to reach those who need it most. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service, giving you a front row seat to democracy. democracy. >> calls and comments, live, coming up. then kirk bado, talking about campaign 2020 four. an associate professor of political science at the university of dayton, christopher devine, on the role of vice presidential candidates and the elections. >> "washington journal" continues. -- "washington journal" starts now. ♪ host: it's monday, july 20 ninth. over the weekend, rocket fire from lebanon hit the golan

heights. 12 children were killed on a soccer field. israel blames hezbollah and has retaliated, though that groups denies responsibility. in gaza, they struck the grounds of the school they said was being used by hamas. the violence comes on the heels of benjamin netanyahu positive washington must be addressed a joint session of congress and had meetings with him by, vice president harris, and former president trump. we are asking for your thoughts on the ward in the middle east of this morning and how concerned you are about a wider war. here is how to call us. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents (202) 748-8002,. you can text us at (202) 748-8003, send us your first name and city state. we are also on social media, facebook.com/c-span, and x,

c-span wj. here's the front page of "the new york times," overhead shot of mourners sunday surrounded by the coffins of children killed in a rocket strike from lebanon one day earlier in an israeli controlled go on heights. here's what the article says, western diplomats scrambled on sunday to prevent a surge of fighting along the israel lebanon border after a rocket from lebanon on saturday killed at least 12 children and teenagers in an israeli controlled town. it prompted israel to retaliate early sunday with strikes across lebanon. the initial response appeared to stop short of a major escalation, but there were fears that the fallout would lead to all-out war. prime minister netanyahu facing domestic pressure to mount a

fiercer response met with senior meters -- senior officials on sunday to discuss further steps after flying back early from a trip to the united states. take a look at what chuck schumer said on sunday in response to the attack on "face the nation." [video clip] >> look, we know that iran through surrogates, the real people in the area, israel has every right to defend itself like -- against hezbollah like they do against hamas, it shows you how bad these surrogates are. these were arab children they shot at, they don't even care who it is. having said that, i don't think anyone once a wider work, so i hope that there are moves to de-escalate. >> sticking with the middle

east, benjamin netanyahu in washington, you are part of the formal invitation to have him come to washington but there was video of you not shaking his hand on capitol hill. why not? why did you not? >> i went to the speech because the relationship between israel and america is ironclad. i wanted to show that. at the same time, as everyone knows, i have serious disagreements with the way benjamin netanyahu has conducted these policies. host: this is from a journalist with axios saying that the israeli 5 -- israeli foreign minister me that the hezbollah attack crossed all that -- all redlined funds will be according. we are approaching the moment of all-out war against hezbollah and lebanon. we will pay prices, but the end

the war hezbollah will be destroyed in the state of lebanon be severely damaged, we will restore peace and security to the residents of the north. senator ron johnson on sunday, republican from wisconsin, talked about the attack. [video clip] cap6 >> how worried are you about another front opening up? >> very worried. israelis are very concerned with living in peace. palestinians continue to be the aggressors, killing innocent civilians. they are the ones who perpetrated the barbaric attack of october 7. there is peace available if palestinians are willing to accept it, it just doesn't seem that they are. >> is it fair to separate the palestinian people from hamas, that these are terrorist groups

that seem to be doing the bidding of iran in many cases? >> next time they have an opportunity to vote for government, 70% shouldn't vote for a government like hamas. hezbollah shouldn't continue to fire missiles into israel. this is all being sponsored by iran, who obama and the biden administration coddled, sending hundreds of billions into their military, letting them sponsor hamas. this is the weakness shown by obama and kamala harris is part and parcel of the same problem. host: going to the phones with walter in washington, d.c. caller: good morning, miss mimi. how are you? host: good. caller: this is concerning along with the possible chinese invasion of taiwan. all of these conflicts are a

major concern for us. now listen, i'm not a fan of donald trump, i didn't vote for trump and i don't like him, but i have to give him credit on this, when he was in office we didn't have all of these conflicts. there was actual peace in the middle east. the other arab countries, they had that thing, and trump bankrupted iran. the biden administration, not blaming joe biden but possibly the people in his administration. they set up and released all of these sanctions and try to do business with them. iran, you can't give a crack head money, they are going to buy crack. if you give money to iran, they fund proxy wars. now we have three proxy wars that are escalating. we had president biden and we had kamala harris, neither one are good leaders.

they can't fix the problem. host: do you think that this would affect your vote in november? do you think you would vote on the republican ticket? what are you thinking? caller: i voted for biden because i wanted normalcy. i was tired of the chaos with trump. looking at this, i'll be honest, i have buyers remorse. personality wise, i don't like trump, but he had good policies, a lot of his policies are the clinton policies, they parallel on a lot of issues. we as americans, we need to vote policy and do what's best for the country have not looked at personality. look at vice president kamala harris. it all looks good, but is she going to bust out laughing on the world stage? her nervous condition.

i'm not attacking her on that issue. i don't want trump, but we might have to go and suck it up and reelect him. host: donald, spokane, washington, republican. caller: good morning. that last gentlemen, i liked what he said, some common sense there. sorry, i thought this was open for them. i made the mistake. i just wanted to say i appreciate c-span. last time i talked to you i had mentioned i was in battle with a nine year thing with my son and i wanted to let you know, i got him back. the judge in montana, she got in lots of trouble, she lost her job. america is in a better place now. host: i'm glad things worked out for you. gary, independent mind, good morning. -- line, good morning.

caller: this is terrible. it really is. that speech he made to try to get trump elected, invited by the republicans we know that israel, netanyahu, not israel, israel is great, but netanyahu but his own people get killed. these people were there he legally anyway. host: wait, who? caller: the settlements, the people they are bringing in their, taking away the people's houses. host: yes, in the west bank. are you talking about the attack in the golan heights?

caller: yes, that's occupied territory, too. host: the people that were there were originally there. caller: and they don't care that much about them. so, they let it happen in those areas. they want to extend the war. everybody should see it. netanyahu, hezbollah, they said they didn't do that, so you don't know who to believe because netanyahu has lied so much. america believes everything he says. it's terrible. america first? they are saying israel first. israel is going to get us into world war iii. you know? if we don't wake up and see what's going on, this right here is going to get us in world war iii and everything. the people, you see what

happened in gaza, it's going to be happening over here if these nuclear bombs start to shoot. we have got to get a grip on this. we need to tell israel what they need to do. we give them all of this money. i do not understand how israel, we care more about them they and we do our own nation. it's got to stop. it's really got to stop. it's all netanyahu. he backside -- he backs out of the deals every time. host: this is what "the washington post" says about who is responsible. "the working assumption is that it was an accident, according to a senior official who spoke on conditions of anonymity and that they have not reached conclusions about the intent behind the attack.

john, jacksonville, florida, democratic line, good morning. caller: i've been alive for 61 years in can tell you right now, when it comes to things like this, i don't trust anything america does. vietnam, the gulf of tonkin, they said we were in a war with vietnam. with george bush, it was weapons of mass destruction. there were no weapons of mass destruction. what we are seeing in this country right now is a failure with these politicians that are running. they don't have any contract -- control. it's theater and a big show, but whoever enters office, it will be signing off on corporations and the neocons who are funding them. the war with israel, that israel wants us to get into, it's basically a ploy because the

american empire is falling. host: are you going to vote in november? caller: no. i'm not voting for any of them. i can't vote for people and both of these candidates are people. host: is there anybody you would vote for, like a write in candidate? caller: dr. cornell west, i would vote for him. one last thing i want to say, this attack that netanyahu said came from hezbollah, as you know, these are arabs. why would hezbollah attack arabs? they are not bloodthirsty like that. host: the working assumption from the biden administration is that it was a mistake. they can track where the missile came from and they have the missile, it's iranian made.

so, it seems pretty clear that it came from hezbollah. velma, ashland, kentucky, good morning. caller: that first caller from washington, it's who we vote for. the palestinians voted for hamas . here in this country, people voted for biden. you heard biden say that the rocket sent to israel was a mistake. that wasn't a mistake, that was intentional. how can people be so gullible as to believe something like that? here we have this open border. so, you need to vote. we need to vote on whichever of the two candidates makes the most sense, has our best interest at heart. national security, mainly. host: you mentioned that the

palestinians voted for hamas, that's correct. the last election was 2000 six. after hamas took power, they ended all elections. do you still hold the palestinian people responsible, given that the vast majority living there now did not vote for them? caller: well, they voted for terrorist and voted for their goals. i don't know what they would expect, that hamas would have their back? they knew what they were getting when they voted them in there, right? am i wrong? if they knew that they were terrorists. host: all right. anthony, independent mine, good morning. caller: i'm always concerned about it. i am. blind support for israel.

this annexed area of syria, trump recognized it in 2019 as israeli. that's an issue right off the bat. i don't even want to get into how we actually know about the missiles. if we were being honest, we don't, we are getting one side of the story. that's fine, maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but because we are trying to support this religious settler colony that is using a part hide to maintain political power. it's sick that they gave netanyahu a platform for attacking americans on the first amendment and he attacks americans in several ways. just a lot of attacks on the u.s. by israel that haven't been reconciled through history. like the uss liberty, this ally

ship is the source of a lot of our problems in the middle east. host: let's take a cat what trump said at a rally in st. cloud, minnesota, over the weekend, condemning the leadership of president biden and vice president harris. [video clip] >> before we begin i want to condemn the people attack on israel that took place earlier today. missile launched by hezbollah, killing a dozen children, young children. they were playing as you heard on a soccer field in the israeli territory of the golan heights, a place i recognized during my administration as under israeli sovereignty. it was a big thing. been trying to get it done for 72 years. i got it done in one hour. the savage hezbollah terrorists struck these children with an iranian precision missile. dozens more were wounded in the

attack and sadly, the death toll is probably going to go very substantially higher. our hearts go out to the families of these innocent children. no parent should have to suffer the terrible loss of a child at the hands of terrorists or anybody else. this attack on israel cannot be forgotten and it will go down as another moment in history created by a weak and ineffective united states president and vice president. they wouldn't have done this if i was the president. they wouldn't have done it and they didn't. with time, this situation will only get worse for our country with the kind of leadership we have right now, which is no leadership, probably worse than no leadership. host: that was former president trump. we are going to be taking your calls on this topic for about another 10 minutes, then we will be switching over to open forum.

