"washington journal" starts now. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] host: the house of

representatives voted yesterday to expel george santos of new york, making him the sixth member of congress to ever be removed in such a way and narrowing the gop minority -- majority in the house. we want to know what you think. we have special lines. if you agree, the number is 202-748-8000. if you disagree, that is 202-748-8001. if you are unsure, 202-748-8002. if you like to text us, that number is 202-748-8003. please be sure to include your name and where you are from. you can reach us on facebook, facebook.com/c-span, and on x, @cspanwj. before we get to your calls, we were to acknowledge the death of retired supreme court justice sandra day o'connor. she was 93. she was the first woman appointed to the highest court.

c-span interview justice o'connor a few years after her retirement and here are some of her reflections about being the first woman appointee to the supreme court. [video clip] >> when i was interviewed by the cabinet members in the reagan administration, i did not believe for a minute i would be asked to serve. i went back to arizona after the interviews and said how interesting it was to visit washington, d.c. and meet the people around the president and to meet the president himself. i said thanks goodness -- thank goodness i did not have to go do that job. i was not sure i could do the job well enough to justify trying. i have said it is wonderful to be the first to do something but i did not want to be the last.

if i did not do a good job, it might have been the last. when i retired, i was not replaced by a woman which gives one pause to think about what did i do wrong that led to this. i am sure the future will show that we have other women serving on the court. it is hard to be the only woman on the court which i experienced for about 10 years. in a population which produces at least 50% of law school graduates being women, it is realistic to think in terms of number of women on the court, not just one. host: that was justice sandra day o'connor. you can view that tired interview on our website, c-span.org. back to the news out of

washington with the explosion of former congressman george santos. we have some headlines here. newsday has this headline and we see it on newspapers all over the country. house speaker representative mike johnson, republican from louisiana, made his comments. >> on this vote, the yea are -- with two recorded as present. two thirds voting in the affirmative, the resolution is adopted and a motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the clerk will notify the governor of the state of new york of the action of the house. under clause five d of rule 20, the teacher announces to the house that in light of the explosion of the gentleman from new york, the number of the

house is 434. host: there were two thirds needed to expel congressman santos. that final vote was 311 to 114. a further breakdown of the republicans, 105 the to expel santos. 112 voted against. on the democratic side, 206 voted to expel, two voted against. that was nicky williams and bobby scott. two democrats voted president, al green of texas and jonathan jackson of illinois. eight members of congress, three democrats and five republicans did not vote in the decision to expel george santos. we are taking your calls on whether or not you agree or disagree with the decision to expel the congressman.

the number if you agree is 202-748-8000. if you disagree, 202-748-8001. if you are unsure, 202-748-8002. we are getting some comments coming in alrdy robert johnson of detroit says "i agree george santos should have never been in congress. he is a symbol of what is wrong with america. the lying, the cheangthe misrepresenting. honesty shou bour number one priority in government. ." let's go to another rob in new york who called in on our line for those who agree. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. you are doing a great job. thank you for that. this business of george santos

and someone who can basically represent themselves in a completely fraudulent way, it is dangerous. i am amused by how all of a sudden we have certain members of congress, republicans, molinaro and the like speaking up with such bravado, and rightly so, except they don't speak up with such bravado against other completely fraudulent -- imagine living your life where you are a complete fraud. i don't mean to digress. our former president is such a person. and yet we don't hear the

members of congress speaking up against the former president and proving out the ways in which he has been a complete fraud and has pulled the wool on the american people. i wish c-span would clarify the ways in which -- i cannot keep track of all of the ways in which santos defrauded everyone and i cannot keep track of the ways in which our former president defrauded, but i understand that russian collusion was a real thing. host: you mentioned you lost track of some of the ways representative santos has been accused of lying. here in the new york times which

was the paper that originally broke west of the stories highlighting some of his alleged misdeeds, the headline saying "santos expelled as house issues historic rebuke. george santos whose tapestry of lies and schemes made him a figure of national ridicule and the figure of a federal indictment was expelled from the house after a vote by his peers. the move consigns mr. santos, who invented ties to the holocaust, september 11, and the pulse nightclub shooting. he is the first person to be expelled from the house without first being convicted of a federal crime or supporting the confederacy. another text message, "constitutionally, santos should have been isolated in congress. the doj should determine criminality.

the citizens of new york should determine if you should be seated in congress. becky is calling in on our line for those who disagree from shiny, oklahoma -- shawnee, obama. caller: i don't think they did the right thing. two people voted him in. he has not been convicted of a crime. who in that whole entire body does not lie? at least he was voting the way people wanted him to vote, at least he was representing the people. look at the people you have that vote with the other party all of the time. they don't voted the way their constituents want them. the people voted george santos in. he should have been left alone and left in there.

it was not their right to determine whether we were too stupid to vote or not. they made a mistake, we better corrected -- correct it. how come there are still some people that have done things wrong in these bodies, the senate and the congress, how can that be? host: thank you. but go to bobby on the line for those who agree with the decision. caller: i agree with what was done. he absolutely lied. he kept lying and he was elected on those lies is people believed him when he said his mom passed away in the tower and his grandparents were in the holocaust. they believe that and that is

what helped him get elected. they kept lying and lying and using money and the treatment of the friend of his. he is just stupid. he should not have been elected in the first place. host: another comment from our line from greg, "i agree but what is mind-boggling is the majority of republicans refuse to remov him. ." 105 voted to expose -- to expel santos and 112 voted against of republicans. let's go to matt. caller: i agree. i thought this was a no-brainer. the ethics report was escaping. if you follow this guy, it is

almost like he is a plant to go in and make a mockery of that institution. what made me call in, i heard someone call in a few minutes ago, incredulous as to why this would happen. i cannot believe how gullible the boomers and the conservators of this country are. it is like to live in a sheltered world and they have their eyes closed. this is how heather came to power. that is not hyperbole. i thought that was hyperbole, but we are seeing it before our eyes. these people are in another world and i think social media and the internet are to blame. a lot of it is citizens united and money in politics.

we are facing some serious stuff. i cannot believe that lady called in and does not understand what is going on. we are in deep trouble. host: on x, -- agrees wi t decision. may new york be represented by someone who deserves that honor. now we will go to ralph in marion, illinois, who disagrees with the decision. ralph, can you turn on your tv, please? -- turned down your tv please -- turn down your tv, please? caller: okay. i disagree big he's -- agree because i see no difference between him and donald trump. he lied as much as george light. one thing i have to say is if i

were a republican, i would be ashamed. have a good day. host: next up is michael in fleetwood, pennsylvania, who agrees with the decision of the house. caller: yes. host: can you turn down your tv? caller: sure. i agree but there is a double standard with republicans. i used to be a republican but the embarrassment was too much. i went democratic. you have an ex-president who has done far worse than everybody. the republicans are still backing him. i don't understand the mindset. it is unreal. for him to be running for

president, he wants to be a dictator. i don't understand the republican mindset. all of them lie. i believe george santos should be bumped out and a couple of other republicans should be bumped out. let freedom ring. host: mike is in bellevue, nebraska, and disagrees with the decision. caller: i disagree with the decision because i think it should have gone to court. our president lies every day when he opens his mouth. the border is secure, the, the economy is faith -- is great. host: o x, truth stares at they

disagree with the decision. "while not a fan of santos, the decision to remove him is up to the constituency presents." next up is at a fremont, missouri, who is unsure. why are you unsure? caller: it is my understanding that generally there is discovery. i wish this data -- as their job they're supposed to be -- supposed to do discovery and fact checked. i don't feel like the discovery was made with santos. we even have a senator from florida who was part of one of the largest medicare scams in history. most people younger than me do not know that. my wish is that there was discovery before the candidates were put in front of a vote so

that the public would be informed. good health to all. host: next up is kenneth in michigan who disagrees. caller: i believe this should have gone to court and done something with it. congress is not court. you cannot kick somebody out because of feelings. there is no proof yet. that guy in the senate is stealing money from egypt, he has got big cars from egypt. are we going to kick him out? probably not because he is not a republican. thank you. host: a look at the headline in washington post also covering this news on a bipartisan vote, highlighting that the vote followed the release two weeks

ago of a 56 page health ethics committee -- house ethics committee report that accused him of any array of misconduct including stealing money from his campaign, confusing donors, fictitious loans, and engaging in fraudulent business dealings. the report alleges is bit hefty sums on enrichment including visits to spas and casinos, shopping trips to high-end stores, and payment to a subversion -- a sufficient site that contains -- a subscription site that contains adult content. dusty, good morning. caller: my opinion is they made the right decision. they did not get the whole group as far as i'm concerned.

donald trump, his buddy [indiscernible] they need to take four or five more maga republicans. put them in there with some people that really want to do their job. [indiscernible] we know the number one killer of our kids today is guns.

host: mike is in wisconsin who disagrees about the decision. are you in former representatives santos's district? caller: i am not, i am in suffix county. i find it interesting. the one thing that goes on is the democrats get behind something and they can push until things happen. there republicans ago all different directions -- the republicans go all different directions. i realize george santos is not an angel from heaven, the simple fact is so far he has only been accused of thanks. nothing has been proven, he is not even had a chance to have a day in court. and yet we are ready to send him over the side and -- it does not

make any sense. he is not the cleanest person in the world, we know that. but when you look at people like hillary and the whole democratic party coalesces behind her, the republicans cannot do that. they spent a lot of time chasing after him when they could have been doing other things that were more productive. host: on facebook, joseph says "they will teut santos but they salute a person who tried to overthrow our government. what is the difference?" we will go to mary in michigan who agrees with the decision. caller: i wanted to say it is not the lies that was the problem, everybody lies. it is that his campaign took over $500,000.

half of the story is not being told. his campaign treasurer, nancy marx, i read an ap story, she pled guilty to three felonies and is facing five years in prison. of course the department of justice is going to have her as the main witness against him and the department of justice takes a long time to bring a case. once they bring a case, they have a 98% conviction rate. when they bring charges against someone, especially 13 felonies, usually you can almost put it in the bank that he is guilty of something. just like the former president donald trump, santos through his staff members under the bus. nancy marx is not the only staff member that is facing felony

chargers. eventually they are going to go to trial or be number one witnesses against him at trial. he will plead guilty and try not to go to jail, but i don't give them a much hope. it is ironic when he stood in front of the capital wearing the clothing he is accused of using our taxpaying fraudulent purchase. host: robert is in detroit and he agrees. caller: how are you this morning? i agree he should have been expelled. the people of new york, the republican party -- people are missing that.

