us because we won so many races and 08 on top of what we've one and 06 we are going to have some hostile troops to spend to defend electorally. even in a neutral political environment. and was pretty clear the economy the way it was and how would was likely to transpire we were going to face tough head winds, so none of that was a surprise. i will say this that i think the republican party who had a very good night could have had a much better night. first of all obviously this is nothing new. franklin roosevelt in 1938, franklin roosevelt of all people had the worst, lyndon baines johnson, ronald reagan, bill clinton, of years the tough elections particularly when you have a tough economy or some other event that has the country usually in those elections one party wins everything. now the republicans won a lot. i ran a senate race in 94 and i think bill loss and unlike every other democrat against every other republican incumbent all across the country we lost. democrats didn't win anything anywhere. now, losing what may be 63 or 64 house races is not a lot of fun. or even the senate races but they didn't win back the senate. they lost races particularly out west that you might think in a race like this in a wavelike this many governors' races the most narrow, so i think they should be pleased about there not come. however, when you face a situation like that you have to make the best of it. and i think there are some reasons why they didn't do as well as perhaps they could have and again i want to stress the did well. first of all, they did nothing to repair their image with the american people. so, the way i view it is on november 2nd, independent voters, swing voters, the republican party rented them for a night. that's always. it's not a vote for the republican party. and was basically we would like to change things up a little bit, we are unhappy with a variety of things, we are anxious, we don't like you put your going to give you another chance. now think of the republicans who had approached things differently and said okay, we heard the message of the last two elections when we got our clocks cleaned. so this is a new party. new ideas, we are going to be more constructive. had the republican plan and therefore the republican candidates been viewed more positively we would have been in real trouble last tuesday but the opponents do not strengthen themselves. we also saw weakness still with latino voters. one of the reasons we won the colorado senate debates and colorado senate race in california where the republican party was still losing two-thirds of the latino vote it is her to be successful national party particularly presidential elections without doing better than that. so the could have done better. the do very well. going forward what matters first of all let's not talk about politics or about the country. with the american people were shouting out in 2010 as they did in 2008 and as they did in 2006, of course the economy, very important. some people care about education or the care about energy policy or foreign policy. but talking it altogether is just a cry for the leaders in washington will you just get along? will you try to solve problems? will do start acting like adults? by the way, that is sent a message aimed only at washington or politicians, it's in the business leaders and academic leaders and the media. people are wanting to have more leadership and stability. and so that is quick to be a test. because negative both parties right now or on probation. they are. and i think the american people are waiting to say okay. where you can find common ground, will you even seek to find it, much less achieve it. now i am not an expert in the republican party. the take my advice but if i were interested in maintaining what i gained last tuesday and showing a different face, but look for those opportunities and say there's some areas we are just not going to agree on but where we can we will seek to find them and i think is a big test because what you have in the republican party right now as you have a speaker, john boehner, the one back the house, you've got mitch mcconnell, still the senate minority leader. and before too long, you're going to have republicans running for president. so you're going to have three different power centers. from an elected leader stand point. but then of course you've got the fourth is the activist and the republican party, who here in delaware showed their power and influence and nominating christine o'donnell, tignes. [laughter] how that plays out will be fascinating because in some cases i assume they will be commonality and viewpoint interest but in some cases they won't be. and so, that is an observation about that factor. how those different power centers and influences react reach out and try to find common ground where he will. he tried that in 09 and attended some cases with success and some not. he gets criticism from some people for continuing to try to reach out to the republicans to see if we can find common ground. he's always like to do that because rebuilding public trust is always important and there is no monopoly on ideas and sometimes you're just not going to be able to find common ground or even agree on a problem but if you can come and you should seek it so he's going to do all he can to achieve that and hopefully he will find partners not just in the republican party the democrats because of course compromises and someone coming 100% of the way to your position. that is not compromise. it's trying to find the zone of common ground and if there is any number of issues, continued work on the economy obviously being first and foremost, debt and deficit where you think there could be shared values and interest, immigration reform, further work to create new energy, mechem education performing k-12 but also student loan reform, so there's a lot that can be done. and we will see. i think the american people are going to watch not just the content of the debate and the issues and the policies, but are you people going to work together and act like adults and try to move the country in the right direction at a time that is so desperately needs to? so that is i think going to be very close watching. and i don't think that any of us know how it's going to play out. i think as americans we ought to hope where these folks can get together and i think it would inspire great confidence in the american people, as well as doing the right things from a policy perspective, would be very good for the country. extraordinarily good. cow that shakes out politically, not enough us know. the other observation i would make is that there's a lot of attention paid to the 2010 electorate. and of course, the 2012 electorate is going to be fundamentally different than the 2010 electorate in many, many ways. it will be much larger. maybe 55, 60 million more than voted in 2010. will be under, 18% of the electorate in 2008 was under 30, it will be more diverse. there will be many more latino voters and african american voters and the electorate. and the independent who vote will be more moderate as a group than they were last tuesday when they were very conservative. so, our challenge will be obviously to try -- we will never recreate exactly what have the same dynamic as we had in 2008 to fundamentally change the american presidential electorate. remember, among the people who voted in the bush-kerry race, barack obama tied. it is to raise your used to, played on election night into the next morning, even the next month in 2000. but, the reason that the election was by modern standards the landslide was all the new voters that cannot, 20 million new voters, barack obama bunning 73, 27. so, the electorate is going to be much more different in 2012. we are going to have to work hard to ensure that, but also just the electorate itself is going to be more diverse, moderate and gender. and i think that if you look at