seagulls. maybe some seagull molecules, but any intact seagulls are on the way to alaska at this point. so what life lesson can we learn from this story? none, really, i would close with the words that i think-- if you face a problem in your life, an obstacle in your life and you can't figure out what to do about it, the moment forget about your problem and cast your mind back to that whale on the beach in oregon, and whatever you do, do not ask the oregon state highway division to help you. thank you all. jamie, thank you. [applause]. >> thank you. >> you betcha. [applaus [applause] >> and the rancho mirage writer's festival continues with the discussion on u.s.

presidential elections with karl rove and h.w. brands and douglas brinkley. >> douglas brinkley, h.w. brands, karl rove and the moderator. [applaus [applause] >> good morning. >> good morning. >> what a pleasure to be here to talk about one of the most important subjects that's on everybody's mind. today we'll have a wonderful opportunity to talk with three outstanding experts about the election that changed our history. as somebody who once worked hard on many campaigns, i'm going to be fascinated to hear the assessment of my colleagues here. so, let's start with you, hw.

what do you-- how do you think we should be looking at transformation as an overarching thing for discussion for presidential leadership? >> well, when you think about important elections i put them in two categories. there are those whose importance are not known until after the election. it sets up conditions and brings in a certain office holder and then things happen. so elections like that, election of 1932, franklin roosevelt becomes president and launches the new deal. the moment he won in 1932 no one knew how big a deal it was. in 1860 abraham lincoln was elected the union starts to fall apart. but i like to think elections that sort of ratify or anyone something that's already gone on and these are elections whose importance we know from the moment we know the outcome of the election.

so in 1864, abraham lincoln was reelected. if he had not been reelected and lost, then that would have signaled that the union, the will of the union to continue the civil war had diminished and there might very well have been a negotiated peace, but the fact that lincoln won made very clear that this war was going to be fought to the finish. so, there's an example of, as soon as the outcome of the election was known, it was very clear that this was important, but these elections are almost always elections where a president is up for reelection because these are the elections that actually stand in as refer da for the performance of a president. another one that is, i think, sometimes overlooked is the election, well, the election, not reelection, but the election of lyndon johnson in 1964. because johnson had just been instrumental in passing the most controversial piece of

legislation in 100 years. the civil rights acts of 1964 and if johnson could get elected in his own right and not just elected, but overwhelmingly elected, it signaled that the american people, the american electorate as a whole was ready for this kind of change. one last one on the same regard. the reelection of franklin roosevelt in 1936, another landslide, was a thunderous vote of approval for the new deal. deal. >> how about it? i'll stop there. >> i don't want to take up all the elections. >> karl. >> well, you know, we could go back to the early republic. obviously, that 1800 election is crucial because it develops our two-party political system and as bill alluded to, presidential elections 1860 is always big because lincoln won and we look at the civil war as the crucible of our time. mentioning yesterday, lincoln not being on the ballot in

seven southern states and having to be snuck into washington d.c. there were body doubles, successionists simmering in maryland and anger in virginia and lincoln is being stuck there. but let me take lincoln from that victory 1860 and 64 and saying the that the republican party as the dominant election. and lincoln all the way to 1932, all republicans except grover cleveland, got to give it to grover cleveland, he woulden and then woodrow wilson wins in 1912. but wilson wins in 12 because theodore roosevelt created the bull moose party and cut the republican party in two and destroyed taft's presidency and allowed wilson to come in and wilson wins the election. and if he hadn't, taft could

have been continued his presidency and after wilson, republican, republican, republican, and then fdr. in 1932 all the way till 1980, i think america lived in the age of franklin roosevelt and that 1932 election. and i pick '80 because i'll get to why in one second, but if you follow me, not only did fdr win in 32, 36, 40, 44, and then a constitutional amendment, after his death to stop this, but roosevelt convinced the american people that the federal government is your friend, that uncle sam is your friend and he did it through programs like, you know, bridge building, road building, wpa. ccc, all the new deal, but also social security, your government is going to help you in oil age. if you're a farmer-- old age and we'll help farms grow and world war ii ended

