Uncorrected transcript provided by Morningside Partners.
C-SPAN uses its best efforts to provide accurate transcripts of its programs, but it can not be held liable for mistakes such as omitted words, punctuation, spelling, mistakes that change meaning, etc.

CSPAN

Moderator: Susan Swain

February 17, 2008

SUSAN SWAIN, HOST, C-SPAN’S “NEWSMAKERS”: “Newsmakers” is very pleased to welcome this week, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the person that the Democrats have tasked with keeping their majority in the House of Representatives.

Congressman, thanks for being with us.

REP. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, D-MARYLAND: It’s good to be with you.

SWAIN: Let me introduce our two journalists. David Drucker is with “Roll Call,” where he is a staff writer. Paul Kane with the “Washington Post,” where he is congressional correspondent.

Mr. Kane, we’re going to start with you for questions.

PAUL KANE, CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT, “WASHINGTON POST”: Thank you very much, Susan.

Congressman, this week we’ve had – this past week – we’ve had a big fight on both floors, of the Senate and the House, regarding foreign intelligence surveillance and a law that Democrats have let expire – a temporary law involving surveillance.

President Bush is going out from the Rose Garden yesterday, and I’m sure all weekend and next week will be sort of hitting Democrats as being weak on national security.

Part of your job is to be protecting those 42 freshman incumbents who made you guys the majority last year.

What is your sort of defense, both sort of policy-wise and politically, to sort of shore up these guys and make sure that they know that they’re not going to get hit too hard back home this week?

VAN HOLLEN: Sure. Well, on some things, as you know, the last couple of weeks, Democrats and Republicans have been able to come together. We passed an economic stimulus bill. The president signed. Originally, he left out about 45 million Americans from his stimulus package. We were able to protect them and get them in.

But on some issues we’ve disagreed. And when it comes to the issue of FISA, the Democrats have said, number one, we need to make sure we protect our national security. Absolutely, if al Qaeda is calling, we want to be listening in. And we’ve made sure that that can happen.

We also want to make sure that we protect people’s civil liberties. And we have passed a bill that does both things.

The House also said to the president, let’s have another 21 days to have the current status quo remain in place, one that the president has said he wants. The current provisions allow him to do everything he wants. We said, let’s have another 21 days to hammer it out.

Instead of saying yes to that, the president decided to engage in fear-mongering. And he is using national security as a political weapon. And it’s important to understand what’s at issue from the president’s perspective.

He wants to immunize telecommunications companies that may have helped him illegally listen in on the phone calls of innocent Americans. That’s the issue here.

So, from our perspective, he’s put the interests of special interests – telecommunications companies – and himself – because one of the issues here is the lawsuits may uncover the fact that the Bush administration engaged in wrongdoing.

So, he’s put his own personal agenda and special interests ahead of the national security interests of the American people.

We’re not going to be stampeded into making a bad decision. That’s why we ended up at war in Iraq, is because the president used the political bully pulpit, and essentially stampeded the Congress into making a bad decision.

We’re going to make a decision. We asked for time to work with the president to do it.

He said no. He politicized this issue. And I think the American people no longer trust this administration on national security issues.

KANE: Do you worry, though, that – the bill that you let pass is called the Protect America Act. It’s when – Congress does this a lot. The bills are very simplistically named.

And is it going to be easy for them to hit your guys back home for letting the Protect America Act lapse, as if they don’t want to protect America?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, I think the American people are smart. And what they’re looking for is national security, not slogans.

And when they know, and they understand that what the president is insisting on is not making sure that we have the tools necessary to listen in, but to give a pass to telecommunications companies that may have wrongfully listened in on the phone calls of innocent Americans, and in the process, the president may have crossed that line, that they understand the president is trying to protect himself and his administration and the telecommunications companies at the expense of national security, that that’s his priority – protecting them, not protecting the American people – I think the American people will once again say, here’s the administration that all these years after 9/11 has not captured Osama bin Laden.