a lot of republicans and democrats have called for his expulsion in his very district. the problem with congress today is people are continuously lying. these people make love that affect us all -- make laws that affect us all. we have the right for people to speak honestly. the lies that mr. santos told were lies that made a lot of people feel so pathetic to him, to bolster himself. i know a lot of people do this. when you are in public office and you are representing the entire country, the decisions these people make affect us all. they should be held to a higher standard. you want honesty from anybody who is making laws that affects your life, your livelihood, your

children, your wedding, you love fresh who you -- who you love, how you raise your family. it does not make sense that we have a congress of people that would let something like this pass. he could not get a job in a factory with his record. he could not hold any job at a fortune 500 company. he could not hold a job at an insurance company or a bank, a post office. he would be disqualified. it makes no sense that we would let him make laws that would affect us all. host: we have another robert in new york who agrees with the decision. go ahead. caller: hello. i disagree with the decision. listening to what george santos

says, he says i was elected by the people. the people in the congress have no right to dictate the will of the people. someone -- if some of the ethics committee found someone who is being questionable, they should set up assistant that goes back to the people. they have special voting, he goes before the people and the people choose to expel or keep him in office. the people elected him. [indiscernible] he disagreed with it and i disagree with it. i don't know why they didn't

think of doing that. i never heard anybody even bringing this up. host: jack is in maryland who agrees with the decision to expel representative george santos. caller: the decision to expel george santos lies on a series of norms. it is not necessarily a rule they have to specifically follow , but they could say enough is enough, this is outside of norms and we can get rid of you. there are three people known for being corrupt nowadays. there are a lot of, but three who stand out like a sore thumb are george santos, bob menendez, and donald trump. find out, two to go. host: someone calling in from

georgia on the agree line, go ahead. caller: good morning. host:. good morning caller:-- host: good morning. caller: i agree with what they did. there was a caller a couple of calls back -- you have to be held accountable. every law they pass, they vote on, it affects each and every citizen in this nation. i agree with what they have done. congress or the senate, the samples apply to me. i am a commercial truck driver. i have to be held accountable for what i do behind the wheel. i think it should be a law

within people, like your mother and father raise you, if you know you are doing wrong, stand to be corrected for your problems. don't continue lying because if you have to tell a lie then you have to tell another lie to cover that one. other people in congress need to look at what they're doing. there is a woman that made the comment from the river to the sea about the israel war. you cannot say things like that. it would like -- it would be someone like in florida say thing that is negative -- saying something that is negative. you have to stand for what is right and wrong, not what you think is right and wrong. i thank y'all for letting me speak my mind but i agree with what happened to the gentleman. have a good day. host: one of the previous

callers was talking about whether or not or should have been especially election within the district to decide whether or not george santos should be expelled. wow that did not happen, there will not be a special election to replace him. here's is an article from the hill talking about what happens next. the u.s. constitution requires all house vacancies to be filled through a special election which are scheduled by the state's governor. new york state allows for special elections when a vacancy occurs more than three months ahead of the next general election. that would set an election date according to state law in february or march. let's go to samuel in dallas, texas who is unsure. caller: good morning. host: trip down -- turn down the volume on your tv. caller: i am unsure this guy

should be expelled. you have pelosi, the bidens, they have a laptop with information on it which is burning taxpayers' money up. the crime he did was peanuts. that is not fair. i am sure this guy should not have been expelled for the peanuts compared to the bidens, the clintons, and pelosis. they kick him out, that is not fair. trump has nothing to do with it, trump is a strong guy. the country is in better place. yellow people need to leave him -- y'all people need to leave him out of it. host: michael guest, a republican from mississippi spoke to reporters outside the

capital after the vote to expel representative santos. here is what he had to say. [no audio] -- [video clip] >> i had been involved in this case from the beginning. i understand the president some members think this sets. members from congress can be expelled -- many have resigned instead of forcing congress to take a vote. you look at the report, if you read those findings, they find substantial evidence of multiple violations which in my case clearly support explosion. we followed the constitution in the way this was supposed to play out and members of congress voted today. i take no pride in what happened today. it is a solemn day when you have to remove a member from congress and i wish mr. sanders the best. >> for the members on your side that voted against expulsion, do

you think there is something more your committee could have done? or do you think they were home upon the president business -- precedent business? >> there is nothing we could have done to convince them. those who voted against expulsion did not vote against because of lack of evidence but they were concerned it violated the precedent that members have not been expelled without a conviction. >> has this cracked the door open to other times? are you concerned that bart is getting lower? flashing that bar -- that bart is getting lower? >> i am not. we have members who have committed crimes lower than this but have chosen to resign. this is the exception to the rule. we followed the constitution. we had a thorough it might investigation, i think the

report details fraud by mr. santos and his campaign and i think the right verdict was reached today. host: that was house ethics chair being interviewed by several reporters, including fox news's chad. on the x, jodey says "t oy sad part was he was not remed before he was confirmed into the hoe of representatives. thtruth came out before he was confirmed but now we have to live a year knowing before he was rightfully removed. margie disagrees with the decision. go ahead. caller: i disagree with the decision because these are the same people that wanted to make it all trump stick of the house. he had 91 charges, four federal charges. hello? host: we can hear you.

you are mentioning that some people in the discussion for house speaker supported donald trump. caller: they wanted to make them stick of the house and now they are fighting to put him in the white house. he was found guilty of sexual assault on a woman and had to pay over $10 million but they overlook all of that and look at santos and say he lied about that. trump is nothing but a rapist and a liar and a con artist. host: roger is in maryland and agrees with the decision. good morning. roger, you are on the line. let's go to john in florida who is unsure. caller: good morning. i am unsure in the fact that we

have senator bob menendez who basically is and an agent of -- is an agent of egypt. they found him with gold bars on him. he is not resigning. he should be forced to be kicked out of office. you have people in the house of representatives like -- pulling fire alarms when congress is trying to conduct business. he is not being removed. we have ilmar, she's basically a -- not a friend of israel. no problems there. there are so many people that should be kicked out. santos, it should be between him and the voters. only fans and some botox? that seems trivial to the guys in the upper echelon.

it should have been decided by his voters. they probably would not have reelected him anyway. it does set a bad precedent. started with bob menendez -- starting with bob menendez. host: several folks have referenced senator bob menendez and the decisions against them. here is an article that senator fetterman -- i missed the santos expulsion. senator demint -- senator john fetterman argued that the expulsion of santos should make clear that bob menendez should not remain in his senate seat. john fetterman said on "the view" he is not surprised santos was removed from congress but noted that "the more reported picture is we have a colleague in descendant that did much more sinister kinds of things."

don is in salinas, california and disagrees with the decision. caller: good morning. this does set a dangerous precedent. it is something coming down the line on our government. they acted like a bunch of mean girls in school. this guy is not a popular guy, he is a jerk. but he was duly elected and constitutionally and legally they have no right to do what they did and nobody is speaking up about that and that scares me. the reason he was expelled is because he is a republican and he was an unpopular guy and an easy target and the democrats are trying to whittle down the lead in the house of congress. that is it. they found a lot of stuff to get

this guy on, but the explosion itself, they could have censored him -- censured him. made him helpless in congress until the next election, but they didn't. why did they vote for this expulsion? you have to use your common sense. something we did not do hardly at all in our 200 years existence we do to this guy. it is the same reason we had only two impeachments in our history. we had a donald trump impeach twice. this is an overuse of power. this is supposed to be a government by the people, of the people, for the people. it has become a government of democrats, by the democrats, for the democrats. it should scare people that they can use things like this.

the ones who voted for them can sit helpless and watch them as they say i have the power, i will pick who is in here. if you send someone i don't like, i will kick them out. doesn't that scare you? host: i want to follow-up on a point you made about the rules of expelling a member of the house come here is an article from nbc saying what is the process to expel a member from the house. there is no guide for what behavior rises to the level of expulsion. the constitution gives each chamber of congress the power to set its own rules and to punish members. the only requirement outlined is that any expulsion vote requires two thirds support of the house to pass, currently 290 out of 435 members. a two thirds vote is a higher threshold and a simple majority that most legislation requires to pass in the constitutional

convention. governor morris argued a majority vote would be satisfactory. james madison pushed back saying expulsion was too important to be exercised by a bare majority of a quorum and might be dangerously abused. madison's stance won and did two thirds requirement was put in the constitution -- and the two thirds requirement was put in the constitution. only 290 were required -- were necessary to expel centers. let's go to lupe in california on our line for those who agree. caller: i have a comment. you have to remember your mouth is the smallest part and euratom the biggest muscle in your body -- and your tongue biggest

muscle in your body. if you like, it will get you somewhere. this is what happened to santos. when you say everybody lies, that is the truth. when people open up their mouths and other follow, people tend to believe that. did god say that would happen? -- didn't god say that would happen? i feel so sorry for those who always feel like they are being attacked. the only one that is attacking you is the one that is coming. god can use anybody he wants. one was trump, the second was santos, and the next one is menendez. whether he goes out or in, they have opened up a can of worms. i feel so sorry for everybody. host: ron is in missouri and

disagrees with the decision. caller: the main reason -- good morning and thanks for c-span. the main reason i disagree is because i want him in there for the next year. with the election coming up, we can use him as a punching bag just like we use donald trump. this is what i would like to tell a lot of these callers. a year from now i believe one of your topics is going to be after his convictions, do you think donald trump should be sentenced to jail. the day that happens, i think it is going to be a national holiday. host: in colorado on our line for those who agree. caller: yes. santos has lied about so much.

he said his mom was on 9/11 when she was not even in the country. not only that, but he stole money from his own gop coworkers in the house and their mothers. i cannot even believe this. the fact that he has been in office this long is a pollock -- is appalling. the republicans [indiscernible] host: next up we have ken in arkansas who agrees. caller: i agreecaller: that he should be -- caller: i agree that he should be out of here. when i was 15 in the early 1970's, i was charged with petty theft first offense. i went before the judge and he gave me 22 more days, court costs, and two years probation. here we have donald j. trump,

disgraced, twice impeached, guilty of sexual assault, guilty of fraud, and 91 felony charges. if this guy don't go, there is going to be a judge out there that put him under the jail. host: and he in fairfax, california and agrees -- and disagrees. caller: i think the voters can vote him out. i would like to address a question you had on the other day about the american dream, is it still possible. i feel the american dream is not going to be possible until we take care of our back, -- take care of our bad karma for in the dishes -- for indigenous people and black people of yourself. i feel like it is impossible to

have a good government until that is taken care of. host: dave is in the bronx and agrees with the decision. caller: good morning. just wanted to say, let me dispel an untruth. the first thing is, he was not duly elected, he was elected under false pretense. when we have athletes that when races and find out later they have used steroids, they are removed, their medals are taken away from them because they did not do so fairly. that is this in case. this is an analogy i am using. people are not fully aware of who he was or who he represented himself to be. he continues to live, he continues to perpetrate fraud.

i believe he should have been expelled, he should not have been allowed to go into congress once they found out these lies, that he enhances his lifestyle to get to where he is. people say they should let the voters vote him out. we should not be gaining any financial benefits from this -- he would continue to be paid and he should not beginning any financial benefits from this. host: terry is in north carolina and is unsure. caller: good morning. yes, i have a lot of majorities -- unsurities about the white house and washington, d.c. the government of the united states has to be recognized and a participant.

