Washington Post Chief Political Reporter Dan Balz (Julia Ewan -- The Washington Post)

Don't want to miss out on the latest in politics? Start each day with The Post Politics Hour. Join in each weekday morning at 11 a.m. as a member of The Washington Post's team of White House and Congressional reporters answers questions about the latest in buzz in Washington and The Post's coverage of political news.

Washington Post chief political reporter Dan Balz was online Tuesday, Oct. 16 at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the latest news in politics.

The transcript follows.

Get the latest campaign news live on washingtonpost.com's The Trail, or subscribe to the politics podcast.

Archive: Post Politics Hour discussion transcripts

____________________

Dan Balz: Good morning to everyone and thanks for joining up for today's discussion. Lots going on in the presidential race and more clashes coming this week between Democrats in Congress and President Bush, including an SCHIP override vote. We'll get right to your questions.

_______________________

New Madrid, Mo.: Thanks for taking my question. Don't you think it is a sorry state when the candidate who raises the most money is likely to win? Just because Edwards isn't as big a fundraiser as Clinton and Obama, do people actually think he isn't the best candidate because of that? I believe if we redid our campaign finances the elections would be fairer. Do you?

Dan Balz: I don't think anyone would dispute that the system for financing presidential elections is pretty well broken. The original system was designed to create a somewhat level playing field, both in the primaries and the general election. By staying within the system, candidates are limited in what they can spend overall for the nomination. That helps reduce the gap between the big money candidates and those who can't raise as much. In addition, a candidate can raise money in small batches and have the government match those contributions. That helps a lesser-known candidates make up for some of the advantage that the best-known candidates have.

However, as everyone knows, this system has been shredded, partly because of the fact that we now have general election campaigns that start long before candidates receive general election financing from the government. So any candidate with a serious chance of winning the nomination opts out of the system, in part to allow him or her to be able to raise and spend freely once they've wrapped up the nomination. But that means there is now a huge gap between the rich and poor in presidential races.

That said, however, it's not a given that the candidates who raise the most aren't also well liked and well regarded. It's true that the best-funded candidates often win the nomination, but is that because they raised the most money or because they had the broadest support and that fundraising was just one manifestation of that support.

I think we're dealing with two issues here.

_______________________

New York: Does the $2 million campaign fund gap between Obama and Hillary make a difference?

Dan Balz: No, it's insignificant. They've both got tons of money. The question is who spends it more efficiently and smartly. But given the amounts they've raised, a few million dollars difference in cash on hand at this point won't determine the outcome.

_______________________

Washington: With President Bush's seemingly permanent low-standing in the polls, do you think his brother Jeb Bush ever will become president, or has there been just too much damage done to the Bush name in the past few years? Jeb was the one who was groomed to be president by his dad, right?

Dan Balz: President Bush has certainly damaged the "Bush" brand for now. Even when the president's ratings were higher, it seemed doubtful that brother Jeb would run in 2008; given where those approval ratings are today, there would be no chance for him as the presidential nominee. It's ironic, because he finished up his two terms as governor in very good shape politically. Given the problems Republicans seem to be having finding a candidate for president, he might have been a very attractive choice, were his name Smith or Jones rather than Bush.

As for the future, I'd say the jury is out. He's still relatively young -- just 54 -- and so has some time to wait to see if the climate changes. Who knows where the country will be in 2012 or 2016?

_______________________

Mt. Lebanon, Pa.: By the end of January, how many states will have had party balloting completed to select delegates to national conventions? Which are they? Please include those states the Democratic party and its ministers and minders (the Democratic Leadership Council) wish to throw out -- those states who won't play by the rules. After all, no one seriously thinks the Dems are going to mindlessly and churlishly disenfranchise its own voters. I mean, they wouldn't ... would they? Thanks much.

Dan Balz: Given the shifting calendar, this is a moving target, but here's what it looks like for the Democrats:

States that are planning to hold contests in January (sanctioned and unsanctioned) include Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, Michigan and Florida. If all their delegates counted toward the total, they would represent about 13 percent of total delegates going to the national convention.