violet, democratic line. caller: hello. i just wanted to say that parts of the larger conflict that we have been watching with the palestinians in the people of gaza the largely used and scapegoated by netanyahu to keep them in this process and continue a larger conflict that is designed to mainly serve his personal interests. the people of gaza haven't voted since 2006. 50% of them today our children and most of the casualties have been women and children. the characterization of the u.s. protesters who are pro-palestinian is pretty infuriating. that's what i wanted to say. host: this is an article from the bbc says that the israeli strike on a gaza skill -- school killed 30 and that the israeli military struck a school in a city in central gaza killing 30

palestinians, injuring more than 100 according to the hamas run -- hamas run ministry of health, that a command control center was reportedly embedded inside the school in that hamas used of the compound as a hiding place to direct and plan attacks in-store weapons. this is joe, alabama, republican line, hello. caller: hi. host: what do you think? caller: first i wanted to tell you what a pretty woman you are. host: thank you. what do you think about the middle east, though? david, georgia, independent mine. caller: hello there, good morning. i'm concerned about this rhetoric of donald trump being

better on this issue. he greatly expanded the already out-of-control program he inherited from the bush and obama administrations. the first caller mentioning the abraham accords, right now we are seeing an issue of palestinians being completely ignored and left out of the abraham accords between the saudi's and the israelis, or any of the other peace talks going on between any of the other states in the middle east and israel. definitely not crazy about biden's handling of the situation either in his almost unquestioning support of netanyahu. i'm more interested in peace so let's look at going back to the iran deal, the crown of the obama administration foreign policy that was working despite rhetoric from the right. let's start actually looking at peace in coming to the table for negotiation. host: the people on the right say that the iran deal gave money and funds to iran that

they were then using to fund proxies like hamas and hezbollah. >> it was releasing frozen assets that have been kept. those were iranian assets on frozen. because of them going along with investigations into their nuclear power program and allowing the iaea into their country, if we want to have peace and if we want to have negotiations, then it's not like we were pumping money into iran, we were releasing frozen assets from the revolution in the 70's. host: and they could use the on frozen assets to fund terror. caller: they could also use it to go for a peaceful nuclear power program or things in their own country. if we want to deter terror, maybe we should a, stop subjugating the palestinian people. that's another thing, the

knesset just last week voted against the two state solution. if israel is going to be against a two state solution, they need to decide if they are going to go through with a full-fledged genocidal campaign of displacement and death, or if they want to turn their state into a pluralistic democratic state that will allow the palestinian people to live in peace within the israeli borders. they cannot have their cake and eat it, too. host: you said you were not a fan of the biden administration approach, what you think about what vice president harris has said about this? caller: i think that that rhetoric, i don't know if they are trying to show their hand, but i think that her rhetoric is clearly softer on the issue. i was a fan of the fact that she didn't go to the netanyahu address to congress. i don't understand.

chuck schumer, who they themselves have said that netanyahu is the issue, why are we inviting him to speak to our congress? i'm a fan of her not going. i understand they spoke behind closed doors and i would be interested to know what was said , but i'm hopeful that the harris administration would try to clamp down on netanyahu a little more. i'm not entirely optimistic about that. definitely, i don't know truthfully, and i don't know if it's president biden, i don't know that many democrats would have been much worse on the position of israel and gaza. host: let's take a cat what "the times of israel" is saying, "harris vows ironclad support for israeli security, condemning the hezbollah attack that killed a dozen children on a soccer field over the weekend,"

according to her national security advisors. "the u.s. will continue working on a diplomatic solution to end all attacks once and for all in allow citizens on both sides of the border to safely return home." that was phil gordon, the national security advisor for vice president harris. here is a posting on x by mr. gordon that says -- we just mentioned that. he also says that the vice president has been briefed and is closely monitoring the attack . let's take a cat what vice president harris said following her meeting with netanyahu on thursday. this would have been before the hezbollah attack. [video clip] >> 2 million people are facing high levels of food insecurity

and half of a million people facing catastrophic levels of acute food insecurity, what has happened in gaza over the past nine months is devastating. the images of dead children and desperate, hungry people fleeing to safety sometimes displaced for the second, third, or fourth time. we cannot look away in the face of these tragedies, we cannot allow ourselves to become numb to the suffering. i will not be silent. thanks to the leadership of our president, joe biden, there is a deal on the table for a cease-fire and a hostage deal. it is important that we recall what the deal involves. the first phase would bring about a full cease-fire, including withdrawal of the israeli military from population

centers in gaza. the second phase, the israeli military would withdraw from gaza entirely. it would lead to a permanent end to the hostilities. it is time for the war to end. and do it in a way where israel is secure, the hostages are released, the suffering of palestinians in gaza ends, and the palestinian people can exercise their right to freedom, dignity, and self-determination. there has been hopeful movement in the talks to secure agreement on the deal. as i just told the prime minister, it is time to get the deal done. so, to everyone who has been calling for a cease-fire, to everyone who yearns for peace, i see you and i hear you. host: that was vice president

harris on thursday. we will be opening the phone lines for open forum. certainly continue to talk about the middle east. anything else going on in washington and with public policy? democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. mike, pennsylvania, good morning. caller: glad i got on before open phones, it's pertinent to the topic. basically, it was caught abroad -- kinda brought out by the last caller. this is a calculated attack in response by hezbollah, proxy of iran, and netanyahu's provocative speech to the congress, an invitation from the right flank. obviously, you know, kamala's comments were in the back rooms.

but the subdued response on the part of the administration, it was calculated to put a damper on the israeli response they have to do. that was curious. it is also curious that they targeted druze muslims. i don't know if that would make the israeli response less, even though they were israeli citizens, but that gets into the how arabs are treated in israel. host: you know, mike, it's actually, they are not israeli citizens, they are israeli residents, it's a difference. caller: i was just thinking about that when i heard the vice president's comments in terms of

israeli -- anyway, netanyahu is weak. he was weak when he showed up at 70% disapproval ratings. so you know, this is not going to be a green light for netanyahu to open, open an attack on the northern front. i really think that this, this was calculated. it gets beyond just a terror attack. it was measured. they had eyeballs on that speech in u.s. congress let's just hope that, you know, diplomacy, which includes military, you know, responses, is put on the front burner in the u.s. uses leverage to, you know, to continue fighting for people. host: got it. pennsylvania, dan, republican line. caller: good morning.

this must've been going on since the crusades. they been fighting forever over there and i don't see it ever ending and i'm definitely worried about how far it would escalate. i don't have the answers. but i would figure that, you know, since iran is behind mostly all of it as i understand what's going on, how come we don't enforce anything against iran to where we are threatening them or something, to get them to stop, giving them all of these proxies, money, and backing? i don't hear about anybody like really nailing iran. i heard something like they were going to bomb oil fields or something to send a message a while ago? they never did. so maybe you know more about that than i do, i don't know. host: i don't know, dan. let's talk to earl in florida,

independent line, good morning. caller: i will preface my call by telling that the 30 day rule is just as weak as the argument for cameras in the court, we have seen how c-span has morphed into what politicians do to carry propaganda. i'm glad it's open phones, i want to talk to the young people who might be listening to this. look at it from the perspective or context that there are three major religions. islam, with the seven groups or denominations, judy -- judaism with three or four, and christian done with its 37,000 denominations. they are all committing murders before our eyes. you are listening to the language of the european who tells us it's not called murder, it's called genocide. now you cannot call it genocide

unless someone is convicted of it and you listen to these so-called christians who call here. i wonder what part of the behavior of jesus they are imitating. i don't know who they are imitating. jesus tells them that what they are talking about, a third world war, 24, 21, 22, they will tell you what's going to occur. the pontification around some of these profits. so, anyways, please, young ones, hear and consider what i've said it. there is a truth out there, search for it and you will find it. host: felicia, iowa, democrat, good morning. caller: i wanted to say something about what's going on in iran. americans want to blame our

government for iranian's weak government and netanyahu, his own people say that he is a criminal. he's the leader of israel. not biden, not harris, not trump. the people who say that if trump was in office we would have never gotten into this? they forget that trump left syria, left all of those people there to fend for themselves after we were supposed to protect them. as far as the open forum goes and where i'm voting, my vote goes to kamala. i'm a democrat. i support her. i think that americans need to realize that we don't have control over what goes on in israel. another thing, i really have a big problem with these republicans with, when those

guys came marching out with those tiki torches, do you remember what they said? host: you are talking about charlottesville, unite the right? i do remember. caller: they said that jews will not replace us. they have a conflict. do they really support israel? i have a -- i think about that all the time. why are we so close to israel? i think it has something to do with the bible and where jesus comes back from, but i have no idea what that means. jews will not replace us and we support israel? it doesn't blend. host: thanks, felicia. charles, republican line. arkansas. caller: remember back when all of this started? everybody in the administration, the president, they said don't?

here we have the uzis -- how uthis, and now turkey? where's the don't? what happened to that? you would call it appeasement. if americans are going to enforce it, they need to show up . i agree with kamala harris, what she said about the massive humanitarian crisis. but i would've done this differently. i would've said to israel -- here's all the weapons you need. we are going to use the port in tel aviv and set up a massive humanitarian tent in southern israel, near gaza, we will provide the security for that, trucking it into the port. it's been a feeble effort. this country has massive capacity to mount a humanitarian

effort, with food and medical care. host: will you be ok, charles, with american troops in gaza in order to secure those -- that humanitarian aid? caller: i wouldn't put them in gaza, they would be indirect fire from hamas. host: how do you get the humanitarian aid in if they are not in gaza? caller: israel in gaza, let them be in charge of security, let israel fight hamas in gaza. let the palestinian people who are suffering, who are between a rock and a hard place, uh, go to that area. host: got it, charles.

let's take a look. a portion of save the nation -- "face the nation," yesterday. [video clip] >> benjamin netanyahu in the united states this past week. what have you been told about his request to have more shipments of weapons delivered on a fast-track basis? >> i sign off on all military sales. the fact is that shipments have been delayed intentionally. the four corners, we signed off on these weapons. for some reason the administration has withheld the weapons. i think maybe it gives them leverage over israel in the decision-making process? when i spoke to the prime minister it created daylight. it's dangerous right now for us

to somehow put daylight between us and our most important u.s. ally over democracy in the middle east. host: this is james in lakeview, oregon. independent. caller: yes. can i speak now? guest: yes, you can. caller: basically, the middle east, it's very complicated and i really don't know the answer. i am concerned about the, about the we have to look at how we got there. anything can be done about it? water under the bridge?

germany offered land to the palestinians in that was rejected. over the years we have released $100 billion to iran that we had frozen. i don't know if that's true, but that is something that we can still deal with. that's where i'm at. host: jill, arkansas, good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: good. caller: i would just like to say it's appalling to me how a running parrot -- president would call out someone by name, like kamala, and it's really appalling when the black people

caller out, it's as easy to say kamala is safe kamala. -- say kamala. you are supposed to be a leader for our children. not just saying whatever you feel like saying. i wouldn't go for donald j. trump. if you act like a duck and quack like a duck, you duct and donald j. trump is a duck. host: stephen, good morning. caller: i've got a few things i would like to talk about. deficit, if we don't get the deficit under control, we are

having this problem with this fentanyl in this country, it's killing how many people? they say 150,000 but it's probably way more than that. if they don't start drilling for oil? it would bring down the debt. russia couldn't fight. iran could fight she didn't have the oil money -- iran couldn't bite, russia couldn't bite, if they didn't have the oil money. if we made the oil in the united states? it funded both of the wars going on right now. killed millions. i cannot understand how people in the united states can't see

this. i went to get a boxer cereal from the store the other day. three dollars 50 cents. now it's eight dollars? now, you are telling me that's over twice as much that we are paying at the stores for food since they started this war on account of oil? this is what transports all of our goods, our oil. oil in the united states. this is why the prices went up. these companies ain't gouging nobody. it's on account of when you are paying six dollars, seven dollars per gallon of diesel fuel and you was paying three dollars per gallon, it's common sense. host: all right, stephen.

let's take a look. a portion of "fox news sunday." here's pete buttigieg, talking about kamala harris in her candidacy. [video clip] >> it's true, the democratic party is not famous for falling in line. that's why it is so remarkable that kamala harris has consolidated the big tent party. it's coming from the ground up. you can feel it. i was at a field office in michigan. so many from different corners of the party are ready to support kamala harris. it's a level of energy i haven't seen on the campaign trail in a long time. >> but you got more delegates than she did in 2020. she dropped out of that race. a former staffer said that she wasn't tested and tried.

