♪ host: this is "washington

journal" for sunday, july 28. to start today's program, we want to hear from women only. is the country ready for a female president? if you say yes, (202) 748-8000. no, (202) 748-8001. if you are unsure, (202) 748-8002. if you would like to text us, you can do so at (202) 748-8003. be sure to include your name and city. you can also post a question or comment on facebook at facebook.com/cspan or on x at @cspanwj. the november election is 100 days away today and come as i said, vice president kamala harris could become the democratic nominee as early as this week. according to the associated press, vice president kamala

harris has secure the support of enough democratic delegates to become her party's nominee against republican donald trump according to an associated press survey. top democrats rallied to her in the aftermath of president joe biden's decision to drop his reelection bid. it marked an attempt by the party to put weeks of drama over political -- biden's political future behind them and unify over the task of defeating trump. democratic elected officials, party leaders, and political organizations quickly lined up behind harris in the days after biden's exit from the race and her campaign set a new 24 hour record for presidential donations. vice president kamala harris does not have the official nomination yet. that could come as early as this week and today be want to ask our female viewers if the

country is ready for a field president. again, here is a line. if you say yes, (202) 748-8000. no, (202) 748-8001. if you're unsure, (202) 748-8002 . we will get your questions and calls in just a few minutes. first, yesterday's on the program we had jennifer wallace, a political professor at the university of virginia who has studied women in political campaigns. she was on the program. here's what she had to say about women and the challenges they face in politics. >> the biggest barrier is getting in and the first place. women and men are similarly situated and have the same income are not equally likely to consider themselves qualified to run for office and are not equally likely to be recruited run for office. right off the bat, women even in

these top tears a professional compliment faced its vantage and the idea of -- face a disadvantage and the idea of running is less likely to occur to them. once they throw their hats in the ring got there does not seem to be much difference. there are a few things that remain optimal for female candidates. the first is when male and female candidates confront each other in person, for example on a debate stage, there are still gender dynamics that make it more difficult for women. men have to avoid bullying a woman. voters generally do not like the way that looks. but female candidates who demonstrate they are strong enough to be bullied -- that is a difficult needle to thread. there are a group of voters out there who still hold sexist attitudes. in national surveys, 20% of voters do not think politics is an appropriate realm for women. they think women have unfairly pushed ahead in the business profession. they generally do not think

women are emotionally suited to hold office. the overwhelming majority of those voters are republicans, which means in this case it is not really going to matter much because they are not going to cast a ballot for a democrat anyway. they would not have voted for joe biden like they are not going to vote for kamala harris. there are some voters will need to be convinced that she is a strong leader with a high level of integrity. they are a small sliver of the electorate. host: let's hear from carla in illinois. caller: good morning. i say no because we were not ready for hillary clinton and we are definitely not ready for kamala harris. in this day and age, i do not think a woman is strong enough

right now, especially kamala harris. she is like joe. she is kind of weak. she does not have backbone. i would rather see somebody even like hillary clinton but hillary clinton at least had backbone. but. host: also in illinois on the yes line, good morning. caller: i do believe the united states is ready for a female president. kamala harris was a prosecutor from california. she was a senator. now vice president, so she has all of the experience and professionalism and with hillary clinton -- i love hillary clinton. she was overqualified to be president and how she conducted herself, she was a senator. she was a secretary of state.

all of the experience. i believe the united states is ready for a female president because they can conduct themselves just like men. yes, they can. with poison personalities and professionalism. exactly -- poise, personalities, and professionalism. exactly. i will be voting for kamala harris. when hillary clinton ran, i voted for her. she was very smart. that is my comment. enjoy your morning and thank you for taking my call. host: barbara in ohio also says yes. caller: what can i say? i cannot agree with the previous call or -- previous caller anymore than i can. i am so ready for a -- president. host: is it the vice president

in particular or would any woman running for office get your vote? caller: experience counts. qualification counts. issues count. host: that was barbara. teresa in oklahoma on the yes line, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say when i lived in the state of california, kamala harris, when she was running for senator, helped a friend out. -- helped a friend of mine issue something that we could not get done. when we met with her, i can tell you that the eyes are the window to the soul. she listened. she looks you in the i.

-- in the eye with great compassion and caring and she is extremely smart. and i believe there is a lot of sexism and misogyny in this country and it is something we must overcome but i think we are doing it. i just love her. and i think she would make the most wonderful president. that is it. host: we are hearing from women this morning, asking him a is the country ready for a female president? you can also text or tweet a comment in. we have a few people on facebook commenting. vicki says, yes. ito be one whos good for

the country. kas not. diane purvis says itothing to do with gender. the country is tired by the master of dystopia. we want to l ahead to a good future with happiness and an honesth to pto solutions for problems we want someone -- we do not want somne shouting about how bad this country is but how good it could be. we want to make america smile again. that is what kamala harris represents. it has nothing to do with being female or age. and one more, saying, of course. it is 2024 and it needs to be asked? let's hear from debby in michigan on the yes line. good morning. caller: i recently changed my mind on this issue.

my best friend, who is a generation younger than me, she convinced me we are ready for a fema president. i do not want to wish this on kamala, that they would put her through what they put hillary through. nothing is worth that. they try to ruin these people's lives. to the lady that said she is ready for a female president but not kamala, i think she is a great pick. anybody calling her stupid has not the qualifications that she has. as people when they call her stupid, how many law degrees do you have? how many other positions do you have? host: you said that you recently changed your mind and are in support of having a female as president. other than the vetting process and what candidates go through and it comes to campaigns, do

you have any other concerns? caller: in 2016 when hillary was running, i had 22 who were excited. all my sisters were excited. those kids got out and worked the phones. they were -- they cried the night that she lost but now these kids are all eight years older. and not only have they consolidated their position on this, they have brought their schoolmates, the young men come along with them. it takes me back to the 1970's. feminists were trying to figure out what we needed to do to make people more open-minded and have it be more equal. you know what the number one thing was? we raised our sons to be open-minded and treat women with respect and equality. i think that has happened.

these young men do not think like the men of my generation do. they just do not. for that, i will be eternally grateful. >> beverly in florida says no. caller: women are wonderful. females are wonderful. for kamala for president, no. she does not have qualifications for the policies the need to be done. >> if it were not kamala, if there were somebody else, another female running, would you support them? caller: at this time, it is kamala who is running. if there was another qualified woman, so be it is kamala running. as a female, she is not qualified. you are not going to vote for a

woman that no one wanted. host: are you still there? go ahead. beverly cut you dropped out. do you have any other comments? caller: i am just saying not kamala. another woman, yes. another female, yes. not kamala. host: that is beverly. shelby says yes. caller: yes. it is past time for a woman president and kamala has a lot more credentials, experience, then trump. trump to me, i would never vote for him.

i never voted for him anyway. i never would because of the first debate in 2016, the ugly things he said over the years. he flip flops. he is a liar. he is a self lover. i believe in my heart he has problems upstairs and he is also 70 years old. who knows what may happen to him? in later years. he is scary. and he is not for america. he is for himself. i would rather have hope from kamala that him any day. and he still has court cases. please do not forget what all he has done and the violence in

this world. thank you. host: mary in new york on the no line. good morning. >> it is not a matter of she is a woman or a man. she is not qualified. her responsibilities at the border, she laughed about it. she has not been to europe. she does not have the qualifications. it does not matter if she is a man or woman. she simply does not have the qualifications. host: what about if it was a different female? caller: if a female has qualifications, absolutely, but you have to have the qualifications to be president of the united states. it does not matter if you are a man or a female. you have to be qualified.

you cannot just vote for somebody because they are a woman. that is not going to work out for us. we need someone that can deal with foreign policy, can deal with the border situation that is going on, and she is not qualified. host: that is mary in new york. according to an article on wavy.com, kamala harris raised -- signed up 170,000 volunteers. cbs news reports during that fundraiser pittsfield locals lined up outside the colonial theater where she -- where the fundraiser was held expressing enthusiasm over their city serving as a protagonist in the presidential race. harris's supporters held up

banners reading "girl boss," "first fema president," and "if my cat could vote, he would vote for you doc" -- you would vote for you." the references j.d. vance saying -- i do not want to go back, said a pittsfield resident. we are not going back. i grew up in the 1970's and there was misogyny. a woman's body was hers and no one should be telling her what to do with it. here is that article referenced, comments made by vice presidential republican nominee j.d. vance.

here he is in his own words in a fox interview back in 2021. >> we are effectively run in this country the other democrats by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices they have made so they want to make the rest of the country miserable. it is just a basic fact. you look at kamala harris, aoc, the entire future of the democrats controlled by people without children. how does it make any sense we have turned our country over to people who do not really have a direct stake in it? i wanted to ask that question propose maybe if we want a healthy ruling class in this country we should invest more. we should support more people who actually have kids because those are the people who have a more direct stake in the future of this country. host: barbara in cleveland, ohio on the yes line. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my

call. i think we are long overdue for a female president, just not harris for sure. i think back to margaret thatcher and how great she was in great britain. we need someone strong like her. if nikki haley was running, i would definitely vote for her. her values aligned with mine. and harris's do not appear that is for sure. host: juanita, in florida. she says no. caller: good morning. i would not vote for kamala. she is not my cup of tea. she goes against my principles. host: would you vote for a woman

in for president in general? caller: yes. just not kamala. guest: who would you like to see run? -- host: who would you like to see run? which female would you like to see run for president? caller: somebody who is strong at somebody who is good. somebody who will protect the country. somebody who can better the country because the country is going down. host: would you like to see another female other than kamala harris this year? caller: now. i do not see anybody that i would like to. host: sarah in indiana says yes. good morning, sarah. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i am fully behind kamala harris. she has a strong one.

i gave $180 to her campaign. she is going to be great and powerful. god is behind that woman and she is going to be that devil donald trump who is a liar and the father of lies, just like the devil himself. he wants to take away my social security and medicare and he is a liar. he said he would not take a penny from our social security. he is a liar. i read the 2025 agenda from the republicans and they are all liars and cheaters and they want a king and king trump and i do not want king trump. because he is awful and kamala will be the want to beat him. that is all i have to say. host: gwen in minnesota, good morning.

caller: good morning. i voted yes. i would vote yes for kamala. she just is qualified. when you have white men on tv like vance and trump calling her names, calling her a bomb, saying she is di, that is a bunch of garbage. she has more degrees than trump will ever have. she is more educated. she is knowledgeable. she knows what is going on in this country. she knows what she can get done, so it is ridiculous that people wouldn't want to give her an opportunity. i was concerned when obama ran for office. because i feared for his life. but today is different.