Here’s the administration that just got it wrong when it went into Iraq. This is the same administration that is now engaged in fear-mongering.

I don’t think the American people are going to fall for it. In fact, I think they’re fed up with it.

SWAIN: David Drucker?

DAVID DRUCKER, STAFF WRITER, “ROLL CALL”: I just want to follow up on that briefly.

Nationally, I think the polls bear you out. But where Nick Lampson is in Texas, 22, where Nancy Boyda is in Kansas, two, Pennsylvania 10 – you know better than me you’re dealing with puzzle pieces here, not a national electorate.

Do you feel confident that your freshmen Democratic members in these very conservative districts – notwithstanding that Democrats now hold it – are going to be safe from this issue, based on what’s happening this week?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, number one, each of our members will be talking to their constituents about exactly where they stand on this issue and making sure they get the word out.

Some of them may agree with the president’s position. Some of them may disagree with the president’s position. And they will be letting their voters know that they are exercising sort of independent judgment on these very important questions.

But as to whether or not the president is going to exploit this issue, he’s going to try. I mean, he’s all over television trying to scare the American people into thinking the Democrats somehow left town without addressing a very important issue.

The fact of the matter is that our intelligence agencies have all the authorities they need right now to continue to listen in on these phone conversations. Al Qaeda’s already been designated as a target. They have carte blanche right now to listen in on those communications. Nothing is stopping them.

And I think what the American people are tired about is when the president tries to fool them on these issues. And it’s that old saying, as you know, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

The American people aren’t going to allow this administration once again to engage in fear-mongering and scare tactics, and result in a bad decision. That’s how we ended up in Iraq.

I don’t think people want the Congress to just say to the president, you know, when he says “It’s my way or the highway,” to say, “Mr. President, we’re going to buckle in.”

DRUCKER: OK. Let me pivot to the presidential race. Two things looking good for you, one thing maybe not looking as good for you, and I wanted to get your take.

First of all, you’re either going to have a nominee from New York or a nominee from Illinois, and I know you’re targeting a number of seats there. I wanted you to, number one, tell me about what you see in terms of your pickup opportunities, based on a top-of-the-ticket updraft that could really help you.

I also wanted you to comment on Arizona. You are targeting a couple of seats there. You have some freshmen there that you want to protect. You’re going to have John McCain at the top of the ticket. That’s a virtual certainty.

How does that affect your political calculus in terms of how you’re going to handle Arizona?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, the good news for Democrats is that, in this political season, this primary season, we’ve seen huge turnouts. We saw them beginning in Iowa; they carried through New Hampshire.

Here at the Potomac primaries we saw huge turnouts – a lot of energy and excitement on the Democratic side. And that’s spilled over into a lot of enthusiasm for Democratic congressional candidates. That’s why we’re doing better in terms of our grassroots fund raising, we’re doing better in candidate recruitment.

So, we believe that a rising tide here will lift all boats, that the energy and enthusiasm that will come with the Democratic nominee, calling for change – I mean, the American people are just fed up after seven years of the Bush administration. They are looking for a fresh start. And that’s going to help boost all of our candidates.

With respect to Arizona, the fact of the matter is that McCain has a big soft spot, which is that he has not been able to engage the really right-wing social conservative base of his party. He’s still struggling with that. You still have those right-wing talk show hosts, like Rush Limbaugh, saying they’ll never make peace with John McCain.

And he has that same problem in Arizona with his own Republican Party. They’ve been at loggerheads on many issues. And so, that kind of national enthusiasm you might think would be there in his own state, is not necessarily going to translate into people coming to the polls.

Furthermore, our candidates, our members from those districts, have done just a great job in putting themselves in a very strong position. Gabby Giffords has been a leader in Congress on a range of issues. Harry Mitchell has been the same. And we’ve got some great opportunities to pick up seats in Arizona this time.

