tv Public Affairs CSPAN November 5, 2012 5:00pm-8:00pm EST
there never has been. i got news for romney and ryan. it has never been a good bet to bet against the american people. we need you, virginia. with your help we will win in virginia. if we win virginia we win this election. god bless you all. make up protect our troops. thank you. -- may god protect our troops. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]
between president obama and mitt romney. the presidential candidates took part in a debate last month. the candidates -- will have that debate for you. president obama yanda mitt romney hold their final campaign rally before election day. the president will speak to voters in iowa. mitt romney will be in new hampshire. but rallies are scheduled to start before 11:00 p.m. eastern. it will also take your phone calls, comments, and tweets. tomorrow is election day.
we will bring you remarks from president obama in chicago and mitt romney in boston. former congressman discussed close house and senate races. tom davis and martin frost talk to an audience at this event hosted by the bipartisan policy center for an hour and 20 minutes. >> good morning. and the senior fellow here at the bipartisan policy center.
likeaction de all of us who are former members think back nostalgically and how we relate to these things personally. i know tom and martin have great stories to tell and we're fortunate to have too great effective, insightful, and intelligent former members and we will moderate the elections. it went to make a couple of comments. we were on a panel for foreign diplomats. most of the campaign discussion was about obama and romney. someone asked me if there was no discussion of the congressional races. as a matter in america who is elected to congress, it really
hit me. i think the answer is yes. as a former nine-term house member i was troubled by the question. i could understand it because most of the discussion concerns they presidential race. i am convinced that the founding fathers were making a clear statement when they said the first part of the organization of our government, the article one organization was congress. implicitly they felt in terms of trying to rebel against executive authority that it was an important branch of the government. we have this amazing election --
as it relates to congress and the collections are operating in how it relates to presidential elections. i have some questions i would ask myself and turn it over to john for his review. one obvious way from the parochial perspective and on the senate side, who will control the senate. where the races to watch and is unlikely the majority will turn from democrat to republican. the same question is about the house. is there house that -- a chance that nancy pelosi could replace john boehner as speaker or are the races said. given all the money and effort has been placed on that, the third question is in the role
in the election. has that been drowned out by andide money, super pacs, what does that mean? the fourth question i would ask is are there any moderates left, or will be the appetite of those that are left to work with the president and especially with issues like the fiscal cliff, sequestration, taxes, deficits, the debt increase, and even issues that were somewhat more parochial like the farm bill which expires, has expired. both have been rather bipartisan in their pictures. the question is after the election, was pictures back to
the better suit -- bitterness and the hyper-partisanship or for a period that is more responsible in terms of getting the nation. is this done. is the election changed or have we face the hyper-partisanship that we have seen in the last few months and years. i do not have the answers. there are others. we have a great moderator. my colleague at the bpc, john fortier, who is involved in dealing all t with all the issu. my colleagues have done a lot to make this country a better place. i turn you over to john. thank you. >> thank you and thank you for coming. we were hit also by hurricane sandy. this panel was scheduled for last week and we've made a change so here we are. the one advantage of that is
there is little time before the voting ends. the -- being able to make predictions and limit on an intervening in the event is not there. you are really on the line here. i thought dan with our to make the introductions. the longer version is in your packet. tom davis is a representative of northern virginia. and the head of the national republican campaign committee. martin frost represented texas and was a ranking member of the rules committee and chair of the democratic caucus and on the other side of the aisle, ran the democratic congressional campaign committee. both are experienced members but experience in running the national races for congress, for their respective parties. i am i to take a few minutes before we turn to -- going to
take a few minutes before we turn and look at a report. it is about the redistricting or the change we have made in our district following the census and it is about the types of members who are holding the seats and whether we expect we will see more moderate members or expect more turnover in congress in the next 10 years. here are a few highlights. we have some slides. the number of competitive seats in congress, we're looking basically back at the last four decades. you can see that overall, the trend is toward fewer. the number of competitive seats is down. just a slight amount from the 2000 decade. we had significantly fewer seats that were competitive.
we looked at a second category of seats which is what we call misaligned districts. that is a combination of district that have a composition for one party. they tend to vote for president strongly for one party and a margin that would be more than 55% to 45% for the president of one party. that district is held by a member of the opposite party. the democrats holding a strongly conservative seat in the south which switched republicans, that would be a misaligned district. we have many seats that were confirmed of this character. there were 93 democrats who fit that description. a smaller number of republicans -- still significant numbers of people who are in both parties.
you can mccanns see what has happened over time. these are down to less than 30. -- less than 30. we've have two republican members who represent seats that are very democratic. one more illustration of this is to show you what the house of representatives look like. this is a comparison between 1993 and todya. -- today. these are the ones that are the have a seats, you lot of mixing of seats in 1993.
democrats holding republican seat and a number of republicans holding democratic seats. you see the separation, the significance and the number of democrats on the top of the charts has gone done. the number of the seats is almost nonexistent. we moved to realigning our district. what are the consequences? it is often thought that redistricting has a large effect on the polarization of america. we tend to doubt this. he debate is almost nonexistent. we're more on the side that has a small to modest effect. one effect of having fewer competitive districts is there are fewer competitive districts -- they tend to produce members that are more moderate.
not dramatically. they do not produce people that are right in the middle of the spectrum. you're likely to see a little bit of moderation. where we see the great moderation is in these misaligned districts. that person is likely to be right in the middle. much more likely to go home to their constituents and talk to people of the other party and have their voting patterns moderated. this contributes greatly to the decline in moderates. one last point, turnover. we see a number of seats and how the turnover. in a given decade, lots of those seats -- most seats in not change hands at all.
if we also have seen in the last four decades as american number of seats have changed hands because there realigning. they're the seats that are changing back or vice versa. as we now have almost none of them, we think we will see a lot less of that. the competitive seats might be lower but the realigning seats -- we think there'll be less turnover in the next 10 years. if we look at the actual members of the house of representatives that are in some of the seats, we have nine democrats who were in misaligned districts. five of them will not be with us. they have lost or retired. some a-list. we're going -- will let tom davis predict what will happen.
some of them are in tough races. three of the four are in difficult races. on the republican side, bob dole and bob turner made that definition. bob turner is not running as the district has been eliminated. there are a couple of possibilities for new missile and members. members who might win in unexpected places. all of these districts tend to have -- the incumbents have some difficulty with scandal. the other party is able to capitalize but we're likely to see the number down. whatever the final numbers are,
i think it is a good guess. the trend toward members of congress hold seats in the other party are down. the number of moderate members therefore is likely to also be down. with that, we will talk about the senate and it looks -- we will talk about the presidency. we will start with tom davis. and then to michael frost. happen, a lot ofened hal things to change. the parties are ideologically sorted. the most liberal republicans is more conservative than the conservative democrat. the two most conservative democrats, warren is retiring and ross. there is some natural selection.
with this sorting, we see party branding now. less ticket splitting and these races are becoming more parliamentary. you have more democrats winning them. even as republican sleeve seats where they do not fit many party perspectives, because they do not feel comfortable, they see the writing on the wall. the races have become more parliamentary. is redistricting a cause or is it a manifestation? it could make either argument. it is certainly -- coupled with voting rights and the like, it is more polarized than has been before. this referendum will be great. the voters will return that. it is one -- a couple of steps to four. people seem to threaten links
regimes will go to protect -- to protect their incumbents. redistricting is much more partisan than yesterday. it did not have one man, one vote. after baker v. carr, a series of court cases, the courts have stayed out of it except in some circumstances. redistricting desmid for polarization simply for this reason. most members worry about their primaries. even under your own analysis. a quarter of the seats are competitive. if you worry about your primary, you do not worry about your general election voters. you do not get rewarded for compromising. primary voters do not reward compromise. a stiffens members in this way and makes it harder for leaders to bring their caucus is a long war to make that themselves without generalizing their
leadership position. there are a couple of reinforcement mechanisms that are not talked about as much. one is your medium models today. -- medium models. you can tune in to fox if you want to hear why rummy will win or tune into msnbc to learn why obama will blow him out. these are business models. we call them the entertainment wings of the parties. their business models that are kind of bissonnette. people tune in to what they want year. talk radio is the same way. the internet even more so. i used to walk into there and turn into drudge, it is what these guys listen to. the media models are in force mechanisms. if a member goes off script and
sean hannity does not like it, the switchboard lights up. same with the democratic side. this keeps members -- there is an enforcement mechanism. what has evolved over the last few years is more dangerous. the passage of mccain-fine gold which i was proud to vote against. i think it is a terrible bill. it made it harder for political parties to raise money. parties have been a centering force and a stabilizing force for two under duress. it makes it hard for them to raise money. this money would disappear and we could have a pure system. the opposite has happened. this money did not disappear, it went out to the wings. it went out to 527 groups and others that could organize and with citizens united, it is all over the lot but the party is polarizing forces.
there punitive in primaries. and the general election this as well. if you can hold it up, if you can find more money spent by the groups then you will find by parties and organizations. that is just the way is going. if you're in one of the state you're getting 10 years of campaigning. that is -- these are polarizing factors. unless somehow these things work in a different direction it will continue to polarize. the next congress will be more polarized.
and connie murillo lost with 70% approval. they just want a democrat. they like you personally. you saw the same thing in the rhode island senate race. these have become parliamentary elections. >> m. e. come back to to pressure more on which things could happen. -- i may come back to you to pressure you more on what things can happen. >> i will take a different approach. i will not take the political sense approach although i love political scientist. i will talk about the election.