with the manhatten project, the government project for the atomic bomb. and you say how come roosevelt with that long-- >> and truman starts to grow government in a different way, albeit in a different way than fdr. creates the cia, joint chiefs of staff, eisenhower, we talked yesterday, interstate highway, government intervention in little rock. nasa, kennedy going into space. lyndon johnson's reigning, the government is going to help the urban poor and schools and you know, the whole medicaid, medicare. richard nixon is affirmative action, creates the epa. you know, government, it's still in. jimmy carter creates fema, department of energy. you know, department of education. reagan, and the reagan revolution in 1980, that map

turns deep red republican in a landslide victory and i think since '80 we've been living in the age of reagan, meaning the country is center right, not center left, and it makes it very hard in recent elections for democrats to win. in order to do so, they have to do what bill clinton did. he got lucky in '92 in many ways, but triangulate. take the whole famous try angulation of bill clinton. barack obama snuck in the affordable care act and then we became a firewall to protect the fdr, johnson heirlooms of government expansion. so, i think those two elections to me, 32 and 1980 are giant ones when i teach i focus on a lot. >> great. fascinating analysis. karl, how does it look from the position of a pollster and a political activist?

>> well, i look at it as a political scientist. >> okay. >> and political science major, most useless major available in college. >> what about-- >> well, political scientists have traditionally looked at american elections as five great realigning elections and bill's point, things are different after the election than before and four of the five realigning elections have been mentioned by bill and doug, the election of 1800's, the election of 1860, election of 1932, or there's another one they did not mention that political scientists consider the election of 1828 in the emergence of the modern democratic party under andrew jackson and the other one, my particular favorite election of 1986. the interesting thing about these elections is we pay attention in four instances to the winners and we tend to

magnify the victors and gloss over the difficulty getting there. the election of 1800. thomas jefferson, enormously popular, must have been. author of the declaration of independence, one. founders. he narrowly remembers the election. remember the 36 days of florida and hell we went through, ended with the lack of clarity who was the president of the united states for 36 days? the election of 1800 is not settled until the 17th of february, 15 days before the constitutionally appointed day to swear in the president. the election ends in a tie, in the electoral college between thomas jefferson and his running mate aaron burr because back then, you voted for the-- the electors voted for two people and traditionally, one of the leading parties electors voted for somebody else or cast

a blank ballot so that john adams would have one more vote than thomas jefferson and so forth. but in the election of 1800, 73' electors voted for jefferson and others voted for burr because burr is attempting a coup. it goes to the house of representatives february 1801 in a tie. washington's buried in a snowstorm, there are 16 states so the winner has to get nine of the states in order to win. each state has one vote cost my his congressional delegation and the first ballot eight for jefferson, six for burr and two tied. and there are only one of those states is only tied because congressman joseph h nicholson, who is suffering from a fever, is put on a stretcher and carried two miles through

snow-bound washington d.c., put in a committee room where his wife fears he's going to die and he is there to keep maryland tied, otherwise the vote would go to burr and it would be-- it would be seven-- excuse me 8-7. and after 36 ballots and six days, the first day the 11th of february they begin voting at 10:00 in the morning and they vote every hour until the following evening. they vote through the night. they cast 28 ballots and unable to come to a decision so they vote for five more days and on the 36th ballot, alexander hamilton helps deliver the presidency to the man he hates more than anybody else except one in american politics, thomas jefferson, by saying of the evils take the lesser. and the federalist congressman from delaware, james baird cast a blank ballot so that his state moves out of the burr column and he convinces the federalist colleague from

vermont to absent himself and vermont's sole democrat congressman can deliver the vote for jefferson and four federalist from maryland to cast a blank ballot and turns maryland in a state voting for jefferson and four federalists in south carolina cast a blank ballot so its vote doesn't count and the election ends up being ten votes, six votes, two. so, you know, we look at these things now through the gloss of history and say, well, jefferson must have been so popular. he took 106 days to get a victory confirmed. but, and i'm not going to spend a lot of time on it, but the election of 1896 is the one that we glossed over. about ill is right we have a republican that comes into play with abraham lincoln, but the five elections, american

