tv Philippe Reines on Clinton Campaign CSPAN January 4, 2018 3:07am-4:05am EST
we will discuss how to make federal infrastructure spending more efficient. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal live at 7:00 eastern this morning. join the discussion. saturday, american history tv on c-span3 takes you to the american historical association's annual meeting in washington, d.c. for life, all day coverage 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. eastern. join us as historians and scholars talk about civil rights in 1960 eight, watergate and the rise of partisanship, commemorating re--- civil war reconstruction in national parks and the burning him national national-- birmingham monument. saturday on american history tv on c-span3. next, hillary clinton advisor
about theeines talks 2016 presidential campaign, the trump presidency and 2018 elections. he spoke at the washington center for internships and academic seminars. center for san bernardinoships and academic seminars. we are reconvening. we have a speaker. get going. >> we are going to be on television. when you have a question, go up to the mike, say your name and school and keep your question concise. it's my distinct pleasure to get to introduce philippe reines, who is an american political consultant, a senior advisor to hillary clinton when she became
secretary of state in 2010. in 2010 promoted to secretary of state for strategic communications. he's worked for a number of political campaigns and holds a bachelor of arts degree in political science from columbia university school of general studies. here we have an example of what you have you can do with a political science bachelor's grieve degree. i'm going to hand over the mike phone to him and i'm looking forward too a great presentation. >> good morning, thank you for having me. thank you julia and ann and kevin. i didn't know this was on tv any more than you did until a few minutes ago so hello out there. i want to say a few things up front quickly and then get right if earing from you guys and
that's anything i want to add at the end, maybe we'll save a couple of minutes. first off, some context of who you're hearing from and give you a few warnings. up until 8:00 p.m. on election night last november 8, i could not fathom the idea of hillary clinton not being president of the united states so i was as wrong as anyone. now, come 8:01 things started in hindsight making a little bit of sense so i'm going to try to speak from that perspective of complete having 20-20 hindsight. two is i'm going to reference just by habit, history and polling a lot. the problem with doing that in this day and age is people can say polling was wrong.
he'll history was upended last year but history was upedged in 2008. it doesn't mean that it has no bearing. part of that is i'll probably be a little annoying and do that, can you imagine if this happened when hillary clinton was president or can you imagine if this happened when president obama was president? i know that grates and i try to do it less and less but i think it's important because to me the greatest threat right now is the normalization of what's happening. there's a term they read. i don't know who to credit it too -- -- to -- malignant normalcy. that's a big part of what's happened and that's the scourge i think that needs to be stopped. i would say the greatest perpetrator of that in my mind is donald trump and i'll just end by saying i think there's no
more important thing to do right now than get donald trump out of office as fast as possible. that's where i'm coming from. please don't hesitate to challenge me. because if i don't like it, i'll snap back at you or something and most importantly, i'm going to be negative about things when it's negative but don't leave here dissuaded or demoralized. i -- i've worked for hillary clinton since july 2002. 15 1/2 years and she's one of he most beloved, less beloved, polarizing people in america and i think people automatically assume that because i worked for her and i'm a at the that my views are lefty liberal and they're often not.
i've actually give felt as michigan of a democrat or an american as i have since last november and a lot of what i believe and what i believe has to happen is coming from that perspective, of the damage that's being done to our country, not just what's evident short term but what's probably going to laster for decades. so with that uplifting opening, kevin, did you want to -- or just -- open it up? >> yes, if you'd like to start with a comment or question, please come to the mike. remember how julia asked to say where you're from. >> and school too. someone told me there's harvard extension students here? i did a couple of semesters
there. hi. yeah. njcu, o, i'm andy from from jersey city, new jersey. my question is look back on the 2016 election, do you think that hillary clinton did an adequate job at properly campaigning herself and at getting herself out to the large majority of americans? there was a lot of criticism on how she faltered or department campaign he's enough? >> good question. i assume that's often asked in the form of not going enough to wisconsin, not going enough to blue states. i understand why people say that but i think a couple of things. wisconsin is a package with michigan and pennsylvania. and while everyone obsesses about wisconsin. if only she'd go to wisconsin. she didn't go to wisconsin. i hate to say it, not to talk down to the cheese states or whatever it's called because she
lost by more than the margin of wisconsin. that's not an excuse but you can't make that argument about pennsylvania. the lady practically moved to pennsylvania. no one didn't take pennsylvania seriously, including theo arms of the democratic party. if you look back to, i think, april, may, maybe a little later of 2016. you had, i think priorities u.s.a., one of the pacts spending a great deal and working towards electing a democrat, they immediately identified pennsylvania as a key state, a must win. they poured tens of millions of dollars in. the campaign itself poured in tens of millions of dollars. the campaign polled regular little. pennsylvania papers and economic institutions polled regularly so it's hard to -- i understand -- gain, the wisconsin penny.