on election night in the eastern time zone and the polls that close early is, you will be able to figure out what is going on. if the democrats win massachusetts and indiana and if the independent who will vote with the democrats whins maine, democrats go from 53 to 56. there are five democratic seats where republicans have a reasonable chance of taking those. i do not think it will take all these but there is a possibility. virginia and north dakota, montana, nebraska, and wisconsin. let's say the republicans take two of those seats. democrats win three dimensions. that gets them to 56. that gets the democrats back down to 54. if republicans win three, that
takes a back to 53, exactly where it is right now. the democratic majority barring something unusual -- if the democratic majority stage where it is a could grow by one or two seats. the house is much more difficult. we all understand that. i look back to what happened in 1996 when i was chairman of the democratic congressional campaign committee. the republicans had won the house. we pick up seats that time. we did not pick up enough to get back in a majority. i'm not sure that democrats pick up nine seats. probably a good night for the democrats would be a net gain of five or six or seven seats. i do not believe the republicans will gain seats in the selection but it will be close to a status quo election.
their implications of that of course. if the democrats hold the senate and republican told the house with a decent working majority, the question becomes will they be able to work together after the election, no matter who is elected president? i am more optimistic that a lot of people in the media. i think that the problems facing the country are so significant that the parties will have to work together in the next year. the lame duck session will be an unproductive. i have been through a lot of lame duck sessions as a member of congress. the best that you can expect from this lame duck session will be some sort of temporary band- aid which will hold everything in place for six months, perhaps a year. avoid sequestration for that time, leave the tax code the way it is for that period, and the question is whether congress can work with whoever the new
president is. i think that the public will demand the congress get something done and leaders will see that it is in their interest to get something done working in the next two years. i hope i am not right. i acknowledge the fact i could be wrong and we could have two more years of gridlock. the problems facing the country are so significant that at some point, the leadership on both sides has to finally say ok, we have had enough of this. let's try and figure out what each side can get and let's go on from there. in terms of the house of representatives and redistricting, tom has covered that pretty well. i would say that what has happened to the democrats in redistricting is the republicans were successful in the last election, winning a lot of state legislatures and they were able to strengthen the hand of a number of current republican
incumbents. people who otherwise could have had very tough races. also there has been the effect of voting rights act in the last 20 years which has tended to accelerate a trend in the south which was already very much the case of the south going overwhelmingly republican. with the creation of minority districts which were long overdue, republican legislatures as republicans won the legislatures, they said ok. we will have these minority districts and make them big minority districts and take the minorities out of the surrounding districts and bleach the surrounding districts and that is what is happening in many cases so it has been difficult for democrats to win minority districts. in terms of going forward i do not think that this round of redistricting or this result means that the republicans have any type of lock on the house of representatives. there are a number of seats in the northeast and midwest, in
pennsylvania and new york, in ohio, states of that nature that could swing back to the democratic side. seats that are held by the republicans. it is difficult -- let's assume that obama is reelected. it is difficult for the party to pick up seats. we did that, i was chair in 1998 and we did that and it was unusual. it was so unusual that gingrich lost because of that. it is unusual and it will be hard for the democrats to take the house back in the next election. for years from now, it is still possible that the house could be up for grabs. a lot is going to depend on how congress grants to the problems facing the country. if congress does not solve the
problems in the next two years, it might finally have an election where the public says, throw the bums out. it could happen in the future. my guess is that the new president, the next president and i believe it will be obama will invite the congressional leadership to the white house on both sides and say we have had a horribly competitive race. lip-synch we can work together. i would hope that whoever is elected does that right away. we will say. tom is less optimistic than i am. i hope he is wrong on this but i am willing to entertain the possibility that he may be right and we could be in real trouble for the next two years. >> there is one.
on redistricting. they had significant control in 2000. in 2000 they had some delegations which were against them. they also had large majorities in the delegation and there was no room to go to increase those but to shore up lots of -- >> they are over performance in the midterms. let me turn back to you and ask you about your predictions about the congressional races. and maybe comment on republican fortunes in the senate which seemed brighter six months ago.
>> the house looks pretty good for republicans right now. the objective commentators have looked at this, not just redistricting. there are a lot of factors. boaters are not enamored with romney or obama. they make their packs accordingly. in 1994 -- my constituents would have liked to protect me from bill clinton and two years later the three elected him to protect them from me. there is this balance that plays into voter behavior. democrats will make minuscule gains in the house. it will be about where it is. we're more likely to pick up a handful of votes by would not be shocked if republicans ended up with a net gain of a couple of seats. we're not talking about that. put it in perspective.
in 2008 and 2010 we had 32 races in each year that were decided between 52-48. if you were to get a sweep or something, there are not enough republican seats to foot the house. even everything went well, i do not think they could take the house this year. there are a number of seats that will be close and that could determine whether it is a 10- seat gain or a five-c loss. >> if i am right, if obama is reelected, whatever the margin is, and if the democrats hold the senate and perhaps gain a seat in the senate, they -- there will be some people on tom's side who will look at karl rove in the eye and said he spent all this money and you did not win the presidential race or pick up any senate seats. maybe we should try somebody else next time.
amount of money spent among these outside groups probably will dwarf the official expenses, maybe 60-40. you have to ask the questions with all this money, why will the republicans not get a better result? >> you can back to the last cycle in nevada and colorado and delaware. we elected the least delectable an.electable republicza this will be five senate seats by nominating the least electable. fault.s not karl rove's
candidates have to end up running their own races sometimes. the agendas are set by these other ads and interest groups and organizations on the ground. moving to the senate, i think of romney wins the presidency and i think that is a possibility, despite the pundits, i think -- if romney worked to win it, republicans would end up picking up three seats. they have to pick up net. it could happen but everything would have to fall in line at this point. because of the missouri and indiana situations. also i do not to get out of the realm of possibility that maine, the independent brigance for
what is best for me and caucuses. he has been pushed very hard on this and said he is not making a commitment even though he has been pushed hard on this. angus king has endorsed bush and he is supporting obama this time. he is an independent. we are assuming some things that could take place. we will know more wednesday that we do today. >> i would like to highlight one senate race. i would like to say everybody should keep an eye on my friend bob kerrey in the state of nebraska. he is just unusual that he might pull the upset. i am not going to say he will win the race but it is clear from the polling this race has tightened credit bit. -- quite a bit. no matter what else happens, keep an eye on nebraska tomorrow
night. >> my grandfather was the state attorney general in nebraska. you have a guy who has moved to new york and he comes back in nebraska and starts off nowhere. the race has tightened -- [indiscernible] and the former congressman as well. and especially after the beat michigan state saturday. it is a race that the republicans should have had in the bank. even arizona should be in the bank. the republicans will win it. because for a lot of different reasons, republicans cannot assume those gains. it take you're asking -- a look at virginia, ohio, maybe pennsylvania to find that magic
number. i hope that scott brown holds on. it is a tougher night than anybody saw a few months ago. >> i would like to make a comment and i do not mean to single out one individual. i have been struck by the fact that some of the superpac ads aren't very good. i would think that with all the money that all these outside groups have that they could have produced some better ads. i live in northern virginia so i see these ads and i think that the attacking team came -- productionhave low value. i would want to have a nice
looking at. i would not want to just put something up there for the sake of having something on the air. >> thery are not aimed for us. talking about what they look like. >> i don't think this campaign has helped the government -- governing climate at all. this is contrary to some of the things he would have to get to get a deal with republicans. we will see if the president moves over far enough to do with the house and the house will reciprocate. sometimes it makes a -- takes a market timer to move both sides of their positions. you'd be surprised happens in a crisis how quickly people moved and tend to overreact. barring something like that,
this election has been reinforced by the party bases and it is harder for members and leaders to move off that base. i would look in the lame-duck -- hopefully they get the amt issue resolved and kick the sequestering down the road as a consensus to try to do that. although how you find the offsets will be difficult. i think it gets kicked over to the new congress to survive. >> estimate on that side looking in, i would hope that after this election is over, if the democrats keep the senate and republicans keep the house, i would hope the business community in this country finely and decisively goes to congress and says get off your brands, congress and if you do not,
mrs. -- what we might be willing to do. the media will play a role. .nd we're cautiously optimistic i happen to think the leaders are pretty good. i am not one of the people who disparages the current leaders in the house and senate. these are decent people who would like to get something done. they have problems in their conference and caucuses. they have to deal, there is a question of followers. you cannot blame the people who occupy the leadership positions. i hope they show some more courage after the election. >> some of these people are very gifted but they're operating within a system, if it is
followership. it is difficult for the best people to deal with. clinton was able to do this. -- in the 90's. clinton was able to do this, but it was a different time. you did not have the polarizing media. it did not have all the independent expenditures and the parties were still controlling forces. both parties, and their interests to get a deal. you have the president working with the republican congress and throwing bob dole under the bus because it was in our mutual interest to work together. barring something like that, i do not see it happening very easily without some kind of market tremor or something like that. >> we view things somewhat
differently. on election night, we'll have to look at and this has been discussed. if lightning were to strike and romney were to carry the states, he is in the game to win the election. if obama were to carry to those three states, i believe romney cannot win. if obama -- from the carries two, obama carries one, we will be up late watching the electoral college vote. i am not sure that this election has to drag on into the wee hours. we may have a pretty good indication by midnight at least as to where we stand. depending on what happens in those three states. >> they do not report that
early, most places. >> elections are run by states, not by the federal government. the absentee voting is reported at 7:00 p.m., those are the first results. >> the western states report late. >> i am talking about mail ballots and absentees and -- there released after the polls close. if we have an election where one candidate carries the popular vote, we need to rethink this
and it is hard to amend the u.s. constitution and the electoral college is in the u.s. constitution but there may be some things that can be done short of amending the constitution that can change that. we may have that result again. we have had it in the past. it will be interesting to see what the public reaction would be if you have a split decision here. that does not have to happen but it could. >> maybe you can give us your prediction as to the winner of the popular vote and by how much and then some of the key states. it can also mention colorado and wisconsin. where are the state going to go? >> i think if obama gets 310 electoral votes, it will not be that close in the electoral college. he does when ohio and he wins wisconsin. i do not know about virginia,
colorado. i was in colorado this weekend, i have grandchildren in colorado. virginia is very close in the presidential race. i think obama wynns enough so he could crack 300 electoral votes. >> for jenna is close. one thing you got to remember last time is there was a huge margin for obama. even though student turnout will be down, african-american turnout may be down to my republican registration -- their efforts are. we have a big deal said. obama is a unique democratic candidate in virginia. it brings out a huge minority voter base for him that other democrats have trouble getting. we will now when florida and
virginia come in, those are two state torres. if we lose ohio we still have colorado and wisconsin. keep an eye and pennsylvania. it disappoints as everytime. the one thing about -- there have been tens of millions of dollars of ads run on that for months. it is hard to get out from under that. he does not have that same burden in pennsylvania. maybe they are able to steal something. colorado looks better bet they're all close enough at this point. whatever the pundits say did not matter. we know how most of these states are going to come out. the state's, who shows up will make a difference and we will not know until tomorrow night. >> explosive growth in northern virginia is something that you
there are a number of seats that are no9t settled, that are in the competitive range. that could alter racer to. >> there are opportunities for democrats to pick up in florida. i would highlight and i do not think there will be a lot of cotillion this election. this is going to sort itself out. maybe in one or two of the senate races that could be coattailed. if obama were to win nevade big enough, it is possible that shelley berkely could be elected. if cromie were to win wisconsin that could tip the balance. i do not see too much in the way
of coattails. it is -- this has been an extraordinary race. it has gone on so damn long and people are so tired of it. i would highlight a couple of house races simply because they are for my own state. it could go against the trend. a former congressman is running in ron paul's seat. lamson represented a lot of that area in the past. there is a race in west texas involving one of the freshmen republicans, conseco. we might win that one, too. there are seats that i could win
but is not a coattail election on either side. >> could you see sunday about california? we have had a big shake-up there. >> some are republican on republican and democrat on democrat, where they are spending huge sums of money. as the chairman, it is always a tough race. that is something -- it comes late and we want to make sure we do not get our clock cleaned. i would get nervous about california. >> i always pointed out to my
friends that my own state does believe in a referendum or recall. we do not have term limits. >> the redistricting commission was ok. i have become much more sympathetic to a bipartisan redistricting. even if one of those gets over 50%, the top to have to run in the general election. it makes no sense to me and the california system -- >> i like the system because it forces basically candidate to talk to everybody and not just to a narrow slice of the electorate. it makes for better governance.
