tv Smithsonian Associates Hosts Discussion on the 2016 Election CSPAN November 10, 2016 10:33pm-12:19am EST
election, are now zero. i think they'll be out of here by december 9. >> that would be good news. any of the rest of you? that?ny thoughts on >> no. i think -- i agree with ed and stan. just one other thing. was very-elect trump critical of the balanced budget 2015,ent agreed to in which set the top line for discretionary spending for 2017. is, you know,on the balanced budget agreement spending would be -- does president-elect trump insist that the spending level be back the 1.04 trillion number budgeto the bipartisan agreement? and that would create puttingant challenges, those bills together. together. >> and which a lot of interested in. >> but you have those that wanted the higher numbers.
to square those two will be a challenge. >> i agree also. i think the main point is that election of president trump controlretention of just gives everybody incentive to get on with the business of the transition without any disruption. >> so one of his first orders of business on the budget will be submitting a budget. theoretically a february deadline. obviously with a new president, that gets stretched. i believe president obama had like an outline when he came in, then revealed the details later on, by like may or so. we can only imagine there will the obamaanges from budget request. that we may start to get an as february. what do you folks think would be some of the more notable shifts that we would see broadly speaking, and will there be any initially at entitlement? changes?
>> i was going to say, the most theous change would be repeal of obamacare. and i think we should look at this budget very, very carefully, because we've new administration coming in. and, you know, the first budget new administration is really, really important. it has tended to set the tone next -- if you think of clinton's first budget or obama's.first budget, so there will be certain things in there that we may be debating the next four to eight years. so the discretionary spending interesting to see what they want to do there. probably hire on defense and undefense, although somewhere you have to fit in money for the wall, because to pay for it anyway. there probably won't be an "see mexico."says >> oh, why not?
had asterisks before! [laughter] >> and he's got an infrastructure agenda. be really to interesting to see what he puts in there. $500 billionumber has been floated around. that's going to be rather eye-popping. so those are interesting. accommodates his tax cut is going to be big too. republicans have had a goal of leasting the budget, at within 10 years. and it seems to me impossible to do that, in the agenda that laid out during the campaign, without making sol know, extraordinary assumptions about economic during thech he did campaign. but how that gets factored into the budget is going to be toething really interesting look at. >> it will be interesting to see. issues is going to be how much of the agenda is set by trump versus congressional republicans. it's worth remembering, the republicans in congress have
thatd budget resolutions called for balance in 10 years. they did so with a lot of huge, unspecified savings. 230 rankave, you know, and file house republicans who believe that have committed to balancing the budget in 10 years. will they expect president trump a plan that balances in 10 years? the promises he put forward in wouldmpaign, we estimated have increased the deficit in excess of $5 trillion. >> over what period? >> over 10 years. balanced budget, that we're on track -- the debt, by window,of the 10-year probably $1.4 trillion. president trump show the deficit anywhere near that amount? obviously i think that the expectation of rosy economic assumptions -- i think it's hard, even with rosy economic
assumptions, to have something works and then obviously you're going to have to have to congressional budget office come back and reestimate it. there's going to be that tension with the republicans and congress trying to pass his budget and follow the rules of cbo. >> let's talk about rosy economic assumptions. in a 4,rump doesn't put 4.5% g.d.p. growth rate, because that's what he was talking about. there's zero chance of that happening. the economy would do very well near 3%.ywhere if he tries to balance it off unrealistic growth, that's going a signal that at least some of what he's putting in realistic.t very >> seems to me the new trump team has a decision to make. do they really want to work out all these things in the president's budget, in a serious and doesat adds up various things? or do they really first want to campaign statement and
out there,ings big infrastructure package and some tax items and ofe others, in a kind preliminary statement. and then say, we'll tell you budget later,e and that would prove so difficult that it might drag on into the spring. it depends a little on how they're working with the leadership of congress, if at all. do they want the president's become a, again, what basis for be, a serious work and appropriations in the tax committees congress, or do they want it to political a statement, this is our going and we'll work with you as it develops? >> if i could just add on. in my own numbers back of the envelope type thing,
they're going to come down with increasing the deficit. it ort being shy about not being ashamed about it. myself abouting you know the line in a prospectus, past performance is indication on future returns. i think we've got to stop being -- assuming that the the past eight years are the same republican party we're going to see over the next couple of years. i'm assuming much bigger deficits of a trillion a year with maybe, in the outyears, showing a bigger faster reduction. but i think we're about to see the republicans essentially rebranding themselves as a party it producesand if jobs and economic growth, they're going to say it's worth it. >> i guess it will be an interesting question, whether the freedom caulk caucuses and l actually agree to that, because i think trump would want to do that and
maybe -- why would the people made john boehner's life so miserable a few years ago hugenly decide they like budget deficits? >> because they'll be dealing with a republican as opposed to president.c i think that will make a big difference. >> actually, i don't think it will. will be verynk it difficult to convince a house onority that's been elected, limited government, and a lot of lack ofusiasm or enthusiasm for the republican britishment is because -- establishment is because they they weren't sufficiently committed to fiscal restraint. don't -- i mean, there may well be an era of deficits up, but i don't think it's going to be because the republicans will suddenly decide that they want it. may enact policies that bring it about and they may make for it -- >> but they don't claim ownership? that theight declare debt limit doesn't matter, and that would probably be a good
thing all the way around. they'll saythink the same on deficit. >> i agree with that. but i think all of us are too focused on the campaign promises at the moment, because that's have. >> that's all we have. >> and so we have to focus on it. i go back to the clinton administration. when we came in, we were very the budget. the president had promised to get the deficit coming down. and we did. promises, manyn of them just went by the board. president had promised a big infrastructure program, which never happened. promised a big middle class tax class. the budge things that tears simply said, sorry, sir, we can't afford it. theif you're going to get deficit coming down. now, there may not be that kind in thisssion
administration. thatt must be remembered not all campaign promises end up in presidential programs. >> that's a good reminder. so we've already mentioned the debt ceiling. to go where we're going next, because i know there's a lot of interest in talking about that. debt ceiling suspension expires march 15. congress does not usually act that quickly on it. and the treasury probably will begin the use of extraordinary measures to take us through a that. of it's an interesting picture of president-elect trump coming to to ask to do this. very interesting. how do we think this debate is going to play out on the debt ceiling? leo, you had some thoughts about that? agree. i wish we wouldn't go through this process every couple of years. again.1, '13 it's reckless and risky to get to this point where the treasury
sending letters every week saying, this is how much money weleft in the pot, and then get ourselves in a position where there's actually a risk of defaulting on treasury debt. i can think of absolutely nothing worse financially than the u.s. really genuinely defaulting on a treasury debt. if you think it was a shock, elected, watch what would happen in the u.s. defaults. happen?would >> the recession would start. in my view, it would be worst lehman brothers collapsed. almost every financial instrument in the world is based off of treasury rates and off of the dollar to some extent. everyone has it in their portfolio. interest rates would go through roof the next morning. u.s. bond market is almost $40 trillion. about $20 trillion of that is treasuries. the rest is corporate bonds.