stevens also says that she is unpopular and has been a bad campaigner and manager, a blue state democrat and we need to win purple states and she's anchored to the presidential rank -- record and that there should be more worry that there hasn't been a thorough vetting and that there will be wishes. >> the idea that someone who hasn't been tested or vetted when they have been the vice president for four years just doesn't make any sense. she is in one of the most visible leadership roles in the country. she has demonstrated both her effectiveness in that job and her vision for the country that americans agree with. that's the real reason i think she's going to win. most americans already agree with her on the issues that they care about the most that affect them the most. whether we are talking about her stance on a woman's right to choose versus trump, who eliminated that right to choose

in this country. host: well, to be fair he's sent it back to the states. >> to be fair he has been very proud of the fact that he destroyed the national right to choose in this country. host: good morning. caller: been a while since i talked to you, what they didn't mention was iran, they are within weeks of making a nuclear bomb to enrich their program were whatever. israel won't allow that. something will happen here shortly, that's for sure. israel is definitely committing genocide. it started with them people's deaths over there. cannot believe that we keep giving them weapons and so forth. but what is basically going to happen is they are going to attack iran, they are not going to allow them to have nuclear weapons. the networks, they never talk about nothing, they kind of leave it out of the picture and i would like to hear more about

what kamala says about israel because i might come off the couch if she actually did something about israel, but she can't, it's political suicide to say anything about israel. they totally wrecked him right away as soon as he started going against it. the israeli monopoly, it's a lot of rich people from israel, they won't allow it to happen. host: when you say get off the couch, you are not intending to vote? caller: i'm not intending to vote. biden, he is beside himself. he claims to be a zionist and will do nothing about israel. he don't dare do nothing about israel, its political suicide for these people. it will continue on until there is nothing left. nothing whatsoever. host: bill, independent line. caller: she used that line about things she wants israel to do?

listening to that, talking about catching fish and using a one pound to drag across the bottom? that person has the iq of an armadillo. host: mike, brooklyn, republican. caller: i would like to remind the viewers of points that have been forgotten. who started the war? hamas. they won said that if israel was put down, that if the arabs put down their guns, there would be no more war and if israel put down the guns, there would be no state of israel. to all the protesters who care about genocide, what about hamas using civilians as shields and the fact that israelis are going after terrorists? gaza, hamas are responsible for this death of civilians. host: joe, baltimore, democratic

line, good morning. caller: how are you doing? i got three statements to make. the first one is that israel is like a small brother. every time he gets in trouble, he does what? he says i'm gonna get my big brother to get you. the united states right now is exactly like that big brother. they are getting supplies from us to attack people. once you start giving supplies, they are going to sit down and negotiate. they fear that. the military, all of these eruptions, when 20 and 25 gets here, it's going to be a whole new ballgame. all of those elections, the advances and everything else, if anything people, hold onto your purse strings. you will need that money.

especially older people who are being maligned. you've been carrying on business for your children and grandchildren for years. thank you. host: alan's next from virginia. independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call, i will only take a few seconds, i have a couple of points i want to make. i think that the viewers, and i know we all speak on what we see from the little bit of research that we do, but if you go back to the -- go back to arafat in the 80's and the shaw of iran, the shaw of iran was a friend to the u.s.. when the radicals took over, they vowed they would attack the united states and everyone else. look where we are 50 years later . the point i want to make is that on october 6, nothing happened. who started this?

people have to recognize that. it's always the other side and israel gets the blame. it's like genocide on earth, who's behind it. oh who is blocking the food from coming in? everything gets placed on israel. it didn't happen to the people of this country. burning flags, climbing the walls, that's the insult and an attack on america. the second point i want to make on the election, if you like what has happened over the last four years, you should vote for kamala. but you know, four years ago i go, gas was $1.96. when i go to the store, no matter what i do, what i get, everything is almost double. now, if people cannot see that, i just don't get the picture. finally, i would like to say

that the very first day the president biden took office, he shut down the oil lines, shut down everything in the country. we got these people down there who's never driven a car, who don't understand how the people make a money driving three or four hours every day to work, making decisions, they take the train. making those decisions? i don't know, if there is compassion, we need to get common sense back and get them all to work together, somehow. i don't know the answer. what i do know is i don't want to see four years of the future like this. i tell you what, if she gets elected, you will get the same and even worse. wake up out there, folks, it's only my opinion and i hope the best for all of us. host: republican line, michigan. caller: yes, good.

pardon me? host: i was just saying good morning. caller: ok, i don't hear well. give me a little credit. like i say, i don't hear well. i called for several reasons. one, i think that maybe your show should -- i can't hear a word you are saying. host: go ahead, keep going with your comments. caller: i think that you should change the name of your show. it should be advice to our government. i ain't going to go there, i ain't smart enough to tell the people in washington, d.c. what's going on i still can't hear you. host: it's ok, i think we got your point. johnny, lexington, kentucky, good morning. caller: yeah, i'm calling to let

the people of the united states no, and we've all got to come together and realize what's going on. host: realize what's going on about what, johnny? caller: about what trump is saying about what he's going to do to this country. he's telling you exactly what he's going to do. people have got to realize, he's doing it to the young women on abortions and everything else going on here. now, we'll need to come together and start loving each other and start listening to each other and quit fighting with each other. the man upstairs is looking down on us and he realizes what's going on. thank you. host: let's take a cut what former president trump said on friday, we he urged christians

to vote and added that they won't have to vote anymore if he wins the white house in november. [video clip] >> we must win this election. most important ever. we want a landslide that is too big to rig. if you want to save america, get your friends, your family, vote early, vote absentee, vote on election day, i don't care how, get out and vote. christians, get out and vote. just at this time. you won't have to do it anymore. four more years? you know what, it'll be fixed, it'll be fine. you won't have to vote anymore, my beautiful questions. i'm a christian. i love you. get out. got an vote. in four years, you won't have to vote again. we will have it fixed so good, you won't have to. host: and this is jess, good

morning. caller: i'm calling in to ask everyone to consider what happened during the pandemic. the people we lost, when we compare it to the threat we face from other adversaries and the likelihood of them attacking again? i don't see anybody talking about how we can prepare for the next pandemic. seems like it should be a priority but it is off of the radar screen. and if it is not in a presidential cycle like this? then when? there was a principal scientist who was on pbs news hour a couple of weeks back who was talking about the h5n1 threat that the world is facing. the fact that we are not looking carefully enough to see if people and animals are actually transmitting this disease from person to person.

this is exactly how the pandemic would occur, if it were to occur. it's not to say that we should be alarmed, but we are not even looking. we are not spending money to do that. he called it the covid legislature focused on demonizing scientists. we should be investigating and spending money looking into this. that's what i have to say. host: crystal, fargo, republican line. caller: i was looking at your counterpart, [indiscernible] , and kamala harris was being interviewed back in january, 2019. she made some comments, the american people should not be held hostage for a pet project, at the time referring to trump. the same thing is going on with

biden. the american people should not be held hostage for your pet project, getting rid of fossil fuels. your numerous scholars today are testimony of the impact of biden stomping on the neck of the oil industry. we need that. we need to become energy independent again. that's the focus of where we are at. another thing that harris said is that you don't reward bad behavior. you don't put up with tantrums. there we are with democrats again. let's be more realistic. sometimes when we are doing these debates, don't have the temper tantrums. netanyahu, he is spot on. when you have still got an enemy who is still attacking you, whether it is through hezbollah, hamas, the couth fees, how can there be a cease fire?

people popping up out of tunnels shooting at your soldiers and using civilians as hostages? the atrocities are absolutely inhuman. host: are you still there? caller: yes. host: i wanted to ask is, you are from north dakota, your governor was one of the finalists, if you will, for running mate for former president trump. what do you think of senator vance? what do you think of governor burgum not being selected? caller: i like both those guys. they are amazing with their experiences. doug burgum, for example, from my state, he has the knowledge of how to work together, because the oil industry here has provided so many jobs. we we were supporting all

oil and being productive. biden and the democrats stomped on the neck of the oil industry. host: that is the last call for this segment of the program but there's more because next we will look at what faces both vice president harris and former president trump as they make their bids for the white house with kirk baddo. then christopher devine discussions the vase presidential debates. >> this book notes is a repeat from november 4, 2015, the featured guest is the author of

assassinations, threats and american presidency where he examines attempts on the lives of presidents and presidential candidates throughout history. that is this episode of book notes plus. it is available on the c-span now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> browse through our c-span products, apparel, books, home decor and abscess resist. every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation. shop now or any time at shap sponsorship.org. -- c-spanshop.org. >> c-span now is a free mobile app with youren filtered view of what is happening in washington.

keep up with the biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the congress, white house events, the court, campaign and more from politics all at your fingertips. you can stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" and find scheduling for networks. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. scan the q.r. code to download it for free today or visit c-span.org/c-span now. your front row seat to washington any time, anywhere. >> since 1979 in partnership with the cable industry c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress from the house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party

briefings and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat to how issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruptions and completely unfilter the. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. de host: we are joined by kirk bado of the national journal hotline. remind us about the hotline and work you do there. guest: the hotline is a trade publication. we have a twice daily newsletter that tracks campaigns all over the map with presidential down to state legislators. the last few weeks have been like our super bowl, christmas and 4th of july. host: and world cupment guest: the olympics as well. throw that in there. >> you wrote an article with the

era of last year democrats were dreading the slog to chicago but now they are giddy. guest: the vibes are good right now after this month of complete disarray after biden's debate performance. deposition were so worried not just losing the white house but they were worried about the senate and more than double digit losses in the house. all the anxieties they had pent up the last year or so with lingering questions about biden were answered in the worst ways. now after biden has stepped aside and harrison almost completely consolidated the party and will be the eventual nominee this anxiety has let loose. it is like a sugar high with democratic enthusiasm skyrocket the last week or so since harris

emerged as the heir apparent. you are looking at enthusiasm among younger voters, gen z and others that were not going to vote for biden. that era is that harris starts moving ahead and you see it not necessarily in the polling right now but in the enthusiasm of democratic donors. harris has raised over $200 million in the last week which is 200% more than what she and biden had on hand. the democratic campaign committees have raised record sums. host: you called it a sugar high. after a sugar high you crash. how long do we expect the high to last? guest: we have 99 days until the

election, even less when early voting starts in virginia at the end of september. but democrats can kind of ride this sugar high a little bit until the convention two weeks from now because we will have a vice presidential announcement and then the convention you could see a conventional bounce from harris and her running mate. this is squashing any hope for a post-convention bounce for trump. the news of biden stepping aside harris ascension as blotted out the sun on post-convention or not talking about a post-assassination attempt where there is rallying around the candidate. according to polling and we need more data, but there's been no bump for trump since the convention, which is huge we there's such a narrow margin

between the two. host: i want to ask you about position. this is a real clear polling. this is a graph -- it is not that obvious but a line where july 21 biden withdraws so you can see trump beginning on biden, here is the withdrawal, then here is harris everyone is it too early to see? because it still looks like trump is up about 48%, harris about 46%. guest: it is still way material to tell what harris -- way too early because harris's wins above replacement. right now she is inheriting biden's polling. the up side for her and democrats is that, yes, the floor for biden and harris is the same which is a wipeout. but the potential of harris is so much higher. if you are a democrat seeing that you should be worried. you have a lot of work to do.