KANE: Let’s shift into your backyard, or right next to your backyard, though, in looking at the enthusiasm that you had in the presidential primary.

You had in Prince George’s County, in Montgomery County, Maryland, a very competitive primary with Al Wynn, a long-term incumbent, running against Donna Edwards, a community activist. And she ends up winning by 14 points.

I think a lot of people have credited that to a huge turnout, about candidates of change. And that was, in this case, viewed as Senator Obama.

Does that put any sort of fear among other Democratic incumbents as they look down the road here in primaries in the rest of the spring? Do people like David Scott – who may now be supporting Senator Obama, switching over from Senator Clinton – are they trying to get right with their base?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, I think the situation we saw in Maryland was a very specific situation. You had Donna Edwards, who had run in the last cycle, as well, come very close to beating Al Wynn – on a message of change. She talked about specific votes that have been cast by Al Wynn, including a decision to vote to go to war in Iraq. And so, she mounted an insurgent candidacy against him in the primary, and won.

Now, that is a very safe Democratic seat. So, all those people who came out in the primary to vote for Donna Edwards are going to come out and vote for whoever the Democratic candidate for president is.

As opposed to the other seat in Maryland where an incumbent lost, which is Wayne Gilchrest, who is a Republican member of Congress. He lost in the Republican primary to a very right-wing ideologue. Senator Andy Harris, a member of the Maryland Senate, is great in reflecting the views of sort of the Rush Limbaugh, very right wing of the Republican Party. But he does not represent that district as a whole. It’s a very moderate district.

Wayne Gilchrest was a moderate, independent-minded member of Congress. And the Democratic candidate who emerged from the primary, Frank Kratovil, is an independent-minded person in the mold of Wayne Gilchrest. So, now, we have a candidate who is a much better fit for that district than Wayne Gilchrest – than Andy Harris is.

KANE: So, does this mean that you’re sort of making a play for the eastern shore? And what does that mean, as you start to look at the field, if – your job must be getting more and more difficult, the more opportunities you feel like you have, because the playing field seems to be growing and growing.

VAN HOLLEN: Well, it’s a problem you like to have…

KANE: True, true.

VAN HOLLEN: … but it is a challenge, because I think anybody who looked at this sort of playing field a year ago, as we came off of a big win on a wave election, would have said the Democrats are going to have to spend this year, consolidating the gains they made.

Historically speaking, after you have that big wave, as we picked up a net of 30 seats, the wave that comes in often goes out. We saw that in 1994, after the Gingrich wave came in and crushed the Democrats. The Democrats came back in 1996 and picked up a net of nine seats, even though that year, 28 Democrats retired.

And so, we have to beat history in that sense. We have to beat that pattern of the wave comes in and the wave goes out.

The good news is, right now we think we may be able to do it. We have to defend our new members that just won in 2006, who come from tough districts.

But what we see now is a growing number of opportunities. And we’re up to 45 Republican seats that we see in play. Now, a number of those are now open seats, because every week we see another Republican retirement.

So, we are saying to our members, yes, this is an opportunity. But you can only take advantage of this kind of opportunity, if you have the resources necessary to support these candidates. So, that is a big challenge for us going forward. But again, it’s the kind of challenge you wish for.

DRUCKER: Let’s talk about targeted seats.

About a month ago you had released to the press that you were targeting 40 Republican-held seats. Are you now saying that number is up to 45? Is it growing?

And can you tell us how Republican open seats now being close to 30 – it’s at 29 – is this having any change in your strategy, based on where you thought you would be when you were looking at stuff at the end of last quarter, at the end of 2007?

VAN HOLLEN: Right. Well, the list is growing. And that is the challenge we’re talking about, because if you take the seats that we may have to defend that the Republicans are targeting, you’re talking about 30 seats. Plus, you’re now talking about 45 seats that Democrats have put in play.

But again, the fact that we have 45 Republican seats that we’re going after, about a year after a wave election, while they’re just trying to go after about 30, is, I think, a total shift in where people thought we would probably be at this point in time.