i represent a youth fund organization. [indiscernible] it goes back to bill clinton. in case we missed some points, everyone is aware of who i am. i have missed a lot of things. host: do you have thoughts about the expulsion of george santos from the house? caller: yes. host: go ahead. caller: there are a lot of mistakes there in the white house and the senate and the rest of the parts of the policies and the politics of it. i am not sure as one thing as trump should not get back into the seat he was presented falsely. i will say that until the end of

time because he did treason. treason is written in the book as a disease that needs to be kept hitting -- kept hidden away. host: but go to thomas in cincinnati, ohio, who agrees with the decision. caller: i agree. it was obvious that he was a compulsive liar. i don't understand why they can't let these people -- before they actually get in office. host: representative santos questioned if he received a due process as the ethics committee investigation unfolded. here is a portion from thursday before the vote to expel him. [video clip] >> it is no secret that i have

an ongoing process with the doj. i was given an unrealistic deadline to testify before the committee the same day i had to go to court. they gave us a hard liner yes or no answer. they would not settle for anything else, that was the deadline, i could not surpass that date. which means it was either i go to new york city to adhere to my doj case or i go to the ethics committee. no disrespect to the committee. i have incurred over $200,000 in legal fees that have been predominantly paid for. to suggest that i have not comply with them -- complied with them is another lie. they have received every document they asked and documents we don't have we have told them we do not have them,

we do not have access to what you are asking for. they persisted in inventing documents, communication between myself and people that did not exist. we informed them. this was all on the record. i rise and i question the chairman, with his set the record straight that is expulsion resolution contradicts the findings of his report? which one is it? am i guilty of a sexual harassment claim or am i not? the report says i am not. his filing on this resolution says i am. that is a very serious allegation, one i saw to see the end of -- i sought to see the end of. the office of congressional ethics sent referral to the

subcommittee saying they did not suggest further investigation into the matter because it lacked credibility. yet, it sits on their expulsion resolution. host: looking now at images of the removal of the plaque of former representative santos's office. that occurred yesterday. let's go to sharon in river -- in beverly hills, california who disagrees with the decision to expel the congressman. can you turn on your tv? it looks like we have lost sharon. let's go to a rig in huntsville, alabama -- to rick now in huntsville, alabama. caller: it is scary to hear

people say they disagree with this. the american people need to wake up. people are saying rules don't matter anymore. if rules don't matter anymore, we can expect more lies from potential candidates which i know we don't need in congress. the adjustments people want to make is not about the truth. it is about power and that is a serious problem in this country. i'm surprised people are not saying he is wrong and those have lied like him should be taken out of congress also. instead, people are using red herrings saying if this is guy -- saying at this guy should stay. that is a problem with this country. i don't know where we have

gotten off saying that the truth doesn't matter anymore. when you start living that way, we won't have democracy for long. i hope people wake up and see seriously that he needs to be removed and anyone who lies about their education -- if i was a business owner and someone lied about their education, would you trust them? i think not. thank you for your time and i hope america is listening. host: peter is in texas, who disagrees. caller: how are you doing? host: good morning. caller: i disagree. i did 26 years in the military.

-- my given instructions on how to lie -- are given instructions on how to lie. if you look at the applications of anyone who got elected, you would probably have to kick them out. george santos did not overthrow the government on january 6, he did not get anyone killed. you look at donald trump, a lot of people killed on january 6. it gave him the opportunity to go to court. they did not give george santos the opportunity to go to court. it is like getting convicted without going to court that is what they did. thank you for taking me. have a great day. host: mark is in burbank, illinois, on the line for those who agree. caller: i agree.

not just a few months ago, mississippi's senate president -- mississippi set precedent when they kicked those two members out. the public outcry demanded they be reinstated. there is a public outcry from his district, in the state which he represents. i am sure they will have to reinstate him. it is like what one caller:, if you like under application and they find out later, they are going to fire you immediately. they are not equipped to debate whether you had your day in court -- they are not going to debate whether you had your day in court.

if he has his day in court after he has been expelled, his constituents will vote him back in. i agree. the reason we have the government we do is not because it is about what is best for america, it is about what is best for the party. they're going to do what is best to have control instead of what is best for the country. we are in real trouble. thank you for letting me have my say. i appreciate everyone else's opinion. host: yvonne is in new york, new york. caller: i have a point to make on santos. i thought the proper decision for him was a recall, last year

in december for the -- for the people that voted for him. host: what you think about the house's decision to expel him. caller: i don't agree with that. you have three chances to expel somebody in one year. [indiscernible] the recall should have been what you should have done. host: you very much yvonne and everyone us who called in this hour. coming up next, we have daniel cox who is the senior fellow at the american enterprise is the dude who will join us to discuss his opinion piece on young voters and campaign 2024. later we will have our spotlight on podcast segment with astead

herndon who will discuss the 2024 election. we will be right back. ♪>> american history tv, exploring the people and events that told the american story on lectures in history. a look at how television and the internet affected white house communication strategies with chapman university professor. we will look back to december 6, 19 73, when gerald ford replaced spiro agnew as richard nixon's vice president months after his resignation amid an income tax evasion scandal. watch american history tv every weekend and watch the whole le on your program guide or watch online any time at c-span.org/history.

>> traveling over the holidays? make c-span's bookshelf podcast part of it. c-span bookshelf features multiple episodes with critically acclaimed authors discussing history, biography, current events and culture from our signature program about books. afterwards, book notes plus and q -- q&a. you can find it and all of our podcasts on the c-span now free mobile video app or wherever you get your podcasts and on our website, c-span.org/podcasts. friday nights, watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail. a weekly roundup of c-span's campaign coverage, providing a one-stop shop to discover where the candidates are traveling across the country and what they are saying to voters.

this, along with first-hand accounts from political reporters, updating poll numbers. watch c-span 2024 campaign trail, friday nights at 7:00 eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org or download the podcast on c-span now, or wherever you get your podcasts. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> a healthy democracy doesn't just look like this. it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work. a republic throughout history. informed, straight from the source. on c-span, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capital to wherever you are. you get the opinion -- because the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. >> washington journal continues.

host: welcome back. we are joined by daniel cox of the american enterprise institute, where he is the director of the survey center on american life. welcome to the program. >> thanks for having me. host: can you tell me about the survey center for american life and what you all do there. guest: the survey center for american life is about three years old and we focus on a lot of topics that are really relevant to the way americans are living. we focus on changes to american life and religious practice and other institutions. it runs the gamut of the things that people are thinking about and the expenses they are having. host: you talk about your most recent opinion piece and what you discovered -- can you talk about your most recent opinion

piece and what you discovered about young voters? guest: there's been a lot written on the subject recently. that's a good thing. a lot of smart folks are trying to figure out what's going on. we have seen a number of poles recently with troubling results. that biden and trump appear to be tied among yoga -- younger voters, people between the ages of 18 and 29. this is a historically democratic route. biden won by 25 percentage points in the 2020 election. this would be a massive swing in two years if it actually worked out. a lot of people i tried to figure out what is going on. host: let's look at some of those numbers. there was a new york times cn a college poll of six battleground states where they found that joe biden has a one point ld over former president trump among those 18-20 nine-year-old

registered voters that we were just disgusting -- 18-29-year-old voters that we were just discussing. >> the big question is whether or not there is a swing or not, there have been some argument. i argued that it is possible, some of these pre-election polls that are a year out from the election are capturing the most engaged young voters. those voters may not be representative of the entire youth vote. that is something that we really need to be concerned about, looking at gallup polls. young people are really tuned out at this point. it is also possible that this is reflecting current preferences. we don't even have two candidates. we have a good idea who they are going to be. that is something that we should keep in mind as well. host: that same poll found robert f. kennedy, jr. leading

both biden and trump among young voters. how do you explain that? guest: third-party candidates tended to do well in pre-election polling and flameout when it comes to actual voting and people don't like the idea of wasting their vote and that is often what happens when you ve third-party in the u.s. there is some of that. i think it reflects something that is very real among young voters in that they have, despite liberal proclivities on a variety of issues, they don't feel attached to the democratic party. young people had an unfavorable opinion of both political parties, that is higher than any other age group. host: (202) 748-8001 we want to hear any questions you might have for daniel. the number for republicans is --

host: we want to hear any questions you might have for daniel. the number for republicans is (202) 748-8001. the number for democrats is (202) 748-8000. the number forndependents is (202) 74. baby boomers made up less than half of the electorate in 2020, constituted in 2016 and 2018. gen z and nial voters favored biden over tru margins of about 20 points, whn and boomers were more evenly split in their preferences. gen z voters, ages 23 and younger, constituted 8% of the electorate while millennials and gen xers made up 47% of 2020 voters. daniel, i am wondering if you

could talk about the overall shift in age demographics in the united states and how those shifts of different population groups are going to be factoring into the 20 24 race. -- 2024 race. guest: this is what scientists call generation replacement. how does american society and behavior politics change as one generation dies and another generation moves into adulthood? one of the really important demographic changes that is occurring is that the youngest generation looks really different from the oldest generation. in terms of race and identity, gen zers are much more diverse when it comes to religious affiliation and practices. they are much more secular. one in 10 young people are

religiously unaffiliated now. they are more educated as well and they are more liberal. they are much more likely to identify as liberal. host: what percentage of young voters actually registered to vote and then turns out to vote? is there something in particular that motivates younger voters to come to the ballot box compared to other generations? guest: yeah. youth turnout is historically quite low, particularly in midterm elections. there has been more interest in younger voters in the post trump years. there are particular issues, from climate change to gun violence. the issue of abortion is an opportunity for young women and is an incredibly important issue. no issue ranked as more

important for young women than abortion in 2022. host: let's hear from a couple of callers. roger is in valley park, missouri on our independent line. caller:caller: go ahead. yes, hello -- host: go ahead. caller: yes, hello. don't believe the posters. i was a pollster until 2020 and they stopped calling me. host: when you say you were a pollster, were you somebody who regularly answered polling questions or you conducted polls? caller: i'm in missouri so it's one of their favorite places to call. i received 40-50 calls a month during a normal election year. even in the local elections, i got 20-30 calls a month. i've been doing that for 40 years. they stopped calling me in 2017 when i expressed the truth about trump. the polls are wrong. it is all manipulated. don't believe it.

host: sorry, i don't know if we still have you, roger. was there another point you wanted to make? caller: one more. america, trumps dad started working for the mafia, running two brothels. host: let's stick to the polling. i want to get to the idea of how much we can trust polls. when trump was elected, there was a lot of criticism of political polling. especially when we are talking about younger generations who are less likely to answer the phone for an unknown number, when the pollsters called. how reliable is polling? especially when it comes to younger americans? guest: i think there are methodological challenges that the polling industry faces. when i began my career in polling in 2005-2 thousand 6, 1 of the concerns was cell phones, -- 2005-2000 6, 1 of the concerns was cell phones. a lot of interviewing has shifted to online. we do most of our interviewing

online. it is challenging for a pollster to kind of adapt. the other thing that is troubling and concerning is the lack of trusting polls feeds on itself. you have people not trusting them so they are not participating in them and response rates fall. they fall significantly. and not evenly, either. there are certain types of folks with opinions that can create bias. host: roger myers asked on x, can you speak to the outsized and potentially dangerous influence on tiktok over the stem a graphic? guest: one of the interesting things about gen z is historically, we would tune into

the newscasters report information. we would rely on legacy media outlets. now, since the internet, we have had an increase in lateral communication. citizen bloggers to tiktok creators. for a lot of young people, they are actually getting information from people their own age and there is much more trust in some ways of people they feel like they know than the new york times or the washington post. i think that is a significant change. the other thing, we released a big survey recently on gen z. what we found is that for gen z and millennials, they grew up not trusting politics and political leaders. unlike gen xers and baby boomers, who grew up basically trusting politics even if they didn't like politicians.

the formative years of gen x and millennials were shaped by this and you are seeing it now. host: next up, we will hear from jack in arkansas, who is on our republican line. go ahead, jack. caller: yes. i think that gen z needs to learn that republicans are the way to go. nobody wants to -- host: let's have nicer language. let's talk about health care, daniel. how much of a motivating factor is health care for gen z voters? guest: it animates older voters. people who have more medical needs so they tend to care and have more investment in health care costs and health care access.