politics is fundamentally broken and polarized and five presidents without 50% of the vote and two presidents without the popularity vote and win the electoral college sort of like the guy now and the guy i served. and another wins the popular vote and the margin is less than 10,000 votes and along comes the most misunderstood and unknown president, the 25th president of the united states, william mckinley and fundamentally alters american politics. it's a realigning election because the polarization is fundamentally broken the next 36 years the republicans dominate it all. most of the mayors in the border states are republican, new york, philadelphia, chicago, cleveland, san francisco. san francisco had a republican mayor for most of the next 32 years, thus far the decline. and republicans, as doug

pointed out, dominated all except when they break among themselves. there's a fantastic book i could recommend to you about this, called "the triumph william mckinley,". brilliantly written, back stabbing, violence, everybody has a cool nickname. and i wrote it. >> i'd like to follow up this fascinating recitation of key moments in american history and ask about the electoral college. we're hearing lots of unhappiness about the electoral college in certain circles because this is the second time in recent history that the electoral college has produced a different outcome than the popular vote and i was wondering if anybody here on this panel would like to volunteer for putting us straight on that question. >> i'll tell you how little i know about it. for years i would teach my american history students that the electoral college was this quaint artifact from the 18th and 19th centuries that hadn't

caused any trouble until since the late 19th century and this was from, i started teaching in the 1970's and i confidently predicted that it would probably exist until it got the answer wrong, that is when the electoral vote differed from the popular vote and i said that as soon as this will happen, there will be a groundswell of opposition to the electoral college and be swept away. of course, if it didn't exist, today no one would-- and this is it will go away as soon as the popular will is frustrated. but i wasn't counting on karl rove, so-- . [laughter] >> and i say this-- >> your mistake. >> and i say this because along comes the election of 2000 and of course, karl basically negates the popular vote and--

. [laughter] > >> but the surprising things to me about it there was no ground swell, there was almost not a peep. and so we're stuck with it. there are good reasons why i'll say we're stuck with it. it serves the interests of small states. there are more small states than large states and you have to amend the constitution state by state. it's not a popular vote on amending the constitution. so, i'm-- i can't say that i was particularly surprised that in 2016 we got sort of more of the same, but, i think so i'll fall back on, if we didn't have it today, no one would invent it and on that criterion you have to figure, okay, we thought to think about some way of changing it, but it's not going to get changed. >> if i could very briefly say, i just think electoral college is here to stay. anytime you have elections like

bill is suggesting in 2000 or we just had with hillary clinton and trump, people, there is a little bit of a clamor, let's get away from the electoral college, it's not going to happen any more than it's going to change that a state like north dakota gets two senators, and california a big state also gets two. because you're going to do the popular vote, firstoff, imagine the recounts on a close election. if we couldn't recount, florida, imagine trying to do it in a national fashion. all politicians would are offering urban centers everything they can, you want speed trains and you'd go to where the population pockets are and abandon rural america and our agricultural sector, and so, i don't see electoral college going away anytime soon no matter how these elections and it may very well be, if trump got reelected, he would probably not win the popular

vote again. it's very likely he won't win it, but could win on the electoral college. there's going to be frustration, and people not calling it democracy, one person, one vote, but alas the electoral college is here to stay. >> i'd add it ought to stay because it's an enormous balwark for the system. imagine having four or five parties in the house of representatives and trying to organize the house and operate. we've got trouble enough when we've got two parties. let me say one other thing. there's a reason why there is no great cry for getting rid of the electoral college because sometimes the outcomes in 2000 are not the result of the campaigns, but the result of the media. you may remember on that night that florida was called for al gore while the panhandle of florida had an hour to vote. if you draw a line across the country into the east of that