how those elections that happened last tuesday would have transpired in that kind of electorate, it still would have been not a good night for my party. but we would have done a heck of a lot better. and that is the we have slide you're going to have in 2012. and also, that the electorate is going to be less tolerant of some of the intolerance that i see in the republican party. and in some of the extremism. now, christine o'donnell, kenneth buck in california, sharron angle and nevada, these are prominent people in the conservative, supported by a lot of so-called tea party movements. they all lost. think about that. had the republicans on those races, like casseaux, jean northen in colorado, any of the other republicans in nevada essentially, the senate would be tied. but rather than the course correction, they say they didn't work out so well, we've got to go back to the mike castle era. that's not going to happen. you are going to see littered across the american political landscape in 2012 in my view candidates for congress, senate, governor, maybe even president who do very, very well with the christine o'donnell, rand, sharron angle because that is where all the financial energy is. i think when you saw is the tip of the iceberg. you've been expanded electorate and also, the republicans are not just a party. you know, they are going to be held more responsible now. much more responsible for what they do. and if you pull that together and i think this is when to be a rough ride in terms of the image particularly with younger voters and where there is more moderate independent voters. now again, if we don't do our job, if people don't have confidence and of course we will be able to take advantage of all of that. but if we do that, i think that there is going to be real -- that's going to be a big factor that to the electorate that we have to be a i think the republican nominating process is going to be fascinating. because the iowa caucuses, the south carolina primary, maybe even more than a hampshire primary this time, or a sarah palin candidate won the primary, these are very, very conservative voters. the delaware republican primary. and i think that it is highly unlikely a republican presidential candidate will emerge who doesn't do exceedingly well with not just the christine o'donnell and rand paul voters the activist voters, that's where the energy is, and so therefore i think -- and by the way, they will probably be out there agitating and saying hey, these republicans in washington, it is a sin to even think about cooperating with obama and the democrats much less doing it. a very dangerous dynamic. and i think it is going to profoundly affect our politics the next two years, much less who comes out of the gate, because it is the likely republican nominee will be someone, who again, has done exceedingly well, if not the preferred choice of that element of the republican party. and as you swing into a general election with many latino voters and more moderate independent voters and a young voters, first-time voters, that's going to be a much harder sale and even john mccain was able to make and 2008. so, and how the economy is viewed. of course this is always less about statistics than how people feel. dwight fillmore confident? blight and we are on the right trajectory? obviously you can talk to economists and get different views about what is going to happen. hopefully leaving the politics aside we want to see economic progress because the country desperately needs it. there are positive signs out there. we had the biggest private sector job last month in a very long time in this country. so how people view of the economy is going to be critical of the geslin. and if they feel that we are headed in the right direction, that is obviously going to have implications for the president and others who are running for office. if they still feel that we are stuck, then obviously that's going to affect the political wing as well. we don't know any of that. so my point is that i will encourage you all humble you to take the breath and let all of this unfold and follow it and comment on it and, you know, really get involved in it, but not lead to the conclusions that while the democrats had a tough night in 2010 in pennsylvania so they are not going to have another win in 2012, that's crazy. or, you know, doesn't mezzanine the more republicans had a tough time out west that means they can't compete in 2012 out west. that's premature, too. in politics, you know, two years is like 200 years. particularly in this day and age, where things are moving so quickly. so, i think all we can do is with interested citizens hope our leaders can come together and take on some really tough issues, and they are tough issues. it's why they haven't been dealt with. it's like some of you support for the president is doing and others if you don't. but at its core is whether it be health care, whether it be energy, whether it be immigration, k-12 immigration, the debt and deficit, we ultimately cannot keep kicking these problems on the field. we have to deal with them. with all of you kids here who in very short order are going to be leading this country are left as good and america as we can and to your good hands. and so, that, as americans, we've got to hope we say on something like immigration we can make progress. on the debt and deficit, given the campaign that was run on the other side there would be real interest in working on this. but we will see. some of these folks who ran and won in the house and even the senate in the republican party who are going to storm the gates, they're going to get to washington and look at the big office and all their staff and say this is pretty nice to refine kind of liking it here. i'd like to stay here. now what's interesting about that is a lot of the activists in the republican party, people in the tea party, they didn't think this was a game. they believed a lot of what they said, and what these candidates said. so that's the other dynamic here is if some of these republicans aren't delivering. there's not a lot of patients out there among the republican activist community either. and so, they feel that these guys all of a sudden are trimming their sails see the earmark reform. rand paul, remember from kentucky, i'm going to be a post your marks. they aren't in the senate and he's reversed. the grassroots republicans don't like your marks, okay? mitch mcconnell says we are going to protect your marks. that's a dangerous thing i would argue for the country. it's a fundamental reform to make that it's also not healthy for the dynamics of this grant be a lot of things here. macro in terms of, you know, the economy, how people view health care over time, you know, afghanistan, the debt and deficit. you're going to have obviously huge issues within the republican party you have in the democratic party, too. we have a minority in the house, moral majority and the senate and so how that all its initiated. but i think as the most important and mike really will be do people feel like we are headed in the right direction? and, you know, as i said i think both parties are on probation, so i don't know. maybe one party will elevate and say you know what, i have a little bit more faith and trust in them. that party will possibly do better in 2012 than the other party. whether it will be a gulf like the last party, it could be better. it could be they are unhappy with both of them and then you're going to have a really trivial the election, probably a very close election in a number of places. so we just don't know what's going to happen. .. from an energy standpoint, from an academic standpoint. it's a little bit easier i guess when you're not a democracy. but you know, they are very serious about where they're going. cannot you guys here studying in delaware cannot for much competing at the manner of berkeley and instate the people going to