can violence and abortion tend to be the issues that are more standard to young people. host: on x, says young and old that receive higher educatioar not happy about the inability to discharge their loans if they are unable to find employment to meet their financial strains. what about student loans and student loan forgiveness, which was a big issue that came up in the last election? guest: yeah, i think biden-harris thinks this is a winning issue for young voters. it is popular among young kids in colleges who have loans. it doesn't have quite the salience that i think folks on the left and right think it does. it's not an issue that animates a lot of folks. i don't think it will be a big issue in 2024. host: once again, we are taking your calls on young voters and

the 20 fort race. kratz at -- democrats at (202) 748-8000. republicans at (202) 748-8001. independents at (202) 748-8002. if you would like to text us, you can do that at (202) 748-8003. be sure to include your name and where you are from. daniel, i want to go to a quote from your opinion piece that you wrote on november 17, or it was published on november 17. young americans, like a lot of america are unhappy with their candidate choices. the people most displeased appear to be the most literately engaged. young adults who are politically engaged tend to be much more liberal and more critical of biden than those who are paying less attention. can you speak a bit more about how younger voters seem to feel about their candidate choices so far? at least what we know of them in

the 2024 race and what they are planning to do about it? guest: i think there are a lot of folks, not just young people, who are looking with some amount of displeasure at the fact that we are going to likely see a biden-trump rematch. and so, there is going to be a lot of folks that vote in 2024, who will hold their nose and vote for the least bad option. i think this is a case where campaigns are going to matter. there is a recent poll that found only half of young people thought trump was conservative. i think people, particularly young people, really aren't paying attention at this point. a lot will be determined on how the campaigns react to issues that they choose to promote. and the learning that goes on. people, young people, if you are 18, 19, 20, you may not have a

visible recollection of what trumps administration looked like or what trumps views were like. he hasn't received a lot of attention and that will certainly change if he becomes the nominee. host: what does the term politically engaged voter actually mean when it comes to registered voters, versus likely voters, versus those who actually vote, can you give us some polling terminology? guest: this is something pollsters ruffle with. how to define a likely voter or an engaged voter. what we are trying to do is we are trying to not only measure candidate support, you support candidate a over candidate b, but more importantly and more difficult, you are try to get a sense of who is going to be voting. what is the voting for going to look like? what are the demographics going

to be? that is really difficult and changing from election to election. it's something that pollsters use a variety of different types of questions from voter registration to pastor voting -- past voting. it is really difficult. host: let's hear from michael in knoxville, tennessee, on our independent line. caller: good morning. i'm enjoying the topic. at 47 years old, i resent the fact i'm not a young voter anymore. i started as a democrat. now, i am more toward independence because the democratic party has changed so much. that's not why i'm calling. i'm calling about young people voting. i have a daughter who is 19. she is in college at the university of kentucky. she is politically active. she got that from me and her mom. when i talked to her about what the issues concerning her and her generation are, it does

touch on what daniel has been talking about. 1.i want to make is that the lack -- the one point i want to make is the lack of the knowledge of history from young people. the fact that young people don't seem to know where they came from. let's take the conflict in the middle east. i know this is off-topic but it's to my point. there are a lot of people backing palestine here in america and don't know the history of the state of israel. i'm using that as an example. young people don't know the history. when it comes to what young people want, at the end of the day, they are not going to vote anyway. that is problematic too. young people simply do not vote. i have been involved in politics for a long time. i've registered voters and knocked on doors. i've done the whole thing. the one thing that i know is that young people at the end of the day will not get out and vote. especially on a rainy day like today. thank you. host: daniel, he made two interesting points that i would love to hear your response to.

number one is the israel-hamas conflict has been a big division that has shown up within them are credit parties -- the democratic party with some very clear age divisions in terms of where support lies regarding that conflict. i'm wondering if you can speak to that in terms of how the issue may play into 2024. and then also, this idea that young people just don't vote. is that true? and does it look like it will be true in 2024? guest: yeah, a couple of things to say. young people have historically voted at far less regularity as older people. but young people become older people and their voting behavior becomes solidified after a couple of elections. if you are voting democrat consistently at 18, 20, 20 two, then there is a good chance that you will be voting democrat for

a long time. same is true for publicans. when it comes to -- for republicans. when it comes to foreign policy, i know israel-hamas has received a lot of coverage as it should. but i think we can basically not really appreciate the amount of people that do not -- these issues -- follow these issues. we focus on the politicians. but a lot of the u.s. does not understand the history. they are not paying attention to it. if you ask folks about the issues important to their vote, foreign policy tends to be last on the list with the exception of whether or not the u.s. is in armed conflict themselves. months from now, i don't see it as having a huge effect on the election. biden may loose some votes over

it. but these are people who probably won't make a difference in the long run. host: bernie is in howard beach, new york, on the democrat line. go ahead. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i have two questions. the first is how do you propose the question to the person being interviewed? do you prefer one or the other? do you assume that it will be a free weight race -- freeway race? also, how do you break down the male-female? guest: yeah, those are great questions. one of the things that pollsters spend a lot of time thinking about is how to craft the question. do you include just two options? do you include multiple options? most pollsters will have

third-party options. they won't name third candidates like jill stein or robert f. kennedy, jr.. it impacts the results. the other thing that folks need to be aware of some pollsters will push folks. they will say you are not sure who you are supporting and we are 11 months out. so, who are you leaning toward now? and those kinds of answers are far more tenuous. they are more liable to change. that is something to be aware of. pollsters would handle these things differently. host: before you address the gender dynamics the caller was asking about, i want to show some stats from the new york times siena college poll. one of the questions says

speaking of the upcoming presidential election in 2024, if the election were held today, who would you vote for if the candidates were joe biden and donald trump, the republican. and then you mentioned sometimes the pollsters will follow up with people. the follow-up question was are you definitely or probably voting for them and, if needed, if you had to decide today, who would you vote for? and then you break down the answers from there. i think that is an example of what you were talking about. guest: yes. i think there is right for criticism about horserace polling that does not provide enough context. when we get these anonymous polling results about people being split between trump and biden, we don't have enough information and, by asking other questions, you understand the nuances of people thinking this and how strongly they think

about this. and the contradictions. so, i think people are rightly scratching their heads and saying this doesn't make any sense. people are more likely to dismiss these results even if they shouldn't. we can make logical arguments all day. but without an nation, it's difficult for folks to trust them. we need to -- an explanation, it is difficult for folks to trust them. we need contextual questions to get out a whole variety of behavior and concerns that people have. host: when it comes to young voters, is there a meaningful gender difference in terms of where voters are leaning one way or another that we can tell at this point? guest: yeah, this is something that i have spent the last year and a half exploring. it is fascinating what we are

seeing. in 2014-2015, a gallup poll started showing and emerging ideological gaps between young women and young men. young women, becoming much more liberal in those poles. half of young women were identifying as politically liberal. for young men, it was below three and 10. -- three in 10. a significant gap. we saw it again in our gen z survey with women reporting much more as being liberal than young men. it is going to impact voting behavior as well. voting behavior -- young women care about abortion more than young men. they are voting democrat more than young men even though both generally are. i'm interested to see how this shows up in 2024. it could have said if --

significant ramifications. host: we have curtis. caller: thanks for taking my call. my father and i talked about this a lot. my son got the highest score in the country on the ap history six page written essay. one of the callers called in and said they were talking about history. having two granddaughters, what the kids are taught, he is pretty concerned about the effects of marxism and equity and equality in what the kids are being educated. i was just wondering, you know, what your opinion would be about what they are teaching the kids in these colleges. that was just my question. thank you. host: the want to respond to

that, daniel? guest: this is something in both college campuses and in high school. there is increasing attention on what we are being taught. in our surveys and i think in other service, i don't think there are quite as large divisions as it appears. you get the most strident views that are reflected on television that are showing up to public media. when it comes to what colleges should be teaching, there is a lot of focusing on the basics. teaching kids the basics. that includes history. including the more troubling aspect of american history. so, i think both republicans and democrats generally believe it should be taught. when it comes to gender identity

and sexuality, that is where you see the biggest divisions. host: let's hear from crystal in wilkes-barre, pennsylvania. on the democrat line. caller: yes. give me an opportunity to state two things for you and i am african-american and we have not forgotten slavery. he said we won't remember certain things during the election. we do. we have a long memory. i want to tell you something. over the holiday weekend, i was at a family gathering and all of our children were talking. and although they may not understand the complexities of israel and palestine, what i listened to them say was that they saw young people dying. just like them. and that because of that, they were not going to be voting for biden. now, our last election between trump and biden, i sort of pushed them to vote for biden. they said they would not do it

any longer because they could not connect with someone who thought that other people were not human. not human enough to live. so, forget about history. it's what they see on the television every single day. and they can no longer connect with biden in that way. because of that, these young people that i say get out and vote, let me register you to vote, they have said not again. host: if you don't mind me asking, did these young people that they were -- you were talking to say they were planning to not vote or vote for a different candidate? caller: they did not want to vote for trump of course, but they would not be voting for biden, either. because people of their own age, they watch every day on television, getting killed and they did not want to be part of that. host: let's let daniel respond to that. it seems like this is highlighting something you mentioned earlier. guest: yeah, i think this is the

nightmare scenario for the biden campaign. i simply don't believe that trump is going to get much more young voters. but i think that there is a probability that some significant number who either voted in 2020 or lean left and would otherwise support democratic candidates simply stay home. that said, i do think the campaign is going to be important. i think a lot of folks and a lot of young people simply don't see the difference between trump and biden on a lot of these issues. and i think the campaigns are going to highlight that, both in terms of their personality and demeanor, as well as the issues that they champion and the people that are prioritizing them. so, let's just wait and see what happens. a lot is going to happen over the next 10 months. host: christian is in st. petersburg, florida, on our republican line.

caller: good morning. host: good morning. can you turn down your tv, christian, and then go ahead? caller: ok. host: try turning it down one more time before your question. caller: yes, the day, how are you? i am calling -- i am wondering if the young voters no about the -- know about the history. i have heard that the history is lacking with the younger voters. there is one thing i think that would impact the younger voters and i'd like your opinion on this. if they really understood the effect and the damage that the gop strategy had that was

implemented in 1970, and created a whole right wing of the republican party. being a republican, i have already regretted that, only because it invited the southern prejudice that was promoted by the fact that they recruited these republican racists. host: christian, let's let daniel respond to the idea of the 1970 strategy. guest: yes. i think one of the interesting things that emerged in that time period was, as the caller mentioned, you had southern conservative democrats moving to the republican party. the other thing that happened in this period was the majority of

people who were democrats became loyal republicans. in the south in particular, it became a dominant force in republican politics. that has had a significant impact on the coalition of both parties. particularly how young people view politics and religion. as i said earlier, people are much less religious than previous generations. i think they are increasingly turned off by a lot of the rhetoric. i think that is something that is something to keep and i out for in terms of how it will impact the way people view political parties and who they vote for. host: brian is in washington on our independent line. caller: good morning, washington

journal. i have two things to bring up to you. the one is i am a supporter. my mailbox is essential. i support the post office. and the telephone, the landline, which i am calling you on to be part of your conversation. i noticed in the last couple of weeks and made a point of it to my local television stations that hey, you are not putting a phone number on for us to call your advertisers or the subject of your story, like a nonprofit looking for donations at the food bank. no phone number. but the website of the television station. host: did you have a question specifically on younger voters of the 2024 campaign? caller: yes, my question is for your post to be accurate, you are not getting the whole

spectrum if you are eliminating people that can't respond to your surveys because you are not including the landline. you are only on the internet. my other issue is the young people, the guy who called in and said they don't have history has completely forgotten what bernie sanders did with the young people. and he asked them to support biden because of the trump scenarios. and so, would your host tell us how the young people, my son was one of them, knocking on doors, i thought that was active politically. but my son, who is in college now, tells me they were knocking on doors in the state capital, door-to-door. young people, inspired by bernie . what on earth is going on with you people forgetting about the inspiration of the old man from vermont? guest: let's give daniel a chance to respond.