>> it will serve as heads of your congressional campaign committees for your respective parties and you have alluded to the way things have changed since you were running these campaign committees. the influence of outside money. what are the leaders of these communities doing? maybe reflect on the relationship between running these for the party and having to deal with all thesthis outsie money. >> it is a lot different. we were the only game in town. we decided where we would put our chips on the table, what races we play in, what races we would not. there is more money from outside groups than the parties have. you're not allowed to coordinate and officials take that seriously.
we can do is you can post on your web site where your money is going so these other groups can pick up the slack. other groups do the same and say here is where we go in. in formally you are able to tell where candidates have coverage. the other thing is you do have lists, e-mail lists, the internet was in its infancy when we were doing this and you can say there are candidate to need your money. it is much more difficult, harder to manage. campaign committees -- how your leadership acts and how they frame the issues, party branding, is more important than ever before. as you see from your slides, you're getting less district where you have republicans and democratic -- in democratic districts and vice versa. you have already had a huge realignment of the parties and very few misaligned districts.
it is coattails, there are not places -- these districts are all lined. >> i would do two things, make sure whatever outside groups there is has a lot of money and it can be competitive. that is the world we're operating in. democrats did a pretty good job in terms of superpacs supporting candidate. they did not have quite as much money bewrays enough to be competitive. i would put an enormous amount of the party's resources into turnout operations. there will be allowed of close races and turnout does make a difference.
that has largely been ignored by the parties in recent years. obama did that fairly well last time and is doing a good job this time. i would have the campaign committee devoting a lot of its resources in particular districts to turn out. >> basically that is what coattails are. it is turnout. the presidential candidate brings out more people to vote for them, generally a less sophisticated voter and the vote straight across or they can -- politics are largely cultural and ethnic and racial. it is not economic anymore. some of the wealthiest precincts are giving obama a huge margins. and in the elite -- in appalachia, obama is a nonstarter. voting straight across is what creates the coattails. >> democrats have made one strategic mistake and it will
cost them in the selection and in the future, running a white campaign. they have got to figure out a way to get back in the hispanic community. we have talked about this before. hispanics culturally should be a good target for the republican party. >> hispanics culturally should be a good target for the republican party. they are entrepreneurs and they are culturally conservative on many issues. and yet, the republican party has written off the hispanic community and has pushed them into the democratic camp. i think that in the future, tom's party has to figure out how to make some inroads in the hispanic community. they clearly did not do that this time. >> it would be an easier group but you have to show up. we have been losing that and we need to do far better. with the growth of the hispanic
the numbers continue to grow. if the republican party concedes this, this is a big problem long term. >> let's assume that you are president romney and you are president obama. i am, that both of those people are watching this show. what would you say, other than thank you for the victory? what would you say to the country, addressing the congress about what we ought to do next. to get ourselves out of the substantive problems that we are in. what is the right message for the new president to be saying, right away? >> if obama wins, clearly, he
should invite mitch mcconnell and john boehner to the white house immediately and say something to the effect of, we have had a nasty race, this is over, i won, but i want to work with you. i don't hold anything against you or anything your party said about me. the problems are too big for us as a country and let's meet on a regular basis and let's talk and keep talking to each other. it is the equivalent of turning the other cheek. i would hope that obama is capable of that if he wins reelection. >> we saw that after the 2010 elections. unlike bill clinton, who was able to work with congress obama went to the other way. if i am mitt romney i will call for unity. i would not just invite them to
the white house. ron does not have all white house yet, maybe his car with the elevators -- i think that you need to go to congress to see them. i remember when bush met with the democrats, and talked to them individually. the country needs some unity and whoever the new president is will have someone at their back to just one eye mandate. add that time i think you need to bring things together because we have a lot of issues hitting the road right away. you have these tax extenders and the fiscal cliff, and they need to start the discussions right away. i have read the price of politics. i hope that obama learns from that in terms of how to deal with republicans. i think the caucus is whether this.
your partner will have to find a way around that and find the concessions and the saucepot to come to some conclusion. if they don't do that the marketplace will take care of this for them. >> in january of 2001, i was the chairman of the democratic caucus. president-elect bush, asked to come and speak to the democratic caucus and the democrats were kind of stunned. a republican president? my position was, of course we should welcome them to come speak to the caucus. we need to do more of that. it will be hard, it would be hard for obama to go speak to them but he will need to do that. i would hope that he does this and i hope that regular coordination with them and
conversations, not just once. >> >> i have a question for each of you. where tom davis, the pessimism is probably well-founded, but how much leverage with the reelected obama have, given the fact that two of the things that are at stake are the defense cuts and the defense tax cuts are things that the republicans want and there will have to be action or they will not get what they want. what chance do you think that there is that the democrats will do something in the house about sending geriatric leadership? everyone of them is 10-20 year -- years older than his republican counterpart? >> you better take this one over.
i think that if the president can satisfy the republicans he can get a deal but he has dug in pretty hard on tax cuts for the higher income people at this time and i think barring that it will be difficult to get an agreement. and you can play chicken and say that you are holding up the middle class tax cuts. republicans will not fill the need to cave right away. neither do the democrats. so there is a lot at stake and on the sequestering of the president, he is responsible for where the economy goes. the ability is defined by other offsets.
the scar tissue is a little bit tougher that was before that. it will depend on the flexibility of the president. if everyone gets their way on this thing you just increase the deficit even more. >> let me start with the first part of your question and then i will attempt to answer the second part. the first part is that there is a piece of legislation that went almost totally unnoticed, introduced by the republican leadership and passed by the house in august, but is not taken up in the senate. it would have tax reform with expedited procedures, basically saying that the ways and means committee had until april to put a bill on the floor dealing with tax reform and then it would then be discharged if they did not put the bill on the floor and there would be a procedure for consideration. it would also take the teeth of a couple of the filibuster
options, with two of the three possible votes. and a procedure for the consideration of tax reform. there are some people who would not want the expedited procedure, who are wanting to preserve some things in the tax code. this would take the senate as an institution -- that would have to swallow very hard on this because it really changes the senate rules more than the house rules. but if they would agree to the expedited procedure on tax reform, there may be enough sweetener in the whole thing to say, we will pont for six months or year and we will find a way, and i have great confidence in the manipulation of the rules of the house, that they would find a way to delay this for a certain amount of time. i have a feeling that they could
find a way to delay this for six months, and perhaps to pay for the delay ahead of the decision on taxes for six months. but there has to be some sweetener in this. to appeal to both sides. in terms of the house leadership, i have better sense than to get into a conversation about that. this is a conversation at the democratic caucus will have to make. the three current leaders are all over 70 years old, and at some time there will be a change. i don't know when this will occur. they will not continue forever. >> christian science monitor. why are you so cavalierly
laying the fault for republicans in the senate at the feet of conservative candidates. look at montana and north dakota -- new mexico, with the establishment candidate -- >> i said dysfunctional candidates. you can be conservative or liberal, but when you talk about rape you are basically writing yourself off. it is not at -- as ideological as as a compensation -- a combination of other factors. jeff blake is pretty conservative. it is hard to be more libertarian than he is. it is not necessarily a ideological. >> people say that the tea party groups put them out there and they blew this for the republicans.