and i don't know. maybe if she'd spent as much time in wisconsin as she did pennsylvania and won wisconsin, i wouldn't be standing here because donald trump wouldn't be prosecute pennsylvania president. one thing that -- we'll hopefully get to it if someone asks me about conspiracy theories but one of the most ridiculous things is painting hillary clinton as anything other than energetic and spry. it is hard keeping up with her. she campaigned her tail off. she won in places like nevada, they were not gem mess so in hindsight that's to me -- if you don't solve pennsylvania, you don't solve the whole thing. >> ok, thank you very much. >> hi, my name is rachel
ackerman and i'm with the harvard extension school so speaking from your now 20-20 hindsight that began at 8:01 p.m., would you do differently in campaigning? >> can i give you one piece of advice? don't forget they give you four credits per course. so when you frever somewhere else, make sure they give you four. >> i don't plan on treffing. >> good. i had to remember that. you have to break it down to the larger strategic question of going back to early 2015 when she decided to run and what that would look like and tactical decisions in 2016. and then this probably third bucket of external factors so in no particular order, the there's
something i could do differently, i would have waited outside jim comey's car on july 5 before his infamous press conference and tackled him until someone with some sense could say this is very inappropriate what you're about to do. strategically, i don't know. i think in hindsight there were some very big problems that would have affected any democrat. i'm also going to be -- let me say it up front -- i don't think any democrat would have beaten donald trump aside from president obama and i think that because -- and i'll come back to that. i think that because if you look at polling, i think one out of every five voters came out and said they voted for donald trump. they had voted for barack obama in 2012 and they continued to approve of the job barack obama
was doing last year. and that's pretty interesting. i think it's been hard for people to kind of grasp that but the reason that that's important is if you had replaced hillary clinton with joe biden, joe --en, who i love, and i hope if he runs, i hope the best of luck to knocking donald trump out, melt forically. although i think they did challenge each other to a -- he would have been bogged down by obamacare. he would have been bogged down by trailed. he would have been bogged down by being in washington if decades. and those things alone were probably dispositive. and i think the other point is everyone assumes, you know, when they say x would have won, they
assume x would have gotten what hilly clinton got and added some. i think that's a really silly way to look at it. o people would not have gotten what she got, either with specific demographics or sub groups so the strategic question i think is pretty hard to answer. it was just such lunacy. and i think if anyone had said, if i had a time capsule and went back and met with her senior campaign team and her and i said you're going to be facing donald trump. he's going to be accused of, you know, sexual assault and harassment. no one is going to care that he went bankrupt blue six times. he's going to say he could shoot people on fifth avenue, no one cares. i'd be laughed out of the room. obviously what she did worked in the primaries. she became the first woman candidate in a mainly political
party. on the tactical side, we had some unforced errors. she writes about in her book, which, by the way is great, called "what happened." despite people saying we want her to go away, although i've nevada actually seen anyone say that or have the guts to say that if -- in their own valleys. she's not going anywhere. people have wanted her to leave for decades and thankfully she never listened. ether it was running for congresswoman of new york, running for secretary of state. she calmed a big basket of trump voters deplorable not the greatest idea, although i think she was plenty accurate at the time and especially in hind sight. there were comments she made about coal workers that were taken differently than she meant and, you know, when you lose a
- by 70,000 votes, you could sit here and list 10 things that made the difference. if i could snap my fingers, it would be july 5 when jim comey went to the podium like this and told the word -- world that she was innocent or he was not pursuing anything, that no reasonable prosecutor would but added 15 minutes of commentary that made you think she was al capone. that was inappropriate. it was out of line. people who hate hillary clinton have said that. os stensbli he was fired by donald trump because of that. obviously that's not have believable but we had to live with that and obviously what he did in october kind of doubled