i believe that kamala can run. i believe she will win and that trump be on his way to jail in 2025. host: when did you vote for hillary clinton? in 2016? caller: i did because i believe women are just as capable of running this country as men are. host: a friend in arkansas says no. good morning. -- brenda in arkansas says no. good morning. caller: i said no the caveat. i would not foot for just any woman. i would vote for condoleezza rice or a serious woman. kamala harris is not a serious woman. in four years as vice president, she did nothing. if she did nothing. if she did, nobody told us about it. she went 3.5 years without

telling us our president was senile, so i have concerns about her history and her prosecution, her years as a prosecutor. i think she is not a bright woman. we do not need another not bright person in the white house. we need a thinker. we need a doer. she is a doer, but it is mostly flailing her hands and cackling. we need a serious doer like a rice. i do not think you have to have education. you have to have common sense, which i do not believe kamala harris has. yes, i would vote for a woman. no, i would not vote for kamala harris. i do not think she is serious. i think they grabbed her up at the last minute because they had to have a black woman. now he has a black woman and they do not want us to call her a black woman. i do not think she is black. i think she is indian or

jamaican. if that suits their case to get elected, so be it, but i think women are smarter than to vote for a woman because she is black or a woman. host: that is brenda in arkansas. caller: absolutely i'm excited she is running. i'm hoping we all get together and realize women rule the world , you have a lot less war. you should look up a video. once a woman wins, watch out, men. here we come. she is so qualified, from prosecutor to district attorney to attorney general to senator to vice president. who else is more qualified? donald trump was a reality tv star with no qualifications. host: are you supporting vice president kamala harris or if there was a another woman would you support her as well?

caller: of course i would support any woman running, but i support kamala because she is qualified. she is extremely smart. you cannot get to where she is without being smart. a lot people say she is not qualified but i think they are only touching the wrong news. host: sandy in ohio says no. good morning. caller: i agree with not the last woman who smoke -- spoke, but the woman before. kamala has no talent whatsoever. she put black men in jail for selling pot when she smoked it herself. she is not black. she is indian and jamaican and her own family said, we owned slaves ourselves. ok? as far as her policies go, she wants open borders forever.

that is communism. even communists do not do that, i do not think. she wants medicare for everybody. she is more left, more radical than bernie sanders. trump is a businessman. he is not untalented. he was a realtor. he builds buildings. he is not stupid like her. i would never vote for her under any circumstances. host: would you vote for another woman? caller: i have not seen anybody. if there was a market -- margaret thatcher out there, yes. hillary clinton was also a liar and a crook. the thing that she was using money, or foundation to raise money to use it for her daughter's wedding. she lied about the election.

she said he is not really the president, so anybody else that said it would get thrown in prison because we are like communists. barack obama got us down the road pretty fast to communism and that is why they want kamala. she is more radical than anybody. and if she wins this country is done for. these women that do not watch the other channels need to start really watching the other channels. newsmax, maybe fox because you are not getting the truth because those people do not tell you the truth and you believe it because that is all you watch. host: that is sandy in ohio. she mentioned immigration. that is the headline in the new york times. tina readers set aside a rocky

path on immigration policies. the article says no issues likely to be thornier on the campaign trail for vice president kamala harris that immigration. republicans are falsely painting her as president biden's failed borders are and writing ads tying her to biden administration policies that they argued have contributed to chaos at the border. in one of the most striking moments in harris's tenure as vice president, she drew swift criticism from latino elected officials and immigration rights leaders for her ash monument -- admonishment to the growing ranks of immigrants in the summer of 2021. do not come, she told him in a news conference in guatemala, where she was on a diplomatic tour. a california state lawmaker helped latino legislative caucus draft a statement in opposition to those remarks, urging her not

to discourage asylum-seekers from doing what they need to survive. three years later, now speaker of the california assembly, he endorsed harris within minutes of president biden's exit from the race. he is one of many of those same leaders who are setting aside their disputes with the white house saying harris is the far preferable to former president donald j. trump. back to your calls. let's hear from jim in columbus, ohio. he says yes. caller: i say yes. they say she is not strong. right now, donald trump is running. he is coming up with all kind of excuses. talking about trump -- they put

him in because he was a realtor. you know he ain't got common sense worth anything, but kamala is smart. that sounds like jealousy to me. i think with these people are catching on to his they will not be able to stop her. host: julie in rhode island is on the no line. caller: good morning. i think i have just about heard everybody speak what i would have spoken on about note to kamala. -- no to kamala. she has a record of thrown people in jail over minor discrencies, whatever. but the open borders is what is crushing this cotrnow. she wants to give them all free money.

free places to live, free health care. and the way they through joe biden to the curb was a disgrace. what they did to that man was a disgrace. they used him for their own benefit because every single level of corruption that you can in this country, you can kill a baby in the womb. you can do all these things and it is ok, but it is not. it is not ok. god is in charge. i do not believe kamala harris even thinks about god. she think about herself and her own pocketbook. that is my thought. host: we heard recently from vice president kamala harris herself. she spoke last week at a

sorority gathering in indianapolis about biden administration efforts and what they have done for women. here are some of her remarks. >> we believe in the future where all women and all mothers are safe. that is why as vice president i have elevated and took on the issue of maternal mortality. knowing that women in america die at a higher rate in connection with childbirth then women in any other wealthy nation in the world. and black women are three more times more likely to die in connection with childbirth. it is time that we recognize the crisis it is. when i took office, i challenged every state in our nation on this issue because i said, we

need to expand medicaid postpartum coverage from two months to a full year. i am proud to report that whereas my issue the challenge only three states offered a full year of coverage, now 46 states do. host: back to our phones. we have about 25 minutes left in this first segment. we are hearing from women this morning. is the country ready for a feel president? rae in california says yes. caller: i think the country is ready for a female president and i think kamala harris is a fantastic choice. i watched her when she was in the senate, so i was impressed with her work and her interview questions and how she would also

weigh both sides of something, but she always came down on the side of what was right and justice. i liked her questioning of joe sessions. -- of jeff sessions. i think that was superb. i like that she understands what women need. and that she is not afraid to talk about certain issues that are not popular and i think this is what we need in a leader. as opposed to just sticking to the political status quo, actually the issues that will take our country forward. we have a terrible maternal death rate. we do not have a high percentage of voters -- registered voters

who actually voting. other countries have had women leaders for decades. i think 10 xinia had a female president. it is about time we get on board and not curtail or deny our own growth. host: alex in delaware says they are not sure. good morning. caller: hello. thank you. i am unsure whether our country and electoral college is prepared to vote for a woman this year. i am confident that i will be voting for vice president

harris, november. -- vice president harris come november. i am in delaware now. i appreciate her bootstrap mentality and her work ethic. it has been demonstrated through her career, all the way back to i think high school if i understood from her resume. she was a leader in access to the outdoors. americans do not have access to the outdoors and that is devastating with survival rates and health and sanity during the pandemic and she really took a stand on that and it was outside

-- it was national headline news. that really motivated me, that she took a pragmatic approach to bipartisan stuff. just really enjoyed her. i had my own challenges with clinton and i'm excited to vote this year in a way that i was not confident as an independent. host: you said you had challenges with hillary clinton. did you all to leave it for her? caller: i did. for me, we have a winner take all election system and while i follow third-party candidates and engage in a love conversations around the dinner table with my kids cut my knees, and all the rest, and nephews,

for me -- my dad was probably the one who really -- you have two choices. so what are you thinking? and i was happy to vote for her. host: are you driving? caller: i am on my way to my father-in-law's. thank you for taking my call. host: best wishes to him and be safe. joe in west virginia is on the no line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have two things to say. i know i am on the no line. i would not vote for kamala. i would vote for a woman. i would -- i did vote for hillary. i want people who are thinking about voting for kamala and you will hear her say that she

thinks people from 18 to 24 are stupid. anybody who says that, i do not care whether you are a man or a woman, anybody who says that about 18 to 24-year-old is stupid, i would not vote for them. and i do not vote for kamala because i think she is not the right person. she lies. she does not tell the truth. that is my opinion. thank you. host: wendy in alabama on the s line. caller: i find it unique that the people who do not want to vote for kamala harris are quoting trump's words, not like -- get two pieces of paper, one yes, one no. then you have to write down the good things. you do not write down things

trump and vance have repeated because it is just like -- the republicans right now think that rape is ok, but have they spent any money to help women that have babies through rape? do they have no idea that when you have been raped and you give up your baby for adoption people do not want to adopt them, a rape child, because the possibilities of having all kinds of mental afflictions because people who rape have mental afflictions? then you have the education part of it. kamala's education would run circles around trump. do you know that trump had to pay a whole lot of money to hide his education because his daddy bought it? and now, if you look at eric

trump and donald junior, who bought their education? host: it sounds like you support vice president kamala harris. would you support any woman running for president? caller: i would investigated first. i had my issues with hillary, but can't like i did, i got two pieces of paper, one yes and one no, but you do not listen to the candidate that is downing the other person. you have to go ahead and look into what she did in college. i have never heard her say somebody was stupid. maybe trump said she said that people were stupid or maybe some of trump's people said that, but you cannot listen to what trump says. host: did you vote for hillary clinton? caller: yes.

that is because after a long situation it was like, i can deal with this. a man and men really do not understand a woman's psychic and mental. first they think that having a baby diminishes your brain. really? host: hillary clinton an interview with cnn -- she spoke after her loss to former president trump in 2016 and spoke about -- spoke to rick lee to women during her concession speech. here's a portion from november 2016. >> to all the women and especially the young women who put their faith in this campaign and in me, i want you to know that nothing has made me prouder than to be your champion.

now, i know we have still not shattered that hardest glassed ceiling -- glass ceiling, but someday someone will and hopefully sooner than we might think right now. and to all the little girls who are watching this, never doubt that your valuable and powerful and deserving of every chance and opportunity in the world to

pursue and achieve your own dreams. host: according to a report from last september, the views of having a woman as president, a majority same on president would be no different than a man in several key leadership areas. when broken down, looking at certain categories, when it comes to working out compromises , 39% say a woman would be better. 7% say worse. maintaining a respectful tone in politics, 37% said a woman would be better, honest, and ethical. 34% said better. standing up for what she believes in despite local pressure, 32% said better. and working well under pressure, 27% said a woman would be better suited than a man.

back to your calls. joan in pennsylvania says no. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. i am no to kamala. the way she waves her hands in the air and the giggling. she is not a serious person. she was made tsar, a new position, of the border, but she was never down there. i just think she is not right for the position. maybe condoleezza rice might be right for the position, but not this time. host: linda in indiana says yes. good morning. caller: good morning. my name is linda. i am from indiana and i would vote for kamala harris. what is amazing to me is for any

woman in this united states that people would vote for trump. this would be a man who has been a convicted felon, a man who has said on television that you can grab a woman by the -- and that being in hollywood they will let you do it. i am a little before here. they said trump is a businessman. he has filed bankruptcy six times. if he is a businessman, he is a failed businessman. i would vote for kamala harris. i have never heard her call anyone stupid and i do not appreciate anyone calling anybody stupid. but donald trump continues to degrade women and women continue to vote for him.