i want to respond to something brian said about the usage of land lines. i found this article from the washington post from june of this year which says barely a quarter of americans still have land lines. who are they? i am one. i still have a landline. this is a chart here, showing adult populations by phone options available in their household. wireless going way up over time. when it comes to people who have land lines only at this point, it is almost zero. and then there is a mixture of people with landline and wireless. go ahead, daniel. guest: yes, so i think that it is a really interesting point. and one that goes a lot to coverage. are there certain geographic communities or other communities

that are systematically excluded from being surveyed. and as we shift in methodologies, that is a constant concern. typically for rural folks, who are getting more difficult to reach. that is something we pay a lot of attention to. in our survey, the ones in our mind, we also will augment the online surveys with some telephone interviews to make sure that we are capturing folks like the caller who are much more readily reachable on land lines. host: next up, jonathan is an echo lake, california on our democratic line. good morning, jonathan. caller: i think that everybody should get on board with this. host: looks like we are losing you. jesse in albuquerque, new mexico. caller: good morning. mr. cox, i want to ask you a few

questions. do you know what the propaganda techniques of card stacking is? did you say no? guest: no, i do not. caller: card stacking is when you put out a bunch of poles or data that shows the same thing. it's like these republican polls that show trump in the lead. i'm sorry, it is hard stacking and that's a propaganda technique. let me ask you the next question, how valid do you think our polls with very small sample sizes to represent the whole state? host: ok. our most of the polls saying the same thing and can you talk about sample sizes? guest: sure. i have not heard that term before but there are a thing

called push polls, which they are polls that are conducted to get a certain answer and then promote the answer. those polls are not great in terms of manipulating responses and pushing agendas. we don't like those. when it comes to sample sizes and the polling we have seen, it's not all the polls that are showing young voters equally divided. biden maintaining a double-digit lead among younger voters. it's not the case that we are universally seeing these results. i think that makes some sense, given the methodology pollsters are using. we are so far out with people

not paying a lot of close attention to the election that we ought to be seeing some variability in responses. the other thing we are going to see is a lot of these surveys are putting out results on very small samples of folks. for every survey interviewing 1000 people, you will get many interviewing one to 50 or 200. support could be -- 150 or 200. support could be 60% for joe biden or 40%. that is why we take it with a small grain of salt. the other thing we want to do is look at a number of poles over time. if they are all pointing in the same direction, we have some confidence that this is something real. if we are seeing polls jump over

the place, we don't have as much confidence that it is actually real. host: next is john in cleveland, ohio on our independent line. caller: thank god i'm not in a wheelchair and a nursing home. i am 88 years old as of two weeks ago. the reason why we have to talk about voting for the young generation is because we don't teach civics in the first place. we let five big states decide what's going on. when they finish hostile, don't give them a diploma until they do community service or public service. wall street, i used to go to wall street twice a month, years ago.

all i'm trying to say is this. george washington never wanted two parties. host: we want to get to a couple more callers before we have to let daniel go. do you have a response to that caller? guest: so, i will respond to a couple of things. when it comes to political reforms like doing away with the electoral college or electing a president, there is a fair amount of support for those reforms, particularly among young people. young people support a multiparty system given their strong support for third candidates. i don't think those kinds of reforms are particularly likely. but, there is a strong amount of political support for them,

particularly among young people. host: joe is in minneapolis, minnesota on our democratic line. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i'm calling in about a couple of things. a lot of people are saying that young people are not educated enough or they don't know history or anything. well, young people have always been like that because they are young people. before they know it, they will be old people. i think we have to do whatever we can to encourage them to become involved and to vote. their outlook as a young person is legitimate. i'm wondering, has there ever been any polling done asking if candidates -- because both joe biden and donald trump -- neither are spring chickens -- has there ever been a poll done saying if joe biden were to die or come to some illness, who

would you support? what would you do? that is different from what is your second choice or who else would you like. host: let's let daniel respond to that. there has been much discussion of the ages of the two leading candidates but has there been polling like that? guest: there has been questions about the age issue and where young people are in particular concerned about joe biden's age and mental acuity. i think our concerns about trump's age as well. we don't see him getting the same kind of attention currently as biden on these issues. that is likely to change. i am not aware of the point exactly that the caller was mentioning. host: james is in akron, ohio on our republican line. caller: yes. there was an african american

lady calling from wilkes-barre, pennsylvania earlier saying people would not vote for biden because of seeing young people dying and they had not forgotten about slavery. there was a man who called about card stacking, which you didn't understand what it was. the thing i am calling about is like areas like wilkes-barre, pennsylvania, the area that lady lives in, there are areas like that that can only get conservative news reports. over 90% of all news outlets, radio, tv and newspaper are conservative. when you look at that, that is what is causing the problems with african-american votes. but even today, if there was a proper type of, what do you call it, news going out right now, there is no way trump could be leading not only his party,

anything. and anybody that knows anything about history, and we don't teach it in a lot of those schools in those red states. right now -- host: let's let daniel respond to the point that i think you are alluding to, which has to do with where people are getting their news. daniel, i wonder if you have any comments about the differences between how young people get their news versus how other groups get their news and how that might play into 2024. guest: we talked about greater trust in social media and that is certainly true. the other thing that has happened over the last few decades is the nationalization of news consumption. this is something dan hopkins has been researching. what he found was basically that over the past few decades, more and more americans are tuning into national news, probably

because of the decline in local news coverage. also, political news tends to be driven by national news issues that can sway republicans versus democrats. folks on -- focusing on this agreement and the division. that is the kind of media environment. you have young people consuming far more national news on these hot topics and controversies than they did previously, when they were much more tuned into local news and events. that is a significant change. host: daniel cox, thank you so much. daniel is the director of the survey center on american life at the american enterprise institute, where he is also a polling and public opinion senior fellow. i appreciate your time this morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: later, we are going to have our spotlight on podcasts

segment. we will have new york times national politics supporter of stead herndon, who will talk about his -- astead herndon, talking about his podcast, the run up. but first, we will continue hearing from you on our open form. the numbers are on the screen. ♪ >> c-span's studentcam documentary competition is back. celebrating 20 years. with this year's theme, looking forward while considering the past. we are asking middle and high school students to create 5-6 and it video addressing one of these questions. in the next 20 years, what is the most important change you would like to see in america? or, over the past 20 years, what has been the most important

change in america? as we do each year, we are giving away $100,000 in total prizes with a grand prize of $5,000. and every teacher who has students participate in this competition has the opportunity to share a porti of an additional $50,000. the competition deadline is friday, january 19th, 2024. for information, visit our website at studentcam.org. >> book tv, every sunday on c-span2, features leading auths discussing their latest nonfiction books, live at noon eaern. jo yu, author of the politically incorrect guide to the supreme court joins us to take calls on the supreme court, executive branch autri and more. at 10:00 p.m. eastern on afterwards, stanford university history professor jennifer burns shares her book, milton

friedman, the last conservative, about the life and career of the prize winning economist. she is joined by alex. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 and find a schedule on your program guide. or, watch online any time at book tv. >> c-span's campaign 2020 for coverage continues with the -- 2024 coverage continues. watch as the first votes in the country are cast in the upcoming presidential election. along with candidate speeches and results, beginning with the iowa caucuses on january 15 and the new hamster primary of january 23. -- on january 23. campaign 2024 on c-span. your unfiltered view for politics. >> a healthy democracy doesn't just look like this.

it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work. where citizens are truly informed. get informed, straight from the source. on c-span, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capital to wherever you are. you get -- because the opinions that matter the most are your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: welcome back. we are in open form. you can call in with your thoughts on the political news of the day. we are also acknowledging today, the death of supreme court justice sandra day o'connor, who died yesterday at 93. back in 2009, justice o'connor received the presidential medal of freedom from then president obama. here is a portion from that ceremony. >> when a young sandra day

graduated from law school, near the top of her class, in two years instead of the usual three, she was offered just one job in the private sector. her perspective -- prospective employer asked her how well she paid and told her there might be work for her as a legal secretary. i can't tell you how she would have fared as a legal secretary but she made a mighty fine justice on the supreme court. a judge in arizona legislature, cancer survivor, child of the texas plains. sandra day o'connor is like the pilgrim in the poem she sometimes quotes who has forged a new trail and build a bridge behind her for all young women to follow. >> sandra day o'connor. [applause]

sandra day o'connor has paved the way for millions of women to achieve their dreams. completing law school in just two years, she graduated third in her class at a time when women rarely entered the legal profession. with grace and humor, tenacity and intelligence, she rose to become the first woman on the united states supreme court. her tenure on the court was defined by integrity and independence. she has earned the nation's lasting gratitude for her invaluable contribution to history and the law. [applause] host: a few more headlines, giving tribute to justice o'connor today. in the washington post, they say that o'connor was a pathbreaking

jurist who played a key role at the center of the high court. the first female justice shaped landmark cases. here in the wall street journal, o'connor, the first woman on the high court, dies at three. what they wrote in her obituary here, o'connor was an arizona state in 1981, when republican president ronald reagan, fulfilling a campaign pledge to break the mail monopoly on the higher court, selected her to succeed retiring justice potter stewart. over the next 20 years, she came to wield the deciding vote between the courts conservative and liberal wings. she displayed a knack or moderation and compromise that sat well with the broad american mainstream. even as it frustrated ideological purists. in the new york times, they mentioned that although william h winquist, her stanford law

school classmate, served as chief justice during much of her tenure, the court was often called the o'connor court. justice o'connor was referred to accurately as the most powerful woman in america. very little could happen without justice o'connor's support when it came to the polarizing issues on the court's docket and the long regarding formative action -- affirmative action, abortion, religion, sex discrimination, and other hot button subjects were what sandra day o'connor thought it should be. host: we will go to bill in union bridge, maryland on our independent line. go ahead. and please, turn down the volume on your tv. caller: thank you. hello? host: yes, go ahead. you turned down the volume on

your tv and go ahead with your comments. caller: hello? host: yes, bill. we can hear you. caller: yes, am i on? host: yes. go ahead. caller: all right. my name is bill smith. i want to address a couple of things. polling. it is fairly simple. all you have to do is let them express their preference. they can do everything else online. why not let them vote? but, the other thing is that if you want to figure out who won a particular election, people are very vocal. let them get online and say who

they voted for. the secret ballot really is the enemy, here. everybody is very vocal about who they voted for on this, that and the other thing. just take a pole. -- poll. host: ok. next up, we have gary in sterling, virginia on our republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. a famous person once said waste not, want not. that's the way i feel about the plastic gap or the half-gallon jug of juice or milk. it's an impediment to easy leaving -- living and it is a health hazard. you are opening a new carton and you have to use a pair of pliers to open it. host: ok.