But yes, the number of seats that we’re going after is growing. And it’s growing partly because of the continuing change in the country and the desire to change. And it’s not just a desire – this gets back to the question you raised – this is not just a question of throwing all incumbents out.

I mean, if you look at the election in 2006, voters were very discriminating. Not a single Democratic incumbent in the House or Senate lost. That’s the first time that’s happened in a long, long time.

Now, Republicans are trying to sell the story this time that people are going to want to throw all the bums out again. But the fact of the matter is, people continue to see the Democrats as the agents of change.

And of course, the Bush administration has helped us in that regard, because every time we try and make a change – for example, like trying to make sure more kids get access to health through the Children’s Health Insurance Program – the president stands in the way and says no, vetoed it twice. And his Republican allies say, “Well, we’re going to go support the president and say no to kids’ health care.”

We want to make sure that we take away the subsidies, the taxpayer giveaways to the oil and gas companies, and invest that money instead in renewable energy. The president says, “I’m going to stick up for the oil and gas companies. I’m going to veto it.” And his Republicans say, “We’re with the president.”

So, in some areas, we’ve been successful at getting the president to go along with change, reducing the cost of college, minimum wage increase, some others. But we would like to go farther. And the president and his Republican allies are saying no.

And so, that mood and those actions are continuing to feed into this mood and this desire for change. And that’s why we continue to see more and more opportunities, and more and more Republicans retire.

DRUCKER: How much of this change that you think you can achieve is dependent on your presidential nominee?

Polls routinely show that Senator Obama is much more popular and much more liked nationally than is Senator Clinton, even though in polls between the two in the Democratic primary, they’re neck-in-neck, and that she’s ahead in many states. Whereas, her negatives are much higher in other states.

But at the end of the day, aren’t you better off with Senator Obama as your nominee than Senator Clinton?

KANE: Certainly among independents.

DRUCKER: Especially in these swing districts, especially in districts where your freshmen won last cycle, but these are high propensity Republican-voting districts?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, you probably won’t be surprised to hear this, but as the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, my job is to make sure we increase the number of Democrats in Congress. And we work very closely with both campaigns – with the Clinton campaign and the Obama campaign – and we look forward to looking with the eventual nominee.

And I think that the lesson from the primaries is that there’s a lot of energy and electricity on the Democratic side.

And the key is to make sure that whoever the eventual nominee is, is one that continues to have that support and enthusiasm, which is why it is important to make sure that that primary does not become very divisive and very bitter. Because at the end of the day, we need everybody getting on board to support our nominee.

And we have seen a lot more people become part of the political process. Barack Obama has brought a lot of new people into the party, a lot of enthusiasm.

And the key is to make sure that, whether it’s Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton at the end of the day, that people understand that, in order to get the changes we want, they’re going to have to support the Democratic nominee for president. And I’m confident that that will happen.

SWAIN: Nine minutes left.

So, you’d be very worried about a brokered convention, as well, because of the atmosphere it would set for the fall.

VAN HOLLEN: I think a brokered convention would be bad for Democrats, because you don’t want a divisive convention playing out on national television, which is why all of us hope that this primary will be resolved long before that, so that we can avoid a bitter and divisive convention and make sure that people have the time to unite behind a Democratic presidential candidate.

KANE: But the ratings would be great for C-SPAN. People would even watch the convention during the daytime when no one is watching.

Only C-SPAN is broadcasting this.

VAN HOLLEN: I know all of you – I know the media is putting in the bid for that brokered convention. But I think that we will be able to avoid that. No one can predict what’s going to happen. But I think we’ll be able to avoid that.

DRUCKER: Congressman, have you decided how you’re going to exercise your superdelegate vote?

VAN HOLLEN: I have not decided, but I’ll tell you what criteria that I will use.