what is amazing to me is that if your father knew the man that raped you, he would try to hurt him, but these women continue to vote for a candidate who is a rapist, who is a convicted felon. i do understand it. yay for kamala harris. she has not filed bankruptcy. she has not tried to molest any man or child. i would vote for her. host: sarah in indiana says no. caller: i just want to say not this time should there be a woman in therefore -- there. we are affiliated with two wars right now and our leaders in other countries are sitting back laughing at us. another thing the border. she is supposed to be the border tsar.

play that tape laughing about she did not go to europe or whatever about the border. and she has no children. any woman that has never had children cannot be talking about kids and grandkids and all that stuff. she has never had any children. how many abortions has she had? host: sarah mentioned the foreign policy. the headline in this morning's new york times, a global reputation for steely resolve and diplomacy. the article talking about vice president kamala harris's role in foreign policy says she has represented the united states frequently during trips to europe, asia, africa, and the americas and has met with more than 150 world leaders. she has attended three munich secured conferences to meet and set the western defense agenda.

she has also become more directly involved in discussions with global leaders on conflicts in ukraine and the middle east. the article goes on to say foreign policy is a crowded field in any administration, with the secretary of state and national security advisor playing day-to-day roles. according to some officials, ms. harris did not emerge as a key point person for global leaders, so the consensus among foreign officials and diplomats is that ms. harris has a firm grip on international affairs and is an experienced politician who knows what she is doing and has a clear idea of her country's role in the world and the challenges we face, chance jeweler -- chancellor olaf scholz said. a politician spoke on the

condition of anonymity and said she could be scripted when delivering talking points but could -- would be noticeably more alive when moving away from her prepared remarks, noting that she was probably at her best when spontaneously meeting with global dignitaries. and one other note on the foreign affairs front, this headline from the associated press, an airstrike in israel killed at least 12 and threatens to spark a wider war. according to the associated press, a rocket strike at a soccer field killed at least 12 children and teens. in the deadliest strike on an israeli target along the northern border since the fighting between israel and the lebanese military group began. it raised fears of a broader regional war. israel claimed hezbollah for the

strike in the golan heights but has denied any role. the israeli prime minister warned that hezbollah will pay a heavy ice for its attack, one has -- it has not paid so far. we have a few minutes left in this first hour of today's program. we are hearing from women. roxanne in south carolina says yes. caller: i want to make a comment to the lady in indiana who made the comment about kamala harris about how many abortions has she had -- that is none of your business if she has had any abortions. and how may times have you went to foster a child or went somewhere to help a child that does not have food to eat? how many times have you done

that? getting back to the subject, i think she would make a good president. we as women, i do understand, the older i get, why we have to down other women. i see some women are intimidated because someone looks better or smarter. she is no dummy. to be in the position she was in in california, she had to have been smart. the men that she put in jail, and i am lack, she did her job. she was not supposed to give them a pass because of their caller. then you would have had something to say, but all this saying she is stupid but you women will vote for a man who has charges for touching someone back in the day, what if somebody did that to your daughter or granddaughter or female family member? if you vote for him, that is saying if something happened to

a female family member in my family i am not going to say anything because i am with trump. host: it sounds like you're supportive of vice president kamala harris and her campaign. what if it was another woman? would you support any woman? caller: if it was a democratic woman for the democrat party, yes, because i voted for hillary clinton, who was not a stupid woman. hillary was extremely smart, but these women just dogged her out and did not vote for her because they were intimidated. stopping intimidated by somebody smart. if you have an issue with it, go back to school. pick up a book. we are always dogging out women. it is not godly. host: catherine in florida says no. caller: good morning. i'm against voting for kamala

harris for the first woman president. the border czar is not protecting our women and children. i would never vote for her as our first woman president. we are smarter than kamala harris. she is not pulling the wool over our eyes. we see what you did at the border. you're a liar and an insult to the smart women in this country. we can do better. kamala is weak and will continue to nosedive this country if she is elected. i am voting for president trump because he is an honest -- the only honest president that i know of in our time. he cares about our country, is not a liar, and is not try to get rich off our country like joe biden's administration has. host: would you support a woman running on the gop ticket? caller: i would support any

woman on either side cut republican or democrat, if they are for the right thing, but kamala is not. the biden administration has done nothing but disgrace this country. host: on facebook, jennifer says, let's go. we are so far behind other first world nations in this regard. i am not just voting for her cause she is a wan but that part does ci me. and from michigan but yes, i am ready. look at how me have -- look at how things are messed up now. why not give a woman a chance to get it done? kim in iowa is on the yes line. good morning. caller: good morning. i was listening to all these callers and how they denigrate

women and they are women. that is so sad. if they do not see themselves as a president to themselves, they will not see other women as president. when men have been running this country for a long time and look where we end up at. look at where we end up at. it is time for some gender and blood and younger blood at that. kamala harris is not a czar of the border. donald trump told them do not pass the bill. joe biden and kamala harris were right there to sign it. what happened? because trump said do not sign it because i want to run on that. i want to run on destroying lives. not doing the border. the border deal was there. where you pretending -- why are

you pretending? james langford wrote a bill that had a partisan support. they wanted to send it to biden and donald trump interfered. host: let's go to cindy in connecticut on the no line. caller: i take offense to all this identity stuff. woman has nothing to do with it. it is the content of the character. she got a lot of favors in california. i am not going to mention how. willie brown bought her a mercedes. a married man carried on with her. democrats do not have the moral high ground. everybody wants to talk about donald trump and all these women. so to the kennedys. clinton dodged the draft.

it is all a bunch of hypocrisy. she -- if you cared about women, you should care about the tens of thousands of women who are ripped -- host: what if it was not harris? what if it was another politician? caller: it depends on her record. it has nothing to do with gender. host: is there a woman you would support? caller: let's have a real intellect, maybe like a condoleezza rice. i see in vision in a lot of things, i've work for women and men in my long working career working for women, and a lot of times women feel because they are women, they have something to prove, and they sometimes are

really unfairly just flaunting -- throwing their weight around because they are a woman. challenge me, i'm a woman, don't you dare challenge me. it's like that when you play identity politics. i don't like it. i would vote for a woman if she was qualified, i love chelsea gabbert, she seems genuine and humble. we need more humility in this country. i'm going to say about kamala harris, she wants to put 35% capital gains tax. she is for communism and i don't like the whole gender. host: that does it for the first hour of to program. next we are going to take a look at the role of organized labor in campaign 2024 with the heritage foundation rachel

greszler and later, alan lichtman is going to discuss his book "predicting the next president" and campaign 2024. we will be right back. ♪ announcer: this week on the c-span networks, the houses out for summer recess. the senate will vote on bipartisan children's legislation as well as traditional nominations. tuesday, the acting director of the secret service and deputy director of the fbi will testify before a senate judiciary and senate homeland and government affairs committees joint hearing, examining the security failures leading up to the

assassination attempt on former president trump. watch this week live on the c-span netrk or on c-span now, our free mobile video app. also head over to c-span or for scheduling information or to watch live or on-demand anytime. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. tonight on c-span's q&a, columnist and fox news contributor tammy bruce, author of "fear itself" argue that progressive democrats have weaponized fear to increase government control over american citizens she also contends that the mainstream media helps stoke fear with biased coverage of topics like covid, climate change and racism. >> the fear and the guilt which has been instilled in so many people, it's used to simply excuse the growth of government and the nature of control over our lives.

that it is our duty to give up to government and of course, that is a hoax, is a scam. and i hope to, and i believe i accomplished this, expose that. you can listen to q&a on our free c-span now mobile app. ♪ announcer: this book notes plus podcast is repeated from november 4, 2015. the featured guest is the author of the book "assassinations, threats and the american presidency" in which he examines attempts on the lives presidents and presidential candidate throughout history. >>'s book "assassinations,

threats and the american presidency" on this episode of book notes plus. book notes plus is available on the c-span now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. rounds at latest collection of c-span products, apparel, books, home decor and accessories. there something for every fan. but every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. washington journal continues. host: welcome back. joining us now to discuss the role of u.s. labor in campaign 2024 our rachel greszler aunt david, senior fellow at the center for american progress. welcome to both of you.

so why don't we start with just how you both see support from labor unions shaping campaign 2024 in the election. rachel, let's start with you. guest:guest: traditionally we've seen labor unions go for the democratic president for nominee and i think we are going to see even more of a shift then we saw in 2016 now because the woke -- class has supported president trump probably more than ever and we are seeing now teamsters president sean o'brien was eking there. so i think the emphasis is for workers to think about which candidate is going to be best for them and not necessarily to just the party line that is usually supported the democratic nominee. guest: this is a really interesting election for labor and union members because so far, they seem to be making a strong play for them, far

stronger than we see historically. and rachel alluded to, in 2016 there was sort of some more potential labor support for trump, but in 2020, when president biden and harris were running, more union members shifted back toward the democratic party and my interpretation is that because the policies and proposals were so strongly prolabor. the question is whether that is going to hold in 2024. host: and we did see some other unions endorsed by president -- vice president, harris this week. does the endorsement of an overall organization necessarily reflect what is going to happen at the polls when people go to vote, when union members go to vote? guest: i don't think it does.

a union can only put forward one voice, one endorsement and that doesn't necessarily represent their members most workers today are going to be looking at the policy in place. they know would like under the trump administration and the biden harris administration and they will be looking at things like what has happened to wages, what has happened to working conditions, the labor market. and when you look at that, despite the harris and biden administration having a whole of government approach toward realization, unionization percentages fallen and more importantly, the cap between union and nonunion wages has declined significantly over the last four years, we see nonunion workers wages rise by 7% more than union workers. many people are going to be voting based on what they experienced and which administration has been best for their own personal circumstances. >> and something that rachel just mentioned is that a member

of union members is shrinking. it has been happening over time. how important is the support of unions, and why does it matter? guest: union members are voters just like everyone in the general citizens, so they are important in that way. but what unions do that is different is unions help educate their members so that their members turn out to vote at much higher rates than the rest of the general public. they are also heavily located disproportionally in some of the key swing states, so there vote is really going to have a say on this election. and the last thing, this election is likely to be very close, so any group is going to be able to potentially swing it. but as we mentioned at the beginning, both parties are really making a play for union members now. that is where both parties see the path to success. i think we are going to have a

very interesting election where it is a good thing now. for a long time the republican party has ignored and actively opposed union policies. i think they are still doing that, at least rhetorically they are shifting. host: we are talking with rachel greville or -- greszler and david madland. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001 independent, (202) 748-8002. and a special line for labor union members. if you have a question or comment, you can call in on (202) 748-8003. and something you just mentioned, david, i the policies of the biden administration.

