unmarried women and the unmarried electorate, enabling you to win at a big enough level to really affect. let me ask one or two dozen then we go around the table. given what you have just said, this might not the -- this would be a better climate for bernie sanders than for hillary clinton, right? [laughter] stan: no. >> why not? stan: she did make, before this, she did make one of her key pillars of her election dealing with campaign money and raise the issue of the constitutional amendment in the context of money.

it will be interesting to see how this plays down in terms of the story in the post on money in the bush world. i think there will be a broad sense of that is the way politics work. i think that will push for it being even stronger in advocacy on going after money and going after the way government works. can i ask another question. i was struck by the new york times piece a week ago now about election polling in near crisis and they cited an increasing number of homes that only have

cell phones, willing to answer surveys, and likely voters, and the result is pollsters will be less reliable and may not even know when they are off pace. i thought, given your long experience, would let you say whether you agree with that? stan: they set up question? this being the only poll that you could trust, and the reason, i am not just saying that, the reason is -- >> 60% on cell phones. stan: right. and also, we are the only ones in a national poll. we are only dealing with people who voted in the prior

presidential -- or they have a very high probability of voting. to start with, they are voters. we're not trying to guess. these are voters, probably two thirds or 70% of the people we are interviewing have voted in a prior presidential election. 6% cell phones, that is expensive. >> for the industry as a whole should voters and news consumers he more concerned? >> some of the news organizations that we work for that we poll for -- there is an

increasing number of those. the l.a. times poll was accurate. all of them are moving to internet and web-based surveys. our challenge will be even greater, i think our problem is not the landslide problem -- landmine problem. because of the cost of dealing with cell phones, the alternative they are moving to is doing web service. we have no experience with it. we polled for the labour party. in my past polling for the labour party, this time, the labour party only paid for.

web based polling. we had a poll that did show the election getting closer. it turned out to be right. it also turned out there was not any real difference between the web based polls in the british elections and the ones that were done by regular phone samples. i think we are in the middle of which country. my experience in the u.s. is the databases are not as strong in the u.s. as in britain. >> we will go to -- to start. >> hillary lost women to obama in 17 states or 17 contests, i should say, and did less well among unmarried women. she has always had a problem

generally, attracting unmarried women in the election. how do you overcome that now? how do she overcome that now? stan: we do not poll in the primaries. i would be surprised if she did less well than obama. given the high proportion of african-americans who are unmarried, a racial effect rather than a marriage effect. if we look at her position right now, she is doing well and better with unmarried women. and i believe with white working-class than obama did. she is doing much less well in this poll.

page: we did not take a look at all the primary contests. we did some and we did see as the race was joined there was movement. but getting back to a stan was talking about earlier, i think you see in terms of the four pillars she has put together something that addresses the lives of unmarried women specifically and their concerns about a government that works for them, and economy for the future. i think there will be a lot of excitement around unmarried women for the candidacy and, as stan has seen, what we are seeing in our poll, white unmarried women are doing this and it is impressive.

>> i have a double barrel question. when you talk about this group in which the enthusiasm or intensity is high but the turnout rate is low, do we know what the actual turnout rate has been for the entire group which you have added to? can you say in those groups individually or in combination what the turnout rate has in? page: in 2012, they were 48% of the electorate. just the rising american electorate, even though in 2012, they were the majority of people who could, yeah, 48%.

>> based on the trend -- it is like 64%. that 48%, 55% -- projected in 2016. >> the second barrel on this is why is the democratic edge so thin? >> are we talking about voting groups? we are looking right now, i'm not sure i want what the republicans have. the lower the standing of the republican party. i think hillary clinton is a strong candidate.

as she is being attacked broadly. that she is a strong candidate. and i think probably will be aided by the primaries and will probably the moved more quickly. if she were not there, there is a whole bunch who might emerge as candidates in the democratic party. win the nomination. >> i should ask you on behalf of the group, other than friendship, is there a relationship that you have with hillary? at the moment, no. >> what should we be telling republican candidates about putting together winning a coalition given the shifting electorate?

