generals testament on c-span3 tomorrow starting at 230 thymic usability issues congress and the white house argued with is health care legislation and is nbc reports a public entity set up to vote on health care bill, by the end of this month or at least to do with the issue one way or another. after the house passed its version in early may by four votes if you can read more about the progress in the senate online at nbc.com and the senate avenue today at 4:00 eastern. watch live here on c-span2. until then a look at the future of the republican and democratic parties part of an all-day conference on president trump's first 100 days posted by university of california institute of politics in los angeles. >> hello. good. okay, we are going to cut the cowboy music. [laughing] we're going to do our last

panel, enlighten, provocative and it's great harmer was its stability. at time when there are no civil discussions are very few going on for people with radically different views, a lot of respect so far. i'm sure that will continue. one announcement by the way, so what on the last panel said thee president had met with the entire city to explain a strategy on north korea. i just got a little message. he met for 14 minutes with the entire senate he met for 14 minutes. so i don't know what that says about the last panel. our final panel is on the future of the parties. and let me introduce people briefly. on my far left, no indication of ideology, steve schmidt come closer and privacy with the chief savages for the 2008 john mccain in 2004 george w. bush presidential campaign and you've all seen him commenting rather

wisely and about 2016 and beyond. christian grose, a colleague, social professor of political science at usc, author of the award-winning book congress in black and white, race and representation from washington. another friend, adam, los angeles bureau chief for the near times, previously the papers chief national correspondent. another friend i'm exploiting my friendships, ron klain who is a former chief of staff for joe biden and al gore an an importat advised to hillary clinton 2016. peter mancall, the professor of humana's, professor of history and anthropology at usc, and dan schwerin come from a director of speech ready for hillary clinton in 2016, also worked with her in the state department and in the senate. i'm going to start with very general question that i would like everybody to weigh in on. it seems to me, raw and i would

like methods earlier, that donald trump represents a takeover of the republican party. you know see democrats engaged in recrimination with each other about 2016 and about the future. are we seeing a class of the party in the way, for example, nursing the collapse of the party in france? you can start there if you want. >> i do. i think for all of us in our political career we have viewed to politics to an ideological lens and american politics has been divided in the middle of the field for ideological line and separation right to left. if there's any canadians in the room, you would debate between the 48 and 52. we do it very hyperbolically. if you were to listen to the

campaign rhetoric, apparently the delta between a just and unjust society is a difference between the 39.6% clinton obama tax rate from the 35% bush marginal tax rates. what i think we start to see in this election and you see this point out in europe, you sought with the brexit vote, french presidential election already,, poland and hungary, i think politics is being redefined by a horizontal line. above that line for people who benefit from globalization, benefit from the technological revolution, and below that line of people that it been left behind. you haven't seen a real wage increase since the 1990s. we talk about on the coast the advent of the drivers trucks and cars. that's three to 5 million jobs, not one living wage job, noncollege educated white male.

i think defining event of this generation was the economic collapse in 2008. trillion dollars in bailout to the bankers above the line, nobody goes to jail. below the line 13 million people lose their homes, 13 million families lose their homes, 12 million people lose their jobs. and in europe you look at the transference of votes from far left parties to far right parties and it makes no sense when you view it through that vertical line. but it makes all% in the world when you view it through the horizontal line. when we look at this election, how does a sanders of voter moved to become a trump voter? we all scratch her head from abuja because we looking at it vertically, not horizontally. what unites of those voters is of this belief the system is not on the level. it's rigged completely, completely against them. and i think that when you

realize what is the number one indicators of a switch from an obama county to a trump county is the intensity of and the rate of increasing apparent epidemic. you look at technological dislocation of jobs and advent of the age of artificial intelligence, i think that this would be the fault line that defines our politics. i think that voters essentially hate both of these parties. they think they are a plague on the country, and the one that they hate the most at any given out is the one that they perceived to be in charge. if you see a trump versus an elizabeth warren, i think you'll see a real legitimate independent candidacy for the presidency. and last ., and it don't mean to filibuster but the blue counties have become bluer and the democrats have become more urban. republicans have become more rural hick i think you have a

totally disaffected suburban population in the country that isn't spoken to by either party. >> christian? >> i agree with some of that, and i think that one key difference is that trump essentially is a third-party candidate who took over the republican party, and so part of the fracturing going on in the republican party that is being paper over here and there but i think is he doesn't have any base among the elites within the republican party. some of that is changing. people are trying to decide what you want to be with him. but among elected officials they are not used to dealing with him and he doesn't have experience within. on the horizontal versus vertical i think that's right. there's this thing that two professors have worked on data shown that polarization left and

right in congress, democrats and republicans, is wider today than it has been since the civil war. historically though there been multiple dimensions, not just one that has explained the divide. if you look at the republicans, one of the recent john boehner wasn't that good at handling his caucus when he was speaker because he was not, he was a a little bit too high up on a second dimension of political ideology. historically that religion has been race and social issues. when we think about who's voting for a republican who used to be on the left, whose 44 democrats who used to be on the right among the populace, a lot of it is race. it's not just world people. it's really white people. minority voters among democrats are the base of democrats. for democrats to succeed than a bit of a race problem. they need to get more white people. they don't need to win white world people. they need to get a little bit more support among whites. republican parties exact interest.

they need to get more support of high income white voters who used to vote for them and the need to get a little bit better among latino and asian american don't ever take a. >> i agree with a lot of what he said but two things. first i don't think we'll go in the direction of france, not for the typing because of structural obstacles are just too much in favor of having two parties. it's really hard for independent candidate to win. i do think receiving party restructured. it's a lot more republican party than the democratic party. the struggles of democratic parties going through right now are not that surprising or different from what we have seen over the past 30 years. cultural versus economic or however you want to describe it. they've been resolved or not result in praise election over the years. democrats have the extra incredible motivator of getting trump out of office. i wouldn't underestimate that. i think the restructuring is more as you say more intense on

the republican side. basically, trump has taken over the republican party. trump i think, i'm not being snide, varies from week to week bubut i will never consider trup a genuine republican. he sort of ended up there with his tax plan but it'll think he is and you seen a lot of republican leaders in congress can just step aside. on a lot of things they believe in. nafta being one good example just to accommodate trump. i don't know what happened after four years or after eight years when trump goes away. way. i'm not sure the republican party stays like that. can it succeed without having those trump voters at part of his coalition? i'm not sure. i think the republican party has a much more difficult task of going forward for the. >> ron, do you think the democrats are much more coherent in better shape than the republicans? >> first of all it is great to be here. i'm glad to be back in the place where learn most of things i learned about politics at bob shrum right-handed. but, i think that i agree with