I do believe that the dominant consideration for superdelegates will be to follow the lead of the people, the voters who participated in the Democratic primary. And I do think it would be a huge mistake for the superdelegates to try and somehow overturn the judgment of the voters throughout the country who participated in the elections.

KANE: There’s two different criteria, though, because in your – the race nationally is very, very close, if you added up al of the votes. The race in Maryland, in your district, was not very close. Senator Obama came out far, far ahead.

So, which criteria is applying to you, yourself?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, those are both very, very important factors.

But if you look at the delegates from around the country, the superdelegates, where you had superdelegates that took a position for a presidential nominee that was inconsistent, for example, with the vote in their state and the congressional district, that could outweigh, for example, the votes from other delegates and states around the country.

So, I will obviously – I think, obviously, the decision of the people in my district is a very, very major factor, and my state. But – and if everybody, if superdelegate voted the way their congressional district did, then the outcome would be the same either way.

KANE: Yes.

VAN HOLLEN: And so, I do think that the judgment of the American people, those participating in this Democratic primary and making their decisions by casting their votes, should be the one given the greatest weight.

Now, you know, you could have this situation – I think superdelegates would have a role, a special role – if you had some kind of intervening event, an unforeseeable, intervening event, that somehow made whoever the front-runner was, perceived to be unelectable. I don’t see that happening now.

But if you had some scandal erupt that made it impossible to get somebody elected, then the superdelegates might say, well, there have been events that have happened subsequent to the votes being cast. But again, I don’t see that happening.

KANE: OK.

Let’s talk more about change, specifically the kind of change you put in the bank.

You guys raised $67 million in 2007 – the first calendar year in anybody’s memory that you outraised your House Republican counterparts.

Your goal for the entire two-year cycle is $150 million. Fifty million of that, as I understand it, is from small donors, online, direct mail type of donors. But that’s $100 million in sort of the old-fashioned, larger contributions.

Do you guys begin to lose your ability to say that you’re the party of the people, the party of the grassroots? And maybe not this year, but as the years go on, how do you avoid becoming the party that Tom DeLay and the Republicans became, and seen as sort of the entrenched majority?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, let me make a number of points.

First, look at our record of what we’ve actually done. I mean, the first day of the Congress, for example, we dramatically changed the ethics rules. We have passed what has been described by Public Citizen and Common Cause as a landmark lobbying and ethics reform bill. It was a very important piece of legislation.

We, on our very first day, required that earmarks be subject to transparency and be out in the open. So, look at what we’ve done. And in every case, we have said we want more accountability and more transparency in the process.

We’ve also increased significantly our grassroots contributions this year as we’ve gone forward.

Now, one of the areas where we hope to get more participation in terms of reaching the number – and as we said, in order to support a strategy of about 75 races in play, you do need the resources to get the message out.

We’re going to be calling on our members, members of Congress, to help us in that effort, and ask our individual members and say, look. We’ve got a lot at stake here. If we work together as a team, and we remain united, we may be able to put together the resources to support the strategy.

But let me just say with respect to the whole issue of money and politics, I do believe we need campaign finance reform. And as you know, I took some heat from both Republicans and Democrats this year when I really pushed hard as part of the lobbying reform bill, to require transparency and disclosure of bundled contributions.

So, I do think it is essential, as the Democrats remain in the majority, that we make it absolutely clear that we are the people’s House, and not become the Tom DeLay House for the special interests and the highest bidder.

And I think our record and our actions will demonstrate that, but we need to remind our colleagues, in order to be agents of change, you need to make sure that you are accountable to the people and nobody else.

DRUCKER: But following up on Paul’s point, if you’re getting more contributions from K Street now than the Republicans are – which you generally are, because you’re in the majority – and if Democrats – although there are many Republicans that still support earmarks – but if Democrats are still passing earmarks and making sure government money gets to colleagues in need for federally-funded projects, how do you make the case that you’re the party of reform versus your competition?