next up, stephen in houston, texas on the democratic line. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. i listened to the history discussion and i had a lot of thoughts about that. my own thoughts about the upcoming elections, the dominant thing in my mind is that we preserve our democracy. i take very seriously the events ofi take seriously the events of january 6, the attack on the nation's capitol. it is more than just donald trump that would be of concern there but the continuing rhetoric about -- it is very

concerning that we move more and more to the far right positions. i'm concerned we may very realistically be facing the end of our freedom. if the republicans in donald trump are to be elected. that is my main concern. i think that some of the things that come to mind is someone tells you who they are you should believe them. we should all be aware of this concept of dissociation, being separated from the evidence and the facts. we all need to become connected to the evidence and the facts and look at the evidence and the facts and deal with them and

resolve our dissociation so we don't continue to repeat patterns of neglect and abuse in our own lives. host: next up is doug in laramie, wyoming on the independent line. go ahead, doug. caller: good morning. i have been through more than 35 cold winters and acquired considerable experience with clothing for cold weather. from the c-span shop i bought a c-span logo beanie, elsewhere called the ski cap, winter cap or winter hat. the c-span logo beanie even with a 30% discount is the most offensive winter cap i have ever owned but it's also the finest, warmest, highest-quality, most excellent and most comfortable cap i have ever worn. i urge every c-span listener likely to live through a cold winter to buy a c-span logo beanie, where it proudly and buy

another c-span logo beanie as a gift or a beloved spouse, parent, child or friend. host: thanks for your support, doug. we have lanita on fort payne, alabama on the republican line. caller: good morning. i don't necessarily consider myself a republican. i consider myself -- i do not stand for what democrats believe and what they push, ok? my comment is, every time something comes up, it don't matter what it is, all these viewers bring up donald trump. it is raining in alabama today. it is donald trump's fault. that is how ridiculous some of these comments are. second of all, i watched rosalynn carter's memorial service. some of those democrats that

were attending her funeral, i would not have shown my face if i had been them. in previous times they have ran president carter and the family down. they have run president carner to the dogs. they have the face to show up there? i would not have shown my face. i'm going to tell you, the world, whoever is listening, jimmy carter's biggest fault was he was too honest to be in office. he was too honest and i will stick to that until the day i die. i will tell whoever is listening, you need to rake around your own doorstep before you start raking around somebody else's. leave donald trump out of your comments. he's got nothing to do with what's going on right now. host: roberta on the democratically.

-- democratic line. caller: i'm calling regarding the mission to eradicate hamas. giving it by means of demolishing a community of mainly innocent people. it is only creating several more generations of hamas radicals. also the strategy of massive carpet bombing is unethical and stupid. israel -- israel is known to have a robust intelligence and defense. they could be surgically locating -- i'm sure they know where the leaders are -- locating and taking care of them without killing innocent women and children. host: the new york times is covering the resumption of the conflict between israel and hamas with this headline.

after a week of truce, israel resumes gaza tax. the weeklong cease fire collapsed friday morning with israel and hamas blaming each other for the breakdown of the truce that had allowed for the exchange of hundreds of hostages and prisoners and briefly raised hopes for a more lasting call to the fighting. the israeli military launched 200 strikes since the redemption -- resumption of fighting. next up is ron in vermont on our independent line. go ahead, ron. caller: thank you for taking my call. this is regarding the election that is coming up next year. i would like to put a fact that nobody talks about. i'm supposed to be retired but i will never see retirement because i have to pay my taxes.

i keep on working and keep on working. during that period of time from 2016 when trump was elected they started taking money from seniors out of their retirement checks of $150 a month. both my wife and i had $300 a month for two years we had taken out of our check. after the two years we had $175 taken opera month. that was -- taken out per month every month out of her income. no responsibility for many politicians why this is happening to seniors. we have no voice in washington at all to let this happen. by the end of those four years my wife and i had paid $16,000 during that period of time. when biden got in there it stopped. we don't have to pay that anymore.

i want everybody to think if someone is stealing from your mom, your dad, your grandparents, whatever, would you not vote for somebody who did that? i know i would never vote for that man because what he did right there to seniors -- that is how he paid -- that's exactly how we paid giving the tax breaks to rich corporations. people wonder how we get inflation under control. all those breaks we gave the rich corporations, as soon as biden got in there and we got back to work and everything they decided to raise the fuel -- the oil prices on everybody. to me that is where our problems are in. somebody needs to go in with new tax reform so we can get that straightened out. host: thank you, ron.

leslie in toledo, ohio on the democratic line. caller: i would like to speak to the lady two calls ago from alabama talking about those things about trump. trump is one of the main reasons this country is in the problems that is in now. biden did not try to overturn the election. trump did. you always talk about blaming everything on the republicans. well, in 2016, if i remember right, trump was president, republicans had control the house. they only talked about the border, the border, the border. if the border was a problem, why didn't they take care of it right then? they always want to blame biden for everything, like the deficit. biden giving away all this money. who giveaway those checks. it was -- who gave away those checks? it was trump. to the young black people in

this country, i just turned 72 years old. y'all better wake up. these republicans don't care nothing about you. if you keep looking at pocketbook issues, the republicans are doing everything they can to take away the black vote. you sit on the sideline and don't work if you want to. you let the republicans back in here you will wish you had voted different. we need to wake up. all of us, not just whites and blacks. people, listen to what republicans say and watch what they do. host: jonathan and minneapolis, minnesota on the independent line. go ahead, jonathan. caller: good morning and happy holidays to you. i just want to say i am enjoying listening to the conversation. some people need to not be drinking at 8:00 in the morning. some of the conversation is very unintelligent. with that being said, i'm calling about why we are here

and what were doing -- we are doing in this election cycle. we are here because we have the lesser of two evils yet again to vote for. i am tired of voting for people over the age of 80, 75, whatever. no offense to over 75. i just think it is time to the younger generation to get it together. i don't know what we can do to make this country and this world a better place. at this point in time i just feel things have gone off the rails. it really is sad to me that we have a person in office now that has dementia. we have a crazy person that wants to be president. i don't know what can be done to fix the problem. with that being said we need to

take a deep breath for the holiday season, stopping being rude to each other at the grocery store, stop running around and having protests at malls. it really is disconcerting to me. if we all can't treat each other with kindness and respect, how do we get things done for the country and the world? just think about that. host: next up is philip in michigan on the democratic line. go ahead, philip. caller: hi. trying to help the guy who cannot get the cap off the milk jug. we need a tencent refund on fruit, orange juice and milk jugs. we need to take the plastic label on the jug and move it to the cap and glue the label to the cap so it is around. host: did you have a comment on policy or political issues of the day? caller: i'm trying to get people to recycle their milk jugs.

if congressman can put a $.10 refund on the milk jugs, they will -- you can get the cap off easily. remove the label from the jug. the jugs will be completely 100% recyclable. all you have to do is rinse it out three times, dry it, take it to the store and put it a machine that will be outside. you will get a receipt. host: speaking of environment issues, i want to bring in some news from the cop 28 conference. the climate summit, the u.n. climate summit happening right now and divide. earlier this -- in dubai. vice president harris representing the united states announced new financial commitments for climate aid to poor countries. [video] >> locally the united states as a leader in the effort to expand international climate finance. this year alone we have

increased our contributions to over $9.5 billion, which puts us on track to reach president biden's ambitious $11 billion goal by 2024. today i'm also proud to announce a new $3 billion pledge to the green climate fund which helps developing countries invest in resilience, clean energy and nature-based solutions. today we are demonstrating through action how the world can and must meet this crisis. this is a pivotal moment. our actions collectively, or worse are inaction will impact billions of people for decades to come. for as much as we have accomplished, there is still so much more work to do. continued progress will not be

possible without a fight. host: that is that the cop 28 summit in the united arab emirates from early this morning. next up was go to velma in ashland, kentucky on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to speak in support of the lady sing every thing is not trump's friend. she is absolutely right. -- not trump's fault. the biden administration, the way they are being so careful with iran, they are trying to give them $10 billion. what are they going to do with that money? use it against israel and against us. i think biden and his administration are either afraid, don't know what to do, and they think by being nice to them they will not turn on us or something, which is ridiculous. as for everything being trump's

fault, he's not a nice person but he did try to do some great things for our country. he tried to give us more security. you don't have border security, you don't have security. especially with what happened in israel. by the grace of god there is a giant arm that supports israel and that is the u.s. their enemies are our enemies and they certainly want to break that arm. more than ever the border -- they can just walk right in it. so i am in support of israel. i pray for our country. i do recycle. thank you for taking my call. host: velma and others mentioned former president donald trump. later today, trump will begin anthony, iowa for a campaign event. we will carry that live at 1:30 p.m. eastern on c-span and c-span now, our free mobile video app or online at

c-span.org. comi unext on washington journal we will be having new york times national politics reporter astead herndon join us to discuss his podcast “the run-up," and campaign 2024. we will be right back. ♪ >> live sunday on in-depth, author and uc berkeley law professor john yu takes calls about the u.s. supreme court in support of president of power of the bush and trump administrations and more. it includes crisis in command, defender and chief: donald trump's fight for presidential power, and the play to the supreme court. -- politically incorrect guide to the supreme court. join us. in depth live sunday at noon

eastern on book tv on c-span2. >> next week on the c-span networks congress returns with the house debating several bills on car admissions and student loans. the senate continues work on judicial and executive nominations. on tuesday, fbi director christopher wray testifies before the senate judiciary committee on oversight. also on tuesday, university presidents testify and confronting anti-semitism on college campuses before the house education and workforce commte witnesses include dr. claudine gaye of harvard university, liz mcgill of the university of pennsylvania, and dr. sally corn blues, president of massachusetts institute of technology. bank ceos from wells fargo, bank of america, j.p. morgan chase and goldman sachs will be among financial institution leaders testifying before the senate banking committee focusing on industry oversight.

watch next week live on the c-span networks or on c-span now, our free mobile video app. head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video live or on-demand anytime. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker play c-span radio and listen to washington journal daily at 7:00 a.m. eastern. important congressional hearings and other public affairs events throughout the day. weekdays at 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. eastern, catch washington today for a fast-paced report of the stories of the day. listen to c-span any time. just tell your smart speaker to play c-span radio. c-span, powered by cable. >> healthy democracy does not look like this. it looks like this. where americans can see democracy work, where citizens

are truly informed our public drives. get informed straight from the source on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capital to wherever you are. to get the opinion that matters the most, your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: welcome back. we are joined by now astead herndon, the host of “the run-up" podcast. a national politics reporter. welcome to the program. guest: i appreciate being here. host: tell us about “the run-up" , what it's about, and who you talk to you for your episodes. guest: we are a podcast about the 2024 election. is started before the 2022 midterms.

we tried to come at it from a grassroots perspective, prioritizing the people who make up part of our country and where their voices are and then filling in the gaps over washington and the parties might not see it. that started before the midterms with a question of how do we get here and a country that was torn between an election denial right wing and also a left-wing that was not a motivating a lot of the base. we continued that theme even after the midterms. earlier this year we had a season focused on talking to political insiders about the prospects of a trump versus biden rematch. in the last few weeks we have started every week until the election laying out mistakes -- the stakes of what 2024 can look like. we went to washington at the beginning four weeks ago. we tried to do other things.

we talked to the biden campaign about how it sees its path going forward. we have tried to do something focused on democrats. we had an interview with vice president harris and a focus group of black voters to ask the question if they are souring from the democratic party. are episode yesterday focused on the timeline of donald trump's trials. is donald trump going to prison before election day? that is what we try to do come up put some questions that are hard to understand about the election and acceptable language. we try to have some fun while doing it. host: without giving away the podcast entirely, for the most recent episode, is donald trump likely to go to jail before the election? guest: it's funny. i had an open question. i have followed the trials but not as closely as others.