single interest rate associated with this goes through the roof the next morning. even estimate how bad it would be. it hasn't happened because exercisesmebody leadership to prevent this from happening. but if the u.s. -- it is the of all safe havens. the dollar is still a reserve currency. still nothing close to it. so even playing around with this, even though we generally know that they'll reach some sort of agreement before this happens, why even risk it? shockingly close to not actually being able to some debt in 2 past. i just wish they would do what they've done right now, suspend debt ceiling and just make it permanent. that would certainly, i think, -- save a lot of aggravation. remember 2011? went down, bonds went up. there was cost associated with that. to default oning the debt but i would much rather
permanently suspend this. to the point we were discussing before, i think you asked, is it going to be a bargaining chip again? i wish it wasn't but i don't see why it wouldn't be again, because if trump has an plan, and itending looks like he will with infrastructure and he's going to taxes, i think ed said the same thing. why isn't this going to lead to higher deficits? it will. and if it leads to higher deficits, fiscal conservatives are not going to be happy about this and they will squeeze him and use whatever tools including the debt ceiling. i would suspect whoever the secretary is going to do, he will start writing from march toers july, saying we're getting closer and closer, please do about this. >> i agree with everything you said, but i think that goes to why i think there will be pressure on aesident-elect trump to have plan to try to deal with the deficit, whether it's in his
budget or shortly thereafter. getting the votes to pass is going to be a challenge. i think it will be interesting role congressional democrats play. that is one place they may be needed. give them leaders if the republican leadership in congress is ignoring him. and come july, if they can't get enough republican votes for debt do congressional democrats take the responsible position and supply the votes, or do they say, you brought it, you own it, it's up to you to debt limits? i think the existence of the debt limit is just another reason, in addition to the position that republicans take, tot they will be pressured show they're doing something on the deficit? >> who would be the republicans who would split off on that? sizeable group, do you think? >> it could be. it's a combination. caucuses. the freedom it will be other republican members.
the freedom be on caucus? for all the campaign proposals that trump talked campaign, hethe also constantly talked about how bad the debt would be and all the republican candidates talked about how bad the debt would be. looking ahead to two years voted to raiseey the debt limit, that's going to cause problems with a lot of the voted, thinking they were voting for controlling the debts. fact that --ng the trying to square those two and with something is going to be a challenge. >> several quick points. one, i can't remember the last time a congress of one or torpedoed a debt ceiling request made by a their own party. that's just one. number two, i find it hard to house freedomhe caucus would end up doing things that would torpedo a trump
presidency, particularly in the first year. it may happen. happen that they think of themselves above the president but they're in safe district and can almost certainly get around it. third, i don't know what they'd want in return. caucus, a portion of the republican party that is to makely in position life difficult for president trump on the debt ceiling, they're going to want the tax cuts. going to want the defense increases. they're going to want obamacare partially repealed. all three of those things will increase the deficit. want tois it -- do they eliminate the domestic side of the budget? there's not enough there, unless talk about medicaid and medicare, which the president-elect has said he and social, medicaid security, because there's not discretionary sideetion to make a dent in the trillion deficit. whatrying to figure out the deal would be.
>> do either of you want to... >> well, paradoxically, it may first time that democrats are thinking the debt ceiling is here to keep republicans from doing things like really deep tax cuts that upper-income people. or there may be a little bit of the freedomes with trump to hold the administration to its more fiscal, responsible pronouncements. >> well, one of the things i worry about there is, if you get into a disagreement over the debt limit, one of the ideas that came out before that was passed in the house was this prioritization, change the laws that if the government doesn't default, it can pay some
of its bills. >> right. >> which is really bankruptcy. i mean, it's a form of it. that would be a bad idea also. worry with both houses and a republican president, of bill mightind get signed. i think a better approach would trump, ryan and mcconnell, to realize that they have a common agenda. does require higher borrowing. even if they didn't -- ryan's last year required a higher debt limit. they didn't acknowledge it. >> didn't do it. yeah. >> so this is a good teaching for the -- all of the members that think that you can run the government without limit. the debt and it could be that the silver three,here is that the you know -- the leader of the and the whitete house would simply either easily
ors a debt limit increase find some way to, like was a permanent -- maybe permanently -- >> could you do that? could you permanently -- can extend it without a date, sure, just have it sort of hanging out there as a threat. would be a good thing. cryogenics. just have it out there. >> and stan is right, though. others, ifcus and they decide they actually don't care that much about the deficit, because you said they're getting everything they want anyway, at some point, anyone who remembers the first the clinton administration, the bond markets say. have a there's already been a rout in the bond market. if we start getting fiscal to 4%, 5%, 6% g.d.p., the way we had back in the interestn rates go up. right nowr, even with these -- thesenow, the interest on deficits is a little over 1% of
g.d.p. the average interest rate on the government debt is less than 2%. if the interest rates keep going up, then it becomes a lot harder to finance the deficit at that point. there's a lot of pressure on the hill. they may politically have what they want as well. if the financial markets start to pressure them, somebody has to act more responsibly. raised the issue of entitlement reform too. that's directly relevant in the that really, the way to get the budget back on a sustainable track, get the debt back on a sustainable track, has the debto do with limit. those of us who are saying the put tomit should be sleep are not arguing for putting fiscal responsibility to sleep. can keep theyou debt from rising on its isustainable current course to changing the spending and tax policies of the united states government. itself ise debt counterproductive thing.