there's a lot of good feeling but they have a lot of work in the next 99 days. they are playing catch-up. in the national polling average they probably need to win the popular vote by four or five point, maybe six to win the electoral college. host: as you say, it is only 99 days. we certainly understand the challenges of that compressed campaign. but could it be an advantage for her? guest: it could. it gives republicans a little less time to define to she is. she were struggled last week to find an attack line. they are trying to focus their members on attacking her on policy instead of her race or gender which has been difficult for some surrogates in the g.o.p. but this allows her to microwave a campaign instantly. she is inheriting the biden

infrastructure, raises a lot of money. up like say if you had gretsch whitmer or somebody else they would have had to create their own nationwide network. she gets that from biden right now. there's more enthusiasm in those key groups of democrats that they need to get across the finish line. host: if would like to call in and make a comment or ask a question of our guest, you can do so. our loans are by parties, democrats are 202-748-8000, republicans are 202-748-8001 an independents, 202-748-8002. former president obama endorsed vice president harris. how big a deal is that and how long does that last? guest: i think it was because he conspicuously didn't endorse her immediately. host: do we know why?

guest: he said he wanted an on process and let the process play out, see how harris could do in a fast moving situation like this. but, as we saw, any of her would-be challengers immediately consolidated as the consensus peck so there was no other path for him but to indoors her. i don't think it was malice or trying to play the field. i think he was trying to not weigh in and let the party sort this out. he's been less interested in party politics and building up infrastructure so let the party ham it and he came in and was the kerry on top of the sun daye -- sundae for harris. host: who how do we know what a what is her strategy? guest: we are in what i call 2.0. the fundamentals are the same.

the same six states will be deciding the presidency. she is not going to look to expand the map out to, you know, ohio or down to florida. she is going to concentrate on those section states but they might change a little bit from biden strengths in the rust belt. there is hope she can get georgia back into the democratic clem, that she fares better in arizona than biden has, nevada as well. those sun belt states. she's been spending a lots of time in north carolina as well. she picked roy cooper as a running mate you could see her spending more time and north carolina is purple with a tinge of red. it gives democrats more options. biden's path of industry was really narrow. harris's could be more multi-facetted. >> you mentioned this is johnson

seeks to quash d.e.i. type attacks on harris. what do you know of that as far as backlash of alarms attacking vice president harris's race and gender? guest: when your head line we are telling our members not to be racist that is a problem. you have seen some members of the republic party in more conservative areas use that battle attack against her calling her a d.e.i. candidate conflating biden's advice to put a black on the court. it kind of distracts from the issues. it distracts from more solid attacks against harris on her record especially republicans want to focus on the down ballot races in the competitive house and senate races tying

vulnerable democratic candidates to harris more or less left leaning statements from 2000 which was basically to the left. that is what they want to focus on the. now they have to have emergency discipline and that comes not just from speaker johnson but trump and he's not been the most disciplined candidate in any of his reversible runs. host: last time year here we were talking about president biden's effect on down ballot. what are we looking at now? guest: we are seeing more enthusiasm on the democratic side. like i said, the house campaign had one of its best fund-raising days in the 24 hours after biden stepped aside and harris became basically the de facto. it was like 24 hours after the dobbs situation. same for the senate candidates as well. we are still having to parse

through what is going through with polling in a few weeks. there was an emerson college polling last week that showed vulnerable senate democrats are way ahead of harris in the battle groundsment s&p as biden but my theory is it will have a bigger affect on the house than senate. if you look where there are the most vulnerable seats for republicans it is blue states. in california, new york, those urban centers as well. with harris consolidating and basically securing the follow nation there is more enthusiasm for groups of voters in those areas. we are thinking younger voters, gen z, hispanic and black voters. you are seeing more enthusiasm there which was a problem with biden. it was not that they would switch to republican but stay home. you look at one in southern

california i would be support worried that harris is there. same with mick garcia. in the intern areas around full court. mike lollar, anthony esposito. host: what is it about control of the house? guest: it will be difficult but having harris himself more than having biden drag down democratic enthusiasm. the senate is different. host: let's talk to callers. tom is a republican in birmingham, michigan. caller: good morning. i'm a registered republican. i first voted for george h.w. bush. i probably will not vote for ms. harris. what is your perspective of how in might shift the michigan agreement shall vote who might give kamala a second look. guest: michigan will be the

battleground. it be incredibly competitive at the presidential level, senate and house. i think harris does help by giving voters a fresh start, a fresh face it look at. if you look at the latest abc polling from this weekend, her first week her favorable was under water two weeks but now she is plus one. so if fog else it gives democrats a little hard reset. we mentioned senate candidates earlier. it is easier for them to create their own weather outside the national environment but harris and the democrats are still down. democratic candidates have to be quite the storm system to overcome the national environment. in an open seat like with michigan and debby establish now that will be more difficult.

mike rodgers is a strong recruit. host: democrat from los angeles. caller: good morning. yes, my opinion is that these two campaigns is a clear difference in the harris campaign is a campaign for human ity. it the trump campaign, it is whit e supremacy. no matter what words they use, what they are mustering up is the fear in so-called white people that their illusion of white supremacy is slipping away and trump is the hope to bring it back. in the harris campaign it is a campaign for all americans, all

human beings, black, white, red, yellow, all of them. and to make this country live up to its creed that all men are created equal and not this white supremacist idea of white racist christians that they should dominate the land. when this country is made up of all different people and that we should all be respectful of each other. host: any comment? guest: that is the harris game plan. that is exactly the contrast they want to campaign. seems like he has the talking points. host: al independent line columbus, ohio. caller: i just want to elaborate on what that caller just spoke on before i got on.

this whole thing about kamala and with the open borders i always hear republicans saying that she was -- you know, that the democrats are for open borders but i would like to know we was the border ever closed in the united states? when was it ever shut down from all immigrants? another thing like the caller before me said, i would like to know the definition of the left and the right. when you say liberal, if you take it to the extreme, you are talking about ok, you might say communism, but it is talking about freedom for everybody, everybody having the same amount of everything, of being liberal with all the things that we need to survive. money and everything that goes

with it. but when you talk in conservative, the right, what is that? is it just to conserve that for white people? host: all right. he did mention the border. how big of a deal is that? guest: it will be massive. one of the stronger republican tacking points against harris she was the de facto border czar for president biden. she had responsibilities for it and going back to the down ballots, the republican campaign committee laid out the policy centric attacks against hair respect, the lines they want their candidate to follow. chief among them with immigration is blaming her for border crisis and increase in immigration and crime and that will be a pretty salient line. dave mccormick in pennsylvania had the textbook ad we will see copy and pasted tying bob casey to harris more liberal

statements of 2020 and then to her responsibility for the border so if you are vulnerable democrat in arizona, nevada, michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania it will be in there swapped in with your fame. why a reminder of the lines, democrats, 202-748-8000, republicans, 202-748-8001, and independents, 202-748-8002. chuck on the republican line in clinton, south carolina. you are next. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: yes. caller: i have been watching c-span since brian lamb started the thing and i have been a political junky since i was in the seventh grade. what i'm seeing now is sings they started -- sings they started cable news is where it is a team sport. we don't care what happens as

long as my team wins and people, you have a kind of people that don't understand the way the accountant runs at all. mostly guys in d.c. are liberal and don't have a clue of what i think like and what they don't understand is the election is going to be won by the way the middle cast votes. that is people like me. the last i think i want, you sit there and it doesn't effect you, but i watch illegal immigration come in and when i go on the job site i see them joaquining and they are working under the tkaebl and a legitimate contractor can't compete with that because they have to pay insurance, unemployment and all of this stuff on my guys so i get underbid all the time. another thing is when i go to the grocery i'm paying twice

what i used to pay. and that do not mean anything to a guy in d.c. leak you. but people like -- host: all right, chuck, we got that. immigration and inflation. guest: the names of the ticket might change we might have a viable candidate for the rug side but the concern about immigration and price of goods will be paramount and the biggest challenges for both. host: what are you looking for as we await the announcement of a running mate for harris? guest: i'm interested to see the strategy. all the final us offer potential political advantage. it is interesting it contrast her considerations right now with former president trump's where he took j.d. vance who was not looking to expands the map. it was not nikki haley who could have have added a modicum of

moderation to the taggart. j.d. vance, 39 years, not in his second year of being in office, is maga through and through with the conservative wing. it is more doubling done on the base. if trump will to make that decision after harris came on board i don't know if he would have made the same decision. what harris is considering it seems like between the governor of pennsylvania joshua shapiro. indiana pa sheer, minnesota is somebody to balance the ticket with more moderation and might expand the map a little better or help her in her places she might be the weekest. host: do you have a prediction? guest: i don't have a prediction. i do as an alumni of u.n.c. have to support fellow alumni roy cooperment but that is just the alumni network. host: although i heard he pronounces it different.

guest: more like cupper. i think it is north carolina. host: karen democrat in texas. caller: you had a caller asking the difference between liberal -- excuse me -- liberal and conservative or democrats and republicans. the most liberal statement that ever started a country is the idea that all men are created equal, we will have no kings in this country. that is where you see the liberal side believes government can influence people's lives in a positive way and can help people get out of, say, poverty, go forward with jobs and try to help the little man. i come from the state of texas, near the state capitol and we had governor george w. bush g. he was the governor before he

became president and one of the most famous things he said wail governor is corporations will regulate themselves so that is where you see all kinds of things happen where the airline industry and boeing has crashes, east palestine has rail crashes this is where the government let business do what they want instead of regular late so i'm just answering that question. but people need to look at what happened in texas. the republicans in texas do not even campaign here. i have michael mccall. he doesn't even show up. he doesn't have to. hot to be tom delay gerrymandered this whole state and ever since then the democrats haven't had a chance to elect anybody. so, if you want to see what is going to happen or what they

want, all state universities here in the state of texas are forbidden to use d.e.i. in their enrollment. all the programs that passed the law that republicans control austin and they just passed a law saying no more d.e.i. so we have the large he is enrolled university in the america, texas a&m that has 70,000 students and 2,000 of them are black in a state that is 14% black. so, those things are going to come out of the republicans this year. they are going to try to do with the abortion bans their treatment of women they are going to try to do everything they have done in texas when they steamrolled that they are going to try to do that on a nationwide level. host: all right, carroll. guest: we can that in texas gerrymandering or the republican party but one thing we have not

talked about is contrast of democrats and republicans on reproductive health and abortion rights. that is one of the big drivers behind this enthusiasm for harris right now not just bass she is younger or a woman of color but because she can tack more eloquently and prosecute the case against republicans on abortion abscess rights. we saw that previewed this weekends with the major committee chairs of the democratic party hitting the sunday shows about that and harris and it is their belief she can talk about abortion as a black woman because of how the inequities of reproductive healthcare effect that communities so dose proportionately. she will say the word abortion which president biden was react to do. they see her as being able to prosecute that case in a more efficient way. that is probably the democrats' most effective tool is drawing that contrast on reproductive

rights. host: jay in mississippi, end line. caller: good morning. i would like to make a comment about ms. harrisher pop is real, that is really a shot, because hers was so low, the whales could not even find it. i don't understand how all of a sudden she has gotten so popular. i watched james get up at the republican convention and more or less endorse donald trump