adam that there are structural reasons why for the foreseeable future our candidates will carry the label democrat and republican. while i do not think there's going to be a serious third-party threat here, but what those labels mean is really what's up for grabs. whether that means anything at all i think showed up for grabs. i think our political parties are kind of like department stores. they are big, complicated aggregations of a lot of products and things, and we live in an age where department stores are dying. people want to go shop for just what they want what you want to buy it. i think all parties are facing that, too. much more powerful the republican parties, sheldon adelson and a bunch of other really individual really rich people, the koch brothers come all these people. we have the same thing on the left. tom steyer and george soros and of the people, and specific

interest groups, issue groups. i do think those are the driving forces in american politics today. those other things that make candidates win or lose, along with their personality and also different factors. party labels kind of an afterthought right now. >> peter, your historical perspective? >> i will jump it is unlikely to try to jump into current day politics. i make a story of early america. what i will just put this into context of frankly the revolution which i teach a course about. if you posed the question our political parties, to an end? the edge is yes, i think the founders would be delighted. they were terrified of political parties. ..

going to the left.

what we found -- this is what trump exposed -- very little classic supply side chamber of commerce republicanism. missed what was going on which is a lot of people who voted for republicans thought, i'm fine with big government if it's for me and not the a guy. and trump teased that out in a way to make us reassess the edate. i say white parties do feel very weak, which is why i think we saw that on both sides -- partisanship is very strong. it's an interesting -- an inverse relationship so that lots of republic beyond didn't like voting for hillary clinton and they had an r at the end of

the name. the parties themselves as disciplineairans, they're week as institutions, people's -- people, power, partisanship as a force in public seems quite high. >> anybody want to comment? otherwise i want to good on to a pick question about the republican party before i turn to the democrats. okay? as we prepare for this conference, democratic shutdown seemed almost certain because president trump was demanding a border force, then under pressure from republican congressional leaders he backed off that. today the administration announced they were going fund the obamacare exchanges, which is one of the big concerns for democrats. the administration backed down on the health bill after the house leadership said we don't have the votes for us. don't make us have a vote. who is running the show and who

is likely to -- -- itch trump likely to become a more and more conventional republican? >> i think that we're as encloses as we of ever been to having a three-party system in washington, dc. there's trump party, there's a republican party, and there's a democratic party, which is at its lowest point of political strength nationally since the 1920s. and so there was never a unified republican party at any moment after the election of trump. it's extraordinary to watch his speech before congress, and to see that democrats sitting on their hands when he talks about clean air and clean water and for the republicans cheering for tariffs and protectionist measures, and the point that dan mad, the partisanship and the dane fer of faction -- d danger

of faction and george washington's fair well and warnings, this notion that we have backcountry of warring tribes. i don't think our politics are partisan as much anymore as they're tribal. i think they're disconnected from ideology, and we have an enormous competency gap. if you look at -- i think republicans have been dealing with this since the advent of the tea party movement, since 2010. i think democrats are dealing with it now for the first time. like the characters in the "jurassic park" movie, meandering through the park is the democratic officials and they just learned the dinosaurs are out of the cage and that the voter. even though there's a demand on the democratic side, we'd like a trillion dollars of

infrastructure. there's trouble to be seen looking to be doing business with donald trump. it's not the opposition, it's the resistance, and resistance means no collaboration, which is not -- which i would argue is pernicious in a democratic society, but there's an eenormous competency gap. we achieved 240 some odd years in. we have across the board achieved -- amongst our elected class, at a federal level, at state level. so the reality is on an obamacare -- is obamacare going to be repealed? of course not. didn't give a six figure tax cut to million areas and pull 24 million people off an entitlement. going to be a reduction in 15% tax rates when we're $20 trillion in debt and spend $60 billion on the publication

relations stunt wall? none this stuff is going to happen. by orders of magnitude there's a greater likelihood that absolutely nothing gets done than anything gets done. is donald trump going to become more normal? no. he's donald trump. this isn't day 98 of the administration. it's episode 98. last friday, was in canada, maybe some canadian government officials, and i said, episode 98. the dairy war. i said i didn't know you al were the north koreans of milk. but with donald trump's going to do is he's going to bend towards the applause. this north star is being popular, become successful. will he moderate his behavior towards what he perceives to be the applause? that's his incentive to do things that are popular. we talked about steve ban -- ban

non. we fly to abu dhabi and land in 16 hours. it's not that steve bannon has a point of of view you we disagree on. i'm not a liberal but intellectually i understand the point of view and i understand where that philosophy is coming from. the steve bannons of the world are track pats and what trump learned is when i listen to the crackpots it's equivalent of giving the car keys to junior and he drives entitled the wall at 50-miles-an-hour. when i listen to people steeped in reality, then from an incentive basis, people give him a cookie and say, good job on the news. that's.

>> i think steve asked a -- raised something that give us a really good question. and ron, i'll start with you. do you agree that nothing major that requires legislation is likely to get done in what we're going to really see in terms of changes is all going to be done where he has unilateral power to do it? >> well, hope so. i guess i'm a lot less confident in my team to fight this than maybe steve is. i think that ronald reagan got a lot of democratic votes for tax cuts. tax cuts are super popular. if trump really put forward the infrastructure plan that he sometimes talks about on odd number days, i think you would get democratic votes for that's. that's not the plan he put forward in the campaign or the campaign that economic advisers want, which i tax cuts for pipeline companies. they want to invest in building a better water system in flint, michigan, democrats would vote

for that. i think it's hard to know which of these many donald trumps are going to emerge from this process, and where he winds up and where the cookies are and who is giving hmm the cookies and which cookies really matter. some may be chocolate chip, some may aasparagus. that's point is a it's hard to know where he is going nag gave -- navigate. i think trump is in the process of remaking the republican party in his image. i think the party is going become more trumpish. now, steve will -- the good man will hold out to the bitter end here but if you look at polls -- for example, republicans, rank-and-file republicans, have changed their mind on trade. used to be a pro trade party and is now an antitrade party. donald trump told republicans, you know what trade is? it's doing business with

foreigners and you heat foreigners and you should hate trade and his party is getting the message. he moved his party on russia. republicans used to be vehemently opposed to russia and now they're frank and file interest in a better relationship with rich. the question is does the traditional republican party survive trump or diz donald trumpize the -- or does trump trumpize the republican party. >> is the republican party now the party of trump? and by the way, if it is, does it have to meet the rising demographic challenges of the new electorate that will over time prove decisive. >> i don't know how it backs a trump party. think he is around for four years. didn't think a lot of people part of the party until now are very supportive of trump. i'm not sure that the people