it doesn't control the debt. all the problems that leo has outlined. fiscaleak as a committed hawk on these issues. is have ae need to do change in long-term, entitlement tax reform, to bring about a sustainable fiscal policy. to keep the debt from going on an unsustainable course. dealat may be where the goes and what the freedom caucus wants. interesting on the trump it hasion website, language now on medicaid reform that's still vague in general talks about -- i can't remember the exact phrase but talks about to prepare for generations, future needs. it was clearly a nod towards the of medicaid reform that paul ryan has talked about. there'sue but at least that small opening that maybe they will go there. series, won the world so i'm going to be optimistic on everything, as a cubs fan, that
perhaps after president trump cracks down on social security fraud, discover that you still have 98% of the social security insolvency left -- i think, you think the congressional republicans will want to see some entitlement with their --g i've seen some signs that maybe president trump would let them take the lead on it and go along with it. >> i've got a big question for leo. question.substantive how much of the u.s. debt rolls over every year? how much is short-term versus long-term? >> a lot. >> a lot? >> yeah. i'd say about 40% of it, i think it is. >> sounds right. if the interest rates start rising, the government is on essentially the largest adjustable rate mortgage in history? >> right. >> so that in addition to going up anding infrastructure spending and tax cuts and god knows what else, we
to have also higher interest payments that are currently being assumed. >> the interest payment right now -- right now, on everything, from bills right out to the bonds right now, the government is paying, as you know, relatively little. now.cheap to borrow right so across the entire maturity less than 2%.s this is why a lot of economists say it's actually good to spend on infrastructure because the money is basically not quite to beingvery close free so you might as well -- actually spending money on infrastructure is not a bad thing, because the money is cheap. fed might also decide to push rates up more. with discussing this alice. in another three weeks, you might see a federate increase. borrowingoing to make more expensive, over time. >> what do you think? >> oh, i think they won't go -- in december, as they said they would, but
certainly not going to go up very fast. one more point. fully subscribe to bob's eloquent defense of fiscal run.nsibility in the long and his pointing out that it involves entitlement and tax reform. taxes, thee you cut bigger hole you dig, and i see now thatanger right tax cute a explosive and then it will be really difficult. politicallyy difficult. then it will be really difficult find any entitlement reforms and bring the two, spending tax laws, together. >> we want it all, don't we? we want it all. move tould reconciliation. budget resolutions, of the coming year. the house did not adopt a budget resolution, because there was so much internal division at that point over what the spending level should be.
the senate didn't pass one a provision in the two year budget deal, as you all know, that allowed them to just spending top line and appropriators went on ahead, in limboit's kind of right now. could one of you explain for us reconciliation means and why a budget resolution is reconciliation might be used by this new congress, why reconciliation has become the word of the week here around washington? >> this is an issue of mine, the budget reconciliation is budget legislation. in its original design, i believe it was to actually implement changes in policies. implement the budget resolution. the budget resolution sets the targets and revenue reconciliation legislation then provides for changes in the laws and the tax and spending policies to bring spending -- that is at least from a budget nerd perspective, the way it should be done.
if you have a budget that is calling for substantial spending cuts or tax changes to meet reconciliation, legislation is implementing that. however, reconciliation has a special status. budget resolution and then reconciliation legislation passed pursuant to a budget resolution is not specific to a filibuster. so reconciliation has now become not the way to necessarily budget buthe entire whatever piece of legislation that the majority wants to push 51 votes in the senate, so there's talk about repealeconciliation to the affordable care act, to do it for tax reform. i still would like to think if have a budget resolution, that is calling for deficit reduction, that is usually what reconciliation is used for. there's limits on reconciliation. maybe we may see rec sell yaition for the debt -- reconciliation for the debt
limits. you couldn't do a separate reconciliation bill with tax did budgetou resolution. if you did it on tax reform, you the affordable care act, and then also the rule has lots of limits on what can be included in if we use reconciliation to repeal the affordable care act, you could only repeal the parts that have the subsidies. all of the regulations regarding pre-existing conditions could not be addressed in reconciliation. you would have a swiss cheese affordable care act. the other important distinction is that you cannot have anything to increase a deficit beyond the window.what -- 10 year
there has been speculation in the past that congress would resolution for fiscal year 2017 with reconciliation instructions that would allow congress to move first thing next year on the reconciliations for the affordable care act repeal. in april, a rush -- a fresh set of reconciliation instructions. it has never been tested whether the parliamentarians would agree with that. the senate is an ongoing body.
it would still be part of senate rules. it is theoretically possible. that would require making decisions very quickly and you would have to resolve what that means for the discretionary spending level. it is an idea that is out there. i have done a little bit of checking. i have a slightly different rumor. i your congress might not take up a budget in the lame duck session but in the beginning of the next session. there is not one for 2017. you do a budget resolution in january that includes reconciliation instructions. that would repeal part of the aca. that is all it would do.
basically. six months later, congress would 2018budget resolution for that will include a separate set of reconciliation instructions. filibuster innt a the senate. that is the real value of it. a 52-48 republican majority could move forward without being worried about the democratic filibuster. unless the republicans did not stay unified. i have never seen this kind of maneuver done before. two budget resolutions in one year. >> i do not think that has ever happened. there were two budget resolutions originally and it was too complicated to get it all done so they changed the
law. all of these inside the beltway complexities we have been talking about up here have been thought about in the context of divided government for the last few years. the context may have changed. the idea that all of this using the rules to get what you want is going to be typical of a congress which has a president of its own making in the white questioned. that comes back to my other point that the trump administration really has to decide, doesn't want to continue the campaign?
the first thing to do would be to repeal the affordable care act and not worry about what happens to the 20 million people. or do they want to govern in a way that is good for the people who elected them, many of whom get subsidies under the affordable care act? sort.n optimistic i think maybe they want to repeal and replace and replace is a complicated thing to do. repeal is easy. replace is harder. there are quite a number of republican proposals that have been put on the table which they could work on and they would be smart to bring some democrats in on that as well because one party passing a health care law just leaves it open to attack
from the other one. most of the proposals we have seen from republicans look a lot like modifications of the affordable care act. .ou can call it trump-care you can do some things republicans always have wanted to do and you can solve real problems in the act. my hope would be they would want something that works as a legacy for the trump administration, not just we said we were going to repeal obamacare. >> we will have time for one or two questions. if folks in the audience do have questions, we have microphones on stand. i agree with allison and i want to -- dallas and i want to -- alice and i want to interject
a note of gridlock. i think we will still have some problems on appropriations. i think we will have a budget that is theecause easiest vehicle to do what they want to do on obamacare. appropriations, these republicans will undoubtedly set a much lower level level of discretionary spending that the democrats will live with and we still have the possibility and probability of senate filibuster . it means we could be back in the same boat of government shutdowns at the end of the year . it would suggest a potential basis for having some sort of broader negotiations. i think to pick up on the
have am, you have -- you senate, house, and white house all in the same hands, the republican party does have the unified responsibility to govern. dyey cannot blame it on anybo else. some of the -- campaign rhetoric that goes back and forth might get dumped by the side. what can we get done here? we are now responsible. that is the optimistic scenario for bigger things getting done. 42017 and going forward, -- forward,and going there are cap in the law and would require devotes to change
that.- 60 votes to change that could lead to negotiations as well. >> looks like we have a question. -- thisost recent session is titled, who gets the money? you addressed defense. , arerms of other agencies there particular agencies you think would do well in terms of trump budgets? or once you think would get hit -- ones that you think would get hit hard? >> defense will do better. transportation will do better because we will have a big infrastructure bill, although not all the infrastructure would necessarily be transportation.