president. he did not endorse him, but he almost did. labor unions and stuff like that, fangs is not going to go well for the democrats. that is all i've got to say. guest: one saying about the labor unions, so, too, go the elections. vance kind of can speak to that working class union member voter here. he's got stronger labor, prounion credentials than a lot of other republicans, and you can see that as a concerted effort from the republican party to bring those type of voters. host: you have an article in the national journal's "hotline", where it will take to campaign, calling it biden's second

waterloo. a picture of a very young joe biden. what we are trying to say there? guest: i did that the moment he did his big announcement dropout speech. and what i did as i looked at biden pose a public life for 50 plus years, and i went back to 1987 and looked at how he dropped out the first time, what his considerations were. for that i used the really seminal book, ben cramer's "what it takes," kind of the best campaign book of all time, i would wager. his considerations then is the same we see now, really digging his heels in, really only concentrating on the select few, and it also features some other parallels. there was biden in a huddle, and his home in delaware. he was resisting calls for a few weeks. there was a self-made controversy. what struck out to me when i was reading about these

considerations is the judiciary committee, ironic considering his message today about supporting those two reforms of the supreme court, but he talked about the plagiarism scandal plaguing his young campaign, the campaign that never really caught fire. he could not quite get there. his consideration was that the campaign is going to overshadow his supreme court confirmation hearing. of robert bork. . bork was the reagan appointee that biden helped settle through, as ben kramer writes, ever about democracy at the time in 1987. if i drive us down, it will overshadow this confirmation, it will get this guy, robert bork, on the supreme court. it is a service to my country now that i need to step away. his consideration of akamai

single supreme court justice, his decision to drop out 40 years later, he is considering so much more. the future of democracy, at least in democrats' minds, is at stake, it is not just one supreme court justice, it could be to, could be three, could be the presidential immunity case. if that is what caused him to tip the scale 40 years ago, imagine the pressure is on him now. the next two months will be about his legacy. host: nick in delray beach, florida, republican. you are next. caller: that is laughable. what a great story, that joe biden dropped out of the 1988 presidential race over judge bork. that takes the case. i'm going to try to get through this without laughing, and i will do it quickly, because c-span does not like the fact that i speak intelligently and

truthfully. you guys like to cut me off quickly, so i will speak fast. number one, i cannot believe that c-span is still allowing people to come on the airwaves and talk about white supremacy and racism and all this, calling republicans and donald trump white supremacists, and everyone who votes for donald trump wants to bring back white supremacy and the nomination. when is c-span going to wake up and grow up? host: is that all you had to say, nick? caller: no, it is not. host: sorry, i hit the button to fast. oscar and ray, wisconsin. caller: yeah. i'm calling in about the continuous misinformation about kamala harris being a dei pick.

how is she a dei pick, when she was elected by the people of the state of california had to be attorney general. she was elected by the people of california to be their senator. she was elected by the people of the united states to be the vice president, so how is that a dei pick? host: any commentary echo guest: that does undercut the republican message that she is not qualified. she was a state attorney general, she was a district attorney, she was a senator from california, a pretty impressive resume, at least enough for biden today she was qualified for the vice presidency. host: have you seen any changes in president trump's approach, former president trump's approach in his campaign? guest: it has been interesting

to see them try in real time to fight again. he was shot at, there was a bullet, he survived, and for a little bit, that first week, especially during the rnc, it was all about a new tone, a new trump and everything. he threw out what was going to be a real humdinger, but he made it a little more unified. that is what his son trump junior sighed at the rnc. what we have seen since biden has stepped aside is a reversion back to the mean for donald trump. by "me and," i don't mean average, but i mean mean. if you look at his rallies, he still going after the democrats in the same language as before, sometimes slipping up and going after biden again instead of harris. he's got to find his footing again. we talk about his rally this weekend in minnesota, people talk about ever since the assassination attempt, he's a changed man, i've changed, but i

don't think i've changed them in fact, i'm not ready to be a nice guy. i don't think any of this rumor or this idea of a pivot for trump israel. he will be the same trump we've known for the past eight years now. host: charles in charleston, south carolina, independent line. caller: yes, good morning. what the guy from texas had to say, a kind of reminded me of south carolina, how, you know, south carolina, you can't even question government. you can have a good argument down here, they bring in more money in south carolina. it is always going to be a republican state and everything. but my question is about trump and everything. it is amazing how trump, he really did not even think that he was going to win the

election. i did not think he would have any idea he would. democrats are going to look back, hilary was the worst thing to happen to them on the run and everything. all the things trump was able to do, he is the same donald trump, he's the guy that's probably going to be one of the most influential people, and he is going to win and everything. host: he mentioned hillary clinton.

what do you think vice president harris has taken from that campaign, that she might be imploring to her campaign? guest: you seeing in her messaging that bill clinton and hillary clinton endorsed her early on. harris is taking the fight right to trump. just calling him we are, going after j.d. vance and trump in very simple to understand terms, these guys are crazy, these guys are weird. i think that is something the clinton campaign struggled with, and i think the biden campaign struggled with a little, too. they are talking a little more highfalutin about what the stakes of the race are, that it is about democracy, it is about, you know, the future of the country and everything, which sounds good on paper but maybe does not resonate as much right now. harris is going to go directly. host:host: at him -- go directly

at him. host: sal is calling from new jersey, republican. caller: h i. i know president trump. he sent me letters when he was president, i wrote him a letter, i cannot believe it, he sent me two beautiful letters back. democracy in my eyes, i can't understand how harris and the biden administration, they want electric cars as one think of all the stuff coming from china, japan come all the minerals, that is ridiculous. the second thing is, i hope president trump on his administration, i know it is not a nice thing to say, but it is true. all the killing come of the kids that died from the fentanyl, all the trafficking with the little children missing and sex, and all the sex crimes, they should promote that and how the biden and harris administration come

all these people died, and all these kids missing and rapes. it is awful, what is going on in this country. if harris gets elected, our country will have no democracy, and democrats had better wake up to that. thank you very much. host: thanks. guest: i think that is the line republicans are going to take, especially about the border, especially about the drugs that are coming in over the border as well. and, again, the trump campaign was singularly designed, at least according to reports, to run against biden, to really contrast strength verse weakness , a verse -- really about age and mental acuity. but harris who is almost 12, 13 years younger than trump, they had to rewrite that label. what they do have is her record in the senate, and the race in 2020. most of the attacks there will

be what we will see over the next 90 days. host: good morning. clarence in florida. caller: good morning. what i cannot understand is how can y'all vote for someone who everybody around them is going to jail, and thinking that he is clean? that's number one. how can you vote for someone that is sitting there telling you straight up that he wants to be a dictator, and y'all want to vote for him? because i tell you what, you all vote him in, and he becomes a dictator, there's nothing y'all can do after that. that's all i want to say. host: the felony convictions, how is that, do you expect vice president harris to discuss that a lot? host: between the convicted felon and the prosecutor here right now in the early stage of the campaign, i think she's

really going to highlight that, highlight her record. in a few rallies, she has talked about how, i know his tight, i've been a prosecutor, and really drawing on his legal issues and his run-ins with the criminal justice system. how much of that will stick, we don't know yet, especially after the supreme court ruling about presidential immunity. trying to his conviction charge dismissed. it does not look like any of the other cases will come before a jury, before a judge, before the election here. so i wonder how much of those will stay in voters' minds. i know harris will try to make them front of mind. but with how fast of an election cycle we have right now, i think it will be difficult for voters to keep that one in mind. host: former president trump set over the weekend, when he was urging christians to vote, he said "you won't have to vote

anymore," if he becomes president. is that getting a lot of traction, or is that being dismissed as he is joking or, you know, he's saying, don't worry about it, i'm going to become president, you will have a great experience. guest: i think that is gaining a lot of traction, but that type of quote is an ad lib, it is tacked on. we, as a media, have been struggling to take him literally or seriously for the last 80 years or so. with remarks like that, earlier this year, when he promised he would only be a dictator for a day, on the first day, instead of a dictator presidency, is hard to parse through what a smoke and what is fire with trump sometimes. i tend to believe when a presidential candidate says something, you believe in, you listen. the problem with trump is he floats his own with things like that, and it is hard to fact

check one thing or challenge one thing. when you think about that and what that would be. host: one more call, stephen clifton, new jersey, independent. good morning, steve. caller: hi. good morning. i think it is amazing that no one seems to be talking about the process there. i know the democrats talk about the threat to democracy, but i cannot see a bigger threat to democracy than what they did in terms of the primary system. there were people who wanted to run against biden, they were pushed out, and the coronation is just, i mean, what could be a bigger threat to democracy? i have no problem with biden stepping down, but there should be an open convention. this is not a way where we don't have candidates chlorinated, -- coronated, and nobody seems

to be talking about it. i'm 63 years old, and i can't remember anything like this ever happening, where someone was literally given the nomination, without doing any of the work. guest: that is a question that democrats are grappling with a little bit right now. but the thing is, about a nomination process like this, the parties can make of the rules as they see fit right now. you saw that kind of the state level on the republican side, where some state parties changed the rules about how their primaries worked, to where it was not a proportional win, if you got a majority of the vote there, all the delegates would go to the winner. that was to benefit trump, where he might be more vulnerable in the primary process. he obviously wasn't, but what helped was changing those state

rules. the party can run their own system here. there's no central democracy clearinghouse for how a party will elect their nominee here. yes, any other democrat could have challenged biden. you saw marion williams trying to do it as well. it is hard to run against an incumbent president. biden can reject a nomination. then the dnc role of new rules about how to get the dnc. host: all right, kirk bado, editor of national journal's "hotline" political newsletter, thanks for joining us. guest: host: thanks for having me. up next, university of dayton's christopher devine joins us in the program. first, it is open for them. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001.

and independents, (202) 748-8002 . stay with us. ♪ >> you are welcoming a great national crusade to make america great again. >> it has been earned, for progress and for peace. >> taxes will go up, and anyone who says they won't is not telling the truth. >> in our beloved nation of peace, we are in the midst of springtime of hope for america. >> read my lips, no new taxes. >> i still believe in a place called hope. >> here is the question for the american people. who do you trust in this election?

mr. clinton: would we build a bridge to the future or a bridge to the past? >> i have confidence in the wisdom of our people and the country. mr. gore: i stand here tonight as my own man, and i want you to know me for who i truly am. mr. bush: they had their chance. they have not led. we will. mr. kerry: i am john kerry, and i'm reporting for duty. mr. bush: these four years have brought moments i could not foresee and will not forget. obama: it is time for us to save america! >> i was not my own man anymore. i was my country. mr. obama: i do not believe that rolling back the regulations on wall street will help the small business woman expand or the laid off construction worker keep his home. we have been there. we've tried that, and we are not going back. we are moving forward, america. >> under my administration, our friends will see more loyalty, and mr. putin will see a little less flexibility and more backbone. ms. clinton: he wants to make

america great again, well, he could start by actually making things in america again. mr. trump: we will make america safe again. and we will make america great again. mr. biden: here and now, i give you my word, if you entrust me with the presidency, i will draw on the best of us, not the worst. mr. trump: this towering american spirit has prevailed over every challenge and lifted us to the summit of human endeavor. >> c-span, your unfiltered view of the conventions, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are in open forum. you can call in now. the numbers are on your screen. before we get to calls, i want

to get to senator ron johnson, ranking member of the investigative subcommittee for homeland security he spoke about investigations into the failed assassination attempt against former president trump, and what he plans to ask fbi director christopher wray tomorrow. [video clip] sen. johnson: first of all, most of the information we have obtained from local law enforcement. i appreciate the acting director briefing the committees on thursday, only for an hour. he appeared to be more forthright. he told us he would be provided the documents we would be requesting, but the proof will be in the putting. we will see if he follows through, testifying before a joint committee hearing on tuesday, and he has an awful lot to explain. he did say in the briefing he cannot defend what happened in butler. i don't think anybody could. i did ask him, found out there were reports that snipers had the, you know, assassin and their site for minutes, they ask

for permission, were denied permission to take him out. fairly small, that's when he told us, they acquired him after the shots were fired. but, again, we need detailed interviews with those individuals, to find out exactly what happened. it is unbelievable how little information has been coming from federal law-enforcement. those are just some of the questions i have, is to know exactly what happened. we want a detailed timeline. we need all of their communications, both written, emails, texts, but we also need voice recordings of any verbal communications. host: and just a correction on who will be testifying tomorrow, it will be acting secret service director ronald rose junior and deputy fbi director paul dave. they will be testifying on the events leading up to the attempted assassination of donald trump. you can see the hearing live at