that trump brought into the party to win the election in three states are going to necessarily stick around. the party may be reinventing where it is. will the traditional republicans sort of -- at the base, establishment side of the party come back in? i don't think it's the party of trump anymore. i don't think we'll be talking that wait in eight years. >> it's the party of trump in the sense that the president, when there's unified government, is identified by voters as the leader of the party. one thing to me that is interesting about trump is his low approval rating. that's one of the cookie that's not doing so well. other than amongst his supporters and republicans. but usually you get a democrat who is a president replaced bay republican, flurry of legislative activity. we don't have that right now

even though there's a republican controlled congress and a republican in the white house, and i think part of it is due to the lack of experience that trump has, but also think part is this big divide in the party where the leaders of congress, they want tax cuts, want some standard republican policy, but they have to fit in all these other issues that trump is going for. so in some ways i think it is the party of trump, at least for the next couple of years and certainly the 2018 mid-term elections. >> so went dote know. we don't have a consensus on the future of the republican party and it's up for grabs. peter, how do parties remake themselves? >> some of this is not at all surprising if your look at its historically. you have to say the party of trump is not the party of lincoln. there's summon radical changes since the party formed. i think the interesting sort of moment that we're in, this time of deep partisanship, tribal

politics. that's a really good way to phrase this. people just sort of identify on some deep level with a party label. we are so stuck in this binary. we walk into an elects about, r or d or whatever, and at some point -- maybe trump is really the change agent here -- at some point people will say r and d don't work, this will evolve. trump -- what is the word -- hijacked the republican party. owe either others will come back and ticket back or they'll go somewhere else. over the long term that is lodge include what would happen. doesn't seem all that shocking of it's shocking to live through it. >> i think the democratic party is the oldest political party in the world and the republican party is the third. i do agree that there are structural impediments to a

third party but that's different than an independent candidacy for the presidency that very, very quickly, think, depending on who the democratic nominee is in four years, could be at 40% of the vote. so, i think one thing we look structurally at what is going on is the party of lincoln, the republican party, founded in 1854, is by 1858 the majority party in the north and west of the country, and the day that lyndon johnson signs the civil rights act there's three elected republican nets country south of the mayston dixon line -- mason dixon line. today is the done riz southern party and the parties are -- have never -- had never been but are today -- they didn't use to be ideologically and regionally

-- all of that is out, but i do think that when you think about parties and thing about it true a tribal lens, contempt is a reciprocal emotion, and i don't know that these republicans voters like trump so much but they sure as hell hate the people who explain trump's election by attack his voters and calling them racists and homophobes and misogynists and every other label you can under the book, and i'll say this. the democrats, as a strategic issue, have an enormous elitism problem. they have a coastal elitism problem. you go to silicon valley,

couldn't find more people out of touch with the lives of average americans than if they lived of the moon base on jupiter that newt gingrich build. i digress. the truth is -- i live in park city, utah, and spend a lot of time in manhattan and a lot of time any bay area and los angeles. people at the dinner parties, people in the conversations, deplorable is exactly how they feel about these people who do the dirty jobs. right? don't have the fancy college degree. and ronald reagan in 1980, when he ran against jimmy carter, he didn't attack the carter voter. created a permissive environment for them to cross back over without repudiating their last vote. he asked a simple question, are you better off than you were

four years snag so the cultural condescension is like a magnet under the compass. it's skewing the readings, and the division in the country along that access has a lot to do with the division in washington, dc that is not being driven by ideological differences on issues. >> i think the contempt goes both ways, and i think east coast elites, west coast elite don't realize that. if you go around the done -- >> whose got the paddle. >> right now the -- >> trump. >> not here. >> mitch mcconnell and paul ryan. >> i get your point. i'm -- >> whose got the power, not politically in elected official. which group, youngstown, ohio, or silicon valley?

or new york city or someplace in west virginia? so, you have a third of the country -- jurassic you saying silicon valley that the power. >> they have power. they have economic power. thaw have a third of the country that has falling life expectancies, rising infant mortality rates and the people in the top third of the country are living longer, living better, living more prosperously than any human being has ever lived in the history of the world, and the geographical power centers, silicon valley, down the coast, blue tinge down both coasts. the disdain which they project -- whether it's "saturday night live" skit that chose the trump voters. whether it's the culture reflecting on them.

the notion that there's not a distaken in a contempt projected from people we talk about that are above the line versus people below the line is just wrong. >> i'm not saying there's none of that. there is some of that. and it's wrong, and it shouldn't exist. but i'm also saying there's a hell of a lot of contempt that goes back the other way. when donald trump launches his candidacy by calling mexicans rapists and murders, that's contempt. when he runs a candidacy that's based on make -- villainizing immigrants, that's contempt. when he goes around the country and says the kinds -- he said during the campaign he is stirring contempt. we need to get this contempt down on both sides and find solutions. i think the contempt goes both ways. absolutely agree with had dam on that and donald trump is president of the united states because he stirred a lot of

anger and a lot of contempt for changes that have haven't in outcome country that voters find -- some of which are economics and which is your horizontal line, and some are social and cultural and trump stirred that pot in a way that no prominent national figure had, and by the way, the only other metaphor we have for this is what pete wilson tried to do in this state a long time ago, which ultimately he paid a huge price for. hope the same thing happens to trump. >> i think you're missing my point. agree with you that those are all the things trump did. would put that into just a plain old-fashioned nativist race-baiting, that's existed in country going back to the know-nothing movement. what i'm talking about is something different. it is a cultural condescension

from the people that are doing well culturally, not at a candidate level. for the people that are anonymous. that are hidden. that are not seen. that lost their homes in the foreclosure cries, that last their jobs, lot the got a be in the middle class of the country. i think there's a cultural scorn and i don't necessarily attach partisanship to it, though i think that culturally obviously that silicon valley, culturally, is democratic in its political orientation. but this contempt i'm talking about at a cultural level, i really think played a big role in this election with those 100,000 voters in the three states. my personal view is that if joe biden had been the nominee of the democratic party he would have won comfortably because he understands how to talk to that

community right through a prism of respect, and just to be clear, i'm not going to be on any white house christmas card list. i've been pretty direct in my disgust with the man cher they ran the campaign, but it's not they're talking contempt that goes back the other way. it's what he did is something else. just -- it's a different thing. >> i want to move on and i want to ask you a question. i do want to make a footnote, if i can, that if you listen -- which most of the people in this room don't -- to a lot of cable outlets especially on the religious right, there's a huge contempt for people in new york, los angeles, san francisco, what the causality is, how it started, who i most guilty, i'm not sure, but there is a lot of mutual contempt, i think, and, dan, this whole discussion leads me -- you make your point first

