tv [untitled] CSPAN June 7, 2009 9:00pm-9:30pm EDT
>> host: wellcome booklovers to c-span that change the world and the books that are still selling. a couple of years ago but the industry that has not changed much and people that love them madly and carry them everywhere with them. i am mary matalin and here with stanley greenberg there is a formal introduction but i will do one from your bio and from history perk up i have known you for ever but i did not know you were such a big cheese. stanley greenberg ceo of greenberg quinlan rosner research this is his seventh
book, "dispatches from the war room" in the trenches with five extraordinary leaders" the seventh of political type books you have written. said to america's described by my husband as the most important book in american politics. middle-class dreams, politics and poverty, most political junkies would seek stand as a pollster and we will talk about that not bipartisan polling common also about bipolar. you have done polling with public opinion strategies i am not the only republican friend and besides politics you were adviser to the nobel prize-winning campaign to ban land mines. this is amazing. the connection with james carville so we should put out because i am the wife of, is
the democracy corporation it just gets short 10? -- shortened? it is a great thing. we will talk about the not positive things that people have to say about pollsters and general today but because of your success is an unique success with all of these campaigns all over the rolled, the dinero of all political consultants on rivaled international group, "esquire" magazine. >> guest: i am tired it. >> host: all of this plus he is married to rose of. >> guest: a delight and wished me luck and gives you a hug 87 hugs back. let me start their because in the interest of not necessarily disclosure but political junkies who may view
this, we are friends but we have been friends for a long time. we're also friends with rosa i do not think of very many issues that the two of us are the three of us including my husband, the four of us agree but yet we are friends and i want to the viewers to understand the presence of the faction or the absence of a political debate is not evidence of moral ambiguity on our part or what some would call everybody in washington is somehow tainted by having these kind of french ships. i do want to start their. when i started this, you started this, there was not, i do not want to have a trite conversation about polarization but we're in a post partisan era where they want why can't we just get along?
why can't we get along? people with opposite parties to get along or have associations. what happened? why is that? >> guest: i am constantly asked the question. what do they really talk about? to the talk about their kids, travel, values. [laughter] it is not just james and me, i really don't want to get into this because i do want to talk more about the book, but when you or james do anything, you do a lot of things and opposition to my interest, and my party's interests, i get yelled at by my friends. i carry the weight and i presume the opposite is true? >> . >> guest: arrow letter this week criticizing several organizations you are involved and, a chiding letter and we did not even talk about it.
we can have these exchanges. >> host: they responded and in time we will get to that. >> guest: we can have a human discussion and talk about life and family where your daughter goes to school. >> host: they're doing great and your kids to. that is what we talk about i want to clear that up because there is still a place precut don't you hate that we can disagree without being disagreeable? that isn't always true it is not personal 211 arrow letter i was not personally critical and i do not feel personally critical. >> host: which is a good segue to polling in general because anybody is interested in these debates which are not an ideological, there usually methodological which i think it is the essence of that or
questioning the sentencing, all of that it is from democracy corps.com that segues into the profession of polling. what they do want to do knows that i'm conservative and you are liberal but to go back to what you do on the profession and on politicians. let's start with the profession and you, the per centcom the pollster, the guru of american and international polling. there is two different views of this. users of it think of it as the crack a change -- crack cocaine politics the mother's "milk" but the viewers watching you do your crack think it is black magic.