stan: pretty fundamental. my backdrop is, you know, the new democrats and former had to do to win both the party and the country. there really is a pretty sustained party for them coming into that. we had a presidential electoral advantage for a long time. it took tumultuous was primaries in which we battled. we do not win until after the primary, a process, to make a turn to say we are a different

party. it isn't like take some -- and then in order to balance you know, liberal, then take other positions. he ran against union control. it was true of bill clinton. we ran welfare reform in georgia in the primary. we were able to say to the country, we beat the old forces and we are now a different kind of party, a different kind of democrat. they need to have a defeat like 1984 with a candidate that is the mainstream of the party, and then go through the process of reforms. we took off a few issues that work better in the general

election. the problem is you have unmarried women where you have the population growing, big changes for the country, but they are fighting -- it is not just that there is a trend. they are defined by their battle against those trends. we are not just looking at a line. we are looking at a line they view as something they're trying to forestall or keep that majority from governing in its own name and its own value. page: if you look at what is going on now in terms of the lives of most americans, they do not understand why the candidates in the republican party fundamentally do not get

it. whether it is equal pay, and this is men and women together. paid sick days, a formal childcare, fundamental issues that make the lives of working americans strong. they do not seem -- a little bit of tone deafness is around it. stan: we tested the republican agenda and a test 10 points lower overall. you want to look at the bottom of things that are really low, with 22%, cut regulations, weaken unions, reducing deficit and government spending and page 35. if you want to take the issues at the bottom of their list, it is what they care about, what they really talk about.

>> to alexis from real clear politics. >> thinking about the enthusiasm gap, for a democratic candidate to follow a two-term democratic president into the white house thinking about the enthusiasm gap, hillary clinton's agenda so far is not that different from president obama. what is it about the democratic candidate agenda that you would suggest might be missing? what i'm thinking of is that of voters are somewhat demoralized or downbeat about a democratic president working with a republican congress, has been blockaded on some of the issues they care most about it what can the candidates say to voters this time to persuade them not just to be enthusiastic about the agenda, that that it could actually be fulfilled? >> i think that is a harder

problem. you can see it in the group. people do not think any of this will happen. it is not just because we're following obama. it is because they think washington is so corrupt and gridlocked so i do think, it is the main problem, getting people to believe change is happening. it is not because it is the third term for barack obama. it is because the whole political system is uniquely corrupted. i think the old patterns of two-term presidents are meaningless. what matters is how deep a critique people have of what is happening politically. that is the context.

i would still take the deck handed handed to her president obama, as he gets to the end of his term, the economy will continue in macro terms. over 50% approval, disproven probably for a sustained time, i would not mind. i would dispute that the president was on this agenda. the country was not thinking it was dealing with this agenda. the first time you're really talking about this is this year's state of the union and a strong economy that is working that people have hundreds of

thousands of jobs. it was not about both happening in the middle-class. it is not his agenda. i think hillary has a big opportunity economically and more broadly. page: i would also add in the research you see, one of the signs of who was working for you, she and the democrats in congress had a big advantage on that. i agree with stan in terms of the clinical pattern. right now, who do the american people think is working for them and you see a clear advantage. >> just a follow-up for hillary, is there anything she is not saying that she should, as a candidate, stress more, based on what you have discerned? >> it is early. i thought it was very much in line. looked at it and said, well,

she followed the draft of the questionnaire -- no, it seems to me those are pretty bold issues, very much in line with the boldness, she is also talking about working women and cleaning up money. to me, she seems to me moving toward this direction. >> if i am wondering the decisions of the supreme court and the movement of the country in the last week due in terms of enthusiasm gaps we're talking about. on obamacare and on gay rights and to some degree the racial sensitivity from charleston. does that have the effect of dampening the enthusiasm gap

because they are victories for the democrats and embolden republicans who are so inflamed. i listened to mark levin within this morning on obamacare. >> this is totally without data but i can promise you every democrat i have seen seems pretty hyped up and energized by this decision. if there is the perception he is a successful president, i think democrats are energized by that. we are watching a trend line on ideology and cultural symbols moving in a particular direction. it looks like one side is winning.