and then i have question for you. >> i just want to -- about deplorables and -- >> wasn't going to mention that. thought it would be too feignful. >> it's clearly bad strategy to insult voters in politics, although donald trump did win by insulting lots of voterred. don't think anyone would say go out there and insult voters. however, the best way not be called a racist is not to be a racist so that would be a step in the right direction if people are so offended about being called out on their deplorable views. it's bad politics but happen to be true, and it may be worth saying. the second point is a white washing of the whole debate when we talk about the divide between the working class and the elites. there are rich people in both

parties and it's true in this election the divide between those people who had a college degree and those who didn't was stark and significant. the clinton voters were on average lower income than trump voters. two-thirds of the minimum wage workers are women. lots of the work class are, people in color work in service jobs and don't wear hard hats but in our political debate we're stuck in a 1950 pictures of the working class where it's all good union jobs, that have gotten shipped overseas. the country didn't look like that anymore and the politics have not caught up there are people like that, and many of them were trump voter, but when we talk about the rich people vetting -- elites voting for democrats and the hard scrabble, invisible working class people voting for trump, we whitewash out a lot of working class

people who are -- voted for hillary. >> want to jump off that to the future of the democratic party because we have been talking about the republicans, steve got us to the democrats and you just did again. it is true that the working class or working class voters or blue collar voters of much more diverse than the stereotype. it's also true if you look at election russells in wisconsin -- macomb county,ing my, and pepin county, wisconsin, and there are blocks of blue collar voted who voted twice for barack obama, and it's something that was being caught in the poll that switched to donald trump and there's now a dispute how democrats should react to this. do they need to make a renewed effort to reach out to these blue collar voters? can they are -- or is the

challenge to motivate the debate and hope it turns out. >> it's a bit of a false choice that we have seen posed since the election in the democratic party between -- either we have to have an economic message that appeals to working class people or we need to have cultural message that appeals to liberals and people of color. i think that is a false choice because a good economic message should appeal to everyone, and i don't know any democrats -- it would be a disaster to back off of the party sort of commitments on social justice, and i can't believe that's a serious -- >> economic justice and social justice. >> i think they go together. however i would say my personal view is that in an election where we are seeing this realignment, where places like the georgia special reinforce that place, like orange county here who went for clinton for the first time a democrat won in orange county since fdr. we are seeing a re-alignment.

there are more than enough house district that hillary won in sun bet states where the democrat idaho shoo retake the house. you should go for those obama voters who went to trump it by think the future of the party, g. the long-term demographic trends, it's more fruitful ground to continue to go after increasingly diverse younger, better educated electorate in sun belt states. when texas and arizona were closer than iowa, that's where you should be investing and the georgia special is a good example. swung 20 points from the last congressional to this one. so compete every, try for all the people, find a message that appeals to everybody but i don't think we should be backing off of our core social justice commitments and i do think there is -- barry goldwater said hunt where the ducks are. there's a lot of ducks in the

suburbs who are looking for a noncrazy person who will offer them solutions and i think democrats can do that. they just can't lose quite so many of the other people. >> i'm intrigued by that. when you think about it, these folks voted for barack obama twice, when he was conspicuously for social justice, when in 2012 he came out for marriage equality. are you saying we're less likely to get them back than we are to get new voters in arizona, georgia, texas? >> i mean, think we underestimate there are two candidates in every race, and mitt romney not appeal to those people is as significant as obama appeal el to them. it's about the economic race on each sides. he was -- it was not a race

about race and this one was. people came in with a different frame. researchers talk about racial priming as a way -- it's not as if your racial consciousness and your identity is static. it train sod one trump runs a race-baiting campaign for two years voters who are susceptible to that who might not have been either. there is a more fruitful ground in these fast growing suburban places where there's every reason to believe they have been moving towards democrats for a while and that's now true in the shrinking rust belt states where you might win them become in the next election and might not, but if people voted for trump -- to the voters you won't get back anytime soon are voters who went for him not in spite of his offensive views and comments but because of them. there are some of those. a lot of them.

those ones we're not going to win back. you liked what you heard about immigrant bashing or race baiting, i don't the think democrat i going to win them and i'm not sure they should try. >> better can you put to in puttal context how parties adopt to what are the constantly changing demographics of the american journey? >> i feel like i need write a dissertation about that. >> we dent have time. >> i know, thank god. i was going to -- bob, i'm going to twist your question slightly. i'm a -- i remember being in this room and hearing a thing that really i thought about ever since. it's that voter respond to the candidate who they think is authentic. they may disagree with a lot of the policies and made by hard for the current president to figure out what the policies from day to day but voters

believe -- he doesn't seem to hide anything. comes off as authentic and i don't mean that in any disrespect to his opponent. but there's something to be said for that. used to live in kansas. i'm sure everybody has read what's the matter with kansas? i lived there. i have to say i'm happy i moved away with all due respect to account caps is a placey you can look at the election result and constantly people seem to vote against their own economic interest. time after time, more recently since i came here to california. but they do that for voting for people or for issues that are somehow core to them and they find ways to sort of just move in that direction. think that's ultimately sort of how parties -- how society moves. so when steve was talking about silicone valley before it's been on my mind before. does trump win without silicon valley? without the brain power that created twitter? that created the entire way that we talk to each other now and

found a way around the -- what do we call -- mainstream media. i hate that phrase. there's a sense that politicians and parties adapted to new technologies to reach out to core issues and trying to get a sense of authenticity which people respond to. >> one man whom who had name has not been messengered and he may be most popular democrat in the democratic party with the possible examination of joe biden and barack obama and that's someone who refuses to say he is a democrat, bernie sanders. you see him shaping the future of the party and does the party lean left or lean further left in reaction to 2016? >> yeah. think the answer is, yes itch think he is doing it already. and i think he -- i don't see him running for president again but i think he is pulling the party to the left. but on economic issues -- i

don't think necessarily a bad fog their the party to try to win back the white house. the whole -- i agree is a false choice. democrats need to expand their economic argument because -- without bringing this up again i don't agree with steve for the most part it was contempt from the east coast to what is going on of the was ignorance. we psalm -- we saw examples -- people didn't know. for whatever reasons, reporters screwed up, people just lived different lives here but i think it's really important for the democratic party to understand the pain that's going on and respond it to the way that president trump did. the other stuff is almost irrelevant. sanders got that during the election. even though he is from vermont, he really understood what is going nonway that trump did and democrats need do that and i that think sanders will help show them that direction. >> when you look at the election