what i some of those policies that the democrats have been able to promote and have been successfully promoting these past few years? guest: i think the biggest thing the big investments in infrastructure, in chips manufacturing, in electric vehicles and other green jobs. especially in these growing industries, you have jobs that pay good wages, they also have what i call strings. for example, you must pay the prevailing rate, higher than the minimum rate. that is what union members are getting paid. so it has these big investments and they are disproportionately going to communities that have been left behind.

beyond that, president biden and the harris administration have mentioned this whole of government. they have pushed 70 different policies for executive action that are encouraging workers to join unions, and then the last thing is they support the proactive, it failed in congress that would make -- first for brace for employers that violate the law, and then it would make a much better path for workers who have unionized to get the first collective bargaining agreement. and that is the real litmus test. the essential thing for making it easier as possible to change our broken labor laws that workers can actually join labor unions. host: rachel, at the top of the hour you mentioned that there has been a shift in that there are more members of labor unions moving toward the republican party.

guest: i think that workers want to have a voice absolutely. the republican take toward unions and collective bargaining would be to have a shift from what we've seen, the traditional labor union become which is more attempting to force workers into things, into a one-size-fits-all, one voice represents all unit and to say what if we had an alternative form of a labor organization that is more based on workers choice? and that doesn't take away their right to secret ballot elections. that is what i think the republican party is looking toward. not to say you have to be in a union or you can't be in a union, but more toward what the workers want, how can we make unions work better for the workers? host: let's bring our audience into the discussion. ralph from charlottesville virginia on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning and thanks for c-span.

hello? i just want to give my view on the union and so forth. the unions are really great and good for the employees, but they have gone through five. -- too far. i used to be with an organization, and i've seen in my travels that people who join the union are great, but we have a lot of people who are really sorry employees. in the union president wanted me to take the job which i denied and he said i want you to be the union -- and i went ahead and accepted and i said if i have a sorry employee i will not represent that individual is a member of the union you have

people that are great members of unions, you have people that are not great members of the union. they will not do their job and so forth. wherever they work. and there are a lot of them that do do their job and it is a good thing to have the union, to have a force with management because management will walk all over you. i've seen it many and many a time. host: let's get a response from her desk. guest: the caller i think hit the nail on the head right at the end. without a union, management has a lot more power and often uses it in ways that are harmful to workers. they can be abusive, they can do all sorts of things. so that's really when workers come together in the union, they are able to negotiate on more even footing and then they can negotiate a contract they give them some basic rights so they can be fired purely off of --.

they can be fired for not showing up, but they can't just be fired because the boss doesn't like the color of the shirt you wore, which they could be fired for right now. guest: i think that's part of the frustration that ralph is expressing, is that we have the certain cases. not every union, but in many union there are problems with workers not being able to be held accountable. and that hurts their coworkers and there's instances where they actually can be fired because often times the union will rack up these claims and they will use them to get workers who should have been fired. things like showing up drunk on the job and injuring another manager, and yet the union can use claims that have been made against them to get that worker reinstated. so i do understand where ralph is coming from heather needs to be more accountability but also for the workers, accountability and productivity can be a great thing because when workers feel productive, they are five times happier in their job and they

can also receive pay-for-performance, bonuses. that is something union takes away from them. it is only a seniority-based system and that takes away advancement opportunities for workers. guest: unions to negotiate on behalf of their members, and they often have things like performance-based. the classic example, athletes, actors. they negotiate for a much higher rate when they get performance pay. the real thing at that unions negotiate a minimum standard that everyone is going to get paid so that they are not living in poverty wages, so they get retirement benefits. and really limiting the arbitrary power of the employer to make your life miserable to fire you for no reason at all, which is unfortunately the current law. there is no law that prevents an employer from actively firing a worker just because they don't like the way they smiled at them. guest: i think you've gone between alternative model,

something like the players association for baseball players. that's not how most unions are and there have been workers that have taken the unions to court because they have been forced to give away a strictly performance-based bonus that was above and beyond the union contract. host: let's hear from stephen florida on the democrats line. good morning, steve. caller: i think we need to go back in history a little bit. i was working in a factory in youngstown ohio in the late 70's, and for anybody of the republican party to the union voter, it is mind-boggling. ronald reagan came in with his scapegoat politics. he demonized the unions and he opened the gates from that point on to the next five presidential terms where corporations were pleased to go after the unions.

the negative things that were said about the unions, it basically launched an offensive to drum the unions out of the american economy. i walked past the main street stores in my hometown and i look at the plywood boarded up on the windows. i say thank you ronald reagan. is the same with immigration. for the last 40 years, they've brought in undocumented workers to replace the union workers. and then all of a sudden now, they're saying all these are bad people that we can't let into the border. i think republicans need to run on the record, not just on the one that they woke up with. host: rachel? guest: i share your sentiment. growing up in a northeast town that was hit by the decline in

manufacturing and increasing their preceptors, that is where i think we need to look forward as a country, what are the way that we can bring back some of that manufacturing, especially in the industrial base and have policies that are helping to promote workers? and that is one area where, while unions have done some great things, they've also failed to adapt and the rules put in place have not allowed them to continue competing. we look especially at the auto sector here, just the failure of the big three automakers, and the uaw in particular to allow the annotation that was necessary. americans are buying more cars today than they were three decades ago and yet the portion of carter being bought american-made has declined 75%. so we need to keep more of those jobs here in the u.s., we need to look at ways where you can break down regulations such at the $29,000 cost per employee of manufacturing and just complying with regulation so that we can have more of those good paying

jobs here. guest: i think the caller hit it right on the head that the republican party including donald trump has been hostile to unions. the rhetoric is shifted under donald trump, the policy reality is not. donald trump doesn't support the pro act. he supports right to work. he appointed justices, supreme court made it much harder to reinstate workers that have been illegally fired for trying to form a union. he appointed union busters to the department of labor. his policies, he undid policy that made it easier to form a union and made policy that made it much harder to support unions. that was let his previous record was. he also, as rachel noted, her organization has been putting out this project 2025 which is the blueprint that most of the

former trump administration arson of planning to reinstate when they get there and is also an antiunion playbook. mass firing of federal employees so that they can also push more unionbusting policies. so the record is really what is to me really worrying if you care about union members and labor and workers being able to have some power. host: let's hear from pete in new york, a union member. good morning, pete. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: thank you. so let's not just look at the so-called 7% difference in wages. i've had consistent wages, i've had consistent ability with improvements in my much better medical, much better pension, much better job safety, much

better way of life and living and being able to go home and relax knowing that my company can't illegally fire me. and at the same time, you go to any job place, you will find some percentage of employees who are slackers. any manager who does their job knows how to document, knows how to educate, motivate or escalate any worker, but they don't. so that brings any company down. it's not an easy walk in the park. no one works for free and no one gets free work. guest: i think the caller really

hit those lifetime impacts of the union. it's not just better wages, better benefits. research we've done shows that all of those factors add up to how much money you have in the bank, the value of your house minus any debt you have. and union members have about twice the wealth of nonunion members, which is just transformative. it's a huge difference. it also is most impactful for people without college degrees, so that union is helping the folks would have the hardest time getting ahead without the basic protections that lead to better wages, better benefits and greater job stability. guest: there's no doubt that union jobs have provided security and stability and often times higher wages and compensation, but one thing they've also done is limit the

supply of those jobs. that is just the basic economics of it, is limit that supply and that is how they drive up the compensation. while it has been great for some people like yourself who have been able to have that, it has decreased the number of union jobs that are out there, and that is why we continue to see this decline even when we have administrations that are trying to push more workers into those union jobs. and it is also important to point out, you talked about your pension and that is a great asset to workers, that the reality of those union pensions is that they are broken and if it weren't for a recent taxpayer bailout of those union pensions, we would have millions of people who would be retiring with $.40 on the dollar or less. and so we need to change that structure and not be allowing unions to promised benefits that they simply can't deliver on. guest: can i jump in on something rachel just set? rachel i think implied that the reason that union membership has been in decline is something

about the economics. my mind, this is really about politics and policy. more than half of workers would like to join the union. nearly 70% of the public supports unions. but we only have 6% of workers in the private sector that are union members. and the big difference between a strong desire and support for unions and the actual ability to join a union is because our law makes it very hard to form unions and gives tremendous power and freedom to intimidate and abuse workers. if they fire a worker who wants to join a union, there are no financial penalties for them for doing so. all they have to do after years of legal battles is to reinstate the worker and pay them their backpay minus any thing they earned in the meantime.

so basically, no penalty. so much so that employers call these notices they have to post of their rights when after reinstate someone there hunting license. to shift the cost of doing business. guest: i think the employer is actually, i would argue, they are very fearful of doing anything in a union election because there are severe penalties for that. and the alternative, if you think that there is a problem and it is too difficult to unionize, it's not the take away a workers right to a secret ballot election. that is for the biden harris ministration does. it is a process with the union collects a card from workers to say they support the union. that to them means we support having them both. but instead they hand this card to the employer and if they have more than 50% they would be forced to unionize. this happens now in california and the company that did this, that did this, they collected the cards from the workers, they

were forced to unionize. they have 150 workers who have come to them and said the union told me that i was doing that so i could get a $600 unemployment check from the stimulus. they were lied to by the union. at least that is their claim, and that would be a car that would count as their vote. it was not a secret ballot and it was apparently under an assumptive tactic. and that is what you're pushing for with the pro act, taking away secret ballot elections for unions. guest: that's not the case. host: we talking little bit at the top of the hour, the support of vice president harris has gotten since she became the presumptive nominee. she has served almost four years under president biden who touts himself as the most pro-union president in history. what is her record show, what did she have to campaign on as an individual candidate? guest: kamala harris with the

chair of the passports for her organizing which with the administration that put together over 70 different executive actions that they can do to help workers form unions. she was the leader inside the government. she also has a record of refusing to cross a picket line or if she's getting a speech, she's not going to give a speech where there is a strike going on. she's invited workers into the white house and again, she supports the pro act which increase penalties on employers that break the law when workers are trying to form a union, which is again, the key litmus test of whether any elected official or politician is prounion. host: and rachel, former president trump, the republican nominee has served four years in office. how does his record with labor unions compare? guest: i think he's able to

relate to the workers better and he's not going to bow down to the labor leaders. we saw him invite one to speak at the rnc platform, but he's not going to be intimidated by them, he's not going to be pushed into we will pay you to play politics here. he said one of the first things he's going to do, bring back the keystone xl pipeline that took away thousands of union jobs. i think he has been critical of the uaw and their role of giving into this new easy mandate. he said he's going to get rid of that. ed production takes labor, that is going to destroy good union jobs. i think he is going to stand up for the common man, many of whom will be unionized workers, but he's not going to stand up for those union officials. host: let's hear from douglas in california on the independent line. good morning. caller: yes, i am an 89-year-old that -- vet.