how do you see yourself? >> i actually read, and the book is not in defense of pollsters or consulting, the book is self critical and critical of the profession. i value and respect the leaders i worked for. one of the things i try to underscore in the end about these leaders believe in things are brought them to politics it can be honorable parkway very important part. one of the things barack obama candidacy your presidency is making policy is a reduction of cynicism about politics and whether you try to be hopeful or reduce your level of skepticism a little bit to give political leaders a chance and give them some space to do what they say they will do. going around the world on the
book tour i have done britain, israel, south africa, people everywhere there is a little more open is to pay attention to the leaders, why they did what they did. on the other hand i do not about in more respecting of my profession provide do think it does like a creative sense of mystery and i am fairly blunt in the book about both the descriptions of me and the other leaders that do it. the key piece to this is whether you have a purpose and the leaders you are working for having a purpose paragraph the time i worked for bill clinton, he was a new democratic change, party he made the party more mainstream and middle-class which we were
a part of. james was a part of not just the election but it brought me to him from what i was working on and what bill clinton was working on with a lifetime of changes that making a party electable in the south bend national swear was a political project i have no problem with what i do when it is working for leaders of other purpose. >> host: but specifically to polling which on its face is neutral it is a gathering of data. but you go through in the book we can do a tutorial on the profession at the outset, gallup was a great tool price of think it days i think it is a way to have a dialogue with people who i understand the other side of the argument e
decreasing the leaders accountability and coming off of your point* that has a purpose, but how does a neutral mechanism of understanding to a greater extent what people are thinking, how? gallup supplanted the previous method of understanding where the population was which was necessary in a democracy to put them in the pro and con pile what happened the first 30 years and how was it different the sec and 30 years? >> guest: there is a central question let's get real people into the bubble the politics and this book is not just about politics here by britain and south africa and israel how we get people? part of what i did i have 50 minutes per week with president clinton without anybody else by would present
him my poll findings other people's, give him postcards from focus groups of people filled out saying anything you want the president to know, it was then filtered his chance to have the unfiltered view from the public which it is very hard for the president to get that. might pinch myself sitting there doing that. i thank him for that opportunity so there is that role and i value that but the question is at what point* are you trying to reflect public opinion or educate the public and at what point* a manipulative or trying to convince people you are doing the opposite of what you are doing with the words you choose or you try to conceal the fact you are not keeping promises or not in touch? it is when you cross outline, when you do you take
a bunch of policies and we will focus on those types of policies. then you diminish politics for the public and not being responsive. >> host: policies that pop out but then take the other side of it, if they are sufficiently supported by the population to pop out why wouldn't? why is paying attention to what people want through a tea party or a response in a poll that just because it was not on your agenda, sometimes leaders followers with other leaders wide is that automatically nefarious or manipulative? >> guest: not automatically it depends of the leaders have a direction revision. one of the things, when i first parted this book if i look at my book plan what i gave to the publisher i would outline for each leader the area where they did not pull because they're used to
putting the finger to the wind bill clinton are big areas he did not pull the same thing with tony blair, ehud barak, but actually began to respect more that what you are getting at i am respective of bill clinton how to engage he was and how much energy he got and not just brings them with him but convince them how to educate, move them to where he is. you do not just reflect record to look back at abraham lincoln, franklin roosevelt, these are two leaders that in terms of the wars that face the country and big social transformation with slaves and the new deal these are presidents that did big and bold things but try to keep people with them and very much in touch and very attentive roosevelt starts to begin with roosevelt but
they're interested rather public was but abraham lincoln took what he called the opinion bath he would have people come through the warehouse and each week he said that was the most viable time i spent because he planted to try to hold the union together and to do that he had two empathetic, understand the southcom the border states permit and keep with the union and understanding slave holding parts of the country and he moved with great care with the "emancipation proclamation" not to free slaves but to save the union. he was very careful and very considerate even as he was trying to move the country, but abraham lincoln had the overriding mission to save the mission and keep the country from dissolving. >> that is impossible to do without engaging the public opinion. >> host: i am asking the unanswerable question which is polls are nothing more than a
tool. like a hammer you can use it to build a house or split somebody's head open. the way their use makes them good or bad. >> guest: absolutely right. if the leader, ehud barak, he begins a process it is essential for israel's security that israel and achieve a peace with palestinians, neighboring countries, lebanon, syria, he was to achieve this in a fairly short period of time because he thinks it can only happen when clinton is there and before arafat would become too ill to do it. he wanted to move he thought it was critical for israel's security. two-thirds of the country were against or opposed to any agreement that divided jerusalem. over a two month period, the educated the public, open and
a debates over the final summons that ended the conflict and the country moved. if the country moved and the majority supported the agreement with a divided jerusalem. as the leader who was listening he just said 2/3 opposed, i don't go there but a leader who was acting when he thought was a patriot the most decorated soldier of the israeli army, people trusted him although it was not high, and he was able to move the country in a different place. >> host: i should have said that the five leaders we keep referencing, you were chief advisers to tony blair, nelson mandela, bill clinton, ehud barak i do not know of your bolivian.
we will get back to them in a minute but more about this tutorial because people are, this is my theory, people have bought and cynical are skeptical because of the increased understanding and observance of the polls. that is because they're out there and seeing them more and reporters like them because i like a horse race it is lazy reporting and they create stories and we know that is true to the negative impression of polls. but for the purposes of jockeys are not even jockeys the people who cannot avoid looking at polls, what is a good poll? not a good republican and democratic poll but what should people look for at the end of every newspaper or public poll says how many respondents, registration, a go through that. >> guest: i will talk about that but then i will talk
about the way i use it because when people think of pollsters, they look at what they see on tv which is the nerd, number cruncher. >> host: you are not a nerd for you are from "esquire" magazine. >> guest: reside the numbers job approval 55% or whenever. a good poll should be representative of the population, it usually likely voters is the thing you are most interested in. you're interested in the track record. >> host: as opposed to registered? >> guest: and/or people who are not registered. if you do public opinion what do americans think? the public it should be dead general public all americans, all citizens and their views should beat represented progress you are
trying to predict the election and then you look to the likely voters. anyone that has a track record of releasing its polls in the past and being accountable, you like to see one that has released all of the questions and also the demographics so we know the composition. doesn't look like a representative survey? >> host: how as a layperson know that? >> guest: the road has changed with the internet there are signs like pollster.com that analyze the different surveys. there is much more accountability for pulling people looking over their shoulders. you have to pay attention to the internet surveys or voice recognition, a real person, there are different ways. but in the campaign which is what i talk about it is different, not just the numbers the least interesting thing i would find is who that is ahead.