line ar all of the states that had closed their polls by the time the networks began calling florida for al gore prematurely at 8:30 in the evening, and to the west of that are the states with polls that are still open, you'll find something very unusual, and that is the states to the east of that line that had closed their polls, virtually, i think every single one of them shows an increase in the percentage of turnout compared to 1996 and to the west of that line virtually every one of those states has a decline in the percentage of turnout from 1996. i remember jerry parsky, our california chairman, who had never been really involved-- a friend of rod's, never been involved in politics, called me frantically within 15 minutes of the call for florida and said, people, i'm getting reports that people are walking out of the voting lines, all around the states because the contest is over. he said our phone banks are shutting down. what do i do and that's why, if you look at it, bush loses the

popular vote, in my opinion because of two things, one is he loses some evangelicals who found out the previous thursday that he'd had a dwi 20 years before and said i can't come out and vote and more importantly, there's more than a half million people who should have turned out west of that line for him who didn't because they said, i've been told by the media the contest is over, i'm going home. >> karl, in all of that political science training, remember ralph nader's third party and he was on the ticket in florida and that hurt gore, but gore didn't run a good campaign. >> every loser runs a terrible campaign, every loser. >> they run a great campaign until the moment they lose and then they run a stupid campaign. >> karl, you ran a good campaign that year, but gore, not i think embracing bill clinton, thinking that clinton's lewinksy was a taboo. and he had a budget and a

surplus and gore started doing the lock box then and wearing turt turtle necking, and get ralph nader not to be on the battle in florida. it wasn't just karl, i think when james baker came down to florida versus warn warren christopher, that was it because baker was going to outgun christopher. >> we were backed by the u.s. supreme court, twice 7-2 margin held that florida was violating article 5 of the constitution trying to change the rules after the election. if you have any doubts about the gore strategy and how cynical it was, i commend your book it's over here in the library, david boies, autobiography lead lawyer for al gore who says in there they did not call for a state-wide recount, which is what the law requires, because if they recounted all of the counties in the state, the gore campaign concluded bush's lead would grow so they wanted to quote, harvest votes by picking out

three very large democratic counties and trying to go in and harvest votes in the undercount that the people who did not vote in the presidential election, and somehow get enough votes out of that to erase bush's margin. highly cynical and twice the u.s. supreme court voted 7-2, you're violating the article 5 of the constitution which requires that any election be conducted by rules in force before the election and the 5-4 decision was over, should we remand the issue back to the florida supreme court again, telling them that they've got it all wrong or because we are several days in front of the set time for the meeting of the electoral college and they voted to simply call an end to it. >> the vote was 7-2, not once by twice on the supreme court. >> be fair to al gore once that supreme-- >> let's not be, please, let's not be. >> once the supreme court decision was rendered, gore behaved quite nobodily.

>> once the second u.s. supreme court decision he did. and this is really important. once you go back to the critical elections, one of the things that happens is the victor is either helped by the nature in which they win the victory, they go on to be able to govern the country. almost from the moment they come into office. both bill and doug talked about 1932. after the election, there is a cooperative spirit between wilson-- excuse me, between fdr and hoover and remember, when he comes in, he doesn't spend his time beating up on hoover, his most important moment is we have nothing to fear, but fear itself. this note of optimism and unity is-- we see it in lincoln's address, you know, let us not be enemies, but we shall be friends, we must be friends. all of these motors of-- notes of national optimism. 1980 with ronald reagan again. >> when are we going to get a

theme of optimism again? >> when we get candidates capable of projecting that note of optimism and unity. not to dwell on it, mckinley helps to unify the country. the first candidate, republican or democrat to appear before a black audiences before he becomes the party's nominee to ask for their support. he's the first republican to receive the endorsement of the member of the catholic hierarchy. which issen known. the republican were the anglo saxon party and he goes out and urban ethics, and working people many of whom are catholic and in the general election october 9th one of the most amazing things in american history, the first president since the civil war, nominated for the congressional medal of honor who refuses to have his application pressed because he says, quote, i was only doing my duty. he's a civil war hero who enters as a private, leaves as