school in beijing and bankrolled smaller companies to enter countries. we can do that in a cooperative way. but make no mistake. we really have to be serious about having a new energy economy. best in the world. we are in education, particularly sciences, you know, falling further and further behind. we do have to make sure that we get a handle on dad. deficits health care was part of that but with a lot more to do. we have to continue to make sure foreign-policy improves. so there's big stakes here. and that's what the american people understand we're not at a sedate time. and it's not just -- they understand particularly if you comb your spouse come your parents, siblings, neighbor is have an economic distress. you're going to feel that extraordinarily. even if you don't have it in your circle and most people do, you worry about your employer or your business or you haven't had a raise. so it is the present and acute economic situation. but the unrest is much deeper than not because people understand that we have a lot of problems and opportunities and tough choices to make. and we really, really have to make progress or were not going to be as strong a country from an economic standpoint as we have been. and so that's where a lot -- and there's a boy, our leaders don't seem as capable or is willing to do with this at least in a cooperative fashion. you know, this is a place where people do see the present in a different viewpoint than i do congress. it even if they don't agree he's actually trying to work out long-term problems. they do ascribe some value to that. and they think that largely that's not shared by as many people in government should be. so that's where the american electorate is. this anxiety in both rapid and short and long-term concerns. they're still enormous optimism of their unbelief we can see ourselves through this. but there's concern of your. and i think that we really do need to have the right policy prescription to show courage. by the way, all the things i talked about, immigration reform, expanding on the deficit, just coming in no committees are not not politically easy issues. which is the reason they get dumped all the time. because the short-term politics are really large. the media coverage is about how bad the politics are not tough it is. and people say well, not now, not the session. let's wait till the next election. and the american people say listen, and our wives, my family and my business, i don't have that luxury. i can't just say this festering problem, i'm not going to do with it right now. i'll take it to mccain for four years, 10 years, 25 years, 100 years. you've got to do with it. i think that's what they're really saying down there. and we have more often than not one party does quite a bit better than the other. not all. 2000 was a pretty close issue. but in 06, 08 and 10, there was a real -- these are really volatile elections. democrats did much, much better than republicans and await. and until people feel solid state they are your contingency collectivity. eventually hopefully people say we have a set of leaders here working together and i have more confidence about the future of my country in her situation and maybe things will settle in and will have less volatility. but that kind coupled with the fact that less and less people identify with either party, you probably are going to have elections with a lot more volatility, where in some cases you have 20% to 30% of the electorate, state or district coming up every year. and so, you're going to have a lot of volatility in. so you know, pmc and i think if the american people realize unexpressed and their leaders. we are going to make a policy for the legislative standpoint, leadership, private sector, government around the world. home. and we can really have a wonderful, wonderful future that all of our young people so desperately deserve and need. but it's going to take a lot of work. and it's going to take a little bit longer ricin than just caring about the next poll, the next month, the next pundit, the next election. and if you don't do that, you're never going to do well to do tough things. because you see in washington, you know, some of the things the president did over the last two years. when you turn on the tv or the internet, the substance is rarely ever discussed. although, what's the latest poll? with the political? the agency and aftermath of the election. should we have done x, y or z? simply, was it helpful in the election? and i think that's another maybe unstated message out of it, which is the american people and voters really are saying would like you to start carrying a lot more about our jobs and yours. and your essential responsibility as a member of senate or the house or the governor or the mayor is not to ensure your own reelection, but to beat and do the right thing. and if that changes a little bit, people will take that approach, then i too have a lot of confidence. but i'm sure we're going to have a question and answer session. more than not come he might have some good ideas and thoughts so i'm anxious to hear all that. you've been kind to listen, but i think were going to get onto the more entertaining part of the program now. [applause] >> he made a point of talking about moderate in 2012. what makes you think moderates -- they played an important role in the selection obviously. what makes you think it will be less conservative or tilted more moderate in 2012? >> well, vicious going to be a lot more -- the turnout naturally will increase by at least a third. so you're going to have 55, 60, 55 million people, who didn't vote in 2010. and so, there's a lot more democrats than republicans. the independence that come out will tend to be a bit more moderate nature than those who voted in 2010, who might've been independence in terms of either their voter registration or their sole profession, but they're really republican. bush is going to be more moderate voting members of the west in 2008. you know, and independents in 2008 compared to 2010 were much more moderate. and it's hard to compare -- it's not an apples to apples comparison. which is often made. but i think those independent orders are also those that will be really casting around. as i said i thought happened is they set republican x, y or z, will give your vote and then we're going to step back and we're going to evaluate. and we'll see who we think is doing what we think the best interest of the country. >> is the president going to have to attract his base or maintain his base as well, just as you described a minute ago the republicans having to cater and particularly focus on the candidates on the republican side will be nominated has been essentially from the conservative wing of the party. as the president going to have to it that that in the democratic side, to? will yet to deliver for his base as well? >> he focused on delivering for the country. there will be a time for our campaign and it will not begin in earnest for some time. and honestly have come in campaign you figure out how to get 50% of the vote? obviously the combination of persuading enough of the people that truly art on the side of the voters as well as getting a strong turnout in your party. and so, you can never assume that. but i think the president will try and make decisions on the economy, foreign policy, from other pressing issues based on what he thinks is right for the country. i think that's what's required. i do have confidence because support for democrat runs very, very high. we will be committed to an independent grassroots campaign we did last time. it will be heard. takes a lot of work. you can't just manufacture it. but i do think when the choice is between president obama, the direction is try to take the country and will continue to take the direction that sarah palin and going back want to take. i'm not being flip. the leaders of the republican party stay or not john