down on that. i'm not sure if that covers -- >> i'd probably answered someo questions so thank you. >> i'm not used to having an hour. i go on fox on msnbc and you have two minutes. >> hello. i'm abby chase from quinnipiac university in hamdan, connecticut, and you were obviously tasked with portraying donald trump in the mock debates with hillary to practice for the televised debate. >> yes. >> in what ways have you seen the change between the candidate donald trump and the president donald trump and what are the implication of any changes you've seen, if any? >> i've seen none. i think the only changes have been the effect. i did play donald trump -- you know, there were three general election debates between the candidates and it's a big deal. it's really one of the few times
you see candidates together. secretary clinton took him very seriously and someone had said i had been training my whole life to be donald trump, just didn't know it. window into real things. probably first and foremost, it go through life nevada suffering consequences. nevada. nevada once. goes out of business, declares bankruptcy. more people come along and lend to him. no organization has declared more disrupt si more often than the trump casinos. offend literally every group. there's not a demographic in this room that wasn't offended by donald trump.
ow, that worked really well -- and couple that with lying like no one's lied before and not getting called out on it or people not caring or just getting desensitized to it. it worked. you know, when've people say how did she lose to him i say remember that 17 republicans lost to him and these were ostensibly -- i didn't care if a bunch of them but a lot of them were seasoned politicians who served in public office who had a lot of money, who were not idiots and he steamrolled them. the primaries were not close. he barely lost iowa and then never looked back. and i think a hospital of why election day was a shock was because people thought that routine wouldn't work to a
broader all of a sudden. you could dominate the republican party with 50% of whoever these people are but it would, when the lever hit the road, but he isn't. there was -- there were no consequences to anything he said or tilled. now there are still no consequences but he's not succeeding. if you define success simply as did you win the presidency, he was extremely successful. i mean, what he did was shocking , it's understandable in hindsight but it was remarkable. what he's done since, which is basically nothing different, has not worked out. it just hasn't. tax reform was their first win and it's because it's the thing that the republican party, you know, joins hands about most. so his style is not -- it's not translating, or it is and we'll
find out the hard way but he's not -- for someone who wants to be loved, i don't know how he looks at a piece of paper -- i don't know if quib pack has his approval but if i looked down and said 32% of america aprust of me and 70% thinks i should be investigated for this or 60% can't think of a single nice thing to say about me, i would maybe do something a little bit different. he doesn't have to become a nice guy. he could just dial some stuff down, but he has no plan. he's nevada had a plan. the analogy they used once was a pin ball machine and he's not the guy standing here doing this. he's the -- i'm sorry to the mike guy for that. he's the ball. i mean, he's just hitting random
bumpers and lights and sounds are going off. he has no plan and if you think he's got a plan and you say it out loud, his new plan is to thwart you by doing the opposite. so his biggest problem now is that he hasn't changed be you he is not going to change. he is incapable of changing. why would he change? things have nevada gone wo for him. he is the president of the yimente. he is one of 44 teamle -- people to hold that office? why would you change anything? that's what he yells at his staff all the time about you told me to drop out after "access hollywood." you don't know what you're talking about. somebody might be standing in his party 10 years from now saying that's how we won two terms. i hope not but he's not going to change and it's folly for the real people who are, i think, naive or overly hopeful is to
always wait for when is the pivot coming? when is he going to stop tweeting like a crazy person, this is that? i don't know how much time has to go by before you accept the fact that he's not going to change. in is where we are. this is what's going to continue. i mean, he's the most -- one while i was ed studying my own prep for debate prep was he -- he just -- he's the most predictable unpredictable person of all time. and that's why i don't understand why people are surprised and that's why the overly long answer to your question is no. >> thank you. >> hi. my name is sienna and i'm from
the university of massachusetts, lowell and something you mentioned in uniform introduction is that after the election something inside you changed. i was what is something you would do differently? act, which istax wrong. passed tax cuts at a time of economic growth. he is running around saying it is the best economy ever. my head is not exploding. to me, the worst moment of this year. it okhanged, he had made
to say whatever you wanted. with him, we knew what he was saying. most of the time, it is flat out dom. he was unleashing a hate that was not going to dissipate. moment wasspiriting his speech to the boy scouts. i looked at presidents all the way back. at least to nixon, addressing the jamboree. what he said is crazy.
