[ MUSIC ]
You're going to see over $1 billion
in presidential spending by the candidates in this election cycle.
As a matter of fact, you may get to $1.5 billion.
Super Pacs are going to contribute money,
but I actually think that most of the money is going to flow
directly through the election campaigns.
What troubles us in political science,
and I think what ought to trouble citizens about Super PACs,
is the fact that when someone puts an ad out there,
whether it's American Crossroads on the right
or Obama's Super PAC on the left,
they're not coordinating with the campaign.
They're sort of doing things a little bit on their own.
They're not accountable.
If I find a message objectionable,
I don't really know what to do about that.
Many times, I'm not even sure what the partisan affiliation is,
except I know it was a negative ad aired by one side or the other.
So, I'm also a little dubious about the raw amount of money.
Don't get me wrong, there's going to be a lot of Super PAC money in this race,
but it's still a tough economic time.
It's still the case that it's difficult for groups to spend a lot of money,
if you have resources, to tell your people, your donors
people involved in your organization,
"We're going to spend this money on politics."
I think that was a tough sell in 2010.
There wasn't as much money as a lot of people had predicted
in the 2010 elections. There was a lot,
but not nearly as much as people had predicted
in the wake of Citizens United.
And I think that trend will continue this time around.
So, my take is not that they're insignificant,
they're going to be major players,
but what's troubling to me is this lack of connection,
lack of accountability.
And this is what, both, people on the right and left
have been pointing to when they talk about disclosure
and that being kind of the next way we need to go
with respect to campaign finance.
[ MUSIC ]
What we know is that people who call themselves "independent" or "undecided"
typically aren't paying much attention to politics.
They're not very informed. They're not very interested in politics.
And, what we see over time,
is that they respond to the what I call
the "prevailing winds" in a given election.
In 1984, they broke for Ronald Reagan.
In 1996, they broke for Bill Clinton.
And it's not because the message resonated
or they found something personally charismatic about those candidates,
it's that they really only hear kind of the loudest noise.
And if that noise is favorable towards the incumbent,
they tend to blow in that direction.
I always have Independent students who get mad at me
when I say these things.
"Well, I'm an Independent. I pay a lot of attention."
Those people are surely out there. No question.
When you're ask, "Are you Republican, Independent or Democratic?"
About a third of the electorate,
sometimes as much as 40 percent, says they're Independent.
When you ask them, " Do you lean closer to the Democrats or Republicans?"
Well, most of those people say they lean one way or the other.
And the reality is that there's only about 10 to 12 percent who are truly Independent.
Because if you say you lean Democrat,
there's a about a 0.8 chance you're going to vote for Obama.
So if you lean Republican, about a 0.8 chance you vote for the Republican.
So, they're not really Independent in the way that we might ordinarily think.
[ MUSIC ]
I don't know that it's an underrated question,
but it's not asked as often as it probably should be.
You can see what's happenening in the Senate
right now with respect to budget matters.
The Senate is a critically important institution.
Right now, the Republicans need to pick a up a few extra seats,
and the Democrats in this cycle are defending,
I believe it's 22 seats.
This is the class that was elected in 2006, a huge Democratic year.
They're all up for re-election in this cycle.
So the notion in Washington is that the Democrats are in a tough position
because they are defending more seats than the Republicans are.
Some of the recent retirements have actually been on the Republican side, though.
So, targets of opportunity are not maybe as extensive
as the Republicans had thought they were six, eight months ago.
If I had to put money on it right now,
I think the Republicans will probably take over control of the Senate,
simply because it's a numbers game,
that there are more chances for the Democrats to lose seats.
That's not predicated on some assumption
the Republicans are going to have a major tide like they did in 2010.
It's just a numbers game.
[ MUSIC ]
Last September, after the debt ceiling fiasco
and the series of sort of problems,
public relations and otherwise over the summer,
I was of the opinion that a kind of average Republican candidate
would probably be enough for the Republicans to win the White House.
I think things have improved sufficiently economically,
that the President has sort of re-framed
a lot of the economic issues in terms of fairness
in a way that makes it more difficult for the Republicans.
I now think the Republicans will have to run a very strong candidate
and a very good campaign to win.
Not impossible.
I think it will be close, but I do think the President has a lot of advantages.
Obviously, a financial advantage --
I think he's got a case he can make now,
if not "Morning in America," at least "Staying the Course" economically.
We still have some things lurking out there that could hurt him.
If gas prices spike to $5 a gallon this summer, that could be a problem.
If the European economic situation deteriorates further,
that could be a problem.
But if you kind of maintain along maybe 2.3 percent economic growth
in the second quarter of 2012, as a lot people are projecting,
historically, that's right about the cut point
for which presidents win re-election.
And I think we're kind of trending in that direction.
It's been a long road to hoe,
but the President is looking better than he did a short time ago.
Again, things can change on a dime,
but right now, I think he's over 50 percent in terms of probability.
[ MUSIC ]