i spent time talking to reporters who covered the criminal cases and had a physical calendar in front of me to mark down where the trials what overlap with the political calendar. what became clear when we talked to reporters is the federal case scheduled to start in march, the january 6 trial brought by jack smith is the one to watch. that one could be on a public trial for two to three months. the reporters said experts, even the trump campaign basically expect to be convicted in that trial. the real question was whether it was going to happen before or after the republican nominating convention in june were donald trump continues to be the front runner to get the nomination. that was the real question. when you talk to reporters and when you talk to maggie haberman who covers the campaign, they were in agreement. inside trump world and the legal experts expect him to be convicted in that case by the

time but next summer. there's an open question about timeline and sentencing. that could affect things. we should see how it plays out. it's important for us to have an expectation for next year that makes clear the republican party is coalescing around someone now whose legal troubles are overwhelming. that will really i think have a legal and political reality collide next year in a unique way that puts us into unprecedented territory. the short answer is yes, there is a great likelihood donald trump is someone who could be convicted before election day. the question of where that puts us, how does that affect the election, nobody knows. host: you mentioned that you are in washington state for your first episode. can you talk about why you went there and what you learned? guest: it's because of this fun fact there is only one county in america that the way they have voted has matched up the way the country has voted every single

presidential cycle dating back to 1980. it is this county on the northwest tip of washington state. it is where the twilight series was set in forks, washington. it was a random fact. we decided to post up in a diner for a day and use this county as a mood indicator for what we are seeing in the next year. i think we were trying to have some fun with it but we also did come away with some take aways. this is a country that is shocked to be back in the same place where it looks like biden and trump are the likely nominees again. that was the first thing that stuck out. the other was an understanding that biden has a pitch he can make to swing independent voters and democrats were successful in an the 2022 midterms. that is something that resonates and they feel good about their ability to persuade people who are open to those ideas. that thing that is difficult from the democratic side is

whether they are motivating the base voters. we still see huge drop in young people, in black turnout, and working-class people of color. this is where it is alarming democrats and that came up while we were there. part of our premise was to ask the kind of gimmicky questions the place can tell you might win the election, but really to try to see how the country is feeling heading into the election season. that was a sense of anxiety and overwhelming dread. that is true as we traveled everywhere else, too. host: we want to hear your thoughts and questions on the 2024 race. the republican line is (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you would like to text us, the number is (202) 748-8003. you mentioned something we heard a couple of times this morning.

it seems almost every time the race is discussed, a lot of voter dissatisfaction with the candidates available. people told you they want more candidates to choose from but there are several others running in addition to biden and trump. what does more candidates to choose from really mean when you talk to people? guest: that's a great question. when you talk about democrats, you have people express a desire to have more options. that is something they cannot impose on the system. the biden campaign is part of the reporting we did in a concerted effort to make sure they cleared the field and people who could be seen as credible democratic opponents to biden ended up not getting in the race. that was largely because of this success the democrats had in the 2022 midterms and the feeling that biden has been a legislatively accomplished president. they tried to make sure there were names people expect dipping

their toes into the race. it has to be someone that is more unknown like dean phillips or someone else who would have a greater name recognition hurdle to challenge joe biden. the other thing the biden campaign said is important as they switched the order of states that would vote ahead of the 2024 presidential primary. one think we reported on at the beginning of the year was after the midterms democrats filing in south carolina and moved iowa behind. that was something that was controversial but not really spoken out loud. they were saying they were doing it because of representation, putting black voters first. bunting went to the dnc winter meeting people were explicit. the president asked them to. this was south carolina that was estate more favorable to president biden then maybe iowa or new hampshire. they were a couple of maneuvers the campaign made to make sure they were the ones who were

setting themselves up to be the nominee in a smooth process. on the republican front it's different. there are other candidates in the race. when you talk to independent or swing voters there is a sense these are republican candidates that represent a pac. with inc. about nikki haley and donald trump, those are people that are more of that antiestablishment or establishment way we have seen that dichotomy play out in the party for years. there is a desire to have fresh faces. people who speak to a different ideological divide. maybe people who lean more towards a question of inspiration then we have seen from these candidates. that desire is expressed by voters but we should be clear. when you put new names in front of voters, whether it is dean phillips or chris christie or ron desantis, they are not flocking to them. while there is a desire for newness and a dissatisfaction for the candidates, there has not been a flock to other

candidates who have challenged them. that's partially because the leading candidates have made sure maybe the people who would be most threatening to them did not get in the race. it created a situation for a lot of voters looking at the options in front of them and sank this is reflective of a political system and two host: marilyn is in illinois on our democratic line. go ahead. caller: yes. i just wanted to state what i believe is the elephant in the room, pun intended. i think that republicans are so worried -- they are not worried about joe biden's age, they are not worried about his policies. they are worried that he will pass away while in office and kamala harris will become our first woman president. no one is saying anything about that, but i think they are terrified that happen.

it is such a shame, because she would make a wonderful president. i am just ashamed of people who think that because she is a black woman, that she should not be the first woman president. i have heard it said, but i am the first one that i know of that wants to know what this young man thinks about that. thank you. guest: that is an interesting point. for a lot of republicans, there is a real argument they are making debbie vote for biden is a vote for president harris. they are trying to use that as a scare tactic for some. i think that is because there are concerns among republicans, independents and democrats that harris is not positioned herself as someone who can become the leader of a party to galvanize the country. the biden campaign knows it has an issue on that front. vice president harris was featured 13 times in the reelection announcement videos. that was intentional to make sure that she is someone who is

seen as prioritized. i recently reported a cover story, a profile of vice president harris for the new york times magazine. one of the things i found was the campaign is seeing her on a couple of fronts. as an ambassador to young people on issues like gun control, and ambassador to women on issues like abortion rights, and ambassador for people of color to bring them back because that is where biden is seeing some of his weakest numbers. they want to see her as a person who cannot sure up his weakest points in terms of the democratic base, but we have not seen her motivate those groups of people. it was her own presidential campaign, she was not necessarily creating connection with those groups and had to wind up dropping out before iowa. harris is a big question mark for next year. there is going to be a lot of attention on her, specifically because of the issue of biden's age. i think we are going to have a

clear runway to see if she can turn around some of that perception. the biden campaigns view, she should be the standardbearer of a top circuit for that agenda and have democrats excited about the prospect of her as may be someone who is next in line. i think it is a complicated issue, because it is not necessarily that the biden campaign shows her other than the idea that she would be -- under the idea that she would be the next president. i did talk to the white house. they did say this is a governing partner, not necessarily setting up the next leader of the party. that is a lot of the way voters see that role. it is up to the campaign and vice president harris to make folks feel excited about that. host: speaking of vice president harris, she is at the cop 28 conference in dubai, the u.n. climate conference where she, along with the biden administration, announced a new epa rule on methane release from oil wells that will require

stepped-up inspections and repairs and -- this is for methane emissions in the oil and gas sectors, mandates -- reading from bloomberg here, i bring this up because we have this comment from garrett in michigan who says, ok, the methane deal gets biden my vote but it should happen way earli tn 2038. by then, we will be knee-deep in calamity. i wonder how much the climate issue is playing 2024 race, especially for democrats. guest: it is the one the biden administration feels good about, they feel the investment they have made in terms of climate protection and the inflation reduction act is when they are proud of. it is not necessarily one that has been touted because the name of that bill was not about climate, but they are trying to make that connect for people, to make a real case to say this has

been an administration that has done more bold climate action then democratic administrations in the past. when we think of the political impacts of climate, you are often of younger voters looking toward the future. that is a huge struggle for biden. when you look at his numbers for both under 45 -- four voters number number 45 -- four voters under the five, one of the ways the biden campaign succeeded with bringing in young voters not with them in the primary. that happened because of promises they made, but that happened because they laid out the stakes and emergency of the election that they needed to remove donald trump whether he likes joe biden or not, that was a worthy goal. they are going to have to make a similar stakes argument this time around because you are not seeing the same group of young people motivated by the actions that biden took in office. they are going to try to say they have made investments on that front, but to the recent

announcement at the cop conference, i think this is the tension that plays with the administration because they can make these type of epa rules, regulatory announcements, but for a lot of others, they are looking for bold legislation and investment. it is things like the ira building on that and making that case to connect that with the groups of people who are not necessarily excited about them right now. i was recently at a conference with young folks. you could see the palpable willingness to say, hey, i am sitting this election up this time around. those are groups of people who felt motivated in 2020 out of the emergency of getting trump out of office. biden has to make that same stakes argument. for those voters, he needs them to come back. host: got lots of callers waiting to chat with you. let's go to joseph in fayetteville, north carolina on our independent line. caller: good morning.

i had to stand in line four hours in 2020 two vote. that is not going to happen in 2024. i grew up in chicago. i have seen a lot of dirty tricks. there was a guy named dawson, you cannot work in city or fake government whether you were republican or democrat unless you donated money to the machine. i do not see this as two parties. i see them as a bunch of people who want to stay in power no matter what. host: joseph, are you saying you will not be waiting in line to vote again because you are not planning to vote, or something has changed in your area? caller: something has changed in my area. i am unemployed now. i am going to wait until the polls easier to get to on election day. i am not going to vote early. i do not have to worry about my job anymore. i'm not going to stand in line no four hours to vote for anybody. host: this gets to something you were talking about, the energy

and what people are willing to do this time around versus the last time. guest: yeah, i think this is reflective of when we talk to people across the country. they talk about being less invested in politics than they were four years ago, less motivated to argue with their neighbors or feel that since i've identity people felt around politics, particularly in the trump era. some of that anecdotally feels like a pandemic has changed people's priorities or things have changed in people's lives. i do not think you see the same level of motivation around politics going into next year as it consumed our lives from 2016 to 2020. that level of the doozy as a meant dissatisfaction with the system, i do not think we can be too prescriptive on knowing where that goes. it can change a lot. maybe it causes for people to not vote, be were interested in third-party candidates, to push back against the system altogether. but, i think that the satisfaction level that checked

out with is so high that it should be a factor of what we are looking at next year. it is not just about who is going to get more votes between a democratic candidate or a republican candidate, but what is the country going to do with a system being challenged and one that i do not think for a lot of people they have lost faith in. host: patrick in cleveland, li to ask why the vast, i would majority of the corporate media outle woing so har to get either trumpden ted d in my opinion, working so hard to stifle demoacy. is it because both democrat and republican parties are working to make the rich richer? guest: i would say from what we try to do as a write up at the times, i do not think -- what i have found is that the parties themselves are invested in a

trump-biden rematch. on the democratic side, we had a clear articulation that would -- you had democrats basically say to us that they feel that if donald trump was on the other site, that makes them win. they had no problem frankly with trump coming back, because they thought that made joe biden to -- more likely to win reelection. on the republican side, they are a rock and a hard place. there is a plurality of trump support within the party they cannot get rid of. there is no republican nominee who can win without trump's supporters. although they are not the entirety of the party, they are enough of the party where they have to be differential, particularly the activist side. i would say if there is anything i have found in this year, it has not been the corporate media or the run up of what we try to do, really saying that these are

the two options. i have found it is the parties themselves who are invested in this rematch, partially because donald trump -- joe biden might be the only person donald trump can beat, and donald trump might be the only person joe biden can beat. there is a shared state between these two candidates that i think the listener is picking up on. i would point that to a party, not necessarily a media thing. even though i would say, there are some outlets i think have been a great just in -- have been egregious. my biggest difficulty is how much i find the parties to be invested in this. host: gilbert is in north carolina on our republican mine. caller: yes, two questions. one is regarding the study when you went to the small town in washington state where that got it right in the elections, your comments regarding that and you