At this point, Florida faces sanctions and the same could happen to Michigan, since both have moved into a zone that is reserved for the other four states only. But with some further gyrations to come on the dates, we'll have to see what further action the Democratic National Committee might take.

_______________________

Kingston, Ontario: Mr Balz: On the one hand, we are told that Hillary Clinton is running a brilliant campaign, that her nomination is virtually inevitable, etc., etc. On the other hand, we are told that she has the "highest negatives" and that some in the GOP are praying for her to be nominated for that reason. What is one to make of all this? It seems at the very least to suggest a highly brittle and unstable state of public opinion.

Dan Balz: Senator Clinton has run a good campaign, and even her rivals concede that to be the case. She also has had high negatives and continues to have high negatives. However, we noticed in our most recent poll that when we asked people whether they definitely would not consider voting for specific candidates, she was no worse off than her potential Republican rivals. Also there is some evidence that she is seen more favorably today than she was a few months ago, at least marginally.

_______________________

South Bend, Ind.: What do you make of Sen. McCain's latest barrage of attacks on Gov. Romney? Does McCain believe he still has a chance at the nomination, or is this him playing spoiler? If it's the former, do you think he is trying to knock off Romney to position himself as the true conservative (in comparison to Giuliani) that the GOP turns to so they don't end up nominating a "pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control" New Yorker? If it's the latter, who do you think McCain would rather see accepting the nomination -- Giuliani or Thompson? Giuliani often seems to refer to McCain as a "friend" in the debates, but Thompson was one of his few backers in his 2000 run for president.

washingtonpost.com: The Trail: Who's the Real Republican? (washingtonpost.com, Oct. 15)

Dan Balz: When Senator McCain was riding high about a year ago, he and his advisers assumed two things: First, that Rudy Giuliani probably wouldn't run and, if he did, wouldn't go very far; two, that Romney would be their principal rival for the nomination and was vulnerable to attack as someone who had shifted positions on abortion and gay rights.

His old team was eagerly awaiting this clash and it appears that his new team -- and Senator McCain -- are just as eager to take on Romney. Part of it stems from Romney's apparent success is building support in contrast to the troubles McCain has had this year. But it's also clearly related to the importance of New Hampshire to both McCain and Romney.

New Hampshire is McCain's best and perhaps only hope to put himself back into the thick of the nomination battle. It's also crucial to Romney, who has been very open about the strategy he's following, which is to win the early states and build momentum heading into southern primaries where he could have more trouble -- particularly in South Carolina. Romney would prefer to ignore McCain and worry about Giuliani in part to try to turn the GOP nomination into a two-person race prematurely. In reality it's a three or four or even five person race at this point, or at least a multicandidate dialogue that makes everything more unstable.

McCain believes he has been a more consistent conservative than Romney, even though he's long had strained relations with parts of the conservative base.

I think there's mutual respect between Giulani and McCain -- and certainly an understanding that they appeal to many of the same voters. Neither wants to attack the other right now because they'd like the other's supporters at some point in the future.

What a race!

_______________________

Prescott, Ariz.: Man, that article on campaign financing was great. One thing I want to know is why the John Edwards haircut story is still around, while it looks like Giuliani is the one that is really playing fast and loose with his supporters money, with his $5,000 hotel stays and what not.

Dan Balz: I think the Edwards story has receded and you're right: Mayor Giuliani is living well on the road. He may wish he had some of that money when the bills for his TV ads start rolling in.

_______________________

Anonymous: With the compressed primary schedule, we should know by early March who the candidates are correct? How would this match up with prior years?

Dan Balz: Actually we could know much earlier than early March. It's possible we'll know by the end of January, which would be a month earlier than in the past. Four years ago it was clear by the beginning of March that John Kerry would be the nominee -- and the Bush campaign gave him about two days of rest before they started their general election advertising.

However, there are some strategists who believe the Republican race could run longer if no one can gain the upper hand by the beginning of February. There are also some Democrats who foresee a more protracted race, if someone can stop Senator Clinton early. If she wins the Iowa caucuses, she's be very tough to stop. But people said that about Walter Mondale after he won the Iowa caucuses handily in 1984, only to lose in New Hampshire to Gary Hart.