it is crazy. i think what he is doing with fake news, i do not have kids. there are times when i wish i did. right now, i am glad i do not. what he is doing to entire horrific.s is you hear stories about kids coming home and their parents saying, what is with ec? it is a fake report card. , we are goingent to see over time, these numbers have exploded. he could leave office tomorrow, we are going to be dealing with this for a generation. in terms of that kinds of thing. that is what kills me.
if he wants to wake up every day cuts ors on tax infrastructure i would disagree but i would not be screaming from the rooftops. it is this constant attacking. every single part of society. it, the term, bend it until it breaks. he doesn't care about breaking it. he is just swamping the system. he has got to be stopped. >> good morning. i am in miami-dade college. i am interested in the direction of the democratic already. it lost a huge base with the whethern, i'm wondering the democratic party will revisit the message they are trying to communicate during the 2016 election?
will they try other strategies to get the base they lost. >> that is a great question. i don't know the answer. you have the 2018 midterms. the if you can flip the house, that is going to make a difference in terms of slowing him down. depending on what the investigation finds. the second, 2020. i think you have many people saying, impeach. like tomorrow or the minute we get control. ands committing high crimes misdemeanors. he has met the threshold for being impeached. the 25th amendment.
people who lose their minds should not be the president. i don't know the answer. here is a good example. 28 teen isls us, going to be ugly for him. obama.ugly for barack i will throw in 2006 was ugly for george bush. each of those things to me had a reason. bill clinton, it was failure of health care. and the budget deal. with barack obama, it was obamacare. george bush, it was iraq. i don't know, this is the question you are asking, whether sheer hatred in the democratic party for this man is the equivalent of republicans getting worked up about obamacare or bill clinton or democrats in iraq.
i think it is. but on the flipside you have people saying, including the speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, that's not our message. stop saying impeach. you literally have people like tom stier who is very wealthy. i don't know his background exactly, but he is very wealthy and he was a big, he was involved in politics for environmental policy. and he has taken it upon himself to run this group. need to impeach, and is focused on it. i, for one, i agree with that. i think the man has met the threshold and that's all that's important. i don't know. i think if it were held tomorrow it would be a bloodbath. the biggest indicator to me of that which i have noticed, is how many republicans are not running. not a week goes by where a
republican, and i don't just mean junior members, people work are committee chairman and who have really big jobs are saying, i think it's time to retire. it is over two dozen. then you get to 2020 which , i think is the much harder problem. let's assume he's still in office. let's assume he hasn't lost his mind any more than he already has. i think it is going to be a bit of a circus in the democratic party. i think we can all probably name 30 people who might run and not just a lot of people, but new types of people. so you are going to have, i think the businessman, businesswoman category, whether it is howard schultz, mark
zuckerberg, mark cuban, you're going to have celebrities. i don't even know who. the rock, who by the way has my vote as of now. [laughter] honestly, that's a good point. because i am not sure who else, what it is going to take to beat him. so you have this new category of business people, you will have a celebrity category and a large category of governors, senators, and house members. i think there will be a lot of house members running, which you don't see. usually these guys try to leapfrog and i think they're going to cut that. so, the problem, there are multiple problems. a lot of people with money have not run for president because they are not willing to spend a billion dollars to lose. i think mike bloomberg is a good
example of that. but what donald trump did, he won with $60 million out of his own pocket. now, if anyone here has $60 million in packet change, god bless you, you should run but there are a lot of people out there, celebrities and otherwise, that $60 million is pocket change. that will increase and then the biggest thing to me is, do people really think they will be able to out-trump donald trump? he didn't change the rules. he didn't abide by them. that's a big difference. if someone says, i'm going to run and i could shoot people on broadway, and i could have nine affairs and go out of business, and say incredibly stupid things, and set the world we live in, they are going to lose.