a major, survives two suicide missions, and he is the first president since thesism civil war, presidential candidate to appear with southern confederate veterans and national unity people lining the streets, openly weeping at the sight of blue and gray together marching under the american flag with patriotic movie. it's an unbelievable moment in american history. [applause] >> and go ahead, and i was thinking of that election because he wrote a book, a lot of people, mckinley won. there are sometimes presidential elections that sometimes don't make our top five of transformative ones, but nevertheless add charm and interest to our lives. i was thinking of 1840 when william henry harrison won. the things that come in our parlance, martin van buren sustained in upstate new york and became controversial

because he put okay on a memo and he documented, you know, that was up at his home up the hudson river valley and to make a long story short. ok has entered our parlance because of old kinderhook and it's project one of the most expressed. ok. they did a big ball of twine, to say keep the ball rolling, become ago phrase. when you break down the campaigns, each has a little bit of allure. >> 1840 election established the iron rule of inaugurals, keep it short. harrison gives one of the lo longest inaugural addresses and died a month later. >> he did. >> one other thing in 1840, there was a man in philadelphia named mr. booze, in order to get votes he gave free alcohol, and that's where the word booze

comes from 1840. >> and james madison gave out free booze in his race or congress and if james madison had said that, i'll have more madison. >> i tell you, i've learned a few things this morning. we thought we'd open up the discussion to members of the audience, do we have anybody who would like to raise a hand with a question? oh, boy. >> they will, they need a second. >> come on, we can handle it. >> there we go. >> right there in the front. >> as you know, george bush's legacy has changed and become more-- and do you think that john kennedy's legacy will change? >> the question is we know that george bush's popular image and legacy has changed. the question is, does this panel think that john kennedy's legend is stable or will there be changes in the future. ...

american university speech about the nuclear test ban treaty. a speech about putting a man on the moon? as oratory lives on because of his, in our minds. he got us through the cuban missile crisis, the berlin crisis. he created institutions that lasted. kennedy is the one who did the peace corps but also the green

beret. he organized the modern u.s. seals, so he has fans, big ones. if you look at public opinion polls he is ranged really high. when we up here we range them, he is a little more middling. we only have the thousand to judge him on. he may have lost, i think he would have beat goldwater but you don't know. the they were south was angry at democratic south over james kennedy and alabama and it would have been interesting election in '64. i think kennedy stands as one of the presidents of ages. >> he has dropped, he was at street fear i can heights in 1963, he has dwindled in professional rankings and historians. 20 years ago, 30 years ago you

wouldn't turn on the crown to see him depicted as bully wife-beater and basic bad guy as he was in "the crown." people tend in aftermath of death of mckinley and aftermath of death of lincoln many previously considered sins are forgotten. particularly mckinley dwindled in the '30s and '40s when progressive historians came on and my guess is kennedy has similarly dwindled. >> because the assassination, got kennedy airport and kennedy performing arts centers and kennedy awards. kennedy space center space center and did memorial to monuments to kennedy will be here a long time. so i think he remains an important president. >> i have a question for the group. how many can remember where you were when you learned i don't know kennedy had been shot?

i will predict, i will look at most of you, i don't think all of you will be alive 30 years from now. when this generation passes kennedy will be seen less important. if you can remember where you were when something happened that was a significant moment in your live. people get old they pass from the scene. i guess your grand children will not be enorm mored of john kennedy on as you are. >> in the front. i will repeat the question. >> yes. how do we get the millenials for the future of the country, our grandchildren, everything, how do we get them involved in not only politics but history in. >> so the question how do we get the millenials, not just involved in politics but in history? >> one of the problems when you're teaching u.s. history right now, is students feel they have all the information on

their device. why do i have a to read a book about valley forge, when i can go valley forge, i have it on me? it creates a history illiteracy disorder. yet the person feels they're very empowered because theft information on their hands right at a nanosecond in the bar tell you the answer. i just think we have to do a better job of teaching history in high school, not just history, geography. geography. we have to know the map of the world and where places are. >> i have another question for the group. how many of you at the age of 19 were seriously interested in history? how many of you at that age would have come to a session like this? well i guess self-selective group. >> are you calling these people liars? [laughter] >> reason i say that is, someone who has been teaching