i've had the opportunity to be in three different types of union and on thing i've found is everything is corruption. i think our new president, kamala harris, when she says she's got to start eliminating gas powered vehicles and bring in the electric ones, the power to fire those electric ones up, we've got a channel bringing water in. when there isn't any around. unless you count gasoline around

the power plant. ridiculous. guest: thank you, douglas. i think we have seen from president trump talking about just unleashing domestic energy capacity here. it sounds like you have experienced that corruption within union. it's not within every union but it is certainly something that is out there. the uaw recently had a dozen officials including two former presidents who were convicted of crimes and the department of justice said that they were riddled with corruption, fatally compromised and their ability to represent unions. and so while you can have good union leadership, it is also often the case that you could have really bad union leadership is not actually working toward the interest of its members but is actually self-interested. guest: when this union corruption it is the prosecutor. it is unfortunately -- fortunately relatively rare

phenomenon especially when you compare it to the world and the like. but the more real issue the colors trying to get at is what is the future of the jobs in the united states? we mentioned energy which is sort of interesting. one thing there is we had a massive increase in all forms, virtually all forms, including oil and gas. more production now. also, the biden harris policy to invest in the kinds of jobs that they think will be in the future, and there's nothing about eliminating gas vehicles. there is a plan to ensure that the electric vehicles of the future are both here in the u.s., not abroad, so this domestic content requirements that ensure we are manufacturing them here. and incentives for companies to do so. guest: i think the biden harris

administration with their attempt to where these jobs has been a pace of play scheme where they are using taxpayer money to subsidize the types of union jobs they prefer and i think under a trump administration we are going to see more of a work to win type strategy. >> can i just respond? donald trump spoke to corporate executives that you pay me billions of dollars in able do whatever you want. that is the ultimate painter play. there's just not even comparable to actually having a policy that invest in america and especially disproportionately the communities that have been left behind. we've now seen a doubling of manufacturing, construction of new manufacturing facilities. this is the kind of policy we want as opposed to i'm just going to do whatever the companies that pay me money want to do under the trump administration, which is what he has promised to do. >> i think that the difference, the trump administration once those jobs to grow but they want

them to grow naturally by getting rid of government areas where the biden harris administration wants to use taxpayer money. it is not a zero-sum. host: would tear from tim in wisconsin, also a union member. caller: the first statement is in wisconsin, they can get a good paying job. nine that if 10, make about half of what they do in wisconsin. iowa, if i cross that river and

go to work, i take a cut for the same job i would do in wisconsin. people wouldn't go to iowa to work. there's zaila workers across wisconsin. and i also would like to ask you, are you in favor of repealing --? thank you. guest: i am a strong supporter of the act. the davis-bacon act ensures that when the government spends money on projects like infrastructure and highways, that the companies doing the work have to pay at least the: market rate in the locality. they can't undercut that rate. in the prevailing rate can be the union rate, so it ensures that union members get good wages and benefits on these government contracts and they are not constantly undercut.

unfortunately, that is not the policy of the republican for quite some time. not all, but many republicans have tried to overturn it. that is one of the differences between wisconsin and iowa and other states. guest: is supposed to be a prevailing wage law and of course, i think that the wages should be paid at the market rate. the problem is it is not a market rate, it is a very selective rate and it is not even likely. so i would actually support having the bureau of labor statistics who has the best david to know what the correct rates are to pay beta one to determine those wages instead of it just be done the way it currently is, and i think that you make a good point here. the difference in the jobs between wisconsin and iowa and your unionized job, that does get to the union jobs part limited.

they are declining and it is in part because the compensation is higher, but also because of the restrictions that unions put on the way a company is managed in overtime, that has unfortunately led to the decline of some of those unionized companies. we've seen several auto manufacturers and other industries, because they weren't able to adapt and be flexible. it's not just about the compensation. it's about the workplace rules. we look at things like the warehousing and shipping industry where the unions are pushing against automation. in the long run it has been proven it leads to more jobs, but they unions are preventing that and that is ultimately just going to lead to decline in those jobs. host: and if former president trump is elected to a second term, when it comes to union membership, is that something that the administration would work to improve or are there other ways that they would want to help workers? guest: i think they would look

to improve worker ability to have that choice. if you want to be a union member, great. if you don't want to, great. i think that is going to be there emphasis. not trying to push unionization for the sake of saying we have this many members who are unions, but more to say what do workers want and what do they want in terms of their individual voice being represented? i hope that we will actually see unions improve so that they can attract more workers naturally, because they are providing sending that as a value to workers instead of having unions increase members because they are forced into a union by not having a secret ballot election or by living in a place that says you can't have that job unless you are part of the union. host: with the goal of a harrison initiation or just democrats in general become increasingly membership? guest: absolutely. the biden harris the nutrition has been the most prounion administration of any in my

lifetime and perhaps in many, many decades. very clearly supporting union members by actions, by walking with them picket lines, by inviting them to the white house, but most importantly by supporting policies that will make it easier for workers to form unions. that stands in very sharp contrast, the rhetoric for donald trump is ok for workers, and even sometimes good, but the underlying policies are really bad and really hurtful. the absolute best case you can make for them as you look at the republican party platform that donald trump wrote, it does not say single word about labor unions. there is nothing in there saying we like unions, nothing saying we want to increase them. there is under project 2025, this is the plan for governing by a former trumpet ministration

officials, all sorts of policies that would undercut unions to make it harder to form unions and immediately fire the general counsel of national labor relations which has been very, very good under the biden harris ministration. so much so that under the biden harris administration we have had far more workers reinstated who are illegally fired by their employers just in the first year of the biden administration then we have in all four years of the trump administration. >> and i think you don't see the word union in trump's platform because he doesn't care whether you are a union member. he wants to have those jobs and those income gains for everyone and if you look at the record, real income growth under the trump administration averages $4000 gains. what was real income growth under the biden harris administration? a loss of $2000.

caller:caller: one of the things that i would offer is i think a lot of americans, even union members, some of them have forgotten what they union has actually done for people. people fought really hard and died to have that. the reason is we have an eight hour day, we have vacation time. what i think people don't understand is business is always trying to find ways to cut labor. their interest is to increase profits. they see labor as something that they want to minimize. and so it's important to recognize that unions actually give people power. the only way to fight against big business is to create more

equity, to be unionized. massachusetts is a state where there are a lot of unions here and people actually make a great living wage. unions actually brought people into the middle class. i know there are a lot of people struggling who maybe are not benefiting from unions, but your guest earlier said that regular wage workers, regular wages of gone up 16% compared to unions that they are not making any money. they might have gone up, but unions make far more. you can make $200,000 a year but that is not happening in other states. host: are you a member of the union? caller: i'm not, but i support union workers and i see the benefits of unions. i think they are important for the country.

and feel like the republican party isn't saying a lot of things about what they will do. as your guest said, i haven't seen anything in writing about, and i also know that donald trump is hiring undocumented workers and he is trying to cut labor costs himself. host: let's get a response from our guest. >> thank you, nancy, and i agree with you that unions have played a really important role in our country, in securing laws that are protecting worker safety and talking about compensation. and a lot of those things are now in the law. and that is thanks to the unions forgetting getting it in there, but i think what they'll to happen adaptation of the union to continue providing those things that were so valuable that a now were already part of the law. in your issue about the profits and the company, i think that is a problem with the way that unions have become.

just imposing this adversarial relationship, pitting workers against management when in reality workers and management are not competing against each other. they are in competition together. they are part of the same company and when a company thrives, it is able to increase compensation and create new opportunities for upward mobility for workers. guest: so as rachel mentioned, unions have been key in negotiating sort of with employers for basic standards and then often we are able to get those into law starting the things like overtime. but it doesn't stop there in the 1930's. we got paid leave, same-sex benefits, health benefits. but the real concern, or a big concern now is what is going to happen to the law under a second trump administration. over time for me is a big concern. under the project 2025 plan,

which is the former trumpet ministration officials, they would basically got overtime, virtually eliminating time and a half work for over 40 hours. the basic that have made the five-day work week for 40 hours, that have made that are under threat under a second trump administration because of the project 2025 plan. >> if i can actually clarify on that, i think you misunderstood that and that is part of that department of labor chapter on project 2025. it is not cutting overtime. what we were trying to do is to help overtime work better for individuals. what it is now is that if you are subject to overtime laws, generally lower wage workers, hourly workers, if you work over 40 hours in a given week then you must be paid overtime. that can also be a little bit restrictive. think of the single mom whose child gets sick at school and she has to leave for hours early and so she just lost four hours of work that week.

she might be wanting to trade a shift with another manager for the next week, but the way that the overtime laws work now is that her employer is unlikely to be going to let her trade that shift because the four hours that she missed in one week would have to be for hours time and a half in the next week. so what we are saying is allow some flexibility in the way that those are calculated. in particular, to allow more flexibly for the workers who might need to take that time off. guest: the policies and that proposal allow the employer to determine the time period they are cannick living the overtime. you worked a bunch of hours, you are not going to work next week and therefore i don't have to pay you overtime. so the policy give the power to the employer to determine if workers give any overtime which to me is a real threat to the future of overtime.