on the flipside, i don't know not doing that. again, he has not changed the playing field. he has just been this unique person who skates through life , and i hope this all corrects itself. i don't know that it's going to correct itself in that form. you joke about the rock, but it really might take someone who is literally bigger than life to say this guy is an idiot. it's hard imagining a governor or member of the senate, he's just going to say you are a product of the swamp, you just vote, you don't do anything, i'm the one who fixed everything, you're threatened by the success . so i'm bullish on 2018, bearish on 2020 and i don't know about
the message. i think if it was held tomorrow , it would be a bloodbath because his people, in the last month or two, what i'm about to say, people have been less angry than they were in 2016. i don't know if it's because russia didn't work them up, or they were just so happy that they could run around saying and doing whatever they wanted but, the imbalance between passion on the democratic side and at least some steadiness on the republican side is a good fight. i worry about the fight of anger versus anger. i just don't think democrats are very good at translating anger into something. because we don't resort to the
same tactics. but if i had to pick between the two i would pick between running to ground what happened with russia, and if necessary running on that. it is warranted. >> i'm a film major at miami-dade college located in south florida. and hillary clinton has been described before as a good leader but a bad candidate. so, what you believe should be done in a system that prefers candidates that know how to speak to a crowd as opposed to candidates that display leadership qualities? [laughter] >> there aren't many presidents walking the earth. she is one of them. and it is hard for me to think, she's not a good candidate
because i think that's the way. i understand your question, but it's sad that that's not considered the best way. the one thing i would add is, you mentioned his speaking style, or speeches. and the bit about her yelling is a pretty clear window into how male candidates and female candidates are treated differently. if barack obama was loud, he was inspiring, if bill clinton was loud, he was passionate. if hillary clinton is loud, she's grating. and that is tough. so, back to what were just talking about, i don't know what style of campaigning is going to work. it's possible that the style of
campaigning is not only problematic for the hillary clintons of the world, but for everybody. again, he steamrolled through the republican party. as but, she is, sometimes i think this is a bad analogy because it's comparing them. but jack kennedy was more of a politician than people realized and bobby kennedy was more of a substance person. i think that goes for bill and hillary clinton, the notion that he's the smart politician in the family, she understands people. she understands what's going on. how many people in this room have ever been around her, or met her? but the single thing you hear most, after people meet her is, she is nothing what i thought. which is what i thought when i
interviewed with her and she's much more beautiful in person than on tv. which sounds funny because do they realize that's not a compliment. so you know, i don't know. i don't know if elizabeth warren runs, whether her passion is considered passion or a woman being louder than they should. >> thank you. >> my name is andrew. my question for you is, a question was asked earlier about how you have the job of being donald trump, as you prepare for the debate. i just wondered what are some of the tactics to used to get
inside the secretary's head or what you employed? >> so it was sort of scary. i think we are all seeing it now, i just had a year head start on it. i think there are two parts to that. the marching orders i was given and what i saw. the marching orders i was given and the people who led her debate prep who have done this multiple times, they've done it for president obama, both elections. they are the best out there. it's really remarkable. ron is a once-in-a-generation superstar. his guidance was pretty interesting. it's a misnomer that he doesn't have policy. the policy might be wrong, it might be weird, but he has it.