VAN HOLLEN: Actually, I think if you look at the numbers, the Republicans are still getting the money from K Street in greater numbers than the Democrats. And in fact, certainly, a higher percentage of their funds is coming from these special interests, just like it always has been. I mean, they are the party of the special interests. And they’re going to continue, unfortunately, to turn to that base, because that is the way their voting record has worked.

With respect to going forward in terms of – I’m sorry, your …

DRUCKER: Earmark reform.

VAN HOLLEN: Yes, yes.

DRUCKER: Specifically, Minority Leader Boehner had called for a moratorium on earmarks.

VAN HOLLEN: Right. Look, this is a …

DRUCKER: A new report shows that Democrats got 57 percent of all earmark money last year.

VAN HOLLEN: This is a very important issue, and I think it’s important for people to understand what we did.

Day one – day one in the new Congress – first of all, we required transparency, so that people can figure out exactly who is getting what. We now require every member’s name to be attached to that member’s request for an earmark.

I and many of my colleagues tried to do that when the Republicans were in charge. They said no. They wanted this all hidden under the rug.

The other thing we did on the first day was to require every member of Congress to sign a statement saying he or she had no personal interest somehow, would not benefit from these earmarks.

It sounds like a no-brainer. When we tried to do it – I tried to do it, my colleague, Rahm Emmanuel, and I tried to do it in the last Congress – Republicans said no. They didn’t want people to know. So, there’s a change.

Now, while the Republicans were in charge, we’ve had a mushroom, an explosion of earmarks, both in terms of the number of earmarks and the dollar value.

In the very first year we, number one, put a moratorium on earmarks for a year. And then in the second year, we dialed it back substantially. We will continue to scrutinize these earmark requests.

But one other thing that people need to understand is, the president’s budget that he submitted to the Congress is chock-full of earmarks – thousands of earmarks for requests that the president has, and priorities he has for special projects.

So, it’s very important that people understand. We were going to scrutinize the president’s requests for earmarks and our own colleagues. And people can have a vote on the floor of the House in the light of day on these earmarks, because we do need to make sure that the American people understand that it’s a transparent process. And we’re determined to do that.

SWAIN: And that’s it for our time.

Thank you very much, congressman, for being with us.

VAN HOLLEN: Thank you.

DRUCKER: Thank you.

KANE: Thanks.

SWAIN: (INAUDIBLE) the larger challenges that both parties face with the elections ahead.

(BREAK)

SWAIN: And after our conversation with Congressman Chris Van Hollen, we are back to talk with David Drucker of “Roll Call,” Paul Kane of the “Washington Post.”

Gentlemen, he seems to be sitting in the catbird seat right now with regard to the chances for Democrats in the fall. But what kind of challenges could unexpectedly come along the way?

DRUCKER: Well, I mean, first, it’s a very sort of unstable world. The economy is very unstable. So, between now and election day you have a number of things that could happen that could change the American people’s and voters’ view of Congress and what they want Congress to do.

There are some issues that naturally benefit Republicans, some that naturally benefit Democrats.

And again, getting back to – and I think Paul opened it up well in the segment with the chairman – is that he has got a number of seats to defend, that this is a position you want to be in, if you won a number of Democratic districts last cycle. And they’ve got freshmen Democrats that are not totally known.

You’re going to have a lot more voters in these Republican districts this time around – the type of voters that don’t vote in a midterm, but do vote in a presidential. These voters are not invested in any of Van Hollen’s freshmen, and they’re much more likely to turn them out, or vote against them.

And so, he’s got to balance new voters, what could happen in the country and the world. And he’s also – and he was very, I mean, very open in that he wasn’t going to pick sides. But the truth is, in many of these districts, he would be worse off, most likely, with Senator Clinton as the Democratic nominee than Senator Obama.

And if Senator Clinton is the nominee – and I think she’s still in a position to do it, until we get to March 4th and see at least what happens there – he’s going to have to balance the fact that many Republicans have a negative view of Hillary Clinton and might vote for the Republican nominee for Congress, simply as a way to balance out what they see as growing Democratic influence in Washington.