think hhs is going to be big no matter what. they will not make significant cuts in the big programs come the big health care programs. the subsidies in obamacare, even if they go away, are tiny compared to medicare-medicaid. >> immigration and naturalization. everything except for veterans, immigration and naturalization, and defense -- every other agency will be looking at deep cuts in their discretionary spending. >> almost 50% of the budget,
maybe 40% is social security-medicare, medicaid. who gets the money? dilemma of the budget is that portion is growing faster than the economy, health care and social security are the only parts of the budget growing faster than the economy. who gets the money? that is where the money is going. >> that is are sobering reality. -- that is our sobering reality. on that note, we will be closing our panel. this has been a great discussion. thank you very much. [applause] journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up friday morning, afghanistan veteran ashley nicholas an iraq veteran will join us.
we will talk about their military experiences and their lifeition back to civilian . suzanne gordon will be on to talk about issues facing veterans. be sure to watch washington journal, live at 7:00 eastern friday morning. join the discussion. is veterans day, and we will have live coverage from arlington national cemetery beginning with a wreath laying ceremony at the tomb of the unknown soldier. a program hosted by the department of veterans affairs. it all begins at 11:00 a.m. eastern. pollsters, reporters, and scholars analyze the lessons learned in the election of 2016. this is a little over one hour and a half.
before i introduce anyone, a couple of quick details. if you have a phone, please turn it off for silence it. everyone wants to sit up straight and with nice and neat because c-span is taking us tonight. session ate a q&a the end of the program. i ask you to limit your questions to one and keep it fairly short. the speakers will repeat the question so everyone can hear. you do have a handout that has the bios of the different speakers.
i will keep the introductions very brief. i do have the pleasure of introducing the moderator, kenneth walsh, who is the chief white house correspondent for usa and world report. we brought in someone equally as an expert, sarah murray. >> thank you for coming. paneliststhank the for being here. for ruth robbins for organizing
and. -- organizing it. it is very emotional time right now. we thought of showing a saturday night live clip but it did not feel right. we decided not to do it. i am sure you are aware of the portrayals of trump and clinton by alec baldwin and kate mckinnon. we decided not to do it. i will give you a couple of quotes from abraham lincoln. it is a very emotional time for a lot of people. hillary clinton supporters really are reeling. they expected to have a big win today. most of the posters felt hillary clinton -- pollsters felt hillary clinton would win. and now we have donald trump who
was president-elect. he met with president obama today at the white house. they met for about 90 minutes in that very familiar setting. for trump supporters, this is a time of jubilation and a small degree of gloating. diligence, i checked the numbers. a little bit of fluctuation. voteshas 290 electoral and clinton has 232. the popular vote was going clinton's way. lead.s a 300,000 vote had anppened, we almost
even split in the country and the popular vote. it reflects this amazing divide we are in right now. 2000, weld trump had that long supreme court bush one inorge w. the supreme court. he lost the popular vote by half a million votes but he claimed the mandate. we have protesters in the streets saying donald trump is not the president. we have people -- i just saw some females and organizations saying we will fight him every step of the way. it is not a pretty picture.
when i have given talks like this before, a lot of people from the audience have said we need some clarity in the election. interested to see if our panel agrees with this. our presidential campaigns have become like pendulums. we go from one party to the other. we have gone from jimmy carter to ronald reagan, george herbert walker bush, bill clinton, george w. bush, brock obama. back in -- barack obama. back and forth, back and forth. other points i want to make. we had some of lincoln's writings today. we would be wise to familiarize ourselves. in his second inaugural address, the most appropriate for this
moment, he calls for the famous lines, malice toward none, charity for all. we have to see if that happens. this moment will be difficult. i want to wind up with a little analysis i wanted to read briefly, and have our panel respond. first, hillary clinton was a deeply flawed candidate. mr. trump a brilliant manipulator of broadcast
benefited from free airtime. pundits consistently underestimating a large segment of our society is deeply miserably angry. they are angry at the arrogance of the rich and well educated, who don't seem to care that the working class standard of declined. they are angry that their children do not have reasonable prospects for dance meant. that is one explanation for what happened on the trump side. and remember bernie sanders, who challenge hillary clinton and lost, appeal to that same sentiment from the left that donald trump did from the right. i would like to start asking our panel, starting with jeff, if you agree with that analysis, how do you see what happened here? what would happen to -- what did
happen? jeff: obviously, there is a lot to what peter had to say. your lincoln quote isn't that comforting because that was after a great civil war. hopefully, that is not what we go through before we have charity to all in the country. the country is divided in a lot of these ways. this election reflected those divisions. the divisions are not only about economics, although there are definitely those at work. in a larger way, it is about what is happening to america -- we are at a fork in the road in some ways in terms of what we
make of our diversity is a country. and people have complicated feelings about that. the work we were doing on the lead up to election night, we asked whether people saw her endeavors he is a change for the better or worse. there was nothing that drew a brighter red line than that question. that the more you tended to see increasing diversity of the country as a change for the better, something exciting, the more likely you were to be for clinton, but if you didn't feel that way about the country, you were very likely to be for donald trump. that was being litigated. the other question i was paying attention to thinking about election night in some ways, defining an election question
for election night was how much risk were americans willing to take? it turns out, a lot of them are willing to take out a fair amount of risk. in our survey we did on election eve, the people that voted for donald trump, 21% said he was a risky choice. and they voted for him anyway. in part because they did not have any confidence in the alternative that hillary clinton represented, but also the ways that peter describes. it felt like a risk were taking, even though many of them thought and think that donald trump doesn't have the knowledge and experience or president that a president should have. -- or temperament that a president should have. at that moment, people were really to take that risk.
you will see how they feel about the risk a few months down the road. the last thing i will say that was important this election is that the republican party and right-wing spent a lot of time demonizing hillary clinton. that was on steroids throughout the election. the challenging thing for the media to know how to do what that -- donald trump repeatedly referred to her as a criminal in a cynical and dangerous and demagogue way. at various points in the campaign, she did things either by convention or omission that may have exacerbated the concerns people had. it was very hard with that, given how much of the bandwidth donald trump had been taking up,
for her to break through and provide the kind of confidence peter was talking about in his comments. not possible, but very challenging given the unprecedented nature of trump's contacts on her -- trump's attacks on her. at least since the start of the 20th century indymedia operated environment. -- century in its immediate operated environment. >> let's talk about risk. i grew up in southwestern virginia, in the county that went 81 to 18 for trump. cole county was economically devastated certainly. nowhere near among the people in the high school now as grew up with me. i was talking to my wife.