results, how do you -- what's your read on this? >> i'm not as in the bernie sanders of the future of the democratic party camp. he ran against hillary clinton, a lot of people didn't like hillary clinton, thus they voted for bernie sanders. i think a liberal socialist from vermont is not the future of the democratic party that's going to win. it's the future of the democratic party that runs and loses by moving too far to the left. i think young voters are really excited about bernie sanders but might have been excited about elizabeth warren or another candidate who is more palatable possibly to the liberal part of thing one of the party without having the name socialist attached. could be wrong. also think he just seems -- i live in l.a. and i live in the congressional district where there's a special election. trump got 11% of the vote there. two candidates advanced to the

runoff in the congressional race. both democrats, neither one a sanders democrat. a person who is mainstream will be important and that this state of the economy. if the economy is going well trump is probably going to win unless he does really off the wall things. >> what else can he say -- >> going to probably lose. >> one thing to understand about the republican party. what this boning agent that holds the republican parties together now. it's grievance. the grievance party. it's aggrieved. and some of this grievances are legitimate. parts of the country. that below the line, again,

analogy, and some of those grieve vans are stokable -- grievances or stokable on race and others like donald trump. just to disagree back a little bit at adam. one of my favorite moments of any campaign is usually on the morning shows, when one of the anchors goes on safari to, like, youngstown, ohio, to report on the primitive people from ohio or wherever the swing district may be, far outside of new york. just think there's a profound level of out of touchedness that exists in the country between the people above the line and the people below the line, and most importantly -- we haven't

talked about this, what animates our politics well live in an era where trust that completely collapsed in any department in the country except the military. what happens when trust collapses is systems strained. harvard university study shows that 80% of people in born in the 1930s think it is essential to live na democracy. that number us 25% for people born then 1980s expats lower for people that are born in the 1990s. and i think when you -- were there racists who voted for donald trump who responded to that message? for sure. did donald trump win because all of a sudden there's a racist majority in the country? i just think, of course not. obviously by definition not racist if you voted for barack

obama and then switched over and voted for donald trump. i just wonder -- i think that there seems to be an allergy to being able to put -- from a democratic perspective themes into the shoes of the voters living in macomb county, michigan elm walked at that time be in the campaign the "black lives matter" movement was taking off, culturally main streaming and the term "white privilege. "i think there's a privilege for all of our kids but what about the former coalminer in huntington, west virginia? what is his privilege? and i think that when people hear that in these places where the middle class american dream is gone, slipped away, where the voters believe their children

will not be as well off as they are, that when we talk about immigration, i don't think it is like a direct -- they don't like mexicans. what they hear the focus groups i've sat in on is a sense that their american dream is love and through their prism there's protected classes of people that keep cutting in line in front of them. and what drove trump's candidacy, despite all the ugliness, it was in some waysen incredibly optimistic candidacy. in the same way like anyone ever had an experience with a terminally ill relative and they're in the clinical drug trials trials and have to believe it's going to work. he goes to these pars of the

country and say we're going to make america great again and bring back jobs, and hope required they believe it. so in a time where trust is collapsed, the reality was there was never a candidate in history of the country that's been in the center of the stage for 26 years that we have actually considered making president. richard nixon is the only analogous -- and we run famous for as long and as famous as hillary clinton was, but i just think when you look at this -- we talked about the factors. the collapse of trust. the cultural chasm that has opened up in country, all profound factors that are weighing in on this stuff and kind of this time when the ideologies we become used to have become unmoored from the parties which are increasingly empty vessels for ambitious politicians.

>> i want to -- >> just a couple things. one, i agree democrats have to do a better job of communicating their care and compassion and plans for these voters. i can tell you, donald trump doesn't give a rats about them. >> of course he doesn't. >> and -- one point, lot of these votes black and brown votes. one of those forgotten auto towns is flint, michigan, predominantly black town. democrats have been there donald trump has not. i ask -- you say that it's not about race because they voted for obama and then vote for trump. look, part of that is due too the great credit -- always be a hero of mine -- of john mccain for not stoking the fires in 2008, and in standing in a town hall and taking a fining mac

crow phone away from a woman who tried to say that barack obama was not a muslim. and leadership matters and donald trump led in a direction and it had consequences. in the end i think the key for democrats is some combination of, one, staying faithful to and rallying our base, the social justice issues to doing a better job of articulating our views on these economic issues, but, three, call ought the fact that donald trump will not deliver for these voters who did put some level of trust in him, enough trust in him to elect him president. he's not going bring back their jobs. not going to enact tax policies and disaaffecting him from trump is step one in bringing them back to the fold. >> want to talk about the next step, 2018.

democrats at disadvantage in the senate with 25 seats up to the republicans having nine. the house, the problem is gerrymandering, but the concentration of democrats in urban districts. given that the democratic base now seems to be so energized. could the mid-term pattern that is traditional be broken? the pattern where democrats who -- who show up in presidential races don't show up in mid-terms. will these people who are marching now show tip polls in 2018 and is it conceivable the democrats could take back the house? >> i think so. is a said earlier there are enough just with districts that hillary won, there are enough to swing the house. i think we have seen so far specials in kansas and georgia where there was a 20-point swing in both districts towards

democrats 2018 is another question. you're right in the last several mid-terms the democratic constituency turnout. i there can -- if turn trends continue there's every reason to believe that it will be a good day for democrat. whether i think take back the senate and the house i don't know but they should make strong gains. >> adam and christian. >> i agree. the other point i would make is that we don't know where these republican voters and these trump voters will be come 2018, and right now, we're seeing these 100 days report and a poll that shows they're all for him and happy, but if we're two years in and the economy is slowing down, which could certainly be the case, if health care has not happened, if the tax hasn't appeared. if god forbid we're in war with -- name the country --