19-year-olds for the past 30 years, i realize, i put myself in i try to make it interesting, i know history, appreciation of history does not come naturally when you're 19. it comes a lot more readily when you're 69, when you're 70. more of your life that is behind you, the less ahead of you more naturally interested in things of the past. >> but our high schools have to teach that better. >> i grant that part. >> if they teach it at all. >> i say my students are interested in politics but not necessarily party politics. part of the question was how do we get millenials interested in politics. it is really hard for them to be interested when all they hear on the mediaone party slamming the other. and so they don't find the kind of people they can look up to. they don't find the john kennedys of this era, except in, well just ask you,

who do you think of the candidates in 2016 was most inspiring to my students? bernie sanders. somebody who has this vision. he holds out this world my students want to live in. i explained to them that bernie's world is not the real world but nonetheless -- [laughter]. but nonetheless it is a world -- >> that is quite an admission coming from an academic, my friend. you have heard it here first. [applause] you can send your children to the university of texas at austin. your children and grandchildren with confidence knowing that bill brand is there. >> here we go. >> actually as far as bernie sanders he comes from vermont where watching paint dry is exciting. 1896 mckiply gave us teddy roosevelt which gave us very important president of the united states. but you asked by other elections, 1952, when your

grandfather became president, it changed whole attitude of the united states from the war attitude to peace. in 1980 president reagan changed the other attitude towards conservatism. that is what i think. >> did you have a question? no. [laughter]. thank you for that intervention. >> come on up here and sit in my chair. i will sit right here. >> no, our participant here just remarked that the election of 1952, the eisenhower election, ushered in a period of peacetime and reagan election offered, ushered in another period. >> the 52 election was responsible for one of the worst scourges everyone leashed on american politics. first presidential election where television ads were used extensively. >> not just television ads, karl is absolutely right but in '52

started bringing conventions on television. edward r. murrow said it is a infomercial. walter cronkite said, sign me up. i'm a young guy. they filled the conventions, smoke-filled room, wheeling dealing who would be vp and all this and it wasn't very pretty in some ways, walter cronkite in '52 made none any on the side teaching politicians how to look good on tv. honestly. sam rayburn took cronkite's course. john kennedy took cronkite's course. you no hoe didn't? nixon. >> as long as the category '52 political trivia the republican convention organized and run by 20-year-old woman josephine good, first convention to be organized and led by a woman. she thereafter runs, she

thereafter runs every republican convention from 1952 until the year 2000, when she finally retires. >> wow, amazing. amazing story. back here. you will have to really speak up loudly so i can hear you. yes? >> what about [inaudible] >> okay. would the panel speak to harry truman. >> truman is ranked very high now as presidents. usually about number five, since he left with 25% or something approval rating, the fact, to err is truman. and now -- and now we honor him so greatly but you know, in '48, talking about elections, that was a weird one for truman because strom thurmond created the dixiecrat party of disgruntled southerners on civil rights. henry wallace thought we could be friends with russia and created a progressive party. so the democrat party was split

in three. people thought dewey would be able to win under that circumstance but alas as you all know truman squeaked it out. he squeaked it out in '48 but he couldn't run again in 1952. americans liked quick wars. and korean war was dragging on. we thought we with have a quick victory. truman couldn't run for re-election in '52, giving adlai stevenson the opportunity to be democratic nominee. in electoral politics truman is most remembered having surprised the pundits. if you're a politician way down into the polls heading into election day your hero is harry truman. he is the hail mary victory you could pull out at end. >> david mccullough has imagine material book on truman, if you want trauma was such a great leader and historians and political scientists now revere him, read bill brands book on truman and mcarthur and the