she said, you know, those people got a lottery ticket. i think to some extent they are right. if your expectation is some sort of incremental change, the situation is sufficiently devastating. that is not good enough. you are willing to risk quite a bit for the hope for dramatic change. >> [indiscernible] >> try to speak up. one other point in terms of this historical perspective -- this should have been a republican vote. -- a republican year. the last time a democrat got elected after a two-time democrat had served was martin van buren, i believe. it did not happen in the 20th century.
last time ironically, martin van buren was the first professional politician. on the second side, to study what they might call fundamentals. the movement of the economy, how long a party has been in power, the average predictions for people who have worked these out several months ago was that the democrats win 51% of the popular vote. if you look at the last nine elections that were open seat election where there is not an incumbent running, the range is 54 points to 45. the median is about 49. from us historical perspective, it actually outperformed. this is not a surprise from for most productive. -- from a historical perspective. it is his rising from what we
-- it is uprising from who the candidates were and what we thought the race was going to be about. >> i think one of the things that has been not focused on as heavily -- we know about the immigration argument, we know about the economic angst by both parties. it is worth remembering that donald trump is not a republican from an ideological standpoint in many ways. we underestimated the impact that an excessively brutal and deeply personal election with two flawed candidates was going to have on the shape and size of the electorate. there were millions and millions
of people that were modeled to show up on election day who stayed home. maybe those were republicans who could not wrap their arms around trump. we know there are millions that voted for mitt romney that did not show up for donald trump. and there were even many more millions of democrats that voted for barack obama and did not show up for hillary clinton. maybe the crooked hillary argument and the amount of time donald trump spent hammering the home that she was a criminal -- even though that is not what the fbi decided -- that stuck with people. it wasn't that they could not bring themselves to cast their ballots for one candidate, they could not bring themselves to show up. we made a lot of assumptions about the direction that turnout moved. that was not true. it was through negative campaigning and so negative, so divisive. it has an impact. it does depress the vote. >> i get to work on nbc wall street journal. one of the questions we wrote
this year, how do you want to vote? a candidate that forms major change -- and here's the kicker -- even if you don't know what the changes going to be? or do you want to vote for a candidate that is steady, predictable, and keep going in the same direction we have been headed? we heard of it better than that, but that is the choice. in the last track last sunday, 54% of americans say, i want change even if i don't know what the changes going to be. 41% say i want steady progress. i think that is a powerful underlying thing in this election. the other thing that is quite unusual -- i said oh, by the way, we have one in five candidates that have an unfavorable idea both candidates. that is not normal. the highest poll result was in 1992, there was a time when bill
clinton and george bush had 12% who didn't like either of them. in 2012, only 6% of the population were unfavorable to both obama and romney. when you are at 18%, that is three or four times the normal. if you are a voter, you just said you have an unfavorable view of the candidates, what do you do? they voted for donald trump over hillary clinton. underlying change means she is the status quo in a third-party term. if i don't like either, i am going to vote for somebody new. and i think we should, as we always do, respect the american electorate. we have people that went to vote for the candidate that they thought was best represent their
economic interests. and in parts of the country that feel very disengaged from this kind of success. the doctor was kind enough to talk about his own county. 81 to 19 is a huge number. even obama was probably 72 to 28. so when you go from pennsylvania, ohio, michigan, wisconsin, and you are taking these kinds of margins to that level, you start tipping. the last thing i will say, how could it get so close? the mitt romney-kerry grabbed college graduates by 25 points. you would expect a huge vote. it turned out to be 27 points. if you were a white noncollege
graduate, you voted for trump by 37 points, bigger than ronald reagan against mondale. if you are looking for benchmarks, that is wow. if romney carries them by 25, you carry them by 27, that is a net points. the obama margin disappears in one subgroup. it is a dead even race. >> those voters matters even more. they represent a larger share of the electorate. >> that would buy my view in terms of the reaction. -- be my view in terms of the reaction. >> the idea that trump was dangerous. that did not seem to register. that is what everybody was thinking.
>> not the word people used, but risky. people knew they were taking a risk. he is lacking in the knowledge and experience that a president ought to have when he faced office. >> he or she. >> people worried about how they act in commander-in-chief. they worry about his temperament and divisive impact. but for the reasons we have discussed, there were a group of voters that said, you know what? everything else sucks pretty much, so let's take this risk. can i fact check you on one thing? 100 million people voted for either clinton or romney, but a little over 5 million voted for another third-party candidate. the vote is about 125 million overall. it is possible, not likely, that this will be the first election since 1948 where fewer people
voted in the election eight years previous. think about the amount of population growth that occurs in eight years. that really goes to sara's point of people voting with their feet. >> i think washington, and by that i mean it's ecosystem most of us spend our professional time living in -- is a negligent or. most of us was way too slow. -- is an echo chamber. we were too slow to figure out what was going on outside the echo chamber. a lot of campaign professionals were frankly looking at the same sets of numbers. going into election nights, you can talk to republicans who do this for a living. democrats are going to win the senate and hillary clinton is going to be the next president.
there were lessons that we learned through the course of this election that the hillary clinton campaign in particular completely missed. when we started out, it was going to the jeb bush versus hillary clinton. two giant professional campaigns with $100 million or more, $100 million for the superpac. they knew how to do it, here are the demographics, we will put those groups together and it will be a victory. jeb bush failed so quickly as i dynastic candidate. he struggled on the stump, even though he did everything in theory that you could ever want in terms of name recognition. people knew his name, and he failed. and the clinton people that the process that would not matter to them later on. and they were surprised that bernie sanders was so strong. and they wrote him off as
somebody who was on the french. -- on the fringe. when you're dealing with capitol hill, there is a sense that you have people on the edges that do not matter. sometimes they hold stuff up, but they are never the people running the country. i think the clinton campaign treated bernie sanders a lot like that. i covered him for four months. i felt like i was marooned on an island. no one seemed to be paying attention. we were looking at the day after the michigan primary, which bernie sanders won. getting on a conference people with everybody at the office. they said, we are so surprised by this, we can't believe this happened. i said, well if you look when i was saying yesterday leading up to this, you will not be so surprised. [laughter] we were not surprised that it happened. i think the clinton campaign missed the action and that disconnection -- clearly there is an ideological disconnection between those who vote for bernie sanders and donald trump.