>> he is not a member of the tea party. murdoch said he was 60-40, and he had a statewide election. candidates matter. you don't have any enforcement mechanisms to bring in were strongest candidates. it was a safe seat with lugar. in the parliamentary system these things don't happen. you have the worst of both systems with parliamentary voting patterns. this has not worked very well but the fact is that we have had some bad candidates. someone asked me what it would take to beat harry reid. his numbers were down.
i would not say what we came up with, but she could not win. delaware was the same. that is not just ideology but finding presentable candidates. >> he said he is not a member of -- >> if you don't win elections nothing else matters. we have people less interested in winning elections than making a point. >> you could say that none of those hundred million dollars have moved the races an inch.
they have stayed exactly where they were six months ago. what is the take away from that? >> one reason that you see so few misallocated districts, is because so much money is being spent. when you spend enough money in a race it pushes the electorate to where the natural balances, and if these are in the past you are winning in democratic districts and the parties were investing in the opposition. when you find everyone spending a lot of money, the extension of that would be that republicans should win north dakota and montana. although montana is a small estate, you cannot personalize them. you have that on small states
and you don't have that at large states. in virginia you will find the senate race going pretty close together. >> to answer your question fully, democrats were fortunate that there were enough people to not exactly match the amount of money being spent on the republican side. can raise thate kind of money going into the elections. the incumbenthave president, we have the outside money that we have raised this time. >> they have mastered that -- >> we are not paying attention. >> over here?
>> with the potomac research group, what is the biggest compromise on the domestic issues, and the skill set that the candidates may bring to office? >> i think he's a compromise as opposed the outcome. this would probably be a straight ticket because he could have dakota the reconciliation . >> you get the worst of all worlds when you have a divided congress, because you cannot even get a work product out of the congress to get to the president. here you have -- i think it just
becomes more complicated under that. you could get a better result of that if you ever get a result. at least you have -- it is hard to get that with the status quo as of this. it is highly unlikely that either side will control the executive house -- and that is why the personalities and the quality of the leaders does make a difference. and the president working with them does make a difference.
>> on the other hand, they have not been as experienced. >> you can argue this either way. there has to be the demonstration of some guts and a willingness on the part of party leaders on both sides of the aisle. i hope that this can happen. there is no guarantee that this will happen but there will have to be some intestinal fortitude. >> these are very solvable problems. these are problems -- that are solvable and we have to have solutions. the longer you put it off, the harder it becomes, but these are solvable problems. >> this is bob castro, both of
you touched on the issue of candidate recruitment. raising the money, for the people who will be the standard bears, this is affected people's willingness to put themselves out for office, making themselves in position to win. and the best candidates are not choosing to run and that is why you have lackluster candidates and the ability to raise money. there is so much outside money, with the one ability of races -- winability of races. a lot of the best people are
choosing not to run. mike turner in ohio, i cannot get any members to support him in the primary. he won the primary -- and i supported randy forced to run in backup -- he is the only one who could run. he got a lot of grief from people who did not want to get involved in the primary. we have a caucus to hold the majority, we had some incidents is that people have had blown up.
we will let the primary voters decide. what role will you take publicly and everything else. what have they done for the average guy over the last five years? an economic turndown and real wages are down. the political establishment has just not delivered. that the candidate and -- i was actually an apologetic without this. >> this is far enough in the past i don't think it will cause anyone problems. in the first district of california, the vice president
of the united states, vice president al gore, called me -- to see if i support a certain candidate, who has helped him. they said, that candidate cannot win. we had mike thompson, a conservative democrat who won and is still in college -- congress. if your the campaign chair, you have to be willing to take your lumps. ron emmanuel -- rahm emmanuel did this, and took grief over it but was right. he recruited pro-life, pro-gun democrats. we have to be a broad tent party to get in the majority.
recruitingt there conservative candidates. to be the best person possible in each district. >> unless the replubicans run thublicans run the table tomorrow, did obamacare survive? >> the supreme court decided that. if romney is elected, he will try to delay and reduce it. as long as the democrats have the senate he will not be successful. the supreme court, in a 5-4 vote, decided the issue. if they'd struck it down it would be dead today.
>> if republicans run the table, it will be dismantled. you can't repeal it, persay. three seconds are repealed, and signed into law. this ws never intended to become law. all of these provisions. you get this in the ws never coe -- and they went with this bill. they can't get a technical correc tion -- you can get
repbublicans to weigh in, is to be determined. >> there is a provision for states to have exchanges and a plan in place and some of the republican governors who have refused these exchanges -- once it is clear the law is in effect. with the law -- there will be republican governors who will be hard pressed to say -- >> a very unpopular bill with the base. bill.s a devisivivisive it will be a challenge to make lemonade here.
>> one last one. >> my question is about extremims ism in some races. the butterworth -- patrick murphy and west. how many communists do you see serving with you in the house? >> i don't think there were any, in recent history. maybe in the 1930's. i don't think anyone identified with the communist party. candidates have to be careful. you don't have a license to say anything. candidates make outrageous statements -- >> one thing we see is with a
democratic president. >> moderate and independent voters have left -- they are not moderate but left both parties. having a president disciplines your members. not having a president, they do free reign. if romney was to win, it would bring the republicans into a narrative members would stick to. we will see how this election turns out. if obama were to win you will see more of this. and how they attract different constituencies. >> i am looking around the room. i want to thank congressman
davis and congressman frost, and we will look forward to the election tomorrow. >> obama and romney hold their last rallies. obama is in iowa, which he says started his run. mitt romney is in new hampshire. these rallies will start just before 11:00 eastern. tomorrow is election day. we engage with the results in the governor's races from across the country. obama is in chicago, mitt romney, in boston. live coverage starts tomorrow
and you can watch online or listen on c-span radio. 3rd party candidatse took place in a debate hosted by the free adnd equal foundation. gary johnsin, jill stein, the constitution party and anderson of the justice party. moderated by larry king. it is an hour and a half. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captions performed by national captioning institute] ♪ ♪
>> four our audience and those listening online, to our candidates and moderators and broadcsasting partners, and every individual to watch this historic debate. no matter where you are tuning in -- this debate is for individuals. the voter, the taxpayer, the hard-working middle-class worker. i am christina tobin. i welcome and thank everyone for being here tonight. tonight we're taking part in
something real and honest and open. without private interests controlling. [applause] without them controlling the questions that we ask and answer is that the candidates deliver. free and open and fair. bringing the election back to the people, where it belongs. we do this by opening the debate and forming non-partisan coalitions to unite people and organizations across the political spectrum who also on free, open, and fair elections. >> tonight's debate is the firstthese individuals represent all types of political ideologies. i imagine our audience is just as diverse. we hope to have candidates for
every level of government. we want to open the debate to more candidates at every level of government. [applause] ultimately, we the people are our government. if we don't pay attention, don't discuss, or don't discuss issues with friends and classmates, we get the same dysfunctional system, no matter who is in charge. but if we educate ourselves, we can figure out how each of us can make a positive impact.
that's the way to change the system. knowledge-sharing, truth seeking, open debate, fresh ideas, and discovering a common ground. we are at a critical time in our nation's history. it is time to take this country back. [applause] >> our moderator tonight is award-winning media broadcaster, larry king. [cheers and applause] he is the host of "larry king now." thank you, larry.
>> thank you. and welcome everybody. i am very happy to be doing this. i think all voices should be heard. a few notes about the format for tonight's debate. it will be an easy job for me. each candidate will have an opportunity to make a two-minute opening statement. six questions will be asked in all, 0 minutes. the questions have been selected from submissions made via social media. after a question is asked, each
candidate will have two minutes to answer. once all candidates give their two-minute response, they will have a one-minute time to expand. first let me introduce jill stein, the green party candidate for president. [cheers and applause] >> we're in downtown chicago, by the way, at the hilton hotel. next, from salt lake city, the justice department nominee. [cheers and applause] next, the constitution nominee for president.