the most important thing is what is the fight about? what is the election going to be about? i was trained as a in the academic one book was written in the argument was if you understand the fight you know, who will win and who gets drawn and, what is the crowd that watches the fight? what is the fight about? we had the 1992 elections with bill clinton and george bush the father 30 we're trying to make the case you could not trust the inexperienced failed governor from a small stake revenue said what is this election about? it is about the character and quality of the president of united states the experience of the national security interest authenticity and
trusts. that is what the fight was about and you tried to define it. >> we said change first is more of the same and healthcare. above all we said change we could not continue past policies but the most concrete thing was the economy. so our polls i conducted polls to define the most powerful choice, but the main thing was focused on what is the most powerful toys i cut off her? that would shift voters to us, and bring in coalitions and voters in to the electorate that would support us what are our qualifications to make those relevant and make your qualifications, how to make his qualifications not
relevant? make our issues relevant. deciding what the fight is about is everything. if you look at each of these leaders of the action with tony blair, or nelson mandela, what the fight was about as what i work on. that is my polling. >> host: has anything that you, anything that has surprised to analogous into ehud barak moving people to jerusalem, wants a name that was discovered to a poll we had nuclear in there and no nuclear power this is pre-9/11 and everyone anticipated or expected it would have the negative that it has since three mile island" end quote. it was completely fine with it the more dillard about it, it is clean, safe, it is bigger
part of the comprehensive energy plan although the democrats have a different emphasis they want to see nuclear as part of a comprehensive energy plan that is the only time i can think of two when it is important it is an important example of a change. we watch this with the environment, energy global warming, we are all out there with these issues. it is a good example because people began certainly with high gas prices at commodity prices were high, a food prices, gas prices were the symbol. there was anger coming out of the iraq war, people were upset and the sense that oil was central to this and we were being held captive by the oil companies, though large oil-producing states whether venezuela, saudi
arabia, iran, we are held captive and americans increasingly wanted energy independence. but what grew over time was the desire for alternative energy wind, solar, renewable spur growth and the 2006 election began to push democrats to focus on energy independence, with great american jobs but american control south and james carville and i urge candidates to end positive and tell them you're going to go to washington you want to work with anybody to get an energy independence and even work with president bush to move forward on energy independence. some candidates listened and some did not. and we suggested by 2008 barack obama was running energy independence, clean energy was his top tier most
popular issue. the top of the things they want him to do. they think it is the most important national security and economic policy. the agenda has changed. the fight is different. both affect energy is at the top but one of the pieces that is drawn into it. >> host: but even before security, i am trying not to go to the global warming fight because i promised myself i did not want to debate to the issues but the security component and the independence component is 80% issues that we're bree part company the earth is melting are we doing it, but i am saying even before all of that, but because the younger generation is being brainwashed to watch
"an inconvenient truth" in second grade and if a mother says anything then you can jeht teach the doctor's side but we have to educate our children at home. but this is three iraq, up three 9/11 the only issue at the time california had the rolling blackouts praxair everything that we now know about the security implications and economic implications were impressive and nuclear popped out. how often does that happen? or does it have been? >> guest: i am frequently surprised, and i am very surprised broke you will see in the block that i will of various points listen to people and i will say why didn't i think about that? >> host: focus. >> guest: common sense that they force on new things you had precluded out of your
brain, with 82 i am constantly surprised. and it leads you to think differently 87 tell the l.a. students the polling the difference between what they see and a focus group as opposed to television and how they really work because i feel when i watch it people choke when they notice a camera i know one of your focus groups they are an amazing product. what are they? how are they different from tv? >> guest: they force you to be open-minded you start with respecting the voter and the people so you bring together a tour 10 people to death in a discussion if you look on tv they will be very diverse men or women multiracial but you try to
have people that are as like-minded as possible you almost never but men or women in the same group. they think about issues differently, they talk a different language, and then will interact with each other and get to replace that is so dear friend and away from women it is two different worlds. >> host: it is called venus and mars. >> guest: one is comfortable with each other and politically comfortable. when i get in groups, looking at the center of the book is my a conneaut of academic life try to figure out why the democratic party is failing. i go to macomb county where the concentration of reagan democrats who were heavily democratic in the past, suburban blue-collar uaw
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN2 Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on