they are likely to tell you they were on opposite sides. what is driving them is feeling like the system in washington is ignoring them, and people would not even listen. there was no way to fix it. the only way they could say anything to change it to something like support bernie sanders -- i think donald trump voters felt the same way. the clinton campaign missed it entirely. you see it in john podesta's attack e-mails. they were trying to figure out, how is she going to stand on tpp? there was a 12 e-mail chain figuring out where they would put her on this issue. i remember every time driving to a hillary clinton event, we drive through the airport, usually in the us of the city, or driving through a rural area, all you see are trump science. -- trump signs.
every clinton event was very small. it was like covering mitt romney in the final days. people were affected in getting donald trump elected. that was not true on the donald trump -- on the hillary clinton's. >> benefit of hindsight not having worked in the campaign, it is amazing when you look back at how hillary clinton ran her campaign between the end of the primary, how much the notion of the system being broken, how much and message of economic populism that carried bernie sanders totally evaporated from her message. it was nowhere in the general election. >> it showed back up in michigan two days before the election. she started saying hey, working people, i feel your pain, i promise i do. >> i was out on the road to some extent.
not as much as my colleagues. but there was a tremendous amount of excitement for trump. i was brought up in the school of analysis that you have to be careful at rallies. people that shoulder rallies doesn't mean that that person is going to win. kasie: you can feel a crowd. a good political campaign knows how to build a crowd. kenneth: right. this was a much different intensity from what hillary clinton was dealing with. michelle obama was at a rally, and even then, trump did one rally -- i don't know if you were there. he did a giant rally. even at that the intensity was much different from the hillary rally. and i want to come back to this
a little later the kind of analysis we do as political reporters and political strategists. >> and things are okay for the most part. the economy has been insulated here for a wide variety of reasons. there are these people -- there are not as many people feeling this kind of hate. and i met so many people at bernie sanders rallies. people that you see and you say wow, i should start thinking about how hard it is for people. people working three jobs, making less money, and paying more for their health care. it defies belief. >> i want to ask our pollsters the gender question. what were numbers on the gender gap? >> the exit polls have the
gender gap slightly larger than 2012. clinton won women by 12 points, which is two points larger thing obama did. -- than obama did. the exit polls are not perfect. but they are what we have got. 12 points for clinton among women. 12 points for trump among men. that is a net difference of 24 points. it was 17 points. a larger piece of that is more men voting for trump and more women voting for clinton. >> if not to ask exactly that, what was the turnout for men and women? >> again, the only tool we have to know that is the exit poll. the exit poll was 52 to 48.
but it is so imperfect -- what will happen in a couple months from now is we will have voter files that tell you exactly who voted. that will provide a much better analysis of at least the composition of the electorate. the exit polls in 2012 we know over stated to some extent the share of the electorate under the age of 35 years old. some states understated the share of the state that was african-american. this voter final analysis that will happen later on will be much more reliable and meaningful than exit polls. >> i want to put about some controversial science that the y chromosome makes people lazy. it is one more thing where men
and -- where women -- they vote, they do their stuff, and men, and the differences get especially large by ethnicity and age. early to mid 20's, they are a little drifty compared to women in that same age group. i think as normal, we are going to see the women number go up. >> i think we have polled that before, right? just stepping back again and looking at this amazing year and a half. where there are one or two turning points that make a difference? i mean, at the end you had the fbi on again off again investigation, trump's tape on the bus where he talked about groping women.
were there turning points? maybe we can start on this end. kasie: putting me on the spot. this may not be your question, but i think one of the things that says this in motion is what happened at the white house correspondents dinner with donald trump and barack obama. a lot of this, especially in the beginning, was a drive-by donald trump to prove that he could do something that a lot of people thought he could not do and would ridicule him for. people started focusing on the character traits of, trump -- he seems to be driven by making sure that people taken seriously. i think voters identify with that. a plan of people that were
motivated feel the same way. they feel like people discount them, dismiss them as deplorables, or pick your word. i think there was a kind of anti-elitism or whatever it was driving at. i think that is how this got set in motion. >> i think it would be helpful in terms of balance how much of this was built in by those strong structural factors, versus campaign events. i think the comey thing helped in one regard. as a group, the news covers a story. there is a narrative and a storyline. switching to the comey thing
snapped the entire thing about trump's behavior to women. it just stopped. by the way, he gave him 10 or 11 days to run a coherent campaign where he spoke from a teleprompter and stayed out of the news and ran a competent campaign for the last two weeks. i think that's which made the difference in terms of how we got in the campaign. sunlen: i would argue that started sooner. i think the access about donald trump talking about women that way, the fact that he was asked if he didn't to women, and it doesn't women came out and said that he made unwanted sexual advances to them, that made a difference. internal public polling showed donald trump dead in the water, down 10 or 12 points, tracking down the senate. there was no recovering from that moment. that is what things were looking like on election day. before the comey thing happened,
the obamacare announcement came out. that said so perfectly into the notion that washington is building these systems that are not designed to make your life better. they sell them to you and say, we are doing this for you and it will improve your life, and you find out it is not going to work that way. your income isn't going up, but your obamacare premium is going up. donald trump looked at those numbers and he went to a teleprompter. he said, let me tell you how much obama care premiums are going up wherever he was. and comey came right on the heels of that and completely changed the narrative of the campaign. questions about hillary clinton and the legacy she would carry on as president, rather than the question about donald trump. >> in the clinton response to that was to turn their fire onto
comey rather than explain why she was innocent. i don't think she ever got to the point where she was answering questions about her e-mail use in a way where people felt okay, she's right, she didn't do anything wrong, or two, that they could forgive her for what she did because she was always so defensive. >> access hollywood tape turned out to be a turning point. but much more for kelly ayotte and those in new hampshire than donald trump. what is shocking to me, if donald trump behaves himself for five days, everything that happened before those five days was forgiven and forgotten. regardless of how horrible the thing was. starting with the primary, we said this will be a strong that breaks the camel's back. this kimmel had the strongest back in history -- camel had the strongest back in history.