but it's just scattered. you might have one of his people on tv saying something that's effectively policy. every now and then he might give a speech. so you've got to know that. two, he relishes hitting his opponents and he seems to spend, to whatever extent he spends time practicing or thinking through debates, it tends to be on that side. which isn't surprising given what we know about how he approaches interpersonal relationships. and on the second part, what i learned was, he doesn't -- on the opposition side he doesn't,
make stuff up out of whole cloth. he exaggerates horribly. so for instance, he would attack john kasich by saying you've got a $2 billion deficit in ohio. and you fracked and now it is in the hole. now, that's an exaggeration, but now, that's an exaggeration, but ohio did have a $600 or $800 deficit. we have john kasich saying hold on a second, that's not right we -- that's not right, we only had a $600 million deficit. and you're watching this, and it's like trump just won. he would lie, or hit them, but within a couple of -- he would stay within a couple of iterations of the truth and it made it much more effective. i watched debates, primary debates three times over, once normally, once just him and once with the sound off and he's not a good debater.
and the moments that people think he did well, like calling jeb low energy or marco rubio little marco, he only resorts to that when he is incredibly frustrated by that person. i mean, it was there was no one who got under his skin more than jeb bush. and when he got to the low energy part or making fun of his wife or whatever it was , it -- was after an exchange of five minutes where he is turning red and just can't handle it. he snaps. this notion that he just flipped jeb bush off, you could see it. not to get the psycho babbling, but bush was always on top of him. because the polling was usually next to him and he was the only person taller than him, and i think in the back of his mind he feared bush because he had the
money, he was the establishment. if he was going to lose it would be to bush. but, it's a scary place to go because again, you can really do what you want and say what you want. he's the most predictable unpredictable person so, but it's hard to get that out of my head. >> good morning, thank you for being with us this morning. my name is joseph alvarez. you have had a few questions about 2020 and here is another. is it possible for a modern democrat to be somehow appealing to a jacksonian american.
if it were, would that include a democratic populist, with a social media campaign to kind of counter vale donald trump's self advocacy? >> it is a great question. i'll unpack that a little bit. the social media part is a great example. it had a huge impact, but it had a huge impact and still has a huge impact particularly his twitter feed, because he is -- as much as it drives people crazy, and to be honest with you -- what is interesting is that 70% of all americans, including republicans say they wish he had stopped. so there's something about that that everyone is recognizing as embarrassing. but what he's doing is very smart. he did it during the campaign and continues to do it, he's just giving talking points straight to his people which is really, really smart. so yes, 2020, democrats have to be shrewd about social media.
but is a democrat really going to lie via twitter? and are they going to get away with it? is the media just to say donald trump changed the rules are now everyone can lie? of course. you have some poor candidate who says, i am going to do it his way and there to get swamped and then you get into the larger problem, the example that i like to use is fake news, which i really, really wish everyone was calling fool news. because if you buy into the whole conceit of fake news on his side, his people, you are being taken as a fool. you have used that as the simplest form of conversation in a pathetic way. i just wanted to get that off my chest, but look at one of the examples of something that was thrown at her last year.
so there was something going around facebook, god knows what else -- and let us not forget for a moment, where it started. that the pope endorsed donald trump. ok? let's set aside the hilarity of that, because the only presidential candidate that i ever attacked the pope was donald trump and even more so, the only person to ever be attacked back by a pope. now, it was very effective. you had people who bought it and did not challenge it. they were taken as a fool. and they believe it. they say, i am a catholic. is the head of the catholic religion is saying, vote for donald trump -- now, what were the democrats supposed to do about it? were we supposed to send out a
fact check of the washington post or factcheck.org saying in seven paragraphs this is what donald trump has said about the pope and this is the truth and push it out via twitter and facebook? that would not have worked. should we have sent out something that said the pope has announced that anyone who votes for donald trump is going to a specific place in hell, and god told him that? that might've worked better, but we would never do that. and again, it is -- the tactics imbalance is a real problem. the fascination with conspiracy theory or the of session with it, -- obsession with it, i can't understand it. i guess a trump supporter would say believing in russia collusion is a conspiracy theory
. so let's just, that's one if you want to spot them one. they've got pedophilia in the process, in the form of pizza recipes. they believed that democratic national committee staffers were murdered. they believe that hillary clinton was concealing some kind of crazy illness. i mean, it goes on and on and on. whether it's social media or tv the means of how you fight that, -- the means of how you fight that, whether to social media or tv, it doesn't matter. you do not need to win 100% of the electorate. thankfully, his 40% has become 32% or so, that gap, the people who voted for him who are disappointed in him, who i don't know what on earth these people
thought they were getting, but i don't know what kind of person appeals to them. what's really remarkable is look at the electoral maps going back to reagan. reagan won 49 states in 1984. nixon won 49 states in 1972. if you look at bill clinton's 1992 and 1996 states, it is crazy. he's winning south dakota, north decoder, louisiana. since george bush, it has been a 50/50 country. i don't know, it might be as simple as taking back michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania, restoring the so-called blue wall. now who does that? do they have to be a populist? i don't know that donald trump can be out-donald trumped.