>> canada. >> i'm saying a lot of. the might not come out. think that it is really possible that democrats take back the house. this idea of democrats taking back the senate seems more on mars, note totally impossible. >> i'd say more on the moon. >> one thing i think we haven't talk about for the democrat strategy is there's a natural surge and decline that happens in mid-term elects in presidential years so the democrats should do better. the question will they win two or three seat or tack things back. in '06 there's a big scandal that affected the republican party. 2002, the republicanned did fine, there was the specter of 9/11. 1974 there was the watergate scandal. if the democrats would focus on the corruption aspect, whether it's perceived and not real or real, going into the mid-term elections, combined with the

natural surge and decline and their likely to do better. otherwise might just be a few seats picked up. >> peter. >> i think something has happened to politics. we're talking about -- we're accepting the idea that people will walk interest a voting booth and assume their vote is about what happened at the national level. wasn't that long ago we did talk about politics being local. do american goes to a voting booth to vote for somebody or if that person's name is not on the ballot, will they go to vote against him and isn't it a question of fielding strong candidate -- >> are you saying is the election goal to be nationalized. >> i'm surety will be but can democrats win without having a strong local ground game, local candidates who are engaging to them. people won't just good and say i hate trump. they'll stay home if there's not someone to vote for who they like. that's all i'm saying. >> i think the democrats are

going to win back the house in 2018. there's been three -- only three times in the last 118 years that the incouple bent president's -- incumbent president's party picks um seats. the democrats will pick up seated. i think trump has energize the party. i think that they are united in going out and casting an oppositional vote, and republicans, i think, will be disaffected because obamacare and although domestic alleged they talked about, none of those things will happen. this georgia six special election is significant in similar to -- going back to '93 and the first mid-term after bill clinton two districts on the mississippi river in kentucky, the kentucky one and two, never voted for a

republican candidate in the history of the country, and they both voted for republicans in specials. republicans have the big '94 year. in 06, mitt romney ron with 66%. donald trump barely won is at 49% and there are more than enough districts that -- hillary clinton won that could drop in reverse. i think that -- i have a personal point of view. don't want to see either one of these two parties with complete control of government and i think there will be a reset towards that. >> i wouldn't mind if one party controlled government but i won't say what it is. i do have a question for you about the republican party and then i want to ask a final question about at the democrats and then open this up. president trump, according to representative mark sanford -- we don't talk to talk more about him -- has threatened to primary

some republican members of congress if they don't go along with him. sanders said that's counterproductive. is it and will it ever really happen? would trump really do this? >> i just was struck when you said president trump. never get used to it. i think that if you threaten somebody, better deliver on the threat. right? so typically in politics, he is not the first governor or president that threatened, if you don't do what i say i'm going to primary you. almost every instance that i can think of, they fail to deliver on the threat and plus they're weakened. very famously on the obamacare repeal vote that steve ban bannonrespond everybody to the meeting and threatened them in the eisenhower executive office building and just not how

politics works ban -- and so i think -- i think that like politicians, elected politics, is a species of humans distinct from the rest of us have finely honed instinctses for century rival. you think about the republicans looking at donald trump, they relate to donald trump at his 42% level. quite differently than they're going relate to him at his 32% approval. and so his trading range, i think, is going to be between 35% to 42%, and he may go as low as 32%, 31%, but you remember -- donald trump won by 100,000 votes across three states. he pulled on inside straight. lost the popular vote by 3 million, and in order for him to be reelected it requires the

democratic party to nominate on unelectable candidate. we have a contest again between two historically unpopular candidates that definitionally would be viewed at unelectable and in a two-person race, you have two unelectable candidate, one unelectable candidate wins. >> that brings me to my next question. we talked about the democratic party message, economic justice, social justice, but a lot of people say the party lacks a messenger for 2020. dan? who should the party look to and what are they looking for? >> i'll say -- assume that hillary clinton done run. >> that's a good assumption. i don't have a preferred candidate but i -- ron and i talk about this earlier. do feel like having watched the last two contested democratic primaries, that no one is going

to be nominate who cannot appeal to voters of color, especially in the south. i think that is why obama beat clinton, why clinton beat sanders, and anyone who thinks that they're going to -- there's a different winning coalition in the democratic party, we haven't seen it, and so i think does that help corey book center i don't know. i don't think necessarily has to mean the candidate has to be a person of color but die think that no one is going to win democratic nomination by saying, we should be talking more to white men and less to women and people of color. that's a losing proposition in a primary. >> peter i'm not going to compel you to come up with someone. >> good thing. not knowing who the party would come up with i do think that they need the -- the party needs somebody who can master the media of that moment, who is

quick, who is willing to go toe to toe with someone, someone who seems to go back to this word, athen tick. you can be in smartest person in the room and lose and you can analyze a lot of votes and patterns, but i think really they need someone who is just going to reach out to voters in some direct way, but someone who will master the media of that moment. that what we sunny american politics frankly since the start. >> well, i'm going to cop out and not give a name but not going to give name for this reason. i think leadership struggle in the democratic party over the past eight years has been centered around two can questiod holm howe did you respond to 2008 financial collapse and how did you vote on the war in iraq? those have been the driving cutting lines in the party over

the past eight years. i do not think in 2020 those two very backward looking dividing lines will be what decides who our party knock -- nominated. witness below who is the most effect enough. dealing with trump and the agenda. if you look at the field today and line these people around how anti-wall street were they in 2008 and how antiiraq war were they, those have been the test of leadership in the party until now, and i think those griding lining going -- dividing lines are going to change and it's testoon say. >> i'll dodge on the name thing. >> i knew that. >> if you see -- i think that the bar has been lowered for who the democratic candidate could or might be for two reasons. one is that people are -- democrats are frequented out about trupp -- freaked another about trump and people think that trump's beatable.

so i think a lot of democrats in the race who might not have been in the race normally because they might not be ready, people we have not thought of. i just aware of a lot of people, younger people, and people that in a normal year might not be considered experienced enough to be running for president but i think that's all out the window in the era of trump. >> so i think that the general election, assuming true. 's approval numbers stay where they are, any democratic who is breathing, not incompetent and is an elected official with a little experience. kamala harris has a good chance because she could win the primary by winning california. if cory booker doesn't run, african-american support, female support, do well in the south do well in california. that's probably enough to get enough delegates for the convention. it's like '08. getting the nomination will mean a lot. that's assuming the economy is not going gangbusters. if a it's going great, trump can

win but if he remains unpopular, kamala harris, amy klobuchar. those are the swing states now. >> steve, i bet you disagree with any democrat can win theory. >> i think what is true presidential politics is that in the next president will always possess oppositional virtues to the last president, and they're not experiencal virtues. they're character virtues. i'm not sure who that is in the democratic party. a democratic congressman who challenged nancy pelosi, tim ryan, and a very nice guy, very articulate and sat down and i joked with him. said you're awfully young looking for a leader in democratic party, and he just started laughing, and so i think when you look at the obama years --