10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span, on c-span now, and online at c-span.org. that is tomorrow, tuesday, 10:00 a.m. going to the phones now with diane in ohio, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. ok, i want women in ohio to listen carefully. it is not against the law in ohio for ar husband to rape his wife. and in j.d. vance's acceptance speech, he said people should stay together in their marriage and not get a divorce. if you become pregnant and you have an abortion during that time, after the rape, you go to prison according to project 2025.

we are not second-class citizens, we are equal. according to trump, who is actually diagnosed as a narcissist, he will make sure we will have to be -- our rights will be gone. those days about being pregnant in the kitchen, barefoot, those days are over, and we are not going back. thank you. host: in cleveland, ohio, this is alex, an independent. good morning. caller: i just wanted to tell you guys that lee atwater was ronald reagan's employee, and he clearly defined what the republican party strategies start for. so i would like you to inform the guest about lee atwater, what he said, and they have been employing that tactic ever

since. now it is in your face. host: neil also in ohio, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to interject, my biggest concern in the election is foreign policy. and i feel about the biden administration's policies are, the vendetta that he has had against trump to reverse all of his policies has just worked against us by taking the sanctions off of iran and sanctions off of venezuela, and even today, we see that the venezuelan voters voted against what the administration we are hoping are going to be honest elections, and it seems like we put too much trust in people who are just not trustworthy. thank you. host: speaking of that election in venezuela, neil, this is the

"washington post," venezuela could oust maduro. exit polls show the transition of power may not happen so easily. that is on the front page of the "washington post." . i, western pennsylvania. democrat. good morning. caller: hi, good morning. host: good morning. caller: i did not know it was me. i had a thought on that, something i don't understand, and i am a democrat, there is very little common sense and politics today. regardless of party. and i keep thinking, when we open the borders, there had to be a reason. when we brought the people in, there had to be a reason. and as a mother, i said ok, we need to try and make better.

something, whether it is your family or your girlfriends, birthday parties, but now i'm feeling differently. if i, using common sense, as i see people, immigrants, coming from all over the world to america, they come here for better lives, for opportunity, which is what i think they are coming for, and making the trip for. would you vote for kamala? let's say the illegals had legal rights to vote, let's say there was a way for them to vote, using common sense, after the trip that they get here that you plan for maybe 20 years for your family -- host: so, donna, what do you

think of that? caller: i think they are going to vote the other way. i think, if given the opportunity, the millions of people who are here now, common sense tells me they would not vote. they are not looking for free stuff. they are not looking for handouts. they are looking come up to me, in my opinion, they did this, they came here, they suffered, they brought their children through this for opportunity. host: all right, donna. let's look at was senator majority leader chuck schumer talked about yesterday on cbs's face the nation about vice president kamala harris mr. trump choosing senator vance as his running mate. [video clip] >> vice president harris now the presumptive nominee. senator, are you encouraging democrats, including those in battleground states, to invite her to campaign with them, to have her in their advertisements?

sen. schumer: yeah. the biden-harris record is just incredible, as i mentioned. all the specific things that they have passed together, working with us, so it is an incredible record, and our senate is already talking about. they are, you know, cutting ribbons on new bridges, they are going into rural broadband, bringing broadband to new areas. they are opening up new factories, so it is a great, great record, and it is helping our senate candidates run on it. and let me just say one thing. just compare that to the republican record, to be trump-vance ticket. it is extreme, this project 2025 shows it would take the rights away from women. it would take away rights of working people and help only the very wealthy. it will even be a threat to our democracy. and one more point about this, and that is, the addition of j.d. vance to this ticket, it is incredibly bad choice.

i think donald trump, i know him, and he is probably sitting and watching the tv, and every day that comes, vance has done something more extreme, more erratic. vance seems to be more extreme and erratic than president trump, and i bet trump is scratching his head, wondering, "why did i pick this guy?" the president has about 10 days before the ohio ballot is locked in, and he has a choice, so does he keep vance on the ticket, where he already has a whole lot of baggage. there will probably be more baggage over the weeks, because we will hear more things about him, or does he think someone new? it is his choice. host: sal is calling in from las vegas, independent. good morning. caller: good morning, amy. first, let me say this, and i'm

not trying to buy time points. c-span could be one of the best things that ever happened, i don't want to say propaganda wise, but information lies in this country. we all focus on the federal elections, especially president. all we have to do is turn on, public affairs have been, one of my favorites, i love the tv. whether or not i buy a book or not, i turn on c-span, but all you have to do is turn on what congress does. what the house of representative does. i don't know what the stats are, but nine out of 10 times, they are doing is absolutely nothing. they are on a vacation did be paid them to do a job, and all they are like is, less rain and this, let's do that. they talk about what trump is going to do, what kamala harris is going to do. i'm not trying to patronize, but that being said, the information

that everybody is getting, i don't really think is accurate, because everybody has their biased opinion. i'm actually no party affiliation. i was raised as a democrat, but i had to get off of it. i cannot take it anymore, because i was getting too many phone calls, too many letters, and at least i can vote anyway i want. i don't vote in the primaries, but the general elections i do. i'm just upset in this country. i'm 53 years old. my grandfather came here in 1890. how many people can say that their grandfather -- my grandfather was 46 when he had my dad. my father, my late father was 49 when he had me, so i'm actually a baby boomer generation x. i just don't understand. let me read something real quick, and i will be done. this is the 10th amendment to the constitution from 1791, three lines. "the powers not delegated to the united states by the

constitution nor prohibited by it to the states or reserved to the states respectively or to the people." that should solve the abortion issue right there. it should have never been federally rammed down everybody's throat in 1973, and all donald trump did was bring it back to its proper position, left up to the states. and if that is all the democrats can run on, we are in trouble. and if the only thing that donald trump can run on his immigration, then we've got a bigger problem. it is not donald trump, it is integration. i just think you have to -- my grandfather swore allegiance to this country, within 80 years of coming here, ok? and how many of these people -- look, prices are going to go off. i don't care about what the cost of food or gas is. go out and form your own food. ride a horse, walk. host: all right, let's go to

allen in mississippi, republican line. go ahead, alan. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i'm mystified about the shooter on the roof. now, who is he? why haven't we been told who he is, his background, where he's come from, and his family? host: alan, we do know who he is. we don't have a motive. is that what you are talking about, that we don't know? alan, did we lose you? caller: hello, yes? host: yes, go ahead. caller: well, i'm mystified that we have not been told who he is. they flashed a little photograph on him for one second, and then they took it off. who is he? what is his background? who is his family? where did he come from?

nobody even knows. nobody has been told who he is. host: alan, have you looked, done a little research? because we do know who he is and where he's from. no. ray, fayetteville, north carolina, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. it is appalling to listen to these republicans that call in. they do not have a clue what is going on. the new stations they watch, they do not show it. you know what i am talking about. they don't watch it and fox news don't show it. you have a rod of -- you have a lot of republicans that think that trump passed the stimulus check.

that was nancy pelosi. i am a combat veteran. i have seen what they have done. they are trying to do it again. caller: i live in denver and i saw what sanctuary cities can do. our mayor is trying to move these people around. immigration without assimilation is an invasion. thank you. host: how recommend assimilation? caller: go through legal immigration. pledge to this country. learn what it is about. they are not coming here to be american. they are coming here to take

jobs. i am independent but i voted for trump the past couple of times. never voted until hillary came on the scene. thank you and have a great day. host: lives in florida. independent line -- liz in florida. caller: i just wanted to call about your previous guest. he said kamala harris was around 12 years younger than trump. she is closer to 20. she is 59 and he is 78. the next caller from jersey was talking about that no one in the press was talking about the way the democrats handle the primaries. that is not exactly true because we have the situation where

people have chosen kamala harris. the other thing he said was doug phillips wanted to run. it is not doug phillips it is dean phillips. host: the caller said that. i heard that as well. caller: just things like that. you get a lot of misinformation and it is apparent as i listen to c-span, which is wonderful -- you people provide. how may people are misinformed. 12 years and 18 years are two different things. host: we did not bring him on because he could do math. i get it. caller: i understand that. the point is making sure people check their facts. host: this is the front page of the wall street journal includes that attack on the area of

israel called the golan heights and says israel approved lebanon strike. also on the front page of the wall street journal i wanted to show you this, "the fed considers future rate cuts. central bankers look towards action in september aiming for a soft landing." we will watch that as well. this is don in largo, florida. democrat. are you there? caller: good morning. i would like to let america know. i am an african-american democrat. 68 years old. i watch all of these questions going on about the assassination attempt. the one question i have for america to answer is with a of let in arabic or a black man

walk around that long under suspicion? they would've jumped all over. they would not have hesitated. they would've came at him in full force. i don't understand why they're blaming it on the secret service when the local police were standing right there and they identified him and did not move on him? a young white guy walks around but there is no immediate danger to go after him right away. number two, immigration. they ask us in america to not let these mexicans in. i asked america where are your kids at? what are they doing? do they want to work in the fields? do they want to get up on roofs and change the roofs? mexicans i've worked with all my life are some of the hardest working people i have ever met. the ones that do come here are honest. at the border, check a man's hands.

a hard-working man's hands are rough, calloused, swollen. they're the ones who do all the work. america is in trouble if we do not let a certain amount in. have a great day. host: wendy in wisconsin, republican line. caller: normally i live in florida. i want to say i am scared to death because trump should have picked a diversified partner. how about picking a woman for the ticket? then we could head on compete with what they are doing? i think we may lose the election. i was shocked when they picked j.d. vance because it appears to be a good old boy kind of guy. i like him, but objects are everything. host: was there woman you would've liked to see mr. trump pick? caller: i don't know. host: ok. phil in oklahoma.

good morning. caller: are you there? host: i am. caller: my big thought is we need to control the number of people coming over to our country and they always stressed that is the biggest issue. i would think if we put a requirement at the border that anyone who wants to cross over must be able to communicate 100 english words and know those words, understand what they mean, and communicate them to another person, that would be there test. that will slow down almost half of the people that come over here. the problem is a lot of these people, you look at them and talk to them, they do not understand one word. not even thank you or hello or maybe or any of those words. i am talking basic english language, not complicated words, just basic. a 100 word test would stop a lot

of illegals from coming over until they learned some language to communicate with the american people. we are letting these people in that do not speak anything. some of them foreign languages like chinese, mandarin, all of those things. 100 words of basic language. what do you think about that? host: that his last call of open forum. coming up after the break university of dayton's christopher devine joins us to discuss the importance of vice presidential candidates in presidential elections. we will be right back. ♪ >> since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress, from the house and senate floors to congressional hearings and party briefings and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row

seat to how issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruptions, and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage, you can find it any at c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates, and other events feature markers that guide you to newsworthy highlights. these markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos. this timeline makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-span's point of interest. >> nonfiction book lovers, c-span has a number of podcasts for you. listen to best-selling authors on the afterwards podcasts.

