tonight on all in. a ■ç i know i m not a young man. to state the obvious. about last night through the eyes of the undecided. i think this debate was bad for our country. we are in a very difficult spot as a nation. tonight, how gettable voters view the debate, and what it means to the x essential threat of a trump presidency. i would vote for biden even if he was dead. and i m a republican. plus, as barack obama enters the conversation, the historical precedent and practical reality of picking a candidate in the convention. and today s radical opinion from the supreme court as we finally get word, a decision on trump s immunity for insurrection is finally up next. all in starts right now. good evening from new york, i m chris hayes. the first thing to keep ■çin mi in the aftermath of last night s presidential debate is that if you are watching this program right now, you are almost certainly not the person whose opinion about it is the most important. at
Before joining yale law school, professor amar clerked for george for judge stephen breyer. He is also the recipient of the award for teaching excellence of severalauthor books, including his latest, the law of the land, granted to her of our constitutional republic. Thrilled to welcome richard pildes, a member of the American Academy of arts and sciences and the american law institute. He is best known for his casebook, the law of democracy, legal structure of a political process, which effectively of legal new field scholarship on issues concerning democratic elections and institutions. In addition to the law democracy, his work focuses on american Political Polarization, the Voting Rights act, structure of americas political processes, and the oversight of the u. S. Supreme court. Before we begin, i would like to ask everyone to turn off cell phones, anything that makes a noise, and now, please join me in welcoming our speakers. Thank you. [applause] professor amar lots to talk abou
Of our constitutional republic. A grand tour of our constitutional republic. We are also thrilled to welcome richard pildes, a member of the American Academy of arts and sciences and the american law institute. He is best known for his casebook, the law of democracy, legal structure of a political process, which effectively created a new field of legal scholarship on issues concerning democratic elections and institutions. In addition to the law democracy, his work focuses on american Political Polarization, the Voting Rights act, structure of americas political processes, and the oversight of the u. S. Supreme court. Before we begin, i would like to ask everyone to turn off cell phones, anything that makes a noise, and now, please join me in welcoming our speakers. Thank you. [applause] professor amar lots to talk about. Were going to take you from the founding, to the future. Not just to today and whats going on in wisconsin, but what might even happen in cleveland and beyond. But si
Next, a discussion about National Political party nominations, scandal, and comebacks, as well as rules changes for the 2016 election. This is part of the state of the parties conference. It runs just under two hours. We have four papers to be presented. We hope you will have great interest in what they present. More than anything else, we hope you will have Great Questions because this group of individuals have not only studied what has been, but are giving us perspective of what is to come. I think youll find their perspectives very interesting. About party a paper power and the causal effects of endorsements. Seth is at the university of denver and eric is at the public posse institute of california. I will shut up and let them talk. Whats were here presenting this on behalf of our other co authors. We are trying to come up with a measurement of the impact of a Party Endorsement in a primary, which is traditionally a tricky thing to measure. Study toing a fun case do this. This is t
Nominations i dont have my line in here but you only have a few that are not competitive. Versus incumbent renominations that rarely are these things competitive. Betweennd difference these indicators, democrats versus republicans. There is a distinct party difference for this timeframe. Campaigns contents are bit more competitive overall. Republican campaigns typically are not as competitive. Intraparty trends. This is perhaps the most fascinating thing as far as looking ahead toward 2016 and beyond. Haveratic nominations become somewhat less competitive over time. This is suggesting democratic a couple of things. One, the Democratic Party is a little more unified. It also could mean perspective candidates are little more strategic about calculating their chances and not running, which is also a possibility. Republican nominations in contrast, basically competitive in the 1970s. Ray nagin reagan comes along and you have a great deal of unity in the party and that maybe fragmenting in