christina tobin. >> thank you. we will start from the left to the right. here is our question. a top two primary is an election in which party labels appear on the ballot, but parties do not nominate candidates. instead, the candidates choose their own ballot label. all candidates run in the primary, but only the top two vote getters appear on the ballot in the november election. the system is p currently used in louisiana, washington state, and california. it is now a ballot member prop 21. what is your position on the top two primary system and why? >> we'll start with jill stein. >> thank you. and thank you so much to free & equal, and thank you for being here. i think top two does not enlarge our democracy. in many ways, it confuses things more. it puts many candidates onto the ballot all together, and it
arbitrarily attaches party labels to them. any candidate can choose any label they want. so it really degrades the meaning of our political parties, where they have meaning, and i know they don't always, but there are some that do have meaning that aren't bought and sold to the highest bidder, and the green party is one of those parties. and i know there are some other parties here as well, the independent parties, where the parties actually represent real values. and the top two obscures the meaning of those parties, and it puts everyone together, so you really can't tell who is representing you, and whoever hats the biggest budget stands to win that primary -- whoever has the biggest budget stands to win that primary, and it becomes another way that big money can control our electrics. so i oppose top two, as the green party does, and we actually support a whole variety of election reforms for the purpose of enlarging our democracy, not increasing the sellout
of our democracy. we are calling for getting money out of politics through public financing. we're calling for opening up the airwaves to all qualified candidates. >> 10 seconds. zwr we would like to clarify that money is not speech and that corporations are not people to take back our constitutional rights. [applause] >> next, for two minutes, rocky anderson. >> the top two system is simply a continuation of the degradation of our democracy by this monopoly of the republican and democratic parties. our democracy is so degraded by these two parties from the beginning in terms of ballot
access, in terms of getting on the ballot so you can give people choices. this top two item says you can put your own candidates out there. you can even have two people from the same political party, and that means no choice for the voters. [cheers and applause] last night and in all these vice-presidential debates, look how convictive the debate has -- constrictive the debate has been when you have two parties there. they are arguing about who is going to spend more on the
military budget? barack obama bragging that he's increased the military budget every year they are in office? they are trying to out-do each other in terms of who will drill more both off shore and on public lands, and neither of them cares to talk about getting rid of this disastrous war on drugs. neither of them talk about poverty. when we have the worst poverty rate in this country since 1965. we need to open up the choices. in south africa the world rejoices at the growth of their democracy falling apart. the first ballot in the presidential election that had 18 people's names on it. that's real democracy, and that's giving the voters real choice. [applause] >> rocky, one quick question. when you were mayor, what party were you in? >> i was in the democratic party, but it was a nonpartisan, but i've had it with the democratic party. [applause]
>> virgil goode, what party were you in? >> always conservative. >> your response to the initial question. >> thank you, larry. first i want to say thanks to your being here for lending your name and your prestige to this event, and to thank free & equal for their hard work in bringing a much broader vision to the american people so they will know that they have more choices than just obama and romney. >> i do not favor the top two system. i agree with jill, as she said, money is not speech, and the top two system enhances those
that have the most money. however, i was not in favor of $100 million at the democratic national convention of taxpayer money, $100 million to the republican convention of taxpayer money. [applause] >> the top two system is primarily a state issue. i would not be in favor of federal legislation rebealing appealing what louisiana has done or telling virginia or telling maine or telling arizona or new mexico any state what they should do. but we have to work in every state and every legislator and oppose top two. in my view, it is a hindrance to true democracy for grassroots americans that don't want to be controled by p.a.c.s. >> and our final speaker on this topic, i know you were a
republican as governor of new mexico. gary johnson, your response. >> well, running for governor of new mexico as a republican, i ran completely outside of the political system, completely. and i went and i introduced myself to the republican party two weeks before iran, and they said, you know what? we like you, we like what you have to say. we are completely inclusive. you can go and make your case to all republicans in the state, take part in the debates, take part in the discussions. that's the way politics should be. i was able to make that presentation. i was able to make that case. by the way, the republican party chairman at that time said, you can do all this stuff, but
you just need to know that you will never get elected because it is not possible to get elected governor in the state that's 2-1 democrat. well, i did get elected. so as governor of new mexico, completely outside of the political system, i have always been pro-choice regarding everything. so should this be a top two candidate voting system? this should be something that gets ferreted out at the local level, at the state level, not at the national level. there are only a couple voices being heard here, and it is tweedle dee and it is tweedle dum. it is two candidates talking about who is going to spend so much medicare, when you and i put in three times more than what you get out. it is not sustainable. yet, it is indicative of our federal government today, which is on an unsustainable path, the results of with are going to be an monetary collapse unless we
actually bring this under control. as a third party candidate i have been given the opportunity here to make the case that's not being made by either of the two major candidates. >> thank you, governor. >> a lot of people asked me why i would consent to do this. one, i like moderating, and two, i like asking questions, even though i didn't ask these questions. they were submitted. and three, i think these people deserve a lot of credit for coming forward. it is easy to sit back and watch. they are counting today, and they deserve to be heard. [applause] >> each is now entitled to a one-minute response if they care to use it. jill? >> yeah, thank you. i just want to mention, talking about how all of us need to stand up and demand real democracy and demand free and open and inclusive debate.
i just want to mention that my running mate and i went to the door step of the commission on presidential debates at hoffstra university last week and that we were arrested, we were tightly bound with plastic restraints, and tied to chairs for eight hours for daring to stand up and demand demand open debates. this is what all of us need to do. i encourage you to go to my web site, jillstein.org and sign the petition there on challenging the commission on presidential debates. we should not let them do this again. [applause] >> rocky, one minute. >> the top two system is a sign that these two parties, the political duopasy in this country is trying to further put their strangle hold on our democracy.
we have to stand up. in federal elections, it is a federal matter. we should not leave it to the steps. the corrupting influence of money in this country is at the root of every major public policy disaster. it is why we don't have health care for all, as in the rest of the industrialized world. it is why we aren't providing international leadership on the climate crisis because of all the corrupting money coming from the fossil fuel industry, and it is why we have this enormously wasteful military budget with this military industrial complex putting pressure on congress and the white house. >> five seconds. >> so we need public financing of elections for our democracy. we need free and equal access to the public airways. >> thank you. >> virgil, one minute. >> thank you. the top two system, as others have indicated, favor the super
p.a.c. and the political action committees. they are political action committees not just of business but of unions. i am for no political action committees. individual contributions only and no super p.a.c.s. i believe congress can craft legislation with presidential leadership to stop political action committees. big money that funnels through the p.a.c. is the greatest hindrance, in my opinion, to free and open elections and freedom and democracy in this country. we threw out the king at the time of the revolution because of leafy handedness. -- because of heavy handidness and we need to stand up and throw out the political action committees. [applause] >> this is a one minute response. you can use it or not use it, governor. >> i think when it comes to political campaign contributions that candidates should be required to wear jackets commensurate.
[applause] >> what is really needed is 100% transparancy. i will tell you, whether or not romney or obama gets elected, three things will happen. we will continue to find ourselves with a continued heightened police state in this country. we will find ourselves continuing to intervene in the world which has resulted in hundreds of millions of enemies to this country that wouldn't otherwise exist. there is a reason why we shouldn't be using drones. it is because we don't just take out the target, we take out a lot of innocent civilians in these countries where these drones attack. [cheers and applause] and then lastly, we will find ourselves in a continued state of
unsustainable spending and borrowing to the point that we are going to experience a monetary collapse unless we fix this. >> thank you, governor. [applause] >> tonight's second question, all questions submitted by social media were submitted by jeff tanguay of colorado via facebook. question, in what way does the war on drugs impact americans and how could these effects be reduced. is there a more efficient way to do deal with the issue of drug use in america. two minutes. jill stein. >> how about opening statements? >> did we have opening statements? >> unfortunately, no. >> grassroots. openingn't know we had statements. i thought we went right to the
questions. >> let's go with our opening statements. two minutes each. >> ok. this will be opening statements, and then we will go to the second question. >> from jill stein. thank you, larry. >> go ahead, jill. >> great. always glad to lead. [cheers and applause] >> the american people are in crisis. we are losing our jobs, decent wages, our homes by the millions, affordable health care and education. the climate is in meltdown, and our civil liberties are under attack. the wealthy few are richer than ever rolling in more doe than ever, and the -- dough than ever, and the political establishment is not making it better, imposing insanity on everyday people while they continue to squander trillions trillions of dollars on boring
for oil we don't need, on wall street bail outs, and tax breaks for the very wealthy. the american people are at the breaking pt. and we need to turn that breaking point in this election into a tipping point to take back our democracy, and see the green future that we deserve, and we do that by standing up and making sure that everyday people have a voice in this election and a choice at the polls that is not bought and paid for by wall street and by advancing the critical solutions that the american people are clamoring for by large majority. our campaign is calling for a green new deal to create $25 million jobs and unemployment. jump start the green economy. and that means putting a whole
new climate change and making war for oil obsolete. we're calling for health care for human rights, for medicare for all, and for bailing out the students, not the banks and making public -- [applause] >> governor, it was not in my notes about an opings oh, opening statement. so i apologize. i follow my notes. i'm a jewish guy from brooklyn. we do what we're told. >> frankly, people are here to listen to you than us. [laughter] >> we are at a pivotal point in our nation's history. young people are burdened with crushing tuition debt. millions of families have lost their homes.
requirement accounts have been decimated while wall street fat cats who are buying our elections have made out like bandits. we have never had the disparity of income and wealth that we see between the very wealthy and all the rest of us since the 1920's. our poverty rates have never been so high as 1965. child poverty. and infant mortality rates are next to the worst in the world. the united states has the worst rate of industrialized nations of women dying in connection with pregnancy and childbirth. under obama care there will be 30 million people without essential health care by the year 2022. and during the bush and the obama years our constitution has been shredded while the impeerl presidency -- the imperial presidency expanded. the presidents that think they can take us to war on a pack of
lies. with presidents that think federal government should have the authority to round anyone up, including u.s. citizens, and imprison them without charges, without trial, without legal representation, and without the right of habeous corpus. and our elected officials are sound asleep when the pentagon is warning that climate change is a greater long-term security risk to the united states than terrorism. so if you like the way things are going, vote democratic or republican. if you want real change, vote your conscience, vote justice. economic justice, social justice, environmental justice. [cheers and applause] >> back to our opening statement from virgil goode. >> thank you, larry. i want to say thank you jill, gary, and rocky for being here. on the four issues i will address right now, you can deduce my
positions of what i think. i will name afour positions in which i am very different from barack obama and mitt romney. first, obama and romney both claim that they were and still are for a balanced budget. reality. the obama budget this year was $1 trillion in deficits. the paul ryan budget which passed the u.s. house was $600 billion in deficit. i have the courage to submit a balanced budget if i'm elected president right after i'm inaugurated. secondly, i am for jobs and america for american citizens first, and the only candidate that has called for a near complete moritorium on green card admissions to the united states until unemployment is under 5%. it makes no sense to bring in so
many foreign workers when our unemployment is so high in this country. [applause] secondly, third, we -- >> running low on time. >> we need the super p.a.c.s and political action committees, that would be one of the things to open up our country for greater process and greater voice by the people, and finally, we need term limits. it is time to do the best job in congress instead of the election and fund raiser. >> now an opening statement from governor johnson. >> the country is in really deep trouble. we should not bomb iran. [applause] we should end the war in afghanistan tomorrow. bring the troops home tomorrow. [cheers and applause] marriage equality is a constitutionally guaranteed right on par
with civil rights of the 1960's. let's end the drug wars. legalize marijuana now. [applause] let's repeal the patriot act. [cheers and applause] i would have never signed the national defense authorization act allowing for you and i as u.s. citizens to be arrested and detained without being charged. that's the reason we fought wars in this country. [cheers and applause] i promise to submit a balanced budget to congress in the year 2013. that is a 1.4 trillion reduction in federal spending. if we don't do this now, we are going to find ourselves in a monetary collapse and a monetary collapse very simply is when
the dollars we have in our pockets don't buy a thing because of the acome anying inflation -- because of the accompanying inflation that goes along with every dollar we spend. i'm the only candidate that wants to eliminate income tax, eliminate corporate tax, abolish the i.r.s. and replace all of that with one federal consumption tax, the fair tax. i think it is the answer to our exports, it is the answer to american jobs. [applause] >> in what way way does the war on drugs impact americans? that was submitted by jeff tanguay via facebook.