>> is a flexibly. host: tom from ohio as a member of the union. good morning, tom. caller: i'm 85 years old and a retired uaw worker. i remember nafta, clinton had to run that through. that just about crippled the big city close to where i live. it became almost a ghost town from the good democratic party. i ain't got a whole lot good to say about them. i lost my insurance out of it, and that was through the union and bill clinton. host: any response? guest: i think it is really unfortunate what has happened to auto making in the u.s.. it's not necessarily all because of nafta or trade agreements but i think it is the inability for

companies and in particular, the auto making industry to be able to adapt. part of that was in flexibility in the compensation and in the way that things were produced that didn't allow them to be able to keep as many jobs up there. just compared to three decades ago, the u.s. share of cars sold here is one quarter of what it was. i think we need to get at manufacturing things. i mentioned $29,000 per worker, is money that the employer could first be giving back to workers and could also be used to expand production and have more jobs. >> at the color i think alluded to, nafta hollowed out lots of communities that have been struggling now for many, many decades. with a biden harris administration, the policies have actually started to encourage new investments in these communities, which is a big step forward. you have money going into build

new manufacturing facilities for first-time in quite some time. that is the direction that is bright. more jobs, several times more jobs under the biden harris ministration then were created under the trump administration. host: bob from tennessee on the republican line. i bob. caller: yes. hey. first of all, do you think the governor knows about the company seo? we've got a company called volkswagen down in chattanooga. that type union about three times that i know, twice a got shut down but this last time the local news, he said that i think they just lost their job. and i won't tell you, you can't

be strong on these companies. not only that, i stood around -- host: looks like we lost him. any response? guest: at the caller alluded to, the uaw had been trying to get workers to form a union, join a union at full swag and in previous attempts, there have been allegations of work is being threatened and intimidated. but this time under the biden harris ministration, there was a successful union of the workers who said we want to form a union, and now they are trying to negotiate what really is the most important thing, to be sure they get the good wages and benefits. at the caller also alluded to, the republican governor has strongly opposed those efforts to form a union and

unfortunately, that is the case in far too many republicans opposing workers trying to form a union where at the biden harris ministration has been very clearly standing on the side of workers trying to form unions. host: i think you mentioned we saw this case twice, where workers voted down the union and a third time they voted in support of it. and that might be attributed to success of the biden harris administration who has done things that have restricted employer's rights to free speech to be able to talk to their workers during a union election. maybe that was something that tipped the scales and to the governor's credit, he cares about having jobs in his state, having employers in his state. and if you look at the history and the auto industry, when they are unionized, that tends to lead to decline. uaw strike lead to successful contracts for workers and then we've seen thousands of laid-off workers. it is right to know that maybe this is going to lead to fewer jobs in the state. host: to name kentucky on the

democratic line. morning, tim. caller: morning. i am pro and this lady from the foundation, she's on the back of project 2025. you can believe anything anybody says. trump was never prounion. so i might go for trump just >> as i said before, i don't think trump is prounion or antiunion. i think he is pro-worker. guest: again, my view is donald trump's rhetoric for workers and union members as in better than many republicans. unfortunately, the policies behind trump's that he pushed for his first term and he planned to push if he is elected again are antiwar.

especially antiunion member. host: just about five minutes with rachel and david, talking about the role of unions in campaign 2024. let's hear from john in illinois. member. caller: this is john from peg which. i have been a union member my whole life, i'm 74 years old. thank god for the tremendous health care that was provided by the union members, for them to live such a long and productive life and god bless those old men. i recently learned on the southeast side of chicago, to make paper for 20 years, and it up in the auto industry making cars.

united we bargain and divided we --. the lady has taught out of both sides of her mouth. those regulations limit the ability to join unions. she's taught out of both sides of her mouth. she is a trumper. would you like any lady in your life to go out with a man with that kind of character? anti-vax wife and and that will tell me about your character. you keep smiling, brother, and talk about unions because it is the best thing that's happened to this country. guest: i first want to thank you, it sounds like you have contributed to so many things that made america great just across the spectrum. so thank you for your service

and for helping make things in america. and i think you have pointed out great things that have been a benefit to union workers and particularly the older generation of union workers who have those strong pensions and to have this health care. but the reality of that is that those programs were there for you. but within the next few decades, they are not going to be there for the future workers. we need to look at ways that we can still have those things to be available on a sustainable basis. guest: another key question is whether those things that have made our middle class are going to be available in the next generation, and they will be if union membership continues, is able to grow. if workers are able to freely form unions. to get a fair share of the product of the games they have all create. and that is not just for the workers were doing the work, it is future generations. union members, their kids do

better. if parents were able to have the basic stability that comes with a union job. to have some money to be able to support them. they knew they weren't going to get fired arbitrarily. they have health care and retirement benefits. these things are good for the workers today, good for their families and they create a virtuous cycle of a strong middle class into a strong economy. >> something we can agree on, you mentioned productivity. that is what i think we can all agree with like to see here is productivity gains. because at the end of the day, that is the only thing they can produce sustainable real wage gains. it has to come from workers become more productive and not just from top-down mandates. host: let's hear from jean in michigan on the democrats line. good morning, jean. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that i was born and raised in detroit. they unions have been a part of my life all my life.

i worked for an auto company and benefit from the unions. but what i really wanted to ask is why is the republican party never given enough credit for the role that they played in nafta. first of all, to open the door to china. then ronald reagan ran on trade, george herbert walker bush talked about one world order and if you remember in the 92 debate, it was clinton and bush. in the argument was that if nafta passed, you could hear the sound of jobs leaving the united states. and i was angry at clinton for signing it into law and it was finalized under newt gingrich republican congress, and he

signed it into law. and with the democrats after the crash of 2008 who restore the automobile industry. so please, give republicans credit for coming up with the idea of nafta. thank you. >> i think it was a bipartisan deal as you've noted. that's just the reality of free trade. in the long line that leads to more jobs, there might be a shift in jobs. that can be of the difficult, but it also reduces the price of things. in the 50's and the only cars that were made that you get in the could get in the u.s. were predominantly those made by the uaw workers, they cost a lot more. most families had one car and you had wives stuck at home without a car. nowadays, most family have two cars, so i think everything from the autos to close to the things we buy on a daily basis, the standard of living has increased because of that ability of free trade and it has also increased u.s. jobs that are able to trade

as well. i think as a whole that free-trade trade will make people more prosperous, but there can be difficulties and that is an important thing, to be able to have the flex ability to adjust and to be able to stay in business and create more jobs going forward. guest: i think trade, when it is done fairly, when both sides have similar sets of rules and have to treat workers fairly, that is a good thing. nafta and the like gave our competitors too many advantages and put us in certain places, especially in places like detroit. that was a bipartisan consensus and for decades both parties, republicans especially but unfortunately some democrats, took workers and labor for granted. there has been a seismic shift

in the democratic party. the biden-harris administration is the most prolabor of any administration in my history and this is a big shift from republicans and democrats passing things like nafta. instead he -- you have a party and candidate very dedicated to ensuring we can strengthen labor and the middle class and rebuild america that way. host: our guest rachel greszler with a heritage foundation. you can find her work online. david madland, senior fellow for center of american progress got you can find them online at american progress.org. thank you both for being here and for this discussion. next, author and american university history professor allan lichtman will join us to scuss his book, "predicting the next president," and

campaign 2024. we will be right back. >> weekends bring a book tv, featuring leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. we will revisit our 2019 interview with kamala harris, who was a senator at the time and is now vice president and perceptive 2024 democratic nominee for president. in this discussion about her book, she reflects on her upbringing and how it influenced or governing style. kenneth mckenzie with his book the melting point, which looks at the 21st century and u.s. military operations in the middle east. and new york times reporter peter goodman discusses his book "how the world ran out of everything." he is interviewed by a professor and author. watch book tv every wkend and

find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime. >> this podcast is a repeat of a q&a program from november 2015. the featured guest is the author of the book "assassinations," in which he examines attempt on the lives of presidents and presidential candidates throughout history. >> on this episodef book notes plus. book notes plus is available on the c-span now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> the house will be in order. >> this year, c-span celebrates

45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979, they have been your primary source for capitol hill, providing balanced, unfiltered coverage of government, taking you to her policies are debated and decided with support of america's cable companies. c-span, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now to discuss campaign 2024 is allan lichtman, a distinct professor of history at american university and author of the book "predicting the next president: the keys to the white house." welcome to the program, professor lichtman. why don't we start by talking about this? you have predicted the winner of presidential elections since 1984. how did you come up with the system that you use?

guest: i would love to tell you i came up with my production system. by deep contemplation, but i came across it almost by accident. in 1981, i was a visiting diskette wish -- distinguished scholar in southern california and i met vladimir keilis-borok from moscow. it was his idea that we collaborate. of course i said no. earthquakes may be a big deal in southern california. i am going to go back to washington, d.c. where i teach at american university and nobody cares about earthquakes there. he said, get this. in 1981 -- in 1963 he was a

member of the soviet scientific delegation that came to washington under jfk and negotiated the most important treaty in the history of the world, a nuclear test ban treaty that stopped us from poisoning our soil and atmosphere. and he said in washington he fell in love with politics and always wanted to use the methods of earthquake production to predict elections but he said, i live in the soviet union. elections? forget it. it is supreme leader off with your head. you? so we became the odd couple of political research, the soviet geophysicist and the u.s. historian. to succeed in our project, like any kind of new idea, we reconceptualized the problem,

reconceptualized presidential elections. this was 1981. not as liberal versus conservative but in you physical terms of stability. stability, the white house party keeps power. earthquake, the white house party is turned out. with that in mind, we looked at every presidential election from when abraham lincoln was elected in 1860 two the election of reagan in 1980 and we used the methods of earthquake production , of pattern recognition, to see what patterns in the political environment were associated with stability and earthquake guided by my insight into american presidential elections and the

strength and performance of the white house party and that exercise led to the 13 keys to the white house, 13 true-false questions that could best separate this 120 years of politics and earthquake and probed the strength and performance of the white house party. there were things like midterm election results and internal party contests, short and long-term economy, policy change, social unrest, scandal, foreign/military failure and success. they had everything to do with candidates and they were very high-pressure. actually whether the incumbent candidate was a once in a generation broadly inspirational candidate like fdr and reagan

quit winning six elections between them by landslides -- and reagan, winning six elections by them -- between the by landslides. so in answer of true favors stability and six or more of the keys go against the party that will in the white house, they are predicted losers. six false questions and you are out. host: we are talking with professor allan lichtman of american university. if you have a question or comment for him, you can start calling in now. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. professor, let's talk again

about those 13 keys. you just ran through some of them, but talk about who is winning which key right now. where do things stand? guest: right now the transition from joe biden to kamala harris, the democrats lost one key, the incumbency key. but a recommendation i have been making for some time, they did not preserve the internal party contests key because the party seems to be rallying behind harris. as we talk here, the democrats, the white house party. keys are tallied against or for the white house party, nothing challenger. the white house party, the democrats, are down three keys.

they lost u.s. house seats in 2022. obviously the incumbency key because it is now an open seat election. and the incumbent charisma key because harris so far has not emerged as a franklin roosevelt. three more keys would have to fall to predict their defeat and i'm looking at four undecided keys. three of the four would have to fall for a democrat loss. a third party -- will rfk stabilize in the polls? i do not think it is likely, but possible. social unrest. we saw a bit of it this spring, but when you read my book you will see each key is very carefully defined. when you answer the questions, you have to stick with the definition. the definition of social unrest is massive unrest that threatens

the stability of the country. that could still explode, but we have not see that yet. and the last are the shaky asked , foreign/military failure and foreign/military success. i have not made a final production. i have said i will make it after the democratic convention, which i believe is august 22, but i have set for months and continue to say a lot would have to go wrong for the democrats to lose. that could happen, but a lot would have to change. >> you have predicted every president election since the reagan era. how has the decision of president joe biden to withdraw himself from the race and have vice president kamala harris step in as presumptive democrat nominee impacted your keys and

who could ultimately win? >> it has impacted my keys in the sense that democrats now lose the incumbency key, which they would have if biden had been running, but that is the only immediate impact. that means three rather than four undecided keys would have to fall to predict the democrats' defeat. on the other hand, harris seems to be a nomination by alkylation and the new energy that seems to be injected into the democratic campaign could have a positive effect on at least two of the keys. it could deter voting for rfk junior as a third-party candidate because democrats now seem to be more enthusiastic about their nominee and it could

foster social unrest as well. it has a mixed result, biden's dropping out, and the presumptive nomination of harris, but it does not fundamentally change that a lot would have to go wrong for the democrats. host: we have people ready to ask you questions. we will start with randy in oklahoma on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. question. double-sided question. if the challenger is a real challenge to the old eastern establishment, the rockefeller wing, now called the deep state, have you changed any factors for that? have you looked at the research?