generals. it is fantastic insight of mind set. this guy is haberdasher from independence, missouri, political hack, chosen for political balance in the 1944 election for for his work on senatorial committee looking into the war but nobody considers him to be a first-rate intellect. here is a guy whose instincts and ability to manuever as president, dealing with huge figures of international power, strength and reknown is pretty remarkable. bill's book is terrific. available at the bookstore. he will personally autograph it for you. >> i think, go ahead, bill. >> i would riff on something doug said. i studied in graduate school with a distinguished historian robert devine, who was one early person who reconsidered harry truman. in his case to err is truman and

forgive deif -- devine. >> join bill and me after hundred. we'll talk about the book about truman and mcmcarthur. it is a great read. >> our last political election -- one which hillary used and trump going into the hinterlands and other areas. how do you think that will be affecting our next election? >> our participants noted during the last campaign you had two different strategies that were underway. the strategy to concentrate on, you know, the big cities and another strategy to go into the hinterland, and the question is what is that going to look like during the next election. >> i would put it a little bit differently. everybody has to get to 270 in the electoral college and

hillary had the easier 270 strategy but she screwed it up. trump had the more difficult 270 strategy but he stumbled into it. at the end of may of 2016, we're off the record here, right? [laughter] i met -- exactly. i met with the candidate at his request to sort of discuss how we did it in 2000, 2004. my point was you need ad strategy to get to 270. you have to have more than one way to get there. in 2000 we had traditional battleground states, florida, ohio, new hampshire, colorado, new mexico, nevada, iowa. then we had the great lakes states. then we had the border states that had been won twice by clinton-gore, historically democrat we had to win, everyone of them, arkansas, clinton's home state, ten see, gore's home state, kentucky, historically

democrat. west virginia we think is big red. bob dole lost it by 16 points. the last time republicans won it in open race for the presidency was 1928. we had to win western states one once or twice by clinton-gore, nevada, arizona. we thought we had a shot at oregon because of ralph nader. at end of this discussion donald trump was lecturing how he could win oregon, california, new york. i was telling him, no, you can't. every day you spend trying to win a state you can't win like new york or california or oregon is a day you can't spend in a state like pennsylvania or iowa that you can win. so even at the end of may, later on, he gives a speech, 10 days later he said i've got my strategy for 270. battlegrounds. 15 states. tell you what they are over the next month.

i will spend all my time and energy effort in them. tell you three of them today, california, oregon, and new york. and then later announced he would, after paul manafort came aboard as campaign chairman he announced he would contest connecticut which is paul manafort's hometown state. it took him a while before smart people finally said, candidate we'll not be able to win these. so what the strategy is gets devineed by e campaign. why hillary clinton was fighting to keep iowa which she was losing in, rather than putting resources into wisconsin and michigan which she was likely to win and could have won had should put effort into them is i don't understand me. we have two screwed up campaigns. one was screwed up early, one was crude up late. the one was screwed up earliest and got its act together at the end win. >> i thought hillary could win, i'm from ohio, her last big move

in ohio was have beyonce in cleveland. i was like, oh, no, that will not move people in ohio. that can't be your last card you're playing there. she is out of touch. >> she lost ohio relatively early. >> she did. >> you look at early vote. i hate it. i love numbers about. i want to see what people are actually doing. early vote in florida, 200,000 more republicans than four years before. north carolina, 200,000 more republicans in state won by 70,000 four years before. in ohio they don't do it by party, in cuyahoga county, cleveland, there was 40% decline in the early vote. if they're seeing, county that they got to come out with 200,000 vote margin, if they to the 40% fewer people voting in early vote which accounts for half the vote they're in trouble in cleveland and they're going to lose ohio. >> exactly. >> well you know, i must say this has been absolute delight. we're out of time. it was great to have this

conversation, thank our panel and you all. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> this is booktv on c-span2, next up from the rancho mirage writers' festival with jon meacham. author and journalist, amie parnes,