[laughter] and hillary was the opposite of that. as short as people's memories or about donald trump, they were just as long for hillary clinton. >> there was an argument in the media that we jumped from things too quickly and did not focus on these donald trump issues. it was like dripping from a fire hydrant, there was one every minute it seemed. you are putting these are constantly in the battleground states right? you are advertising about trump's remarks on women and one group after another. that did not vanish from the radar screen. it is just people were paying attention to other things. >> yeah, we spent a lot of money reminding people in it different ways.
the super pac for hillary clinton, reminding people about the different things he said about women in his life. the other point of focus for us at to do with his temperament as commander-in-chief, which was truly worrisome to people. came up organically in focus groups. just his general divisiveness and trump tenor. >> what was amazing in talking to the donald trump voters, it serves your point how quickly they forget him for things. he became a vessel for whatever folder issues -- whatever voter issues were. you used to vote as democrat but you don't feel like you are getting ahead, then donald trump became your economic vessel. you could say, i don't agree with things he says about latinos or muslims or women, but he apologized and he has the right message on this.
we have heard people say that time and time again about whenever their core issue was. >> there is a phenomenon in social psychology called cognitive dissonance. if people really want to do something, and they really wanted to do something, they find a way to do it and explain it to themselves. it is a powerful force. >> all eyes point to you now. >> trump's candidacy completely changes the race. what i worry about, given the nature of the historical dynamics, it seems certainly possible that another republican could have won, might reasonably have won, but it would not have been the same constituency. is this a situation where you continue to double down with the
twin cities that are becoming -- with constituencies that are becoming increasingly smaller, but you get more and more of them? or more of a position towards the party, or you don't get working class without a college education as much as trump does, but you do better with latinos, women overall. in essence, you win, but you win with a different constituency. i think some people would say, that will never be possible. i don't know about that. >> that would be your nightmare. >> for a democrat that is really troubling. >> i know i have talked too much but it really is my anxiety about donald trump.
[laughter] the states that made the difference in breaking what people thought of as the wall -- pennsylvania, michigan, and wisconsin. donald trump is a much better candidate for those states than mitt romney. mitt romney is culturally alien, more culturally alien than clinton or barack obama. kasie: he kept saying things that reinforced that. >> but donald trump was their guy. for the change in complexion of the vote in those three states in particular, donald trump was probably a really good candidate for them. and all the other republicans have been much more vulnerable to the blue wall aspect. >> what does it say about hillary clinton or the electorate that donald trump,
who lives in a penthouse in manhattan, who europe with -- who grew up with a cushy life, whose father gave him a multimillion dollar loan for his business captured the heart of the working-class american better than hillary clinton, who has a operating that looks a lot more similar to those people? >> issues matter. the republican party that existed before tuesday hasn't changed. the republicans, everybody becomes its president. donald trump has shifted the orthodoxy of the republican party. on immigration, on the border wall in terms of its priority, on trade, in saying that we will be less involved around the world. those are five incredibly powerful differences from the previous republican parties.
the reality is those five policy positions, when bonded together, uniquely fit the voters across the state in a way that they said it would. they said we are going to do this because no republican has ever sent this. these are things we think we should do. and he's going to try and get those things done. the donald trump republican party is going to be a very different looking vehicle than it has been from reagan and bush eras. these will be unbelievable changes in what it means to be a republican. the thing about this country, it will have a four year decision and two year decision. >> in the immediate issues where
trump is redefining the orthodoxy of the party, does that mean that the freedom caucus and the members of congress will roll over? they have been on the other side of these issues. they genuinely felt this for a long time. do they say, never mind, we have a new president, or army in for the same -- or are we in for the same kind of stalemate? >> when everybody is feeling their worst, we had that shift in 2009. republicans woke up and said wow, democrats run everything. the constitution is the genius of people in what would terms of what you have done. take 60 votes. obama was operating temporarily with 62 votes. i mean, things are not going to happen as radically as we think if every vote became a 60 vote.
the republican party historically has been pretty responsive to its president, and i think -- here is the other thing that happened. geoff mentioned two candidates. those are two republicans who withdrew their endorsement after the access hollywood story. point he is making, those are the two republicans who lost. my candidate john mccain went -- withdrew his endorsement. but kelly ayotte was a senator, then john mccain was a personal brand.
>> the point being that in the republican party, that it catholic -- it tells you how hierarchical it is that a republican can insert themselves into the congressional leadership. >> where does this leave the democrats? >> great question. do you want me to speak? [laughter] i think there is a short-term answer and a long-term answer to that. the short-term answer is that this is -- when donald trump is going to do a lot of things that are harmful for people that democrats people represent, and harmful to the values they hold dear. part of it is in the near-term, how can democrats most effectively extend up to that and rally the country against that. there will be opportunities for democrats to do that. people did not sign up for all the things that donald trump is
going to do as president. more people in our election at the polls said that hillary more people in our election at the polls said that hillary clinton gave them a clear idea of her priorities than donald trump did. so that he is going to do things that will really test the country and depth of his support. that happened to president reagan early on. you remember all of that. but then the longer-term -- i spoke at the center for american progress a week before the election and said i was haunted by the brexit election. in some ways, this was our national identity election in a same way that brexit was. the remain campaign was a
campaign entirely based on fear. so the people that felt that things were working for them, there is nothing that was given people hope. i am haunted that we are in the same position. we are not giving people hope, who are really looking to us for that. and for the longer term, that is what the democratic party needs to figure out. the things happening to the country are real. the things that make people anxious aren't fantasies, they are realities. really, the emergence of new voices and new thinking. >> looking at polling of the most and least popular institutions -- [indiscernible] >> i think media was at the bottom. >> we were right about putin. [laughter]
>> what extent was this notion that trump embodied, as you were saying, a vessel for anger and resentment? what extent was this a repudiation of wall street business, washington, congress? kasie: it was entirely that. 100% that. if you look at -- i forget who was making this point. i should be giving them credit. there was someone who pointed out during election coverage on tuesday night that both bernie sanders' campaign and donald trump's campaign had enemies. there was an enemy -- topple the thing that is making your life harder. for bernie sanders, it was wall street. big banks in the case of -- and because of donald trump, it was
immigrants. you name it. those things were absent from hillary clinton's campaign, and for most of the primary challengers. there was no acknowledgment where people could say, that guy is scaring me over and i want -- is screwing me over and i want to fix it. >> do we all agree it was a repudiation? >> i would like to be a little different spokesperson. our job is to listen to people. we wrote a question in 2014 and said hey, we just survived a great recession. how much impact that that have on your family? 64% said so -- we asked, when you say that, what do you mean? we got, i lost my job, i lost my pension, or i have my job but in
making have of when i used to make. page after page in which the lives have been interrupted after that horrible economic episode. we said two years later, how much impact did it have on your family? it dropped to 61%. we read the same stories. when you read 80 pages about how the great recession and what it meant, these are profoundly personal difficult stories. that 60% of the country is years after we think the recovery has taken place. that kind of economic dislocation, and what that has unleashed i think is something we need to speak to. i hope i am not being difficult with my panelists. i don't want to look at it as being anti-elitist.