mccain or john boehner and mitch mcconnell. they are paler and limbaugh and back. as for the voters are, the activism, where the donations are. and you know again i don't think that's a recipe for great electoral success, but there's a lot we don't know. >> you've talked a lot about the aspect of the candidates in the stability of the tea party candidates to friend. as christine o'donnell is sort of prototype republican candidate in your view for? >> there's like a 100 of them around the country. but we'll get that lesson. [laughter] let's leave aside, you know, the witchcraft and all that. i think that, you know, the position she took, very similar to sarah palin and these other republican candidates. again, i don't think there will be a wide audience for that in 2012 outside the republican party, particularly the electorate gets larger and more moderate, but also i think there's going to be more -- critical aspect of our republicans are saying and doing. i think there are republicans in congress, let's say, who do want to say okay, let's try and find common ground. you know, let's not just appeal to the people who believe everything they see on the glenn beck show. but you've got to understand that it's difficult because all the energies for the people who are watching glenn beck show. so the question is, can i override that for the good of the country? we're going to try and seek common ground and try and find ways to move the country forward. so we'll see. i think if you look at how republican nominations are likely to be decided, you know, for the presidential level all the way down locally. i think you're going to see more candidates next time holding the views of the palin, o'donnell said he did this time. i really do believe that. >> that's going to make it easier for president obama selection. >> it could. we don't know. where the economy is, you know, how people view his leadership. but my point is i don't think it's helpful to the republican effort politically. but there's no stopping them. that's where we are headed and they're going to nominate very conservative candidates. and listen, i'm not saying that necessarily means they're confined to electoral failure. a lot goes into that. but i think it doesn't make it any easier for them in the long term because i think, you know, that's not where i think the middle of the american electorate is. i think it's going to be a motivational terror. >> he focused a little bit on the economy and pointed out in 2012 on the state of the u.s. economy. does the party -- does the president think they should've done more rather than what they did on the economy. but that it made a difference? >> alessi said, obviously a responsibility to try and get the economy working again for many americans. and we have made progress obviously. and we could've gone off the cliff to a great depression. now we're growing, but we're growing too slowly. so it's uncommon and leaders across the country to do all they can to grow the economy. i too think the steps he took will be seen, you know, as pivotal moments. i bet some people say you shouldn't have done the recovery act. well, without the recovery act they think the unemployment rate would be anywhere from 14% to 18%. we would've never had a quarter of positive growth. you know, would be if not integrated, close to. that would've been terrible for the country. also really, you think would've done better in the election with that circumstance? so, you know, from the auto principle -- >> first of all, republicans would've done none. these people brought you to create recession. if they'd had their way, would be in a great depression and they're only trying to do the same idea. now, they had a good election. now they have some responsibility. and so it is incumbent on them to lead and try and work with the president announced that it just right spitballs from the corner, even though the problem is the central actor they're creating. they have some responsibility now. so the recovery act, all the energy jobs created in new sectors created, it was held for the auto industry which would save the auto industry millions and millions. we see health care now in terms of the economy. there is a lot of good things that have happened. and i think that largely we have to do that on our own. in some cases on financial reform, we had to help republicans in the senate, which is very, very important. of course you always need to do more, could do more. if you look at what we've done and really the stiff opposition to any of that, there really was a remarkable thing. i mean, the republican party whose policies were a chief contributor to the economic collapse basically stood on the sidelines and said, you know, this is your problem. and now they can't just throw spitballs and pontificate. and i do think there's areas were now, let's obviously the job growth, the economic growth is going to largely come from the private or because the government has to do those things that can't do in partnership to spur that, to spur innovation, new industry. you know, there's been lots of discussions about various ideas that maybe can be done as it relates to payroll tax and other things. we'll see what becomes of all that. all leaders need to say look at the whole venue of things we need to do and where an urgent situation and there's too many people out there who can't wait anymore for security and jobs. and so everybody has an obligation to look under every rock for a good idea to see if they can help. and i think a lot of the stuff that was done on small businesses in the fall eventually will pay real dividends in terms of job growth, but there's so much more that can be done. >> one of the other areas that have been discussed a lot in the last few months, the election year with the problem of the debt and the deficit and you mentioned it yourself. is there a possibility that deficit hawks and the republican party and extreme liberals in the democratic party who favor cutting things like the defense budget could find an alliance in the coming two years and worked together to cut the deficit and the debt and a very strange way i would think politically with the two ends? >> well, what's interesting is facing a lot of tea party at this talk a lot about cutting the defense plans so it will become something that is in fashion in the republican party as well. listen, i think that to really be the kind of country we need to be in the long-term, we have to really get serious about the debt and deficits. and despite what you see when you turn on the tv, where out of the easy answers. so you know, there's obviously defense spending. this entitlement and revenue reform. and to really make the progress you need to make, those are the areas that have to be explored. semi hope is that enough democrats and republicans will come together at the federal level because i've been in a lot of states have balanced budget requirements and they're doing it tough work that needs to be done. but at the federal level, this is not fun. this political risk involved, but for the good of the country for future we have to do this. i listened to you look back in 1993 when president clinton and that she probably covered this, ralph, past the deficit reduction act. i was politically tough. what a tough election in 1994 was not the only reason, but the reason that decade was so good economically for so many people in america. so i hope so. and it would be a shame if the republicans who of course, when president clinton left office, there was a record surplus. when president obama took office there was a record deficit. so, they were chief contributors to the fiscal situation. they became chief critics for the last two years and i was really their mantra. we need to get spending under control. so it is time for them to walk the walk. and if they don't, it's not good for the country. i'm telling you, they're going to pay for that was deep unrest