setting up a tent over there was more round biden and peoples dissatisfaction with him and the young people not voting. trump in that conversation, whether people there liked trump, when we had low gas places -- gas prices, low-inflation, the stock market was good, low crime. i did not hear anything about that. if you could just that, that would be good. number two, you had mentioned in your sources that likely of a conviction in the jack smith trial for trump coming into the summer. what those sources are, there is counter arguments whether he will become convicted or not. also, the last thing is the polls, a lot of polls show that trump was leaving biden now. that is among republicans and democrats. so, if you could talk a little

bit about that and focus a little more on this conversation about trump, as well. all i am hearing is the biden lovefest. thanks. guest: [laughter] i would say to your last point, yes, donald trump could beat joe biden. i think that is true. polarization is such in this country i think they will get to election day and feel 50-50 just as in presidential elections in the past. i think it is part of what we are striving -- there is a believe that donald trump was unelectable and nothing shows that, even guidance for donald trump is shown to be unelectable. yes, we talk to supporters there. we talked to trump reporters -- voters there. voting for trump in 2016, voted

for biden in 2020, people we talked to when we were there had very much soured on donald trump . had very much saw there was too much baggage, have thought january 6 would disqualify him. everyone we talked to, even trump supporters themselves, were confident that county would vote for joe biden in 2024. that is the pitch democrats have been able to make to swing independent voters. it was true among republicans we talked to their. they could feel the county moving away from trump, to the point about convictions -- i would not say these are secret sources here. i was talking to the people who had covered every single one of the federal trials that have happened since -- that seen, the apartment of justice try these. i think alan told me the person who covers this, the federal government has a 99% conviction rate in these cases. yes. so, the idea that donald trump is likely to be convicted is not because of some secret understanding of those sources,

it is because of the way these cases have now gone consistently. when we are thinking about next year, i would also say this is not me imposing that, this is what the trump campaign thinks. they are actually planning for -- to get to next summer and have a trial that could possibly result in a conviction. when we were talking to some campaign reporters, the trump campaign is not particularly scared about this idea because they think the increased media attention helps make them the nominee for the republican. i would say that to answer the question, i believe there is a high likelihood that donald trump could be convicted by next summer, but that is not because of my feelings. that is because that is a fact of everyone's coverage. host: next up is ron in west chesterfield, new hampshire. on our democratic line. go ahead. caller: thank you, washington

journal, for having me on. i have a few comments i would like to make one is about the democratic party, the dnc right now. i am getting sick and tired of them putting their finger on the scale for certain people. they did against bernie sanders last time. they will not have a lot of the news outlets, they will not have jfk junior on. i understand that he is not a democrat, but he is a very viable, presidential nominee. he should be heard. this is a very important election. as far as the republicans are concerned, they can't govern right now at all. they are really ridiculous. donald trump is incredibly ridiculous. donald trump has shown us who he is. it is not the democrats that are

throwing him under the bus, it is his own flying monkeys. it is his own swamp that he brought to washington, d.c. that is throwing him under the bus right now. deservingly so. anybody that -- the evangelical christians, gosh, what a bunch of hypocrites. host: do you have a question for astead? caller: i wanted to let everybody know that i am not too happy with the democratic party, because they continue to put their finger on the scales for people and these news media outlets will not have viable candidates on like jfk junior to talk about, like the democratic news outlets will not. the republican outlets will. host: let's give astead a chance to respond to some of those points. guest: i think you are correct. when you talk about the d&c, they are a political arm that is in control, that is controlled

by the president. they see their job as to support the leader of the party, which is the president. they make no secret that they are making decisions with joe biden's interest in mind. increasingly -- i increasingly think the public could be unsatisfied with that. you mentioned in 2016 bernie sanders, there was dissatisfaction with that. in 2024, we could be careening towards similar types of tension. what they have done this year is to prepare the way for joe biden to be the nominee and to do so, to discourage others. you know, some would say that is undemocratic, but they would say that is them doing their jobs and that job is to be a political support for the president. they make no secret of that. host: tara is in massachusetts on our independent line. can you turn down the volume on your tv, cara? caller: hi.

i think to consider the sources. this man is from the new york times, we are getting a one-sided picture of any kind of debate. from the harry reid type of politics that says, say anything and something will stick, even if it is untrue. so, he keeps on talking very quickly about pushing a democratic -- which was very corrupt and one-sided, and it is still doing the same thing. it is not aching for an even playing field. host: which of the points that astead has made you think are untrue? caller: they elected here to be a vice president because war he would never do another term. the only thing she had going for her was the fact that she was a woman and a woman of color. now, they are coming in push comes to shove and saying she is

not presidential material so you cannot vote for a runner-up due to nh discover nation. -- due to age discrimination. host: let's let astead respond to some of those points. guest: i think that we work really hard. specifically on our podcast to make sure that every side is represented. i will say this slowly, since i have been talking too fast. we have had a live republicans on our show. we have had ronald mcdaniel, we have had kellyanne conway. we have also had democrats from kamala harris two top leaders to

the biden campaign. i think that i take theories seriously the idea of hearing from both -- i take very seriously the idea of hearing for both sides and i would say, if you listen to our work, that will come through. host: you were shaking your head when she mentioned the point about during the 2020 race, harris being selected was the idea that biden was only going to do one term. guest: i was only saying joe biden did not make that promise. he did not promise to serve one term. i think he signaled he could be a bridge to a new generation. for a lot of people, they took that to mean he was going to serve one term. biden never promised that. having done the reported, their decision to put harris on the ticket was impacted by her identity. they wanted someone who represented a new generation, who was a black woman, but they were not setting her up to be

the next president. joe biden always wanted to run for two terms. all i would say is, he did not promise to serve one term. he signaled that that would be a possibility at a point when it was politically advantageous for him, but he never committed to that. host: next up is bob in raleigh, north carolina on our democratic line. caller: astead, the elephant in the room that you are not talking about or anybody else is, is gaza. the young democrats are furious at the biden administration over gaza. it is even some of the antiwar republicans. it is making them frustrated, as well. i think that you are going to have to address that one way or the other, because biden is getting the majority of the pushback on gaza. one piece of trivia before i hang up. ronald mcdaniel, the head of the

are in c, is -- rnc, is mitt romney's niece. [laughter] host: let's let astead respond to the point about gaza. guest: it is true. it is where a lot of the anger from young people are coming right now and continues to be a pressure point for the biden administration. what i can say to that is -- when i asked him about this a couple of weeks ago, basically, their response was,, next year, we do not think that will be the top priority for people. i do not think that they would not disagree that is where they are taking a lot of heat right now, but they believe once the alternative between them and a republican nominee happens, they think other things will be a higher priority. i have not seen american voters prioritize foreign policy and

nondomestic concerns in their voting decisions, but i do not things that -- but i do not think next year that will not be a bigger deal. from the biden perspective as someone who asked him that question, they think other things are going to out that come election day. host: next up is lonnie in south dakota on our republican mine. caller: yes, good morning. i am a disabled vet in vietnam. maybe we ought to start to draft again and they will respect our country now. host: who is they? ken turned on your volume on your tv a bit? caller: these college students, maybe we should make it like israel and make it so they all got to serve. maybe they would know what it is really about. host: ok. any response to that caller? guest: [laughter] no, i think a draft would be politically unpopular. good luck to the person who tries to install it. host: next up is rachel in

forney, texas on our independent line. caller: yes, i believe we ought to bring the truth doctrine back in so that news medias responsible for information to the viewers. another thing, i hear people calling in saying we ought to be nice to each other. eyewitness -- i witnessed myself trump telling a lady during the covid briefing, it is a good thing she is pretty because she was too stupid to be a reporter. i heard him telling people that the covid when it first came out, it was a democratic hoax. they talk about biden not being very bright. this man said that we want the revolution war with airplanes, that if you are watching tv and you got a windmill and the wind is not blowing, you can't watch

tv. the day of the election in 2020, trump was behind five points. that was false news post. now, these people are claiming it was a fraud election. but, you know what? murdoch has something to do with the truth doctrine being taken out and he is the biggest lying news media. they never talk about the electoral votes. host: rachel, let me get astead to respond more generally to this idea of how the news media covers trump and how do you think it may or may not be different this time compared to the last election. guest: i can say i thing i share people's frustrations with how in 2016, there was a responsible coverage. i think donald trump should have been taken more seriously, and not taken as a joke.

it lectured over regular people coming to him and i think for a lot of media, there was not an understanding about the republican base at that time to taken seriously. since the 2016, to make sure my work is focused on bottom-up and to make sure that i am not only taking with the party is saying, what politicians say, but also talking to people and noticing transient trying to find where there's gaps are. i think this times around, there is going to be -- i think there has already been more responsible coverage about trump. folks are not covering every rally or televising every event in the same way. i think what is going to be the real test is when that public trial happens next year. i do not know how that is going to impact with coverage of the campaign, but the legal and political are going to be marriage. for donald trump, he is going to bring the campaign trail to the courthouse. i think that is going to be a meet -- a real media challenge

to understand the stakes and legal reality he is facing, but also to make clear the political reality at the same time. i think we have a responsibility to do both and i think good, political journalism can help people understand what might happen, but it is not only fully focused on the horse race. it makes clear the policy stakes of an election. i think we have to do both at the same time. host: i think we have time for one more caller. jeanette is in oregon on the democratic line. caller: yes, hello. i just wanted to say it is really frustrating to me when i hear these republicans talk about, oh, how great things were when trump was in office. well, when trump first got to office, he was totally riding on obama's coattails and all the good things obama did. and then came covid. we all know all he did was lie about it while million people died in this country.

he was telling people, do not worry about math. you do not have to worry about anything. oh, we should not have shut down schools. he told his people they did not have to worry about covid while they died. he did not do good in office. hillary should have been there. i am almost convinced he cheated in some way, but it was never looked into. really, all we can do going forward is vote for the person who tells the truth. the person who is honest, despite his age, and not for the big liar. host: astead, any final thoughts either for that collar or in general before we let you go? guest: no. i appreciate everyone calling in and i appreciate the opportunity to talk about the podcast. i will repeat what i said earlier, this is a show that takes the premise of what washington journal does well

seriously, hearing from people and putting that into context. i would advise you to check out the run-up. i appreciate the calls because i think elections are about everyone else, it is not about the insiders, it is about how everyone feels about them. i appreciate everyone's time. host: astead herndon is a politics reporter for the new york times and host of the podcast, the run-up. later today, former president um is going to be in iowa for a campaign event where we are going to be covering that live at 1:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, our free mobile video app or online at c-span.org. that is it for "washington journal" today. thank you to everyone who called in. you can tune in again tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern for another edition of "washington journal." have a great day. ♪

>> c-span's washington journal, a live form involving you discussing the latest issues in government, politics and public policy from washington, d.c. and across the country. sunday morning, we discussed campaign 2024 and the news of the day with the editor of the new republic and a columnist and president of the center for urban renewal and education. c-span's washington journal, join in the conversation live at 7:00 eastern sunday morning on c-span, c-span now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org. >> today, former president

doldrump is in iowa for a campaign event. watch live at 1:30 p.m. easte on c-span, c-span now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-rg. the u.s. house is back on monday at noon eastern. lawmakers will consider legislation later in the week to require colleges universities to rep to the education dent any gifts of at l50,000 from all foreign donors. members will also vote to block th epa's rule raising tailpipe emissi standards. the senate returns monday at 3 p.m. eastern. senators will consider several executive and judicial nominations, includingzabeth richards to be the state partment's counterterrorism coordinator. they are also expected take up legislation to provide emergency aid to , ukraine and taiwan. wave coverage of the house on c-span, the senate on c-span and a reminder you can watch our coverage on c-span now