>> the amount of seat losses that democrats have sustained who have a hollowing out -- you have old people and then you have not ready people. so to be president i think that nominee is more likely than not to come out of the side of the -- may not be particularly ready but at the right moment, and i think there's people -- we were talking before. a congressman from massachusetts, maremma recent combat veteran, medal of valor, harvard university. good on tv. don't know how he does shaking hands. i think what we learned over the last couple of debates, if you can get up on the stage and you can perform as an athlete, you can do well in the debates and

trigger the fundraising, and you're off to the races, and none of the traditional entry points, the ability to have a in field organization overnight in iowa or endorsement. it's much more a disruptive process and much more -- than typical machine politic. think it couldn't -- >> so, an uber, not a taxicab. i think we have some time for some questions now. >> all the way in the back in the blue. that's you. you're looking around. they're bringing you a mic. >> hi. so, steve's opinion about contempt, an interesting mr. per extension my attention which is the tomorrow that elite steams to be short hand for democratic amongst these rural working

class white voters. they seem to equate the two, which i suspect might be because many of the elites that are visible, elites in silicon valley and the media, are the ones they can see but the elites that areless publicly visible are the ones who are actually supporting policies that actively hurt their interests, economic some otherwise. ... and whatever that was supposed to mean.

so i do think there is mutual contempt here that needs to be dialed back and dialed down. but i think, look, i think that overall, i also want to just come at the sole thing about the obama voters who voted for trump, i think that's a little bit of a week piece of analysis. since there are definitely counties that went for obama that went for trump. that doesn't mean they were necessarily voters who vote for obama. what happened in a lot of predominately white counties in pennsylvania, in michigan and wisconsin is at times of people who didn't vote in 200 2008 shod up and vote in 2016. that flipped a lot of these counties. you had incredibly high levels of turnout.

among white rural working-class voters. to me in the end the democratic strategy here is not around elevating their elites and building more hate for their elites and our elites and their elites and all this stuff. to me it's more around reaching those voters and trump is not going to deliver for them, has not delivered for them, is not to living for them. then do think it's incumbent upon us to explain what we would do for them, how we would create economic growth, vitality in these forgotten parts of the country. >> one of the strengths of the u.s. whole was it didn't do what most balls did. it didn't throw out people who had not voted in 2012 and 2014. it allowed them to express their opinion and a lot of those people would come out and vote for trumpet does anybody else have a question? somebody who hasn't asked. you have been asked, right? okay. go ahead. >> thanks for coming.

i just have a quick question about potential centrist candidates. is it possible that somebody could run in 201840 senate seat in, safe like ohio, sherrod brown, some who captures those voters that secretary clinton clearly lost out on? somebody like kamala harris can be as anti-trump as she wants to because she's not going to lose support in california. but somebody like sherrod brown in ohio is at risk of losing a seat if he doesn't at least play to the middle of it. so to what extent do certain democratic candidates in swing states have to be more centrist, but it have to just mobilize the base on the left as much as possible instead of compromising to the middle? >> anyone who wants to take that can take it. >> i'll just say one briefing. i've actually been shocked by

how relatively moderate to conservative democrats have voted against trump in the house and senate so far and don't feel that pressure. on the supreme court nomination trump only got three democratic votes including claire mccaskill was one of the most vulnerable democrats, the most moderate parts of the country, felt free to vote against him trump on the bundle to try to get democrats on. what i say it's best for which h trump's approval rating as low as it is, within being as provocative and as divisive as he's been with him not really making the effort to reach out to democrats. democrats are able to oppose him pretty much with impunity. i don't think they feel any pushback against that even in these more swing states. >> it also gets to the debate about what actually happened in those states. because if you think that it's

about populism and not about moderation, then senator brown can be populist, which is what he wants to be, and defined. he doesn't have to attack the middle. just because it's a red state. if it's a populist red state then he's fine. if you actually that's a misreading of what happened, you can look at portman and john kasich being very popular in ohio, and like, if you look at the results of the senate race in wisconsin and how well republicans have in state races there. they may be you do need to worry, it isn't just been populist is enough. that is what the questions i think democrats are messing with. certainly the sanders wing of the party with eight inches to go more left, not go center. >> type for a couple more

questions. leslie. >> so i know the panel may disagree with me on this premise, but you argue the possibility that the u.s. has a culture roadblock against electing a woman as president? >> just arguing, take the opposite point of view. >> the moderate is just going to say it's tough for women to get elected president and i think more and more social science evidence shows that. >> i'll speak to that. there's one study that looked at support for trump versus clinton compared to vote obama in 2008 versus mccain. attitudes for traditional roles for women in the house and having support for trump, less so for republicans in previous elections though there's a

little bit going on there in the data, racial recent was also a factor as well. >> i don't think anyone would disagree. maybe people would. is i anyone on this panel who disagrees that there are various for one and it's a higher hurdle and iand this mortal? >> i agree but i would add one thing, which i think will come up any future, which is a think because the only, because hillary was the only data point we have, she brought a whole bunch of her own weaknesses,, limitations that are not been come a whole set of challenges that it have to do think one anf the ransomware is related but it's hard when the other one example to disaggregating. one of the strengths that she brought that a sort unique to her was her credibility on national security, and a long time knock on women candidates was not seen as tough enough unsecured effect that didn't didn't happen to hillary even

though exit polls showed trump one voters on terrorist and the loss voters who can't afford policy. for other women running in 2020 who do not, who were not secretary of state, didn't sit on armed service committee, don't have that reputation as aa longtime iron lady, i think we will see that particular barrier come back with a vengeance. i think we will see it sort of a clover chart or elizabeth warren or kamala harris or kristen gillibrand were not so stay with national security primarily, i think you'll see a whole host of problems on the national security front because of their gender. we didn't see much this time but i think we will. >> a question on the superdelegates. how do you feel is a time for that to go? what's the value of it? certainly bernie sanders voters -- >> i haven't heard that word salon, i forgot about superdelegates.