and on q&a, hear wide-ranging conversations with authors and others were making things happen. book notes plus conversations are hour-long conversations that feature fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics in the about the books podcast. find all of our podcasts by downloading the c-span app or on our website, c-span.org/podcasts. >> the up-to-date on the latest in publishing with book tv's podcast about books. plus industry news and trends plus insider interviews. you can find "about books" on

c-span now or wherever you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined by christopher devine, political science associate professor at the university of dayton and co-author of the book called "do running mates matter." welcome to the program. guest: thank you for having me. i'm glad to be here. host: do running mates matter? guest: it is a good question. they do matter. they do not matter in the way they usually think about, even the discussions with harris's vp pick. a lot of people talk about it like you can buy estate on the cheap with one electoral strategy. we do not find evidence of that. we did not find you can pick off a group of voters that way easily either. where running mates matter is in terms of how we think of the presidential candidates. what does this pick tell us

about kamala harris. what is j.d. vance tell us about a second donald trump term? it tells us something about the judgment and the priorities and the ideologies of the presidential candidate. especially with someone like kamala harris who is well known as the incumbent vice president, there is lot for people to learn about her as a potential presidential candidate in her own right. i think this pic will help fill in the blanks and influence how voters respond to her. probably at the margins. host: let's talk about the vetting process. there is not a lot of time. typically there is more time. tell us what goes into that vetting process. what are they looking at. guest: there was a time when the vp was picked up the convention just as the presidential candidate was picked. it was a party choice in the moment. barely any time to consider.

since the early 1970's the parties have changed the rules so now we have this process viewers are familiar with where whoever wins the primary any given state gets the delegates. that is why joe biden was entitled to the delegates based on the primary result. he had to release those delegates. for donald trump, if joe biden had stayed in the race, there is time in between the presidential nomination being cited in the convention to that candidate. we are looking into everything. there political record. what about their public statements and private statements? what about their medical records and financial records. some candidates who have gone through this compared to a colonoscopy. invasive and intensive. it is a grueling process but the idea is to get the skeletons out of the closet before the campaign.

if there is something that could be embarrassing or problematic, let's back that into choosing or not choosing this person or if we go with them we can leak that out before hand so it is known before the announcement is made. that is an important part of the process and kamala harris has a challenge because she has to rush that process. there is some time but not as much time as usual. they have to be extra careful about not missing something. host: is the vetting process standard or does each candidate get to decide these are the things i want to know, these are the things not important to me? guest: it is ultimately up to the candidate. there is a set of procedures that have become familiar over time, and just like the power of the vice president's have grown over time these are informal changes that no one has to follow but it has come to be that way because it works to the advantage of the campaign. people have seen in the past that this process, even just

leaking out names to the press, especially some campaigns often at odds with the press, they value that role of putting names out there so reporters can investigate these folks as well so members of the party can react and so on. this process serves the campaign well because they need to know what is wrong with this candidate, there's something wrong with everyone. they need to know before they are stuck with that selection. some of the conversation going on right now, some people say donald trump might be regretting picking j.d. vance. once you make that choice and there is a nomination you're stuck with them. better get the stuff out of the way now. host: is mr. trump stuck with senator vance? could he switch him out or is it legally too late? guest: everything has pros and cons. i'm not saying trump is stuck with vance but some people are seeing it that way. he has been nominated.

if he were to decide to make a change, i don't know how that would work. all of the given states, you have deadlines coming into play with the issue of whether joe biden was going to be on the ballot or some one else was going to be nominated. wave and early virtual rollcall in the democratic party. that could get tricky. i would be shocked if donald trump were to replace j.d. vance. i think they are hoping it is just him getting his feet wet. it goes to illustrate j.d. vance has never been through a national campaign. that was one of the advantages of joe biden picking kamala harris. even though her primary campaign did not joelle she had been in the national spotlight and screwed night -- did not go well she had been in the national spotlight. by picking someone who had only run for one election in his lifetime, j.d. vance, 39 years old, knew the senate, trump took a risk and he is finding out what happens when you take that

risk. some of the stuff you may not have known as well, you have to find out once you've made the pick. host: let's take a look at a portion of senator chuck schumer talking about that pic yesterday. [video clip] >> the addition of j.d. vance to this ticket is incredibly bad choice. i think donald trump, i know him him and he is probably sitting and watching the tv and every day it comes out j.d. vance has done something workstream, more weird, more erratic, he seems to be more extreme than president trump. i bet president trump is scratching his head and wondering why did i pick this guy. the choice may be one of the best things he ever did for democrats. the president has about 10 days before the ohio ballot is locked in and he has a choice. does he keep vance on the ticket

where he is already a lot of baggage, he will probably be more baggage over the weeks because we will hear more things about him, or does he pick someone new? host: what do you think of that? guest: i think the trump campaign could have priced a lot of these things in in advance. they had access to this information. a lot of what we are hearing our comments made months or years in the past. they should've caught these things through the vetting process and i would assume they did know about it and they said his strengths overcome his weaknesses. i think they saw some strengths in j.d. vance about his ability to reassure the base of the party. he is someone who will be loyal to donald trump, who agrees with him on most policy, sometimes wants to go further. just walk something back like on abortion, for example. j.d. vance has the kind of strength for the campaign they wanted to run when joe biden was the candidate. it does get more complicated now that joe biden is not the

candidate. may be running against kamala harris you want to pick someone different. i should mention donald trump, his other finalists were doug burgum of north dakota and marco rubio from florida. going along with my was saying before, i think those were much safer picks and probably better picks for donald trump. this is not to say j.d. vance cannot be a good candidate or a vice president. that is a judgment call. in terms of his readiness to run a national campaign and serve a national office, he has been a senator for only a year and a half. that is the least amount of experience we have seen in a vice presidential candidate in modern times. that was a risk trump took. it would've been much safer picking someone else, especially marco rubio who as a quarter century of experience and had run a fairly successful national campaign for president in 2016. host: had you seen this pick coming budget mark the senator

vance pick? guest: i spent the 2010s getting everything wrong about politics, the 20 20's have been going better. i expected kamala harris and j.d. vance. we will see how this goes. looking back at donald trump's experience with vice president mike pence who he now sees very poorly, to say the least. he does not think well of that pic, he does not think well of mike pence. donald trump, mike pence is kind of a villain. is that because mike pence was disloyal throughout the campaign in 2016 and throughout his vice presidency? no. he was extremely loyal. he had one point where he was confronted with something donald trump asked him on january 6, trump asked him to do something that vice president pence did not have authority to do. mike pence chose to follow his constitutional authority rather than trump's orders and trump

saw that as unforgivable. heading into this choice, i think what donald trump was saying is who is someone who no matter what i asked them to do will say yes, who will say yes to january 6 than area where mike pence said no? if you look at the resumes, that is what stands out about j.d. vance. it is not his experience in office, it is not his accomplishments. what stood out about him is clearly in the way he talks about things in public, the way he was willing to go on any range of talk shows, from the far-right podcasted steve bannon to the sunday morning talk shows. he would stick up for donald trump in any situation, if not urge him to go further. that is what was appealing about j.d. vance. host: you can join the conversation if you would like to give us a call. our guest is christopher devine, political science associate

professor at the university of dayton and co-author of the book "do running mates matter?" our phone lines are by party. democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 748-8001. (202) 748-8002. what do you think vice president harris needs to be looking at as she makes that decision of a running mate and do you have a prediction? guest: my answer is based on my research. looking at past selections, we can show that this choice first and foremost has to be of someone who is clearly credible and ready to be president -- vice president or president if necessary. voters expect that above all else, above all types of ticket balancing. number one they want a credible vice president or president. if they doubt the qualifications of that person as people did in

2008 when it came to sarah palin, they will hold that against the presidential candidate who makes that choice. if kamala harris tried to be too clever and go pick off about ground state and pick somebody not up to the job and does not perform well, voters will look at that and say where is your judgment? were you just trying to win election. she needs to show people that she is serious about governing. there are any range of qualified people, many on the short list, some not on the short list. she could pick someone who is ready for that. some are more serious than others. beyond that she might factor in other things. clearly we see in republican line of attack on kamala harris is that she is too liberal. she is a san francisco liberal. one way she could fight back a bit against that kind of take on her candidacy is to choose someone who is fairly moderate.

she has some options. andy beshear in kentucky. josh shapiro in pennsylvania. mark kelly from arizona. these are people perceived as relative moderates. if she were to choose them some people would look at her and say everyone is in is really liberal but she picks this guy, maybe she is not so liberal. host: we have a text from michael in florida who says, "you think president biden will transfer power to vp harris so she can run as an incumbent and vastly improve her odds to win?" guest: that is a great question. that is something i was wondering about after the june 27 debate when it seemed like president biden would drop out of the race sooner than he ended up doing. maybe give kamala harris the opportunity to run as an incumbent as the question references. traditionally incumbents do better. we see that not just in presidential races budding congressional races which is so

at odds with the way we talk about talking about people in power, we want to throw the bums out, drain the swamp. look at reelection rates in congress. 2022 was the first time 100% of senators running for reelection won it. clinical scientists who study this found there is a bump that typically goes with running as an incumbent. there is a question about whether that applies as much today as it did in the past. traditionally an incumbent does better. in this case one thing that is more difficult and i do not know if this is factored into president biden's decision is to take on the presidency and a campaign on accelerated timeframe all at once, maybe that is too much. to people who might be concerned if joe biden does not think he is up for another term even running as a candidate this time, why still serve as president? maybe he should not be in that role. i think that is a fair question but there may be other factors into why he did not make that

choice. host: derek in williamsburg, virginia. republican. are you there? host: christopher in cumberland, virginia. independent line. caller: good morning. which presidential nominee do you think was the most consequential and electoral history and by that i mean do you think it is ever actually had an impact on the outcome of an election? thank you for your time. have a good day. guest: thank you for the question. i think you meant vice presidential. there are a range of candidates who may have contributed to a campaign. it is hard to tell. lbj in 1960 is the one where people often say in a razor thin election that jfk won. maybe that is what delivered

texas and deliver the presidency to john kennedy. this is something i've researched before and the evidence is pretty counterintuitive. we can show he was less popular in texas than the less of the south and less popular in the south and the rest of the united states. we doubt he delivered that, although there were some shenanigans he seemed involved in in perhaps delivering some illegal votes. robert caro describes this in his book. that is one thing we can point to but maybe not for the normal reasons. in 1992, bill clinton chose al khor for vice president. that is relevant to what we are talking -- bill clinton chose al gore for vice president. it was a weird three-person race with ross perot and there. clinton chose a strategy -- instead of automatically trying to balance who he was, instead he chose someone who was a lot like him.