in their own parties. because as we've seen come a lot of people who got involved in republican operatives there were as motivated by what happened to republicans as when the democrats. they were up with the republicans quote, unquote losing their way, spending too much money or expanding entitlement. and so, it'll be interesting. to really make progress on this issue, it's going to be a really tough thing to do. and you're going to have to be willing to put the country first. and i hope enough of them do it. >> will get to your questions and alternate as usual between students and nonstudents. yes, sir. >> i was just wondering, in this election, the democratic party party -- [inaudible] their successes, hopes, dreams. it appears they were controlled by the polls, but whatever everybody else said. how do you change that in the next two years? and do you think -- do you think president obama is so wounded now that he will be a one-year president? >> the answer to your second question is an enthusiastic know. >> everybody here the question? [applause] >> this'll be an eight-year period in american history. i think eight years that will be looked at because it's very important and meaningful. i would say that first evolved the most important event in any election is not what you see on national news. it's what happening in the state or district. that's what voters are seen, particularly those who are really undecided, who got traffic a lot in politics. and some cases, there was great commonality and others there wasn't. i think if you look at what the president was thinking when he was campaigning and of course he wasn't on the ballot, but i think is a good narrative about the choices we had to make about who were fighting for, who they were fighting for, that we have to not just focus on the short term, which is absolutely essential, but also focus on doing smart things for the next generation. some candidates, you know, reducing the narrative other sport. others are more tactical. all i know is in 2012 will be our campaign. we will be on the ballot. we'll be running the campaign. we will have one upon it. that's much more dynamic than going out and making the case broadly when you're not, you know, not on the ballot, charging campaign strategy. now, i think that it's always easier to be successful when you're rolling a voter downhill, right? serve the economy were better people felt more confident, they would do things like health care, student reform. that's great and not so important and i'm feeling good now. but when people are feeling anxious, those things can seem remote and academic. i think we ran a good campaign but you know, we say john mccain has that economic ideas come establish ideas coming out of touch, we were probably a boulder uphill. that kind of fit into what people already believe. and sometimes you got to understand which way the winds are blowing can affect your ability to be successful. i do think that, you know, in a way, you win the mythology sentence. i remember the day after the election, "the new york times" has obama, history made. and then his analysis is flawless delivers campaigns white house. is that i don't know what campaign you're watching, but this one was flawless, i can assure you. so, even an outwait there were many ways we could have been a better campaign, communicated better. so we have to make big improvements. we do. but some of this is just the republicans had a very easy job has turned. you know, they kind of surf the wave of discontent. and that's always easier to do in politics. and so, i think for the president when it gets to be election time in world long way from that now, will be their confidently consistently and effectively say, here's what i've done. here's why i did it. more importantly, here's where were going. and by the way, there's a choice here and my opponent, you know, maybe there's some places where there is commonality. and i'm sure there'll be places where there's differences. and so, allow people to pick sides. just like in 2000 ezio people are people are going to have more reasonable and adult. they can be in presidential years. oscars tend to be more rapid and they are more partisan. presidentially because you get so many people in and they pay so much attention to it. you can have a little bit more elevated dialogue. but again, i think on things like -- some people do say well, if you just message the accomplishments better. well, you could always must sound better. when people are saying time before, my sisters out of work. i'm very worried ages five to health care. and some of the things that they say gap, sure, but financial reform passed. there's parts of health care like. but it doesn't affect what i'm going through right now, then they're not going to be as interested and i understand that. but i would say this. if president obama and the democrats and republicans continues to lead, than i do think as time transpires here, because he come with some hope to the democrats obviously staved up the great depression, latencies for recovery and hopefully will be a powerful one. i do think over time as wicked and later this decade, most people say hey that health care thing was better than i thought it was going to be. student loan reform, financial reform. the party wound down one war in iraq. eventually that will happen in afghanistan as people culpable and say okay, you know, that's some pretty important things. and people do admire that. even though, as i said, that don't agree with it, that he is willing to take on tough things. and i think it would be great for the country if some of the tough things that mentioned earlier could be taken on together because i think that would send a powerful dignity of the american people, that their leaders are coming together. but i think, you know, if the economy had been in a different place, you would see the republican efforts not be as affect it. some individual rate was not up there. and you know, we were able to obviously win some key races out there, which we still have a really, really tough night. but we hold onto the senate with a little bit of a margin. we want some governors races out there. had we not when the messaging battle well enough. i was talking to senator reed today. he was famous and, ground effort in nevada, so many people were part got involved, that made the difference. and you know, all the polls that it was headed to a four or five-point win. he easily won that race because he had a great effort on the ground. the kind of grass-roots effort was part of what we did in 08. >> let's take a question from a student. >> do you believe in the next few years -- [inaudible] [inaudible] >> question is do you think and the next two years, if there's little compromise a little progress made on the issues he talked about at the democrats would take the blame blame because they so that the leadership and the senate and the president's? >> first of all, i hope that's not the case for the good of the country. i don't think we know the answer. if unfortunately there's not any or enough, then i think people will make their own evaluation about why that was. and you know, if they view one party took been more unreasonable than the other or playing politics, but not party will pay more than the other party. if it looked them both in contempt, again i think you'll see a really, really interesting election. i do think given what just happened, most voters now up at the honors the republican. they have their election. they're promising all these reforms, there could do things differently. they hold the house and gave them the senate. i said to be just as voters, who would you hold more responsible right now if there was a congressional nonprofit, they would say the republicans because they have the senate moments in people view them as the ascendant power. but we'll see how it all plays out. i hope are not asking that question two years from