_______________________

Anonymous: Who was the last President to garner more than 55 percent of the popular vote? Who was the last to get more than 60 percent?

washingtonpost.com: Ronald Reagan in 1984. Richard Nixon in 1972.

Dan Balz: Your answers were supplied by the good folks at washingtonpost.com: Reagan in 1984 was the last to go over 55 percent; Nixon in 1972 was the last to get 60.

_______________________

Washington: The first baby boomer just recently applied for Social Security benefits. Meanwhile we have about nearly 20 candidates for president that have not been asked the hard questions of what we are going to do about reforming our entitlement programs, so they don't bankrupt the country. Yet many Democrats have come out with fancy and expensive universal health care proposals. When do the reform proposals for Social Security and Medicare come out? When do Republicans start getting specific about budget cuts (beyond the pork barrel spending, which we're never getting rid of) since they seem to view a tax increase as a sin against nature?

washingtonpost.com: Smile -- You're on Social Security! (Post, Oct. 16)

Dan Balz: A good question. Actually the candidates have begun to get questions about their Social Security plans or non-plans. Some have begun to supply answers. For example, Fred Thompson said he would look favorably at changing the indexing of benefits from wages to prices, which would save a lot of money. Many Democrats are open to raising the cap on income in calculating payroll taxes. John Edwards has an innovative idea about raising the cap but creating a donut hole between the current level and $200,000. Senator Clinton has been more vague. Anne Kornblut and I recently tried to get some specifics from her but she deflected the question by saying she doesn't believe the Social Security system is in crisis and that it's a problem that can be dealt with later.

_______________________

South Carolina: What's with the striking difference between the cash-on-hand figures between the Democrats and the Republicans? Hillary has three times as much as Rudy -- and so does Obama! What gives?

Dan Balz: Senators Clinton and Obama have raised significantly more money than the Republicans. That pattern has been true throughout the year and something that our coverage has pointed out whenever new reports are issued. Normally Republicans raise more than Democrats, but this year it's the reverse. Democrats are showing more signs of enthusiasm and one measure is in the amount of money they are contributing to candidates. Even those farther back in the pack have raised pretty substantial amounts of money, compared to past years.

_______________________

San Francisco: Maybe you're not the right person to ask this, but here goes: Conservatives love to tout the idea that it was Ronald Reagan's policies that brought down the Soviet Union; specifically the one where they had to bankrupt themselves in order to keep up with U.S. military expenditures. But I was around then, I don't recall Ronald Reagan ever specifically saying he would do this -- and to my knowledge there is no documentation to support the idea that this was an actual "plan." Instead, what I saw in the 1980s was a huge deficit (ended by Clinton) and a Soviet leader with enough foresight to not use force in trying to keep the USSR together. Is there some documentation out there to support the conservatives' notions, or do they think if they just keep repeating it enough times people will believe it?

Dan Balz: I'm glad you asked. I remember Reagan coming to the Post in June 1980 for an interview with editors and reporters and making this point. Lou Cannon, then the Post reporter covering Reagan's campaign, wrote the story for us from that luncheon interview. It was published on June 19, 1980, and this is the headline and the opening two paragraphs. I think it goes to the point of what you're asking.

______________________________________________

Arms Boost Seen as Strain on Soviets

By Lou Cannon, Washington Post Staff Writer

Ronald Reagan said yesterday that a rapid U.S. arms buildup would be good for the United States because it would strain the defense-burdened Soviet economy and force the Soviets to the arms control bargaining table.

"The very fact that we would start would serve a notice on the Soviet Union," Reagan said during a two hour meeting with editors and reporters of The Washington Post. ". . . I think there's every indication and every reason to believe that the Soviet Union cannot increase its production of arms . . . They've diverted so much to military that they can't provide for the consumer needs. So as far as an arms race is concerned, there's one going on right now but there's only one side racing."

_____________________________________________________

_______________________

Dan Balz: After that bit of research, I think we're out of time. Thanks to all for participating and have a great week!

Dan Balz

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.