they have to give energy to the winning side. it may lead to complacency but i do not think so. i am assuming there is more disgruntlement that your leaders are failing you defending our values. >> just a follow-up, you do not think republicans could take from these positions enough to generate enthusiasm on their side? >> i do not see the logic and for those who want to argue for different kinds of party directions, yes, you could make an argument or maybe in his announcement, he will say this is a turning point. we need to worry as much about the poor as christian values say we should. maybe he will come with a different perspective that will make it hurt, certainly by the media. republican-based voters will listen. but it is theoretical. i do not see the logic of it with republicans or

conservatives. >> we will try to get to rick klein, karen bowen, cameron joseph, and david. rick from abc news. >> you make the comparison a long public and leadership with john boehner and mitch mcconnell's -- if that did not matter to voters in the 2014 midterms when the leadership was actually in question on the ballot, and republicans gain ground, why would it matter in 2016 and related to that aren't they just one popular presidential candidate away from turning around? talking about the presidential candidate, does it work in the reverse? >> you are absolutely right, i have watched and hoped for the

kind of effect to play out in presidential elections. it was harder given the nature of the electorate. and success doing the opposite their congressional leaders, but about nationalizing around obama and stopping obama. there is some evidence in this poll that for some groups, beginning to line up the congressional vote in the presidential vote. if you look at 21, one of the things reflected in the vote which had a strong presidential margin for hillary over two candidates who tested, and all had a stronger democratic vote.

that was where you see the margin between the vote for congress and president. pretty small but you are beginning to see not only a very strong vote for hillary, but also a strong congressional vote. it is not generic. in each district, we asked to the congressional incumbent's name and generic. we have shown a shift. there is some evidence here, and hillary is attacking the congress, unlike obama, where he was much more making the case for his own presidency and the

direction of it, she is very much what the republicans are doing on education, spending, as they produce a reauthorization of the education, talking about the cuts and research, you know the research budget of the federal government, she seems to be bringing congress into the narrative more than obama did. >> 52% on the enthusiasm gap has really got my attention. [laughter] the polls show generally the public does not like republican leadership. hillary clinton in her speech, this agenda toward working people. republicans, what your poll finds the public does not like.

how did they get to 67 percent? why are republicans so jazzed to vote? do they not like obama, is that it? >> they do not like obama, they do not like hillary clinton. i think when they watch the supreme court, which may be the point you were making earlier, when they watched the supreme court on gay marriage, and other issues on the aca, they see the only things to stop them who win an election and stop them. the issues to them are, trying to stop something as opposed to democrats, a change of governments that needs to be reformed and order to bring change. the more complicated argument for democrats.

page: i also see you go over time. if the argument is are articulated from now until the end, you see the enthusiasm level dries pretty significantly. it is just a matter of articulating an agenda that speaks to their lives that includes economic lives as well as getting something done to make government work for them. >> is this 67 a floor or a ceiling? >> i think it is a floor. they just elected a congress really ever public and leaders for the first time in a very long time. they have the start of the presidential election with many candidates.

you can see why they would be more attentive, in particular. democrats, particularly unmarried women, have fairly mixed views. the approval rating is pretty big among unmarried women. we have to move them. the agenda that does it, the evidence here is it does move them, once you advance an agenda which shows you want to change the way politics and governance works, as well as the economic policy. page: there is another piece to that come increasing enthusiasm but also optimism particularly among unmarried women to you saw how pessimistic currently they are. i think there is a lot of movement there as well. >> i would like to ask the

-- your view of the republican field at this point, i see your polling shows hillary would do better against walker than rubio. is there anything to that? related to that, we are seeing serges for candidates like ben carson, trump is doing well in new hampshire, two people just come on their publican side, just not really know what they want yet or are not really familiar enough with the candidates, or do you think there is something in the numbers about telling us what stan: the differences are not real statistically. we view them as comparable strengths. we will probably still rotate other candidates in.

we did not come out of this saying, well, one of these is stronger. we did not pull the primary audience. as i look in 2012, the nominee if he had not withdrawn in iowa, think all of them elected, nothing will be out of the race. you just stay and wait it out presumably, giving you enough money, i think they sustain the race as long as possible and you have a winner take all system. the system is tilted toward , winner takes all. it can play out in very surprising ways. that is why we have to have a lot of evidence.