guest: great question. every challenger has their own approach and their own issues. we cannot predict the results of elections from that. issues change from election to election. sometimes candidates are ahead of the issues based on polls, which i do not use. sometimes they win. that is why i look at the more fundamental factors rather than the ephemeral issues. but it is a good idea. >> james in michigan on the democrats line. caller: good morning. question for you is your keys were developed in the pre-trump era, with traditional norms and political expectations perhaps. in the post trump era where

those norms have changed and it is a difficult landscape, have you considered whether those 13 keys are relevant? if so, have you made any changes? guest: great question of course i have. every four years, someone comes up to me and says, things have fundamentally changed. you have to change the keys. we have an african-american running. we have never had that the nation is not ready for an african-american president. we have social media. we have never had that. have donald trump on tape bragging about grabbing women by their private parts. we have never had that. the model is robust. productively, it goes back to 1984 consistently and back to 1860 when women did not vote.

most african-americans were enslaved. we were never cultural -- we were an agricultural economy, no radio or television, so the keys have endured through much greater changes, even those we have seen in recent years. now, i'm not so arrogant to say the keys will forever. it is always possible there are cataclysmic, unprecedented changes that could shake up an election. it is not impossible, but you never know until afterward. host: some of your keys may be more difficult to qualify than others, like charismatic. how do you decide whether the statement are true or false? guest: when i first developed the keys, i was blasted by the professional forecasting

community for the ultimate sin of subjectivity. i have several answers. first, we are dealing with human beings. you cannot reduce human beings to just statistics. secondly, it is not subjectivity. it is judgment and historians make judgments all the time. third, i carefully defined each key and you have to stay within that definition. you are free to develop your own system, but if you use my system you have to stick to my definition. finally, i have answer these questions and the next answer has to be consistent. the professional forecasting community turned around 180 degrees and realized these big models do work and they must successful models are where you combine indicators like

statistics with judgmental indicators and suddenly the keys were the hottest thing in forecasting through today. i have twice gone to the international forecasting summit. i have published in the international journal of forecasting. i presented this to the american political science association. the charisma keys may seem to be vague. they are not. you have to be recognized as one of those once in a generation, inspirational candidates like fdr and reagan. you have to be broadly appealing , converting a lot of members of the opposition. there are only a handful of them in 160 years. they are not really controversial. it is not william howard taft. it is franken roosevelt, ronald

reagan, barack obama. host: bruce in indiana on the republican line. caller: hello. i am -- i don't not know how to word this. i am not trying to insult you, but i goes to people who come on the news, they bring people on who have written books and also politicians who have written books and it seems to me the only reason that you're on here is to show how brilliant you are and also to make more money

selling your book. that goes with politicians, too. they bring them on because they have written this book and then basically they do not care or understand what regular people think or that we are not smart enough to make decisions based on the information we are given. host: do you have a question for professor lichtman? guest: i would like to respond to that. i understand what you're saying. first of all, i make very little money on my books. less than 1% of my salary. i'm not on here to make money. secondly, unlike politicians, my system is nonbiased.

i predicted donald trump in 2016 got what you can imagine did not make me very popular in 90% democratic washington, d.c. where i teach. my first prediction was the reelection of ronald reagan. i have predicted about as many republicans and democrats wins. these are productions. they are nonpartisan, academic. they are not endorsements. finally, my system is very respectful of ordinary people. it says the market people are not fooled by attack ads and twists and turns of the campaign but respond rationally and wisely to the strength and performance of the white house party. deciding whether the ministration has done well enough to get another four years. i could not be more respectful of ordinary people. host: your book came out several

years ago, but you do release a new updated edition every four years. the new one is for 2024. what has changed from 2020 and 2016? host: this is now the eighth edition. what changes each four years is i assess the current political situation. the book came out in july. it came out july 1 before the change in the democratic nominee. the analysis i have been providing you is the same as in my book. you have to read my book if you want to use the keys. you cannot just look at a quick cheat sheet, although it is helpful.

the book to find each key carefully and gives you the answers. in the 2024 book, it also talks about fundamental change in politics where the popular vote has become essentially irrelevant because the democrats have 5 million plus votes in just two states, new york and california, which comes for nothing in the electoral college. they could win the states by one vote and still get the electoral college votes. one of the most markable things about current politics that i talk about in the new book is in 30 years the republicans only won the popular vote once and that was in 2004, and barely. host: let's hear from jerry in new jersey on the democrats line. caller: one of the concerns come

and i'm speaking to all c-span listeners, i have a major concern. i am a registered democrat. the hypocrisy of my party has been unbelievable. a month ago, i was supporting joe biden. i voted for joe biden in the primary. all of a sudden, now, due to whatever, i am told i have to change my thinking and vote to a person that i do not want to vote for. the news media, and i include c-span on this, the news media has promoted this woman like i cannot believe and they were just promoting biden a month ago saying he was the best and his numbers were up there and he was doing great. all of a sudden he is gone, so i am not happy with the democrat party.

my question to you is, and what i'm really concerned about is, if her numbers drop, and i believe they will, i do not think she is doing a good job -- i look at his numbers when he has his rallies. i look at hers. it is horrible. but are they going to switch her out again? do you think they have somebody in mind at the convention to take her out and put somebody else in? i think that is their plan. they threw biden to the wolves. kamala harris does not have a clue. i have a question if they are going to switch her out. guest: i agree with you. i was saying this for sometime. i thought the democrats treated their incumbent president very unfairly and harshly. they should not have been openly in public trashing joe biden the

way they did based on one poor debate performance. i have no inside information about the democratic party. i do not believe they are going to put up someone to replace harris. i'm not an insider for the democrats at all. an overwhelming number of delegates have already rallied around harris. the party is happy with her nomination. i do not do polls, but they do. they look at the polls and see since harris has taken over the polls do seem to have improved. they are not predictive of anything but conventional politicians live and die by the polls, which is why harris will be nominated, i can assure you overwhelmingly. she is very popular within the rank-and-file of the party.

she also has record fundraising in just a week of $200 million. host: andrew in ohio on the independent line. >> good morning. my question deals with the 13 keys for the white house. i think we have no idea who is going to win this election but if you look at your first key, the party mandate, republicans disagreed with the 2022 midterms but they won nine seats. when you look at the democrats, they gained two governorships and the senate seat, so i think it is a wash. when we are really looking at the incumbent, he is not going to be president. kamala is less corrupt and more likable than hillary. hillary still be trump in the popular vote, so we're are looking at voter turnout, which was the highest since 1900 come

and we are looking at six swing states cut nevada cut michigan, wisconsin, and georgia. i just want his thoughts on everything i said. guest: you are right democrats to better than expected in the midterms. that is not the definition of the key. i cannot stress too much if you use my system -- you are free to develop your own -- you have to stick with the definition. the definition pertains solely to how many house seats the democrats held after the current midterm as compared to the previous midterm and they lost seats. i have said everything about the swing states, but there is no way you can predict an election by looking at only swing states in advance. that is what led the conventional wisdom crowd to

incorrect predict who would win in 2016. there was a consortium of eminent professors at one of our best universities, princeton university, and they said a 99% chance based on polls, clinton would win 99%. he was so confident he said if she loses i will eat a bug on national television. to his credit, he did. that is why i say keep your eyes on the big picture as gauged by the keys and as defined in my book, predicting the next president. host: fred in florida on the republican line. >> good morning.

i want to ask about one of your keys. don't you think the border is an important key for this election? having the border open, i think that is one of the main keys right now for the people because they want to know if the border is going to be open or closed and the democrats wanted open so they can get votes. my other question is health care. that is an important question for a key as far as i'm concerned and i think a lot of people are wondering about it. he wants to give free health care to all the illegal immigrants. a lot of people do not want to have to pay for that. that money has to come from somewhere. it looks like the people, the ordinary people is going to have to pay for it, so that is coming out of them.

here is another important issue. having these kids, undocumented, in schools that have drag queens and stuff like that come into the schools, i thing that is an important issue. and what this lady said before me is about the democrats don't know which way they are going to go. i agree. they do not know what they are doing. they do not know which way to go. as far as trump goes, i think trump is playing the right issues. he wants to go after the border. he wants to help health care. he wants to help veterans. i am a veteran. but the key issues are health care, the border, and this thing. host: let's get a response from professor lichtman. guest: those are all fair

republican talking points. democrats have equal talking points, preservation of democracy from someone who organized an insurrection, the only candidate ever not to exceed to the peaceful transfer of power. so you have republican and democratic talking points at which cannot predict elections from those issue positions of the two parties. that has ever been a successful way of predicting elections. that is why i look at fundamentals for how elections really work, not the ebb and flow of issues. partisans on both sides are very passionate, but the other side is equally passionate and can use those passions or

predictions. there is no way to know how they go. host: a question coming in from text is from francis in montana, who says, please comment on the 1968 a situation. did your model applied? guest: absolutely. what happened in 1968 -- i remember watching that and being astounded. president johnson withdrew from the reelection campaign. that led to an open seat and loss of the incumbency key. you had terrible battles for the democratic nomination after the assassination of rfk junior. you had our chaos at the convention and social unrest. you lost the foreign policy keys. it was a very different

situation from that which we are confronting now but the keys absolutely apply and predicted a democratic loss despite the booming economy from the 1960's. the keys are much broader than just the economy. he has been terrible as a protector. he got 2004 wrong. he got 2016 wrong. he wrote a book in 2009 saying democrats would dominate american politics. you have to have a scientific system. it has to be broadly based like the keys and you cannot rely -- host: what is your track record when it comes to your predictions and what has tripped you up?