>> the war on drugs has been an unbelievable tragedy. i remember someone who came to me and his son had been sentenced on his first drug offense to 15 and a half years to a state penitentiary. on the day president clinton left the white house, he signed a presidential pardon saving cory springfield a decade in a federal penitentiary. there is someone sitting in a federal penitentiary today with a 55-year sentence for selling marijuana on three occasions because the informant said there was a gun around. so a gun enhancement, mandatory gun enhancement from the judge that entered the sentence said
it was an outrage. it was unjust. but 55 years. this is the kind of human toll in this country. we don't just need to legalize marijuana, we need to end drug prohibition, just like we ended alcohol prohibition and treat drug use and abuse as a public health and education issue and get it entirely out of the criminal justice system. [cheers and applause] we have the highest incarceration rate. we have 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population. we have more people in prison and in jails in this country on drug offenses than western europe has in their prisons and jails on all offenses. this has to end.
we the american people need to come together, right, left, it doesn't matter about partisanship. we need to demand immediately an end to this insane war on drugs. [applause] >> virgil goode. >> i am an advocate of a balanced budget, and i would cut federal spending on the war on drugs. however, drug use is primarily a state issue, not a federal issue. but this is ven going to set well with most 6 -- with most of you. i am not for legalizing marijuana use or other drug use. if we cut back on the war on drugs, that would be a minor part of the federal budget. about $12 billion is being spent this year out of $3.8 trillion budget on the war on drugs. but i am not for funding planned parenthood. i will take that to zero. i am not for funding --
>> we're on drugs. >> i know. but i'm just pointing out how small the federal war on drugs money is in terms of the entire federal government, but i am in favor of reducing it because we have to reduce everything that's generally funded in order to get to a balanced budget. [applause] >> governor johnson, the war on drugs. >> 0% of the -- 90% of the problem is related to inportation not use. 55% of americans support legalizing marijuana. why is this the case? because we are talking about it. because debates are raging at
dinner tables that haven't been raging at dinner tables in the past. let's regulate it. it's on the ballot in colorado in november. coloradoans have the opportunity really to change drug policy worldwide. coloradans get it. six years ago they oat voted to decriminalize marijuana on a campaign based on marijuana being safer than alcohol. i am not a hypocrite on this issue. i have drank alcohol, i have smoked marijuana. i don't drink alcohol, i don't smoke marijuana. i can tell you, in no category is marijuana more dangerous than alcohol. [applause] and yet we are arresting 1.8 million people a year in this country on drug-related crime. we have the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world.
2.3 million people. half of what we spend on law enforcement, the court and the prisons is drug related, and to what end. look, this is not about advocating drug use. 50% of kids graduating from high school have smoked marijuana. that's an issue that belongs with families, not in the criminal justice system. [applause] >> anybody have any rebuttal? >> i have to make my statements first, and then my rebuttal. so as a medical doctor previously in clinical practice for about 25 years, i can say with a real understanding of the science of the health impact, that marijuana is it a substance that is dangerous because it's illegal.
it is not illegal on account of being dangerous. because it's not dangerous at all. [applause] it is well known that the impacts of marijuana are dangerous because of the illegal drug trade from marijuana drug prohibition. so the most important thing we can do to get rid of the health problems associated with marijuana is to legalize it. and on day one, on day one a president, if she wanted to, could entrust the d.e.a. to do a really radical thing. that would be to use science in determining what substances will and will not be scheduled.
because marijuana is on the schedule. [applause] and the same goes for hemp, which is also a substance for which there are no bad drug effects. there are no bad health and safety effects. yet there are important health benefits. marijuana should be regulated but not in a way that creates more monday applies but allows small businesses to florish. >> rocky. rebuttal. >> i don't know if it's really rebuttal. hem p, why is that illegal? except for those money interests that control our congress. we need to rise up as one and say legalize industrial hemp now. [applause]
>> 40,000 people in prison on drug charges. now we have over a half billion of our people in prison? i would, as president, create a presidential pardon on everyone that did not commit other crimes from our prisons who were arrested for marijuana. [applause] >> anyone else want to rebut? >> when i was governor, a meeting started, i didn't know what to expect. they said, hey, we're here to support you. we would like to share with you a story. >> only a minute. >> to pass on to others to let others better understand it.
they said methamphetamine is really the bogeyman of drugs. people that do methamphetamine do horrible things. by the way, it falls on the poor. it is cheap, it is easy to make. so the consequences fall on the poor. if cocaine were legal, these people would be using cocaine without the negative behavioral impact. what i will tell you about cocaine, and it would be wonderful if the government told the truth, cocaine puts holes in your heart. people that use their cocaine their entire life die from a heart attack. >> one-minute rebuttal. [applause] >> let's be clear about my position on this. unlike gary, unlike rocky, and
unlike jill, i'm not for legalizing drugs. if you want that, vote for one of them, don't vote for me. [applause] >> we remind you, tonight's debate questions were submitted through social media. this question comes from greg salazar from los angeles. do you think an annual military budget of $1 trillion is absolutely necessary to keep us safe? in a broader sense, what do you think should be the role worldwide of the united states military? two minutes, virgil goode. >> as i said, if i'm elected president i will balance the budget, and part of the cuts have to be in the department of defense. we cannot do as mitt romney and paul ryan suggest increase
military funding by $2 trillion over the next decade. i support a strong defense. but we need to retrench rather than trying to be the policemen of the world. we have too many soldiers, too many troopers scattered around the world. our presence needs to be decreased around the world, not increased, and the united states should stop trying to be the overseer of the world. that will save us billions and billions of dollars. [applause] >> all right. governor johnson. >> we need to provide ourselves with a strong national defense. the operative word here is defense, not offense and not nation building. [applause] >> the biggest threat to our national security is the fact that we're bankrupt, that we're borrowing and printing money to the tune of 43 cents out of every dollar we spend. in promising to submit a balanced budget to congress in
the year 2013, that would include a 43% reduction in military spending. how does that go down. a 43% reduction in military spending takes us back to 2003 spending level. it is getting ourselves out of all the military engagements that we are currently involved in. stop with the military intervention. it is reducing the military footprint worldwide. it is troops we have stationed in japan, in south korea, and in europe. it is intelligence. it is research and development. all of these components go into a 43% reduction when it comes to the military. we have to stop our military intervention. we have to stop with the drone strikes. we have to stop with a policy
that has us with hundreds of billions of enemies to this country that but for these policies would not exist. when we talk about foreign aid to other country it is propping up foreign dictators that are on our side as opposed to the other side? we pick winners and losers, and there are a whole lot of unintended consequences that go along with this. right now we are funding the syrian insurgence and they are made up of jihadists? should we not learn anything about where we funded osama bin laden? [applause] >> jill. >> i want to agree with gary and with rocky, and i guess not with virgil in this instance, to say that a foreign policy based on brute military force and wars for oil is making us less secure not more secure.
we need to bring the troops home and not the drones. we need to put an end to the use of drones and actually lead. not to lead this development of a new arms race, but to lead in an international treaty and a convention to permanently ban the use of drones as a weapon of war and a means of spying on the american public. maws applause [applause] $5 trillion spent on the afghan and other wars. this has not made us more secure. what we are seeing is the blowback against this policy. because dropping bombs on wedding and funerals, which is what drones do with an incredibly high civilian casualty rate, that is not a good way to win the hearts and minds of people in the middle east. [applause]
we need a foreign policy based on human rights and on fighting climate change which should be the war that we are all fighting, not this war for oil. [cheers and applause] >> now on the question of military spending, again we have three more questions coming. on military spending, rocky. >> president obama warned the -- he termed it the military industrial congressional complex. for very good reason. these folks vote for massive funding for completely wasteful projects, like the f-22 that the department of defense said we are never going to use it.
it is out-moded. why would we spend billions of dollars on it? and because the contractor had other contractors or sub contractors in 44 different states, and they did it very strategically, these people, the republicans and democrats alike, voted for additional funding. that is treason against our country when our treasure is being wasted, when we need that to go to exporting and jobs, and the biggest problem facing our planet and that is climate change. we need to focus on where the real problems are, rather than those who are benefiting from this corrupt system have their stake. now, there are two fundamentals when it comes to our engagement, military engagement. i think our leaders completely are either esconsing or ignoring. first, no wars of aggression. if you haven't been attacked or
you are not imminently going to be attacked, to attack is an illegal war of aggression under the united nations charter against the nuremberg principle. we convicted under nuremberg for those same crimes. the decision whether to go to war is congress' alone. they have the sole prerogative. it cannot be deligated to the president as congress has so carelessly done. [applause] >> anyone want to rebut? virgil? >> rocky is correct about following the constitution. i would not be in syria unless
congress makes a declaration of war. we will not stay in afghanistan if i'm elected president unless congress makes a declaration of war. only by going through that constitutional process can we ensure that the will of the american people is addressed when we have issues like syria, afghanistan, and iraq. >> gary, this has to be rebuttal. do you want to rebut something, gary? >> i was opposed to going into iraq before we went into iraq. i did not think they had weapons of mass destruction. i thought if they had weapons of mass destruction, we have the capability to see weapons of mass destruction. afghanistan, i thought that was totally warranted. we were attacked, we attacked back. i would argue after having been
in afghanistan for six months, we wiped out al-qaeda. that was 11 years ago. we should have gotten out of afghanistan 11 years ago. [applause] here we are now on iran. the demonstration after 9/11 was in iran by over one million citizens that showed up in support of the united states. and we're going to bomb iran? we're going to bomb the citizens of iran? we'll find ourselves with another 100 million enemies to this country that we wouldn't otherwise have. [applause] i think both candidates said they would not bomb iran. this is our fourth question. the question was submitted by tout. let's go to the question on the video.