i think the only predictable thing is how unappealing jeb bush is. he is not compelling to some of the general election numbers. a whole argument is we need somebody who can run and win the general election. he is stronger as a candidate in the general election. i do not understand the logic of it. but paired also, is there a base for establishing our polling about 25%. i think he is barely competing with other candidates. i do not see the jeb bush appeal. i think it will be highly unpredictable, everybody is going to stay in and take the day because they can play out in

the primaries -- and wehner will take all. >> i'm not trying to be rude but i have got to squeeze too does people into three minutes. cameron? cameron: the other thing i was wondering, we have not talked much about national security here. in 2014, some of the races their losing foot because of married women in the last six weeks of the election because of all of those issues. because of the rise of isis. republicans are talking a lot of security right now secretary of state. how compelling for the electorate as a whole, how do you avoid that being a motivating issue for the other side? how compelling of an issue is this for the marriage woman and how do you avoid that being a motivating issue for the other side? >> we are not disputing the observations and other issues about married women. that would likely explainthat, i

do not downplay the importance of national security this week would play in the election. they are not prominent in this poll. our polls will include that. europe, russia, isis, the middle east. i am sure the issues will be important. i think hillary historically brings strength to that, as another candidate has been secretary of state -- she has experience, is strong, having taken positions on these issues that allows some dependence to be established. we have no data on this, but it is obviously important.

>> that question is from david on the l.a. times. david: i want to go back to obamacare. different views about why people feel the way they do some people -- on the affordable care act, that is -- people argue as folks became more accustomed to it others saying really, just a proxy for how people feel about the president. i am curious if you have any sense of what is striving the upper trend, is it the law itself, the president, some mix? stan: i do not think it is the president himself because the line does not correlate very well with his overall approval rating. i'm skeptical of that is a theory. i would not have accepted the obamacare labeling of it given

how polarized the country is. that is really limited. the affordable care act is the right place to be on it. i think they did not sell the lot as transformative enough. the fundamental problem was selling it. it is transformable. it is a fundamental change. but it was sold as, if you have insurance, you can keep it. minimum change. but in fact, there was a huge impact on affordable coverage, on women, on health care cap -- health care cost -- a huge effect. we are focusing on women. it is seen as a requirement.

it is seen as an individual mandate. it is though, a plural and individual mandate. they also see policies and have big deductibles. you have people who are really struggling financially, even though they are being held. it is still a struggle, predictably when you have big deductibles. as unmarried women in particular come out and we spent time talking about them in particular. wouldn't hillary clinton or democrats come out for a public option? without deductibles, as an amendment, if you want to focus on what people understand, it would be being able to choose an option. an option that does not have the deductibles. i think genuine issues is not just branding.

there are genuine issues, the whole support level. >> [indiscernible] stan: i'm just assuming itis working. it is having a huge impact. so the coverage i think is very different. page: i think it is an important experience and a good one despite some issues around economic strains it is putting on people. but, you here that in the groups. >> we're out of time. thank you. thank you for coming. >> congress returns this week from the july for the break. we will continue the work on the bill funding the epa and other related agencies. they make changes to the no child left behind law.

you can watch the house live here on c-span. on c-span they take up a separate issue, dealing with no child left the hind that will give states more authority regarding standardized test scores. watch live senate coverage on c-span 2. >> like many of us first families take vacation time. first ladies, presidential historians on the lives of 45 iconic american women. fascinating stories on the women who survived the white house. it is available as a hardcover or e-book.

>> 2016 presidential candidate rick perry spoke about his plan. the former texas government is currently one of 14 candidates seeking the presidential nomination. this is one hour from the press lump. -- press club. >> my name is john hughes and i am an editor for bloomberg. i am the president of the national press club. our guest today is a former texas governor rick perry. he is one of 16 announced, or likely candidates for the republican nomination. i want to introduce our

distinguished head table. this group includes press club members and guests from the speaker. joseph morton. he's a national press club board member. evan mcmorris, white house reporter for buzz feed and a national press club board member. maria. greg strimple. marine - washington correspondent for usa today. rob johnson, chief strategist for governor perry. jerry stransky chairman and on the washington chief for the news. skipping over our speaker for a