and the democratic primary, it is going to be very similar 2006 midterms in that there is zero, and the 2007 presidential primaries, there is zero tolerance for anyone who supported iraq in any way. if you voted years after we went to iraq to provide funding for the troops, it was zero-tolerance. and i understand that. if you apply that same sort of litmus test, if you replace iraq with donald trump in 2019 and it's who's the angriest democrat, i don't know that that is going to translate well in 2020. you might have a populist democrat who is really liberal. so i was stalling to say, i don't know. [laughter]
>> my name is rachel craig, i'm a graduate student at sussex university in boston and so bernie sanders had a large amount of millennial support, but didn't have a ton of turnout and millennials in general didn't really turn out for the general election and there was low enthusiasm. so my question is, do you think there's anything specific that the democrats can do to get more millennials actually out to the polls to vote for them? i need another hour to make fun of millennials on all sorts of things. i would like to think they wake up and realize that not voting was not a good idea. or writing in, what's her face? either gary johnson or jill stein, was not a good idea. if you look at a lot of these states, if even 20% of the stein
and johnson voters had shifted, hillary rodham clinton would've won. people who protested, if someone protested hrc because bernie sanders touted free college and she lived on planet earth and said that is the problem, but i'm going to get you 99% there. i don't know what that millennial got out of 2016. donald trump is not giving anyone free tuition. he is taking away stuff from teachers and education. he has put probably the most unqualified person in the top of the department of education. but i do not know how millennials think. it is unclear what will get them going. someone like sanders or warren seemed to tap into that, but not
if you cannot do it at the expense of lacrimal -- whack-a-mole. you can't just assume people would have gotten what hillary clinton. and added to it. she spent $1 billion for it. i think millennials have to, they more than anyone have to say, this is not normal. there is a lot of pressure to shut up. donald trump and his people want everyone to shut up, get over the election, hillary clinton go away, that's in their best interest, but that's not how it works. we are supposed to oppose what we disagree with. and i hope millennials don't fall into a lull of accepting,
this is what it is. god knows how many of them will see their taxes go down and base it just on that. but yeah, they are a key demographic that voted oddly in 2016, and i am not sure people understand how to get them to vote productively. in 2020. >> we are out of time. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. i am amazed that in one hour, no one asked about russia. is it because everyone realizes that it's such a mess that he's
guilty? i don't know if anyone noticed that steve bannon is quoted in a new book coming out that don junior and the crew taking this meeting in trump tower was treasonous, so i'm glad you have set your minds, you have seen enough evidence that you do not have any questions. thank you again for having me. it has been a lot of fun. [applause] >> c-span's "washington journal," live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. this morning, we focused on the infrastructure starting with the trump administration's focus on infrastructure spending with
transport topics reporter eugene mulero. then american executive director of the state highway and transportation officials frederick wright will join us. be sure to watch c-span "washington journal" live at 7:00 eastern this morning. join the discussion. >> the winter of virginia's 94th house district race will be chosen at random by drawing a name out of a bowl in richmond this morning. it ended in a tie between a republican and a democrat. our live coverage from the virginia state board of elections begins at 11:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. in the afternoon, the washington institute hosts a policy of the
ongoing -- policy discussion of the ongoing protests in iran. that is live at 12:30 p.m. eastern. white house press secretary sarah sanders was asked about new book "fire in fury," and president trump's statement criticizing steve bannon, who was discussed in the book. also discussed -- north korea, budget, and immigration policy. sec. sanders: good afternoon. light crowd.