now. but if we are, i think we don't know the answer to it because we don't know how it's all going to in some cases and some of the house races the campaigns themselves were secondary act or is the money that was being spent. now, you know, by fax or at eight or 10 to one, republicans benefited. what happened in 2010 obviously is going to be just a precursor to 2012, we could see hundreds of millions of dollars. again, most on the other side, some on our side. i think this is a terrible thing for democracy. it's going to have been is, you know, some of these groups will go to congress. and whether this delivered directly or indirectly. josé listen, we went in and spent $10 million but we knocked off sander x, y and z. we'll spend 30 million against you if you don't do what we want you to do. this is going to take us back to the day way before watergate, where politicians are controlled by a few individuals en route. so if the money was disclosed, there still would be spending and that i'd be wrong too, but at least it would be a lot less of it. carl rove started a group for the republican party. i'm going to raise $60 million. it's a terrible thing for democracy. at the campaign-finance level we just need to encourage. some states to decide this by law. but to get more and more average people involved. the president was the first presidential candidate, a nominee who never took money from a lobbyist or political action. the national party committees still did not. you know, these are very, very important things. but i fear that without reform, particularly on disclosure, american politics more and more will be the central actors of these very wealthy interesting individuals the campaigns themselves and candidates themselves become big players in the drama. and you know that the terrible thing for our country, whether it's happening to benefit the republican party or the democratic party. i think, you know, hopefully there will be some disclosures. i think these groups will be with us for a while anyway. and so hopefully it will be disclosed. at least if it disclosed, people will say i know it was fun in that group. and i mix a difference to people. we should have a little bit more sunlight. >> in 2012, the atomic campaign will decide in the phone to disclose all contributions? >> well, we do disclose on contributions. bye-bye you have to disclose your contributor. we actually took the outside groups in supporting the president to do that. >> demand they do that? >> we think that disclosure to bear minimum is required and obviously would not control these groups. but i think our record position is pretty well known. one thing we did is we posted online, everybody raised money for us. so if you had a fundraiser for barack obama and raise $50,000, we said here you are and how much money you raise. having the more transparency there is this part of rebuilding trust. this is much more nefarious. you people saying we're going to try and by the united states senate held by the u.s. house. that's not a good thing to do. what's interesting is this a big shared shared across all party lines. you know, i think 75% of republicans believe that there should be disclosure and citizens united. you know, independents and democrats, too. this is a place for this commonality that common sense dictates this is not a good thing for a country. tonight i'll take a question from a nonstudent. >> the republican party want to portray the election as a referendum on health care and obamacare was a frequently used at the fat used by sarah palin. and it's really distressing to me as someone who is a savor of the health care reform act, though not perfect, was a step forward. and i think that was terrific. so stressing when john boehner said -- do not what is the question? >> the question is, do you see traction when seniors talk about making repeal of health care reform a cool. it's not the next two years, in the 2012? >> the question is what is your reaction to the republican repeal of the health care act? >> first of all, it if you look across the country, you know, there were not many republican candidates who had them at the center of their campaign. they might've had in the government out of control and too much spending. why is that? well, the individual components are quite popular. of course right now it is more -- it's not reality. and all the health care reform will kick in until 2014, two years after the president's reelection. so at some point, base 1618, what people like me see mtv is not going to matter. for all health care consumers whether i like it, whether change or not. even in the next few years it is going to be this kind of piñata that the republicans try and design test panel for nefarious things too. it's going to make a positive impact to you and your family in the country. first of all, they can't repeal it. by the way, i think a lot of republican activists don't understand that. so they're going to have to explain what they said they were going to repeal and they did. is that not monaco almost certainty they can't repeal health care. so are they going to spend the next two years we litigating that in fighting it and trying to refund it? will see. from a policy standpoint i think it's terrible because the health care reform is going to be really, really important to a strong economic important to help your country in deficit control is something we try to do in this country for 10 decades. most importantly maybe make sure no american has ever denied coverage again because of a preexisting condition. and we need to make sure people understand that's what they're going after. that's what they want to get rid of. they want to allow insurance companies to deny coverage to women who have been diagnosed with rest cancer based on some preexisting condition. they want to be opposed lifetime caps. they don't want to give tax to 4 million small business and millions of americans for health care. they don't want to do any of that. so i think from a policy standpoint, that's dangerous. but beyond that, the american people aren't really interested in a two-year battle over something that we just had a big title over. i'm telling you. so if they want to spend the next two years, you know, you might've heard this guy from california say i'm going to hire all these investigators investigate the president. trust me, american people were not interested. they're not interested in the litigating old battles. what they want us to focus on me, on my problem. and so, i think this is something that would be political perilous in addition to being bad for the country. i don't hope they can help themselves. because they're really out of their skis as the expression goes on that. and we'll see. and i think that this is a place where there is disagreement, but again, you've got to think that even if some congressional republicans a-ok, were not going to do as much of that as they might've said were going to be a little bit more moderate, do you think the people who are out of you were running for president are going to take that task? no, they're going to be out there running against president obama, but republicans and democrats in congress. so it's a very, very dangerous dynamic, i think. and so, we'll see. but that is not what the american people want. even on the question of straight repeal, in most places does not support it. most people do was let it happen. and if there has to be adjustments, maybe we'll make adjustments. but i think people are interested in spending another two years in the economist and they all have big problems fighting that battle. but i don't know. they seem quite enamored. and with them, my view is people are hopeful as they always are after the election and okay, maybe this time when she sees so far perhaps in the election as some of the republicans said they think some pretty encouraging construct things. actually, marco rubio from florida did. you