moment jill lawrence contributing editor for u.s. news and world report. she is also the speaker plush committee member who organized the event today. thank you, jill. jack miller is the campaign manager for governor perry. alison fitzgerald, managing editor at the center for public integrity. she is a national press club board member. thomas washington correspondent for the salt lake tribune and vice president of the national press club. [applause] >> i also want to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences and remind you that you can follow the action on twitter. use the #npclunch. for today's speaker, 2015 marks

round two in seeking the republican presidential nomination. he was unsuccessful in but there 2012, are differences now. there are differences that go beyond the eyeglasses that give governor perry a new look. he began his preparations early for this cycle, much earlier than in 2012. he has avoided using the word "oops" -- that was memorable on the 2012 campaign trail. governor perry says another difference in 2016 is that this race is a "show me, don't tell me" election. he says, current and former governors, in contrast to members of congress are better , prepared to run the country. he cites the credential, job creation during his 14 years as texas governor. he also cites his handling of the mexican border, and

hurricane katrina refugees. one of his trademark development tools as a governor, was to visit companies in other states and to persuade them to move to texas. in fact, in 2013, he went to maryland in search of receptive companies. and while there, he ended up on cnn's crossfire. he spoke with martin o'malley. on many issues, he says the state should set policy, not the federal government. on that basis, he disagreed for instance, on the supreme court decision on marriage equality. rick perry has spent 30 years in one or another public office in texas, including his agricultural commissioner and lieutenant governor and governor. prior to entering public service, he was a captain in the air force and farmed cotton with

his father. today he will discuss his economic opportunity plan at the national press club. please join me in getting a warm welcome to armor texas governor -- two former texas governor rick perry. [applause] governor perry: thank you. it was 99 years ago on the 15th day of may 1916 that in a courthouse in waco, texas, there was a mentally disabled 17-year-old boy. his name was jesse washington. he was convicted of raping and murdering the wife of his

employer. he pled guilty and was sentenced to death. jesse died no ordinary death. that was because he was black. after the death sentence was issued, jesse was dragged out of the courthouse, into a crowd of hundreds, and thanks to the advent of the new technology called the telephone, word spread rather quickly to what was about to happen. and soon there were 15,000 people watching jesse washington be tortured mutilated, tied to a tree. someone lit a fire under jesse and raised him up in the air.

jesse tried to climb up the chains to keep from being consumed by the fire. someone started cutting his fingers off so that he could not climb the chain. one man castrated him. another used a pole to prevent himself from pulling away from the fire. there was a prominent local photographer who took pictures of his charred remains and sold them as souvenirs on a postcard. even today, we texans struggled to talk about what happened to

jesse washington. we do not want to believe that our great state could ever have been the scene of such unimaginable warmer -- hor ror. it is an episode that we cannot ignore. it is an episode we have that obligation to transcend. we have made a lot of progress. a lot of progress since 1916. a half a century ago republicans and democrats came together to finally in trying into law the principle that all of us regardless of race, color, national origin are created equal.

shed rick willis was a slave. this was before the civil war. he had been bought and sold on the courthouse steps of mclennan county, texas. that was the same courthouse where jesse washington was later dragged it down and brought to death. when i was the governor of texas, i had the proud distinction of appointing willis' great grandson. -- great great great grandson. to be the first african-american justice on the texas supreme court.

in 2004, i appointed wallace to be the supreme court's first chief justice. you see, there were tens of thousands of stories like wallace jefferson's when it comes to race. america is a better and more tolerant and more welcoming place than it has ever been before. we are a country with hispanic ceos, with asian billionaires , with a black president. so why is it today so many black families feel left behind? why is it that a quarter of african-americans live below the poverty line? even after the impact of federal

programs like food stamps and housing subsidies, the supplemental poverty rate for african americans is nearly double the rate for other americans. democrats have long had the opportunity to govern the african-american communities. it is time for black families, to hold them accountable for the result. i'm here to tell you it is republicans, not democrats who are truly offering black americans to hope for a better life for themselves and their children. i am proud to live in a country that has an african-american president. but president obama cannot the proud of the fact that the prevalence of black poverty has

actually increased under his leadership. we cannot dismiss the historical legacy of slavery, nor its role in causing the problem of black poverty. the cousin slavery and segregation -- because slavery and segregation were sanctioned by the government there are , several for government policy in addressing their lasting effects. but the specific policies advanced by the president and his allies amount to little more than throwing money at the problem and walking away. we spend $450 billion a year on medicaid. and yet health outcomes for , those on medicaid are no better than those who have no health insurance at all. instead of reforming medicaid, the president expanded it under obamacare.