>> how will kids get a college education in 2030 for nearly $400,000. is college really worth it at that point? and if so, how can you deny this to everyone. >> you probably didn't hear that, but some estimates give the price of a college education at $400,000 in 2030. his question is, is college even worth if at that point? if so, should college be provided to everyone. >> first of all, as governor of new mexico, we established lottery scholarships which allowed really any graduating high school student from new mexico to go to college with those costs paid. federal what's the role, though, when it comes to education, and what's the primary reason in this country why college division tuition is so high?
well, it is because of guaranteed government student loans that because of guaranteed government student loans, no one has the excuse for not going to education. and so because of that, institutions of higher learning, colleges and universities are immune from pricing that if kids would take a harder look at it, gee, i don't think i can afford $15,000 a semester, i think i will just sit this one out. when that happens en masse, i guarantee you, the cost of college tuition will drop dramatically. today that doesn't exist. i can't afford $15,000, yet friends and family will point and say, look, you can get a guaranteed government student loan. that is another one of government's unintended consequences that have college tuition at such a high rate. [applause] >> jill. >> i think it is time to make public higher education free as it should be.
[cheers and applause] we have done this before when our troops came home from the second world war. we provided free higher education through the g.i. bill. and we know that it pays for itself. for every dollar that we invested, $7 was returned in investments into the economy including more than enough revenue to cover the full cost of those tuition payments. [applause] this is something throughout the 20th century. throughout the 20th century, we provided a high school education for free to our younger generation. why? because it was essential for
economic security. and we owe it to our younger generation it to give them a secured start into their economic lives. in the 21st century a high school degree won't cut it. you need a college degree in order to have economic security. so it is only right that we should now be providing that for free. [applause] >> and while we're at it, it is time to, instead of bail out wall street, which is what the fed is doing now, with qe-3, $40 billion a month to bail out wall street banks again, instead let's bail out the students and do something really useful with that bail out. [cheers and applause] >> on the question of college, rocky. >> thank you.
our forebearers set up a system in this country where everyone would have a free secondary education. that may have been enough then. but for our nation to regain its global competitive edge, we must provide higher education. either college education or technical education. but it is for the future of our country and to meet the ideal in this nation of equality of opportunity that we should provide a free and equal educational opportunity in college, and do the right thing for our young people. this is not a radical idea. it is done in in many parts of the world, and it pays a huge dividend. as to those students who are
saddled with enormous tuition debt, it has reached over $1 trillion, more than the entire credit card debt in this country? what does congress do? or their fat cat contributors? they made student debt nondischargeable in bankruptcy. so you can charge a mazerati on your credit card, but if someone ran out and did what they could to get a decent education can't get a new start. so we need to demand congress to allow discharge in bankruptcy of student debt now. [cheers and applause] >> you might not get what you want to hear from me, but you will get straight talk. we can't afford more federally subsidized student loans and pell grants. i wish i could say we will give you more. a debt of $16 trillion is
bearing down on us. and as governor johnson said, we could well be like germany after world war i. i do not support this, and the person that asked the question on the internet is not going to like it, but we can't afford more pell grants and federally subsidized student loans. we have to balance the budget and decline the debt. [applause] >> anybody have a rebuttal? >> free comes with a cost. [applause] free, very simply is spending more money than what you take in. free is accumulating more than the $16 trillion in debt that we currently have. free has gotten us to the point
where we are going to experience a monetary collapse in this country due to the fact that we continue to borrow and print more money than we take in. free, the federal reserve system in this country, the treasury prints money. they give it to the federal reserve. the federal reserve gives it to the bank at zero percent. do they give that to you or i? no. with no risk whatsoever. this is what has to stop in this country is the notion of "free." there needs to be a level playing field for everybody. [applause] >> any other rebuttals? >> i disagree with both of them on this. we cannot afford not to provide a great education and equality of opportunity for all our young people and in this country. we need to insist on prosperity, not austerity. and in a recession, it is not
time for these massive spending cuts as called for by polls simpson and both of the people running for president with the major parties. we need to get behind our workers and young people and provide but is going to build this nation in the future -- great jobs in the great first- class education. >> jill. rebuttal, jill. >> i am agreeing with rocky here. we cannot afford not to educate our students. our young degeneration is the greatest resource we have. and their participation in our economy is not just good for them, it is good for all of us.
every generation, the economy needs to be rebooted a fresh imagination and the genius of a new generation. that does not happen when a generation is locked into being indentured servants. that is what our students are now. we need to bail them out and create free public higher education. >> a rebuttal. >> mitt romney in the last debate said he is for expanding student loans and pell grants for you have four candidates you can look to it that is a big issue. >> civil-rights. it was submitted via social media and is being presented exactly as sent to us. the question comes from melissa on twitter. this go around me begin with jill. >> where do you stand on the ability to detained americans indefinitely and why?
>> it is an outrage that 1021 ndaa was ever passed to start with. it is an incredible betrayal of our civil liberties that the president's has assumed dictatorial rights to put us in prison at his pleasure without charge or without trial. this is not allowable and is a basic offense against the very foundation of american liberty. it should be repealed. [applause] we must also repeal the president's interpretation of the enforcement act in 2001.
the military youth act that said assassinations are in the power of this president. we need to put an end to assassination. an end to the fisa act which retroactively legalized of more to the wiretapping against legal u.s. citizens. [applause] we need to repeal the patriot act and we need to stop the persecution of whistle-blowers who blow the whistle on crimes by our government. [applause] >> ten second spirit >> benjamin franklin said if we sacrifice our liberty for security, we will wind up losing both.
so let's take back our liberty. that is the foundation of true security. >> rocky, detaining americans indefinitely. >> i went to law school because i believe as deeply as one can believe it until the rule of law. and justice. the fact that our system of justice can provide for everyone. what we have seen through the bush years and now with president obama has been so absolutely subversive and anti- american. there has been no more anti- american act in our history than the ndaa. president obama, in 2009, he
asked for the power to indefinitely detained people without charges, without a trial, without legal assistance, and without the right to habeas corpus. we are on the road toward totalitarianism and that is not an exaggeration. [applause] if one person can be determined against whom and under what conditions law passed by congress and our constitution are going to be applied, that spells tyranny. it is the very definition of tyranny. what happened when president obama came into office? he said about our international treaties and our own domestic laws, absolutely forbidding torture, let's forget about those war crimes and move forward and not move backward. what about those who committed countless federal felonies by illegally spied on american citizens? he said let's forget about it. he did the same thing when he was in the united states senate after he promised opposite to
everybody before he got the democratic nomination. he voted for retroactive immunity for the telecom companies to participated in the illegal surveillance program. that shows the utter disregard to the rule of law. we need to demand more of our leaders. [applause] >> virgil good. >> if i were president, i would have vetoed ndaa. [applause] >> why can we all be that simple? governor terry >> because, larry, this is pitching oneself to vote for me. so i will try to take advantage of shamelessly pitching myself here. i would veto the act allowing for you and i as u.s. citizens to be arrested and detained without a charge. what is really significant, last december, the aclu can now with the report card on all the
presidential candidates. i apologize for the three others on states that were not in this report card. aclu, take your dedicated to civil liberties and the constitution. a group dedicated to the first 10 amendments of the constitution. this is really important. 24 liberty torches with the convicts corporate mitt romney and rick santorum had zero torches out of 24. newt gingrich had four liberty torches out of 24. barack obama had 16 liberty torches out of 24. my hero, ron paul, 18 liberty torches out of 24. and gary johnson had 21 out of 24. [applause] >> okay. [laughter]
anybody with a rebuttal? i guess you all agree on that. we go to question no. six. we will, by the way, have a discussion on this and two- minute closing comments. we will start with a rocky. it was selected by my editorial team. but in the post to facebook, he asks -- we start with rocky. if you had the opportunity to write one constitutional amendment with an absolute guarantee it would be approved by congress and then following that, what would you amend? >> i have already written it -- please take a look at our
website -- it is the new equal rights amendment promising that equal rights under law and will never be a bridge on account of gender or sexual orientation. [applause] it is time we had federal protection for members of our community lgbt and prohibit discrimination on account of gender. that amendment failed by not getting the approval only three states in this country. it is high time we revived and had sexual orientation and gender identification and make that statement as a nation that we will never allow discrimination on those grounds of again. [applause] >> do you think that would pass today?
>> i think it would pass if the people made it clear that we insist upon and there will be a heavy political price paid by anyone in congress or in the white house who opposes it. it is really up to us. major social movements in this country always start at the grass-roots level. we are the leaders. let's make them follow us. [applause] >> virgil, how would you amend the constitution? >> term limits. [applause] if we don't adopt term limits, you will continue to have a congress that is always or about the next election instead of what is best for the country.
let me say this -- if we could get it through congress, you might have to grandfather all the members of congress out right now which i would not want to do but you might have to. i am for term limits between six years and 12 years. i don't care what it is, it would enhance washington so much because it is a constant worry about the next election. where is the next fund raiser going to be? who are the pacs going to be giving me money? you watched a chicago television. it is constant advertising and the pacs are the biggest contributors. if we could get it through the house and the senate, it would go like a night after a hot bader of the state legislatures, term limits. [applause] >> as a follow-up, do you think they would vote themselves out of office?