know, boehner has said some constructive things and not a constructive things. mitch mcconnell has said no constructive things. last night when asked what the most important thing of the next two years he didn't say strengthen the economy, creating jobs, cutting spending. it was to defeat president obama. i can tell you that goes over like a lead limit the american people. that's not the answer they want nor expect. >> will take a question from a student. yes, sir. >> you said you plan on running a grassroots campaign in 2012 like he did in 08. with obama running as the comments, how about change how you run the campaign? >> what kind of campaign? >> grassroots campaign. how about change? >> listen, let's see what they now say with any certainty i know about the campaign because the president will insist on that. so, you know, we're just going to have to encourage as many people as possible to take entries, give themselves can take ownership of the campaign. our grassroots volunteers were our campaign in 2008. the one of the primary. they won us the nomination. and it's obviously going to be harder. you know, we were on the verge of history. history has been made. your governing, which means you're doing something people really like and some people don't like so much. but i think if our faithful to that, if we can inspire people for a campaign against the people we can run that kind of campaign again. and you know, it wasn't easy to do and their way. i talk about all the young voters that came out. that was the hardest thing we did. it didn't just happen. it was really, really hard to do and it will be just as hard if not harder this time. but that is the one thing i know. because when you listen in 20 -- 2030, asking president obama about his eight years -- last night and he said take us back to 2008. he'll talk about that campaign. well, he's not going to say well, i was kind of interesting when john mccain picked sarah palin or a beat john mccain in all three debates and that doesn't happen very often or when indiana. he won't say any of that. he's going back about the people. that was the campaign and it will be again. so that's all i know. but it will take every ounce of commitment on behalf of our supporters on all of us to try and build it. but the thing about grassroots campaigns is first of all very few people try and do it. and it's not the most important part of most campaigns. it's still tv ads and soundbites from about. into the president is always going to be nourished and there's no doubt that it's harder when you're in the white house to maintain that closeness of connection. but if you look at our campaign, we had in 2010 and again it wasn't for barack obama on the ballot. they were working for people they didn't know very well. they felt that it was important. we have 5 million people volunteer, which was a lot of people. and so, we have people who built a great relationships in their communities some of the presidential campaign does start and i won't be for sometime. the republican campaign will start right away, i think they'll be ready to go. but it's going to take a lot of work. we want without it. that's my view. >> you talk about a lot of republican candidates last night. you have attention to. i would like to ask you about two of them. you think chris christie is a potential presidential candidate in 2012 i'd like to ask you what you think my castle had to write content following the murkowski case. >> well, governor christie has said every way he's not going to run. so i take him at his word. it's obviously something has got great repeal of the republican party run the country. and so i'm sure if he's not a candidate, you know, he'll have to say. and you know, i think is actually done a lot of things. i don't necessarily agree with all of this remedies, obviously, but, you know, he has done some tough things. i think some republicans in congress would be wise to look at that and say okay, things like spending it on debt and deficit, some of these commonsense issues, we have to try and find common ground. i'm sure he's thinking about that everyday. given what happened in alaska. so i can't entertain why he didn't wear how close he got or any of that. i can give to sort a clinical observation, which is set in delaware, you know, i think chris kunz had a pretty good debate. it wasn't like alaska where republican nominee dropped down into the mid twenties. i think chris kunz was going to get in before it. and so, the question is for my castle to what he'd have to get 44, 45 at least an o'donnell would have to go all the way down to like 12, 14 or 15. offenses that would've happened because she had a strong enough base of people. so my back of the envelope says it probably would've been, you know, chris kunz, 42, you know, and the other 3028. so i think he would've won pretty comfortably hardcastle decided to do a write in. either way, it's a great thing about politics because two years ago at this time we were all talking about the great joe biden my castle senate race. last night so back to my think about what's not predict. >> okay, we have a question from a nonstudent. yes, ma'am. >> to see with what the president previously in particular managed to co-opt people into believing some of the outlandish places is very troubling. i'm wondering what needs to change in your opinion in the way democrats communicate with the public to make sure that people really can see the truth. >> okay, the question is what is the ease with which republicans were able to persuade their base in this campaign, to the democrats -- >> see, the republicans did not persuade swing voters that things like its always socialist plot. you know -- panels. okay, the elements of the republican party -- to listen, when we win the election, the presidential election, you still have 15% of the people saying he's a muslim. you're a decent number saying he is a socialist. those numbers have grown a little bit only amongst republicans and are more apt to believe anything. hawaii is not a state and i want the government out of my medicare, some of these great things. last [laughter] this is not what the election is. the election was really about listen, i feel things. i feel change hasn't happened in last sunday's going to try again until i get what i'm looking for. it wasn't that they bought into that, but that has not happened. it is that an element of the republican party on some of the most extreme, irresponsible lies. you know come a third of the republican party is in some states and by the way, that means two thirds republicans aren't all that comfortable with it. but you see how hard it is because even some of the other stuff, republicans, you know, it's a test situation for them because by the way i'm not at fault in him they don't knock it off. because huge elements of the republican party believes that. but let me tell you something. in terms of the election of 2012, the people who believe things like this is all some big socialist plot are really believe that the use of various health care motives or believe that, you know, we don't believe in american, you know, greatness. that's not where the people that really decide this election list, but it's a motivational think for the republican party. and listen, my view is eventually, i may be wrong obviously, but eventually think there's going to be a real moment where the more reasonable rate center senate republicans try to take their party back. adobe after 2012. listen, if you're a moderate republican out there and almost any state in america, you are in all likelihood not going to run for office in 2012 and the republican primary because you're going to get to my castle treatment. and listen, what he said after his election, he said something along these lines, which is essentially, i last because a few times in my long career i decided to try and work with the other party. and you know, that is viewed as a send among