it seems like 20 years ago. [laughing] >> just interested in the democratic strategist about the value of the superdelegates or not. >> i do know what people are going to say. i will point out one thing. the superdelegates never dared to become a poison pill. that is, to overturn the results of a primary. if they had a think the democratic party would that you would've slowed. anybody else have anything on this? >> i think the republicans would say that would be the counterfactual. >> yes, sir, all the way in the back. >> yes. someone mentioned on the panel, you were talking about the two-party system and that it's all been dodgy. but don't you think that the two-party system in the united states offered stability to the country for a very, very long time, and so moving forward it's hard for me, and it's

entrenched, it's hard for me to see this in my lifetime or in the next 50 years somehow it's going to be dismantled or molded into something else. for as much as how bad it is, can you comment on the best that it is given the country for the tremendous long period of time? >> you don't have to do a lengthy -- >> no no, no. if you want to run that the other way, you would say if we were to go in the civil war in 1860, the two parties were some of the time, really two-party system that provided stability or is are some really poor understanding that ties us together as a nation that provides us with stability? i would argue it's that, that is not the two-party system. i think the two-party system we have now come historians are terrible at predicting the future so i won't, but i don't

think that accounts for our stability. >> you have a panelist privilege. >> quick question. watching marco rubio and john kasich going during the morning shows and rapid messaging, how you had to get the possibility that trump gets the primary? >> i think it, well, not by marco rubio. >> why? not disagreeing, just curious. >> because the risk reward calculus doesn't pencil out, and john kasich seems to be intimating you know, when he's kind of moving the on the parties, they are both broken, et cetera. independent candidacy, you know, who knows? i think it's tough to primary from the, look, trump will have to be in a state of pretty abjectly, you know, look, and

then someone who when i get asked this, i don't see like any scenarios where this turns out well, like where it's going to pay, oh my god, he turned out to be such a great president. you know, i think that there's a tremendous chance a lot of bad things are going to happen. >> we have one other thing to do, and i want to say it's been a wonderful day and the wonderful panel. i'd like to thank them at the end but it want to introduce for a few closing remarks, and i think they are brief, because i know her very well, the remarkable dean of usc, also remarkable conference without whom this conference would not have happened, and who is given such support to practical politics and political science and the unruh institute, aging of the arts and amber miller.

[applause] >> thank you, bob. thank you for having us. on behalf of your see i would like to thank all of the participants in today's discussions as well as the political science department and the jesse unruh institute. and a special thanks of course to its director bob shrum who brought us here. i hope you'll stay with me for the next two hours, my closing remarks. [laughing] lacks of great discussions today. as much left to be sorted out. i suspect there are a lot of things we don't agree on, but one thing we probably all do agree on is the challenges we face today are incredibly complex. where facing them as a more divided nation that almost any other time in our history. today's conversations have been a breath of fresh air for me. we used to talk about the art of debate. debate takes creativity, concentration and technique. this art seems to have gone missing and so much of the debate these days but i heard

here today. it's starting to what such group of experts both from inside and outside the academy with the ride range of approaches grapple with the tough questions that we talked about today and a smart and honest way. what professor shrum has brought to our -- gooding today's panel is a shining example of the kind of engagement that i believe we need more of in today's research universities. my broader goal as universally as specifically as an eugene here at usc is to find creative ways to connect the ideas for generations within the academy, the real world society in a two-way dialogue. i look forward to expanding conversations like those today, of the specific issues such as sustainability and environment, refugees, displaced populations and economic disparity. with these fundamental questions facing us in terms of what needs to get done to save command and

the planet and through the global public good, we have no choice but to figure out a multilateral bipartisan approach. i believe our research universities provide an environment uniquely conducive to both this kind of thought and action that effective response to these questions. we are places that generate new knowledge and prepare the next generation of leaders. but universities can also be places that engage with the committees in ways that make what we do more relevant and in ways that create more impact. fax do matter. and so do science. the very troubling data we saw this morning demonstrates that we are not working from a common set of facts. it makes clear to me that university need to step up. my ambition for usc is to become a national hub for convening a group of people intent on generating fact-based solutions

to the world's most challenging problems. there's expertise right here in this room to do it, academics, political operatives, triplets, public servants service and others. i believe if we get it right universities can be some of the most important meaningful resource for developing the best solutions to complex problems. but we can also service honest brokers and help america reestablish our long tradition of inclusivity and finding common ground. we saw this thoroughly on display today, conversations based on fact, respect, inside positions also at odds. the breakdown of civility in the last election cycle not only among politicians itself but also that with the media and the american public cannot define us. america is a nation with a long history of coming together in the most trying times by relying on the process of values and cooperation. two quotes come to mind from the mid-20s sent to an america's political climate was still

fierce and fracture. the discourse was mostly civil. republican president dwight eisenhower said this world of ours must avoid becoming a a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. and democratic president franklin roosevelt reminded us in 1938 that democracy cannot succeed unless those express their choices are prepared to choose wisely. the real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education. i hope so. and i hope you will continue to join us as we take on additional timely issues. today's conference was part of the unruh institute academy series and will take place over the next coming year. these public forums will focus on hot button issues such as millennial voters, climate change and domestic terrorism.

we thank our longtime supporter for the gracious sponsoring of this upcoming series. we will have more information on these events and others coming soon. thank you all again for joining us, and back to bob and the panel. [applause] >> i should've said college letters, arts and sciences but he didn't. or arts, letters and sciences. i want to thank dean miller because i really mean it, without her help we wouldn't be here and we wouldn't be able to do this. i also want to thank the staff of the unruh institute, political such apartment, my colleagues in a political science department, all of the work so hard on this. i think the panelists him my friends that post on, others that i post on anyways even if i didn't know them all that well. and jill who kicked if this

thing off with some very illuminating information. thank you all very much. as an audience you have been terrific and you get, if we are asking for grades, na. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> in case you missed it on c-span, retired brigadier general gerald galloway on the possible threat of climate change on national security. >> is to go back to older field manuals there's one from the 1980s the said weather and terrain of the most significant aspects of battlefield combat. whether it's the runways that have to be open so you can land

on them, whether it's the open seas or its the hill you're going to climb, when they're in change, and they are in change right now, the military is concerned about that. so the military has long had an interest in dealing with things like this and forecasting what might happen. >> wisconsin congressman jim sensenbrenner at a town hall meeting. >> i want to know why don't you just have a single-payer? [applause] [cheers and applause] >> now, as i said at the beginning of the meeting, and that is that interruptions, you know, i'm not going to be tolerated. [shouting] >> okay, would you please sit down, sir? she has the floor. you do not. [shouting] >> would you please sit down? [shouting] would you please sit down or go out in the hallway. thank you for leaving.

>> maine senator angus king at a hearing on the foreign intelligence surveillance act. >> i'll ask both are you the same question, why are you answering these questions? is there an indication by the president of executive privilege, is there or not? >> not that i'm aware. >> and was not answered? >> i feel it is inappropriate. >> what you feel isn't relevant, admiral. >> and changes to the dodd-frank act. >> and today, today we released a report titled was the cop on the beat? this is regarding the cfpb's wholly inadequate role in investigating the wells fargo fraudulent account scandal. we have received numerous records from both wells fargo and the occ and others that indicate that the cfpb was asleep at the wheel. >> c-span programs are available at c-span.org, on our homepage and by searching the video library.