>> no, you would probably have to grandfathered those and i think you'd get it through if you could grandfather it and let it start by giving them 12 more years and that would get it through. >> governor, what is your constitutional amendment? >> term limits. the root of all evil is politicians that beat their chests and in the name of electing me or re-elect me, we will end the war on terror, we will take care of the illegal immigrant, we'll take care of health care, we will have free education for everybody, we will and the drug wars -- you name it, elect me, re-elect me, i will save the world. congress gets elected. i hear congressional ads running all the time. we need to balance the federal
budget and the next ad that runs is here is the bacon i brought home to my state amounting to billions of dollars and if you want the bacon to continue to be brought home, but for me. i am living proof that term limits work. i really enjoyed being governor of new mexico. i really enjoyed it but i knew that i was term limited. i had eight years. i pushed the envelope -- would like to have pushed the envelope if i had more time? i don't think i did. i'd like a push to just far enough to get reelected and i got reelected in a state that was two-one democrat but i got reelected so this is all about doing the right thing. i do not want to leave office thinking should have, could have, would have. term limits really is the silver bullet. politicians would get elected and do the right thing as opposed to whatever it takes to get elected and reelected. [applause] >> jill, how would to amend the constitution? >> my concern is that even with term limits, but unfortunately, corporations and big money can still buy what they want and are still buying our candidates.
[applause] they get them into office anyhow whether it is for four years or 80 years. i want to pass the amendment that will clarify that money is not speech and corporations are not people. [applause] by stealing our rights of personhood, corporations have done exactly that. they have gotten the rights of personhood and taken away our rights of personhood. corporations can fight and stop and blocked laws that we need to protect our air and water and climate and worker safety and public health and campaign finance. these are not constitutional issues that belong to corporations. these are political questions that should be decided by communities for the political and legislative process.
should not be precluded from forming along as we decide we need because corporations say that our forming such laws it and protecting ourselves against the constitution. that is a violation of what the writers of the constitution intended. i will support that amendment to clarify and get our constitutional rights back from the corporations that have seized them. [applause] >> this has been a very lively evening. he will each have two minutes to close, is that correct? >> that's correct. we will go next in line to virgil. >> this is two minutes closing statements.
say anything you like. >> again, thanks to free and equal and thanks to larry king, thanks to gary, rocky, and jill. [applause] open up the process, give opportunities to americans and we will have a better and greater country. four things we have to do right away -- balance the budget now, not 10 years down the road. jobs in america for american citizens first -- i am the only candidate that has advocated a near complete moratorium on green card foreign worker admissions into this country until unemployment is under 5%. it makes no sense to bring in so many foreign workers when we need jobs in america for u.s. citizens first. [applause]
thirdly, i agree with jill on super pacs defining i don't think -- i think it can be done with legislation. want to see political action committees eliminated. individual donations of like a mouth full transparency, and we need to end of the super pacs that are about controlling federal elections. it is time for grass-roots candidates like virgil goode to be a candidate and he will work for term limits as well. [applause] >> governor? >> i would not be standing here before you right now if i did not think i could do a really good job as president of the united states. i am basing that on the resume that i have.
i have been an opera are my entire life. i started a one-man handyman business when i was a junior in college and for that business to employ over 1000 people in albuquerque. it is amazing what can happen when you do what you say you will do and when you show up on time. it is just amazing. i sold that business in 1999. nobody lost their jobs, business is doing better than ever. as governor of new mexico, i ran completely outside the political system and got elected republican governor in a state that was two-one democrat and made a name for myself vetoing legislation. i may have vetoed more legislation than the other 49 governors in the country combined. i vetoed 750 bills, i have thousands of line item vetoes that made a difference when the kings to billions of dollars and made a difference when it came to laws that would told you or i. what we could or could not do in the bedroom. with regard to immigration, i think that is a hot-button issue.
it highlights the differences between me and everybody else. let's start off with the premise that immigration is really a good thing. let's make it as easy as possible for somebody to want to come into this country and work to get a work of the set. not a green card, not citizenship, but a work visa so applicable taxes would get paid and we would have no criminals working in this country. we hear about wasted a vote right now. wasting your vote is voting for somebody that you don't believe them. that is wasting your vote. [applause] i am asking everybody here, everybody watching this nationwide, to waste your vote for me, gary johnson. i guarantee you that nobody will regret me as the next president of united states. you will find somebody that will wake up every single day and
take on the debates and discussions that need to be happening in this country and are not happening today because of a lack of leadership. [applause] >> thank you, governor. jill, two minutes. >> there is a famous saying from alice walker -- the biggest way people give up power is by not knowing we have to start with. [applause] in fact, there are 90 million voters who are not coming out to vote in this election. that is one out of every two voters. is twice as many as the number who will come out for barack obama and twice as many who will come out for mitt romney. those are voters who are saying no to politics as usual and saying no to the democratic and republican party. imagine if we got out the word
to those 90 million voters that they actually have a variety of choices and voices in this election. i want to focus especially on those 36 million students and young people and recent graduates who are effectively indentured servants because of the high unemployment rate and the draconian unforgiving loans that have been customized especially for students lacking any consumer protection. if those students decided to stand up and go to the polls and come out and vote for free public higher education, for ending student debt, for bailing out the students and breaking up the banks instead of the other way around, which is what they are doing, we could turn politics in this country on its head on november 6. i encourage you to go to my web site and get the word out. there is a choice in this election to take back our democracy, to create jobs for everyone through a free new deal
that will put an end to climate change and make war for oil obsolete. can do this now by standing up and making it so. [applause] >> finally, rocky anderson. >> if there had been a candidate included in the obama-romney debate that challenged our plutocracy, our government that has run by and for the benefit of monstrous corporations rather than in the interest of the people of this country. we know the republican democrats have some differences but both of them have morphed into an anti-democratic force that has betrayed basic human and civil rights. we know both of these major candidates have been bought and paid for.
that is why neither of them stands for health care for all. that is why neither of them ever talk about breaking the stranglehold the military- industrial complex has on our government. that is why neither of them talk about providing the essential leadership on the climate crisis, the greatest tragedy facing births in habitants. [applause] obama and romney have refused to discuss -- discuss the corrupting influence of money flowing from wall street banks from the insurance companies, a pharmaceutical industry, the fossil fuel industry or military contractors because they are the recipients of that corrupting money. neither of these dominant party candidates will have called for federal protection for marriage equality.
they have called an end to the insane war on drugs or the implementation of a wpa-like initiative that would hire millions of workers. thank you for providing this opportunity to present democratic solutions and the public interest on which we can all work together far beyond this election. [applause] >> first of all, as a moderator and host for 55 years, i have always believed in free speech and the right of people to throw their hat into the ring and for the right of people to be heard. i introduced ross perot and got to hear his thoughts and john anderson before that in illinois.
ralph nader and others so come forward to go to the battle. you are the don quixotes in a way and the windmills have a way of stopping and we have a way of saluting you just to get into the fray so i thank you for your efforts, all you have done. i want to salute cristina and what she does. [applause] >> thank you. >> how did free and equal start? >> it came from my dad. jim tobin ran for governor back in 1998. today is his birthday so happy birthday, dad. this is my legacy. we are in non-partisan organization igniting the grass roots and bring the power back to the people. [applause]
>> christianne has closing remarks and i want to tag gary johnson, bill stein, and virgil goode, and rocky anderson. thank you to the audience as well. [applause] outlook turned over to christina tobin for the close. >> i want to thank larry king for being a dream come true. [applause] my executive producer and producer and the whole crew people, thank you to them and all of our supporters out there and the candidates and a week, the people. i have good news for you -- how many people enjoyed this debate tonight? [applause] [applause]
we are a non-partisan organization that all donations go to creative things like this and we are doing big things after the election. we are holding a debate next tuesday in washington, d.c., 9:00 p.m. eastern time. [applause] and thanks to one of our sponsors, rob ritchie. we will implement instant run off voting and you can go on line to vote for the candidate you want. you have 24 hours to votes to go on line and go home today to vote and on thursday morning, we will announce the two candidates with the most votes will be in washington, d.c. to debate on international issues.
please, but tonight, free and equal.org. [applause] thank you, larry. >> thank you all very much in a great pleasure to be with you and i love coming to chicago. thank you very much. >> we, the people. >> good night, everybody. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> president obama and mitt romney hold their final campaign rallies before election day. the president speaks to voters in iowa. mitt romney and will be in new hampshire. both rallies are scheduled to start shortly before 11:00 p.m.
eastern. we will also take your phone calls, comments, and tweets. >> for the last four years, the status quo in washington has fought us every step of the way. they have spent millions to stop us from reforming the health- care system. they engineered a strategy of gridlock in congress. refusing to compromise even on ideas that democrats and republicans used to support in the past. what they're counting on it now is that you'll be so worn down, so discouraged by all of the squabble, so tired of all dysfunction, you will just walk away and leave the powers that be in power. >> it is not based on promises and rhetoric, but on at solid plans and proven results. unshakable faith in the american spirit.
if anyone fears the american dream is fading away, if there is anyone who wonders whether better jobs or a thing of the past, i have a clearer message. with the right leadership, america is about to come roaring back. >> watch live election coverage on c-span tuesday night. president obama in chicago and mitt romney in boston. about the night, your reaction by phone, e-mail, facebook, and twitter. live coverage starts at 8:00 on c-span, c-span radio, and c- span.org. next, a program previewing tomorrow's election. on c-span2, "the communicators." on c-span2, "the communicators."