some elements of the republican party. not all. but think about that. listen, you know, when scott brown, my friend from massachusetts rose for the wall street reform act or susan collins or olympia snowe cast a vote on that, they need to be given enormous credit because they get absolutely excoriated for that. you might remember tom coburn from oklahoma. very conservative effort. i think he was a town hall back in oklahoma. someone said some really nasty things about nancy pelosi. tom coburn never supported us on anything, never will. he basically said listen, i don't agree with her, but she's a nice lady. as you remember, he got hillary from post to post to that. and by the way, there's been times in my party, probably through the years where i was not -- i don't think it's never been that bad, but there's also been like hey, you can't work with republicans. it's very harmful for the country, but that is happening and you have to understand that to understand the dynamic. in my castle probably lost in some part of that. lindsey graham from south carolina had to work with us on these issues and that was desperately worried about losing in the republican primary. and again, i don't think that can last because i do think ultimately in the republican party reasonableness will will emerge again. not just as the minority, but as the majority here. but i think it will be. you know, i don't know. we'll see. it's a big test for these folks to collect it to congress to do have some responsibility. and most people in both parties don't run at least, you know, at the core simply to occupy the office. they really would like to do something construct is. and so we'll see. and i think we all have to try and hold both parties and try and have fun. but you have to understand how hard it is the republican party with any kind of cooperation right now seen almost as a friend. >> i'll take a question from a studio. is there a question from a student? yes, in the back. >> at the republican party does nominate a moderate candidate, [inaudible] >> will republicans nominate a moderate candidate, how that change the way you will read the new democratic campaign click >> well, first of all, i think that's highly unlikely given what i just said about the votes come in the act of his uncommon energy in the party. the sword answer is listen, i don't know. will have a nominee who will run against a sometimes in the spring and 2012 and the campaign will commence at that point. you know, that person is, the views they hold, that position will obviously take some of the debate. most important obviously will be the president talking about where he wants to take the country and why he made the decisions he made and why he wants to again make decisions in the future. so we'll see. i think it, you know, if they nominate someone who's only getting a third of the latino vote or not even that, who doesn't have a lot of moderates, doesn't have much ability to young voters, and et cetera let oral situation really, really hard. you really have to thread the needle. and there is one of the reasons people in my party here like john mccain for someone because he was the candidate a lot of people thought with some justification for most of his career to do well. obviously the mccain of 2000 was not the making of 2008. but it's hard to believe that they would nominate someone to the left of john mccain. he was probably a moderate. and the republican primary collect drift and dynamic in 2012 will be so much more conservative than it was in no way. it's going to be like two different playing fields really. so we'll see. but the short answer for a lot of this is you know, politics is a very dynamic. the president have a lot of things to worry about the doughnut jewitt's reelection and will see. will have the chance to make our case. and i know something i look forward to doing because i think the stakes are really important. but we don't know who the nominee is. but again, there's a chance that not one of us in this room right now would say who the republican nominee is ultimately going to be because it could be somebody who nobody thinks is going to run. it could be someone who wasn't politics, is not. we don't know. so the cast of people running will probably be a little bit different than we think it's going to be. but even if there's no surprises come with got to let the thing play out. the thing is going to be a fascinating primary. i wish i could set back at what a box of popcorn as an interested observer as it's going to be something. pressure by stock in fox news. >> question from a nonstudent. yes, in the back. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> the question is, i think you've answered this amply. the question is in the past 21 months, prior to this past election, was very credible selection from the republicans about what to do about the economy if you could give a weak answer on that. >> i would say i think, you know, some of the ideas included the recovery act in the small business packages, there were some of those republican ideas that we didn't get much of their support, but there were some ideas in there. some of the tax cuts, you know, some of the small business lending. we got some republicans for that. some of them before the idea of a payroll tax cut for a period of time, which i'm sure will be abbreviated. i really do believe this, i don't sit on their meetings, but i do believe they say look, we're not going to participate. you know, they talk to economists just like we do. pretty clear as we took office on that glorious day in january 2000 night that the economy was going to be really, really difficult for a long time. so they say we're going to sit back and they are going to pay the price for it. and you know, they couldn't be bothered really to listen with the exception of a few republican senators. in some governors out there. on the debt and deficit i have yet to see any concrete
Related Keywords
Montana , United States , Louisiana , Nevada , Alaska , Vermont , Delaware , Beijing , China , Minnesota , California , San Diego , New Mexico , Washington , District Of Columbia , Connecticut , Berkeley , Arizona , South Carolina , Massachusetts , Iowa , Monaco , New York , New Hampshire , Texas , Iran , Afghanistan , Kentucky , Florida , Loudoun County , Virginia , Rhode Island , Illinois , Town Hall , Indiana , Georgia , Wisconsin , Oregon , Mississippi , Denver , Colorado , Oklahoma , Maine , Cook County , Hampshire , Iraq , New Jersey , Idaho , Fairfax County , Pennsylvania , Houston , Ohio , Kansas , Hawaii , Americans , America , American , Susanna Martinez , Lee Fisher , Ted Stroup , Scott Walker , Joe Biden , Ronald Reagan , Lincoln Chaffee , Chris Cillizza , Michael Bloomberg , Jerry Brown , Richard Burr , Olympia Snowe , John Kerry , David Plouffe , Angus King , Jeanne Shaheen , John Boehner , Barack Obama Bunning , Tom Corbett , Rick Snyder , Rick Scott , Susan Martinez , Roy Barnes , Dwight Fillmore , Bob Dole , Mariel Cuomo , Josh Kraushaar , Chris Kunz , Lyndon Baines Johnson , Barack Obama , Lindsey Graham , Phil Brady , Ross Perot , John K Fick , Neil Abercrombie , Mitch Mcconnell , A Susanna Martinez , Charlie Cook , Barbour Wang , Hillary Clinton , Steny Hoyer , Phil Cox , Marco Rubio , Arnold Schwarzenegger , Bob Donnell , Donald Andy , Dan Lloyd , John Hickenlooper , Nancy Pelosi , Ted Strickland , Nathan Daschle , George Bush , Joe Wilson , Nathan Phil , Andrew Cuomo , Rick Perry , Pat Quinn , Haley Barbour , Chris Christie , Nicky Hailey , Morgan John Kitzhaber , Youtube Fata , Dan Maes , Steve Schmidt , John Mccain , Mickey Hayley , Linda Mcmahon , Meg Whitman , Michele Bachman , Mike Castle , Scott Brown , Brian Schweitzer , Tom Coburn , Jack Markel , Harry Reid , Tom Tancredo , A Sarah Palin , Sarah Palin , Chey Norton , Charlie Wilson , Lisa Murkowski , Glenn Beck , Franklin Roosevelt ,
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.