in the cities where left-wing solutions have been tried over and over again -- places like detroit, chicago, and baltimore -- african-americans are moving out. they are moving to cities like houston and dallas. as americans, i think we are all united by certain aspirations. we want access to opportunity. we want good schools for kids. we want to live in safe neighborhoods. we want to live in cities and states were housing in college and every day expenses are affordable. we want to all experience the american dream.

from 2005-2007, more african-americans moved to texas than any other state -- but one state. that state being georgia. many were coming from blues dates like new york and illinois and california. many came from louisiana where they had lost their homes due to hurricane katrina. but each one of those new residents were welcomed to texas with open arms. they came to a state with a booming economy. we kept taxes low, we kept regulations low and frivolous taxes low. we worked hard to educate every child. let me be clear, we have not eliminated black property in texas. we have made meaningful

progress. in new york, the supplemental poverty rate for african americans is 26%. in california, it is 30%. in washington, d.c., it is 33%. in texas, it is just 20%. and here is how that happened. we curtailed frivolous lawsuits and unreasonable regulations. it is far cheaper to do business in dallas or houston as it is an in baltimore or detroit. those costs get passed down to consumers, especially the low income consumers in the form of lower prices. there is a lot of talk in washington about inequality. income inequality. but there is a lot less talk about the inequality that arises

from the high cost of everyday life. in blue state coastal cities you have strict ghosting -- zoning laws. there are environmental regulations that prevent you from expanding the housing supply. that may be great for the venture capitalist who wants to keep a nice view of the bay, but not so great for the single mother working two jobs in order to pay rent and still put food on the table for her kids. it is not just about how many dollars you earn. though there is still pretty substantial opportunity in texas. it is also about how far each dollar you do earn can take you. after you have paid your taxes your rent, your tuition, your grocery bills.

in too many parts of this country black students are trapped in failing schools where union bosses look out after themselves at the expense of the kids. this matters because kids who graduate from high school typically make 50% more than those who do not. in texas, we made sure the kids came first. the texas high school graduation rates are 27th in the nation -- that was in 2002. in 2013, they were the second-highest in america. our most recent graduation rate for african americans, is number one in this country. 13 percentage points higher than the national average.

[applause] that matters. we also found a way to reduce crime while also keeping kids out of jail. in 2014, texas had the lowest crime rate since 1968. at the same time, we closed at the same time, we closed three prisons and reformed our sentencing laws. too many texans were going to prison for nonviolent drug offenses. once they got out of prison, many found they could not get a job because of their criminal records. i am pretty sure no one here is confused that texas is a soft on crime place. i also believe, like texans believe, and consequences for criminal behavior. but i do also believe in second

chances and human redemption. that too is part of the american story. americans who suffer from an addiction need help -- they do not need moral condemnation. by treating alcohol and drug abuse as a disease, we have given texas the help it needs. many need rehabilitation. many of those individuals are living in recovery now. they are engaged in saving the lives of others that are trapped in addiction. the human soul urines to be -- y earns to be free from addiction poverty, from the chains of

addiction. free from poverty. i am running for president because i want to make life better for all people. even those that do not vote republican. i know republicans have much to do to earn the trust of african-americans. blacks know that republican goldwater opposed the civil rights act. states supporting segregation in the south, cited state rights as a justification for keeping blacks from the voting booths and the dinner tables. as you know, i am an ardent believer in the 10th amendment which was ratified in 1791 as part of the bill of rights. the 10th amendment says the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution nor prohibited by the state reserve for the states

respectively for the individual. i know that state governments are more accountable to you then the federal government. but i am also an ardent believer in the 14th amendment, which says that no state shall deny any person in its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. there has been, and there will continue to be, an important and legitimate role for the federal government enforcing civil rights. too often we republicans myself included, have emphasized our message on the 10th amendment, but not our message on the 14th.