people are expressing this profound dislocation economically on how they felt and how they want that addressed in their lives. sara: for me anti-elitism is quite right. people who seem to be using the system to enrich themselves. obviously 40% must have told you, i wasn't affected. those are pretty stark lines. >> stand your ground, you were right the first time. [laughter] i would not suggest that i predicted donald trump. in 2014 we did a lot of research about trust in government.
one thhing -- one thing is that he will really believed, all of america believed that washington was for special interests i could update -- is working for them at the expense of other, regular americans. the other thing is that there were a lot of americans who felt the economy was not working for them. there is a group of people who expected that after eight years, they would have been made whole by now. and the fact that they hadn't been made whole. it is not just about their incomes, it is about their assets. their homes and retirement accounts are not worth as much. the fact that they have not been made whole when other people are making off like bandits.
that is what makes wall street the center of the eye of hurricane. the combination of those two things, the economy not working for people, and the government not working for people -- is toxic. it was the backdrop. >> for democrats, barack obama was on the campaign trail saying hey, i saved us from the great recession. some said clearly he made things to make it better, but a lot of people were not feeling that. certainly that is the argument hillary clinton tried to make. she did not say any negative things about the president for fear of alienating her coalition. but on the other hand, her other voters needed her to say something that the president did not fix it entirely. >> years of talking to consultants and strategists, americans want to be rich
themselves, so they don't mind people getting rich, as long as it doesn't pull them down. when they felt like someone is getting rich at my expense -- is that what happened? >> i worked for some very wealthy candidates across my career. they follow two camps, people who give the money, and people who made the money. when i work for candidates that are very wealthy -- i worked for a mayor of houston that started working when he was eight years old. he never finished college, collated into the oil industry, and was conspicuously wealthy. people said that is ok, he worked for it, i don't find that. that is the wealthy candidates where they are given money, where there is resentment.
i don't think americans mind that you worked hard and found a way to make a lot of money, that is ok. when you have been given the money, or if you delete that, our entire system is so twisted that people who have the money are the ones getting massive amounts of money, that breeds anger and resentment. it is palpable. >> part of it is what you have, and where you think you are going. the polling i have seen suggests that is a different idea of what is ahead than white americans if they had the same amount of money. you have to ask yourself, you
have certain groups they can feel like there is promise in the future, where other groups don't. i see from campaigning standpoint how important it is to identify particular individuals to blame for what seems a severely complex problem. cap becomes particularly dangerous if you actually get elected. there is some expectation about addressing that particular individual or group of people to solve a problem. if the problem does not get solved, where does that leave us? >> a couple of other quick things. the idea of race. for many years from the senses we get the idea that -- from the census that we are becoming a majority minority country. white people will no longer become a majority in the united states, roughly around 2030. the feeling that the republicans
are on the wrong side of the demographics, latinos in particular were going for the democrats, trump was stirring up latinos against the republican party itself. and african-americans were solid for the democrats for a long time. how did this election strike you as far as race goes? is there a cause a permanent divide -- quasi-permanent divide with minorities? >> it is developing. i think it is a central feature of the election. we talked before we started about how people felt about this exact change, whether it is change for the better. white people are very divided about this.
it determined people's votes, or at least predicted people's votes. there is another side of this from the democrats. letting go into this election, oh, we've got this big blue wall, plus demographics. and with combination, we cannot lose. the world is changing in our collection, the electric will get younger -- the world is changing in our direction, the electorate will get younger. that was not true for this election. >> more than half the kids being born in the country today -- this country will be going through an incredibly sure change. we have according to the u.s.
census the highest amount of people born outside the country since 1880, and the highest number of people speaking other than english in the last 80 years. i believe in the american ideal. i believe america is founded on the principle. we are infinitely stronger because of this incredible influx of new people. august what has happened in every way above immigration? every wave has led to social tension, dislocation, a battle as we assimilate people. we actually the irish with of immigration. guess what has been a happy outcome over a generation?
our country capacity's to function as a nation. i think that will happen over time. we're watching the same dislocation that took place with each part of these immigration waves. i think there is a right side to history. the right side is no party is going to survive as the right party. if you do not find a way to have some inclusive message, and some capacity to motivate people around these divisions, you are not going to survive as a party. >> can i add one thing quickly? you asked about turning points. i think the emergence of the black lives matter movement was a turning point. especially when black people were being killed by police, and when police were being killed by assassins. it came front and center for people and their way of thinking about the world. to me, donald trump did a lot of unforgivable things in this category. a a lot of them. but the most unforgivable thing he did in the campaign was to rub these racial divisions raw. and to run a campaign that was
designed to exploit them for his political advantage. that happened, and it made a difference. he won votes on that basis. but it does an unforgivable thing. i don't think he can make up for it. if he's got a job to do as president, making up for it is a good one. >> that is a good question for donald trump. i would love to know what is going through his head as he watched people spilling into the streets and protesting. we've heard from african-americans, muslims, latinos, young women, who woke up the next morning and cried and were afraid. that is something we have not seen in this country for a long time. we saw a plot of strong feelings when president obama was elected, but this is a different story of sentiment. republicans will say it was because democrats spent a lot of
time casting donald trump as an unacceptable person to president. the reality is that donald trump supported stop and first, called for a muslim ban, said horrible things about women, and he did a lot of things that gave all of these groups of people real reason for fear. but now he is a president-elect. when you see these people having these reactions, how do you handle that? if you want to be president for all people, does he understand the amount of work that is going to take? >> feel free to ask about this in the questions, but the final point i want to make is about governing. what is possible? are we headed for more deadlock?
is anger going to paralyze everything? is there any insight into what can be done? >> i think it is smart to focus on infrastructure. there is consensus around that-- there is a start at least. but once you get past that, the list gets long. >> what will be interesting is how the republican party on capitol hill responsd -- responds to how donald trump changes the traditional orthodox pillars on which the republican party is built. mitch mcconnell embodies what the republican party has been. now he is going to have to figure out -- they were on capitol hill today. i encourage you to look at the photo. [laughter] it is quite illuminating in showing what the republican party in washington has been,
and what it is becoming. you talk to republicans, and they have no idea. [laughter] >> we have seen gridlock before and we were probably see more gridlock going forward, but it is important president obama into the white house a man who is questioned his birthright to be president. and he said kind things to him in front of the camera. hillary clinton told people you need to give donald trump a chance to govern. we were on top of the chamber with the white house in the background. the white house is still standing. the peaceful transition of power still happening. america is still america. >> we will see if he gets his twitter account back. who knows what will happen? you had your hand up earlier. >> what was the relationship between the -- questions like legalization of marijuana and