SWAIN: One other factor, as you answer that, is that many of these Democratic first-termers were also elected as anti-war candidates. And there was a great deal of disaffection with Democratic partisans – especially the Internet partisans – with lack of action on that.

Will that be a factor in the fall?

KANE: That will be a factor. And I think what you saw this past week, and what you saw Mr. Van Hollen talking about, is I really think that you’re seeing the first wave of the general election campaign theme this week.

You saw the fight over national security surveillance. And I think, in particular, Republicans want to make – in the last few years, they’ve always wanted to shift the terrain onto national security, fighting terrorists, because George Bush is still viewed strongly on that issue.

And I think they begin to see Barack Obama more and more likely as the Democratic nominee. And they really want to push that part of the fight in the general election. So, you’ll see House Republicans doing things like they did this week on FISA.

And I think that’s a way to try to make those Democrats vulnerable in that particular area. And they’ll want to make them – they’re going to want to turn these guys into MoveOn.org Democrats in these districts like eastern Ohio.

SWAIN: David Drucker, I was interested. Mr. Van Hollen had a long list of how the Democrats have been agents of change. But the fact is that congressional approval ratings are really quite low, and have been much of this year.

What about overall voter disaffection with Congress? Is that a factor? Or if they’re excited about the presidential campaign, does it get negated?

DRUCKER: Well, I think it could be a factor. And again, this is part of the potential obstacles that he faces.

You know, I think Americans want, if you look at the polls, is somebody other than George Bush to be president at this point. But that’s a given. So, as they’re running in the 2008 congressional elections, the Democratic candidates, they can’t really campaign against George Bush, because it’s already been decided he’s done, and everybody voted against him last cycle.

And so, they’re going to actually have to campaign for a new kind of change. And I think it still remains to be seen what the change dynamic is going to come to mean.

Is it going to mean we do not want any more hyper-partisanship? Is it going to mean we want some sort of new economic policy? Is it going to mean that Iraq is still relevant and change means getting out of Iraq, as opposed to some other foreign policy, national security change?

And I think, until we see this dynamic come into play, it’s going to be hard to tell who benefits from change. But when the American people are upset at Washington, you never quite know who they’re going to take their anger out on.

And Democrats have one thing against them this time that they didn’t have last time – although I’m sure they’re happy to be in this position – which is, they now run half the town, and people are going to hold them to a different standard than they did in 2006.

SWAIN: Paul?

KANE: The one key thing, though, that for the first time in essentially a generation, the Democrats have all the structural advantages. They’ve never had this before, not since the early ‘90s, where they have more money – way more money – than the Republicans do.

They have guys who have the energy and the wind at their backs. Republicans are retiring, not Democrats.

So, for the first time, they actually have all of these infrastructural dynamics. They’ve got a net roots crowd that wants to run out there and volunteer for them.

Whereas things are just really – there’s a lull in the Republican spirits right now. That can change by November, but Democrats really haven’t had this.

And that’s why you saw a lot of smiles out of Chris Van Hollen, because he’s never had that opportunity.

SWAIN: Last thought.

DRUCKER: Paul makes a very good point. If you look at Republicans, they’re all talking about Ronald Reagan – somebody who hasn’t been president since 1988. And if you’re looking at Democrats, they are voting in record numbers. They are so excited – the same way Republicans were in 2000 and 2004.

In 2004, President Bush used to fill arenas. Now, they can barely fill lecture halls. And you’ve got Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, especially, filling large arenas to the rafters.

This bodes ill for Republicans in November.

SWAIN: Well, I think our viewers can tell that both of you are the kind of people who keep congressional districts and voting trends in your head. So, we’re delighted to have you here and wish we had more time with you.

Thanks for your time and your expertise.

DRUCKER: Thanks for having me.

KANE: Thank you.

DRUCKER: It was a good time.

END