guest: i have been right since i predicted ronald reagan's reelection nearly three years ahead of time during what was then the worst recession since the great depression, when 60% of the market people said ronald reagan should not run again because he's approval ratings were very low. the most difficult election to predict was 2000. george bush won that election when the supreme court stopped in florida. my only report the united states commission on civil rights showed based on the intention of voters al gore should have won florida. he lost because of the suppression of those who voted and that was verified by a 2003

study by professor of cornell university who found he should have won that election by tens of thousands of votes. that is of course the most controversial election of our time and most difficult to call. host: marianne in new jersey on the democrats line. caller: good morning. i am registered as a democrat, but not for too long. what i want to say is the democrats have lied for a long time to the american people. they knew all along that joe biden was mentally and physically impaired. i mean, you could see that yourself. any time i saw him speaking or

whatever, this man is not going to last too long. they have been pushing him out there. until that disastrous debate with donald trump. it was plain to see this man could no longer be pushed out there and try to tell the american people he is fine, but they pushed him and pushed him. he had not been running this country for a long time. it is those who are behind him that have been running the country. i think we all know who the people are. look what they did. host: we are talking with professor lichtman about his book. do you have a question for him? caller: why won't you let me go on? let me tell you this. in the past, people have called in and try to say the same things i am saying and they have been cut off. host: we are trying to stick to

our topic. this is not open forum. we are talking with professor lichtman about his book and the keys. we have been talking about this for the past 40 minutes. do you have a question about that? caller: yes. let me ask him. do you think the american people have been lied to about joe biden? guest: that is not part of -- i have no inside information about the democratic party knew or did not know and there is no evidence that any impairment has affected the conduct of the biden administration. each party accuses the other of lying. you heard this accusation that democrats are lying about biden's condition. i do not know if that is true or not.

the democrats claimed trump lied about not having won the 2020 election and about january 6 insurrection and roe v. wade, saying everyone's for eliminating it when 60% of a people opposed eliminating roe v. wade. saying gas prices went up four times. they only went up a fraction of that. host: nancy in florida on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i haven't been watching this entirely but when i saw mr. lichtman on i went, i have to call and let him know i have been watching him with chris cuomo and i appreciate his work. did you have a production with the keys and how many do you have left -- production with the

keys and how many do you have left? ? guest: the democrats are down three keys at the moment. it takes six keys to count them out and three of the four shaky keys would have to fall to predict their defeat, third-party, social unrest, foreign/military failure and success. host: you said one of those 13 keys you are still waiting to make a decision on is no third party. this question coming in on twitter from mlb says, do you thinwe should pay more attention to the amount of the ameran electorate' that rfk junior will receive in the election? guest: absolutely. that is one of my important keys and i have to go to the polls since i do not know how he is ultimate going to come out but i do not take the polls at face value for third-party or independent candidates because

the wasted vote syndrome theory. i love rfk junior, but i realize you cannot win, so i'm not going to vote for you. so you turn the key against the democrats at the time i make per prediction. rfk junior will have to have stabilized in the polls at least 10%. he is not there now and i think it is unlikely that that is going to happen but i have an open mind about it. host: the other keys that are still undecided, no social unrest current major foreign or military success. what needs to happen with those for you to make a decision? guest: right now, the social unrest key favors the democrats. it cannot be sporadic demonstrations. it has to be massive social unrest that threatens stability of the country, like we saw in the 1960's with the massive

black lives matter movement. we have not seen that yet. i am holding judgment to see what might happen at the time of the democratic convention. democrats could pull off a foreign policy success if they succeed against what seems to be a pretty adamant opposition of netanyahu a seething -- achieving a cease-fire and hostage release. the failure key very much depends on improvement in gaza and in the situation in ukraine. host: let's hear from roosevelt in new york on the democrats line. >> good morning. i am shocked. i do not see anything in relationship to character, integrity, morality. i am 76 years old and i grew up

and all through my adult life character, integrity, and morals stood for something. i was taught without those you are not considered a decent person. i do understand why that would be left out of your keys. nowhere in your book to you mention anything about character , morality, and integrity. please take my answer offline. guest: i agree with you 100%. i think character and morality is important in every realm of life. i have touched upon that in cases to promote character and morality, but my book is about production. it is not about my own political preferences.

if i predicted based on my own political preferences, i would be wrong half the time. the secret to being a successful predictor, you have to know math and politics but that is not it. it is keeping her own personal preferences out of it. if you let your personal preferences in -- it is hard to keep them out. unfortunately, you cannot predict elections based upon morality and character. i might not have predicted richard nixon or donald trump winning, for example. host: host: vincent in new port richey florida, good morning. caller: good morning.

your keys -- social unrest. i'm sure you have been up on the antisemitic protesters running rampant across the whole country not just isolated in a few areas. it seems like it is getting out of control, so that. and the foreign military key. if we look at the afghanistan retreat, that was a total debacle. and we have russian fitting ukraine when president biden said a small incursion, not really anything to worry about. and also the terrorists in israel with hamas funded by iran. a lot these antisemitic protesters are funded by iran. i wanted to get your ideas if

those two keys are floating around in your head. guest: as i said, sporadic protests, you always have them. you had the protest against donald trump, for example. that is not turned the key. you may think it is serious and important and that is your right. but if you use my system you have to be consistent. it has to be mass, sustained social unrest sufficient to there and the stability of the country and you have your own views about afghanistan and ukraine and gaza and i agree those keys are shaky and i have explained what the democrats could do to secure them. that may or may not happen. host: joyce in new york, good morning.

caller: i have been enjoying your son on youtube. i was amazed when i watched the first time and it was kind of difficult for me to grasp, but after watching the second and third time it was amazing. the keys -- you really have it down to a science. i look forward to what is going to be in the future. i want to say your son really admires you. you can just tell every time he puts you on with him. so i look forward to reading your book. it was very interesting. i think you got it. thank you. guest: thank you.

let me comment on that. i have an online show with my son, who is a communications mfa , every tuesday and thursday at 9:00 p.m. eastern, and you can tune in @allanlichtmanyoutube. you already have over 72,000 subscribers starting from scratch. host: we are showing the audience your youtube page now. it looks like you have had 61 live events, every tuesday, you said? guest: every tuesday and thursday, 9:00 p.m. eastern. host: from chicago, illinois on the independent line, good morning, tom. caller: good morning.

i am 75 years old. i have been watching and reading politics since i left vietnam and i haven't voted for a democrat or republican since 1992. you know why. it astounds me people were -- would reward these two parties with their vote when they collude to sell out the american people, not just your industry and your job but profits and taxes that used to be paid here as well. is there a movement to vote third-party? do you detect anything like that? guest: i actually top you. i'm 77. i'm glad to hear from you, someone in my age group. i do carefully monitor the third parties, as i said. it has to reach at least 10% or more stabilized. so far, third parties have an

important influence on issues in united states but they have not gained traction as a real alternative to the major parties. i'm not commenting pro or con about that, simply stating the reality of american politics. host: let's hear from mary in las vegas, nevada on the democrats line. caller: please do not stop me and let me get these points out. the morning, mr. lichtman -- good morning, mr. lichtman. guest: good morning. we are running out of time. caller: you want to change the way -- we are a two party system. maybe we need rank-choice voting. get that on the ballot. afghanistan, the table was already set. donald trump negotiated with the taliban. he surrendered. the prisons were emptied, so

there is that. and as far as netanyahu goes, he was having qatar fund thomas -- hamas. the guy wants to be a dictator. read some of projects 2025. host: professor lichtman is asking for your question. guest: what is your question? caller: when he gives your chileans of dollars of tax cuts quite your social services are going to go out the window. host: joel from florida on the republican line, good morning. caller: i would like to ask the professor on incumbency, the third key. it is defined as the incumbent party candidate. how much is he feel the vice president is not an issue or how much will that change that key?

guest: great question. having a vice president run does not change the key at all. there is no vice presidential key and the key is for -- purely binary yes or no, the incumbent candidate is the sitting president. when george h. w. bush ran, he was the vice president, but the republicans did not win that key vector. host: this questionoming in off of x. my question is ts. how would the abandonment of political parties affect your prediction model? guest: how does what? host: how would the abandonment of political parties affect your prediction model? host: i don't understand the question. political parties have not been abandoned.

the republican and democratic parties have elected every president since abraham lincoln in 1860. host: andne more, a text from mark in nevada. he says, are some keys more important than others? guest: that is a question -- that is a great question. the keys are not weighted. when you introduce weight, you create errors because the weights have to be based on past elections and they can change him productively from upcoming elections. you can also have triggers. people say, how can the great depression only account for two economic keys? they triggered social unrest. they triggered republican losses in midterm elections. they triggered an inspirational

democratic candidate, frank than roosevelt, to seek election before he had planned. host: you said you were going to be making our production after the democrats hold the convention next month. when do you usually make your predictions? how long does it take you to make the determination? guest: great question. the answer is it depends. sometimes the keys full into place early. sometimes quite like this year, there's enough uncertainty that keys full into place later. my first prediction of ronald reagan's reelection was almost five years ahead of time. i predicted a difficult reelection of barack obama when a lot of pundits thought romney would win in 2010 but recently there has been so much uncertainty that i have not

called the keys until later. host: some of your keys are straightforward and would be easy to answer, no primary contest, no scandal. what about major policy changes and the others? how difficult is it to predict those? which would be most difficult to determine? >> it is difficult if you have not read my book and haven't seen how it has been answer now for 160 years of politics, so these keys are judgmental and trying to illuminate judgment create errors in your predictions. in policy change, you're looking at a comparison between the current administration on which the keys are based on the past administration, particularly when you have a change in

parties that is easy to ascertain. also you can turn that key if there is major, widely recognized significant new introduction of policy, like the new deal or the reagan revolution, so i do not think it is all that difficult, but i do not think it is the most difficult to call. all of them that are called to judgmental keys require careful attention to the definition, careful attention to all the answers from 1860 and careful attention to the current situation, but if i had trouble making the calls i have had, i would not have a perfect 40 year record. host: we have time for one more

call, jason from virginia on the democrats line. caller: i am calling on the independent line. regarding the debate, i thought thou say pivotal moment. was that considered one of the keys? i felt after the debate performance by biden there was this energy taken out of the democrats. i was not sure if that was one of the keys or not, so that is my first question. guest: one of the insights of the keys is you cannot predict based on the events of the campaign, including debates. hillary clinton won all the debates and that was one of the factors that led conventional pundits to encrypt the protector win on keys predicted trump.

so while the events of the campaign may be interesting and exciting and great for punditry, punditry is may be interesting. the media has to cover an election every day. they cannot say nothing to see, but it does not have scientific value and polls are snapshots, not predictors. they are used as predictors. that is why you should keep your eye on the big picture. host: what is your second question? caller: you mentioned social unrest as being one of the keys. what type of social unrest might influence this forthcoming election? you mentioned black lives matter and the 1960's civil rights movement. i know anything could happen

between now and the election, but you have what kind of social unrest might be a pivotal change the situation? guest: remember, it is one key. the system does not end on one or two keys. it does not even depend on the economic keys. based on the economy, you would have predicted that even humphrey would win. social unrest is one of 13 factors. this system takes six keys to count out the white house party as a predicted loser. host: professor allan lichtman is the author of "predicting the next president: the keys to the white house." thank you for being with us today. guest: thank you. great questions. i really enjoyed it.

host: that does it for today's "washington journal." we will be back tomorrow for another addition. until then, enjoy the rest of your day. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024]