a fellow new democrat. a relatively moderate southern democrat. what that did was double down on his campaign message about who he was, get across how he was distinctive to democrats they rejected in the 1980's. kamala harris could choose to do the same thing. if it is part of who she is. people say you cannot pick gretchen whitmer because you have two women. i don't think that is necessarily true. if they judge gender is a strength for her in getting across the message about abortion, and i'm not saying this is the right move, but if they believe that, may be doubling down by picking not just gretchen whitmer for the ticket, but also someone who is dealt with abortion issues in michigan, maybe that actually strengthens their messaging and gets voters thinking about abortion that much more in this election. host: marco is next in highland,

indiana. democrat. caller: you are really gorgeous. i just want to say that kamala harris should pick the governor from pennsylvania. i think that is very good chemistry with the both of them. that is all i have to say. host: what you think of governor shapiro? guest: a couple points i will pick up on there. he is the governor of pennsylvania. that is something i think to bring into the conversation. as far as the buzz around various vp candidates, josh shapiro might be on the top of that list. a lot of folks think this is a good way to pick up pennsylvania. at electoral votes that could be crucial for kamala harris.

i am skeptical about the home state advantage. there is very little evidence that you actually get this resolved. it requires -- that you actually get this result. it requires something strategic among voters. you can look at the candidate and say i prefer donald trump. imagine having a fellow pennsylvanian as vice president of the united states. i don't think people operate that way. we get caught up in the sweepstakes discussions but i do not think the evidence supports it very well. josh shapiro has a lot of qualifications. he is a former attorney general. he is someone who has been high-profile in that state and voters think he is doing a good job. the latest polling, his approval rating was 61%. those are good reasons to pick him apart from being from pennsylvania. if the harris campaign is going to pick him they should do it because they would just as soon pick him if he was the governor

of new jersey than pennsylvania. if it is based on primarily him being from pennsylvania, i think they're making a strategic mistake and should focus on someone's qualifications or other merits and not just based on the home state. if they hope to get a boost in that state as a bonus, maybe, find. that should not be the basis for picking him or anybody else. host: let's look at what governor wes moore of maryland said yesterday. [video clip] >> you have said you are not interested in being vice president harris's vice presidential pick. what you think is important when she looks at a candidate? >> i have been very flattered by the level of interest and i absolutely love my job and i want to continue doing my job. the thing she needs to look for is the person that gives her a sense of comfort that this will be my partner in the work. i do not think she needs to go

through an exercise of finding what boxes to check or what part of the country. the truth is that if you look at recent history, that has not been the case in recent history. the last time that impacted was maybe 1960. she has to pick someone she knows will be her partner and i think that is the only criteria she should focus on. host: i take it you agree with governor moore. guest: i think that is a great way of looking at it. this personal probably not impact the election that much. running mates matter in a complicated indirect way. they tell you about the candidate. it will matter long-term. if this is someone who deserves to be president, we are talking about donald trump or kamala harris. if they deserve to be president they deserve to be president the need to demonstrate good judgment and leadership. are they choosing someone they could serve with well for four years. kamala harris would be especially sensitive to that

argument. she knows what goes into the job . she thinks it is a very important role. i think she will be very serious about this choice. i am sure she will have campaign advisors and people she is meeting at these events who will tell her you have to do this strategically. the election is that important. it is. it is easy to overstate the impact of the vp candidate. it is often understated, the importance of a vice president. she needs to pick someone who could help her govern for four years were beyond. host: we have this from bobby on x who says when the time for the republican convention was approaching and trumponomics selected avp word was vp does not matter -- and trump had not yet selected avp, word was the vp does not matter. why does it matter now? guest: home state advantage,

there could be a time when that mattered more. if we look back to the 19th century when the vice president was not that powerful. that has changed a lot in the last half-century especially with jimmy carter and walter mondale. there was an argument that this person will not be consequential unless the president matters. people were more identified with local geography. there was a time where people tended to identify with their state more so than the united states. there could have been a point where you could deliver that home stated manage by choosing someone from pennsylvania or new york or ohio or virginia. that might have mattered more than. these days i think it matters less who was on the ticket and more who is in the white house serving as vice president. you have those two changes going on at the same time that could guide the way we think about the choice. host: pact is a republican in new jersey. -- pat is a republican in new

jersey. caller: i think the selection of al gore for bill clinton did a certain amount of ticket balancing because it gave him an amount -- someone with access to the federal government. in 1972 nixon won 49 states. mcgovern picked tom eagleton. to that hurt him because they do drop that man from the ticket? guest: that is an excellent question. you're right on point. i appreciate you bringing up balancing federal versus state experience. that is something kamala harris should consider, she has federal government experience not state government. choosing someone like josh shapiro or andy beshear, someone with executive experience could be useful. however, that person also may not have foreign policy experience. that is why i think tim walz,

the governor of minnesota. i think his greatest strength is he is not just data experience but also federal government experience, having served more than a decade in the united states house of representatives. to the point about 1972, lots of fascinating stories there and i love the vp history. happy to discuss some of that. in 1972 george mcgovern who was very much the underdog in that race running against richard nixon chose thomas eagleton, the missouri senator for the vp slot. that was a rushed vetting process. party rules had changed but there were complications at the convention and he had to make that pick in 24 hours. he tried to get ted kennedy on board, he said no. other people said no, they thought it was a doomed campaign. eagleton, well-qualified senator , mcgovern shows him. soon after that it came out --

eagleton had not mentioned this -- it came out thomas eagleton had undergone electric shock therapy. there were concerns about what that might say about his ability to serve well in office. much more complicated story than this. i think it is the 18 day running mate i would encourage people to read. he was then taken off the ticket even though mcgovern had said i am 1000% behind thomas eagleton. two days later he dropped him from the ticket and picked sargent shriver instead and they would go on to lose 49 states. host: darrell in north carolina. independent line. caller: while discourse on this topic is very important, especially as we approach our elections, do you think it was fair to disparage senator vance, questioning his character and integrity without providing any

support, and does this not increase or decrease the divide within the electorate? is it no wonder we have a lack of trust in government media and education? why is it only one party is always portrayed as evil and the other party is portrayed as divine? thank you. host: elaborate a little on what you mean by the criticism on senator vance's character? caller: your guest spoke of senator vance as being nothing more but a mere puppet to donald trump, that he would not stand by his own integrity and conventions as a public servant. he is a first-term senator and i have seen nothing that would suggest that. for your guests to demonize

someone like that, i do not think that helps us to understand the importance on understanding the issues of this election. host: let's get him to respond to that. guest: i never used the word puppet. i am saint j.d. vance has not demonstrated he would say no to donald trump. he could demonstrate that or challenge him on something at this point. one thing i will point to that was especially alarming is after the shooting of donald trump, his assassination attempt, and before any facts were known about the shooter j.d. vance went on social media to blame it on the biden campaign and say they were directly to blame. that shows eagerness to escalate things that i think is concerning a potential vice president and the fact he did that in the last days but dishing for the role says something about what j.d. vance expects donald trump would value in avp. someone who would double down rather than taking opportunities

to lower the temperature. guest: -- host: i just want to show this. this is an axios article. according to the biden campaign "j.d. vance would do what mike pence would not on january 6. donald trump pit j.d. vance because vance would do what mike pence would not. enable trump and the extreme maggot agenda even if it means breaking the law." that is according to the trump campaign. there is what senator vance said in an interview with abc's george stephanopoulos. "if i had been vice president, i would have told the states like pennsylvania, georgia, and so many others that we needed to have multiple slates of electors and i think the u.s. congress should have fought over it from there." that is what he has said about that situation.

connie in tucson, arizona. democrat. you are next. caller: i would love to have mark kelly as our vice president. anyone out there would be a good one. one of the thing that bothers me about trump same people with different languages are coming, he is terrified of other languages. he does not know how to explain himself. he was talking about argentina as if argentina was a man, not a country. he did not know puerto rico was part of the united states. he is the most illiterate person talking about world affairs and he has nothing nice to say. i just like so much that he pushes women down. he wants to keep us down on her knees and that is unacceptable, not america.

the documents he took were just dismissed, he took the most documents of anyone in the history of the united states. what did he plan to do with it? he needs to answer to that. he is a rapist. why we choose a president who is a rapist. host: she did mention senator kelly in arizona. guest: i think he is a very interesting choice. it is not at all clear who is going to be picked but he strikes me and a lot of other people as perhaps the likeliest, perhaps the safest pick. every candidate has their pros and cons. what is attractive about mark kelly is that he is from arizona -- i would not put much stock in that changing things. he is known as a relative moderate. maybe that would help kamala harris if she is perceived as too liberal.

foreign policy and federal experience. mark kelly is not served in state office and has not been a governor and does not have executive experience, but he is someone who has served in the federal government, only four years. he has won too top races and has campaign experience and foreign-policy experience. beyond that he was a fighter pilot, extensive military experience, and an astronaut, so he is someone with extensive public service records but different from what we might see from people who have served in government. kamala harris will have to weigh all of those things. one thing to factor in with him, he is very much identified with gun control issues. is the husband of gabby giffords who was shot a dozen years ago and very seriously injured. they have campaign for gun control. that will encourage some voters. it might alienate some voters

more in favor of gun rights. also on immigration issues where there is a weakness for the biden administration, he is a border state governor so he could speak to those issues a little better than some other candidates kamala harris could pick. host: houston, texas. republican. caller: i just wanted to remind people that they need to do their research on our candidates. for harris, she has already picked her team. you had a c-span program hey while back where they were already saying who was going to be what if she is elected. people are not doing their research to find out who is running and who will be elected. they are doing everything possible. they are traveling the united states and they are bringing

their nationality into ours and taking it. they are taking away rights. they will say how it is going to be and why it is going to be. turning our insurance down. putting us on one insurance and a million other things people better be alert to. thank you. host: your comments? guest: i don't know what she is talking about. host: ok. caller: good morning to c-span listeners and your guest. i have one recommendation. the first question is in history has there ever been a president that elected the vice president of the other party? is that something that can be done now? is that something that can be done now if kamala harris

decides she wants to have bipartisanship in the white house. is that something she can do? my recommendation is sheldon whitehouse. i think he would be a superb vice president and in the event he had to take the position as president he would be able to deal with the foreign leaders as well as our foreign adversaries. thank you so much to c-span. you do a great job of letting everyone in america voice our opinions. i will take the answer off-line. host: go ahead. guest: i love that question. i love the vice presidential history. a couple come to mind. in 1864 abraham lincoln was running for reelection and he dumped his vice president hannibal hamlin, a buys presidential name and picked andrew johnson -- a great buys presidential name, and picked andrew johnson who had served as a democrat. they run together on a union party ticket, trying to make a

statement as a wartime president and not a party president. he picks johnson who is from tennessee and sticks with the union states in the senate. they run together as a bipartisan ticket, a republican and democrat together. after lincoln was assassinated johnson takes over and takes things in a different direction than lincoln would have an turns out to be probably our worst president. in 2004, john kerry reportedly offered the position to john mccain. i still wonder if this could actually be true. i do not think that kind of choice is received well within a party. that is the report we get. it could be a way of making a statement about bipartisanship and also about ideology. would kamala harris do it? i doubt it.

it is something to keep in mind about choosing someone relatively moderate and this could apply more realistically to andy beshear. although that could be appealing, bipartisanship, that could be appealing to general election voters, especially undecided voters in the swing states who are clearly not far to the left or right by and large. that could be appealing there but you always risk alienating the base of the party. part of the challenge is holding together a coalition of people within the party that are there for different reasons. some people are further to the left or more towards the center, vice versa for the republican party. if you go too far you could alienate some people who prefer you on balance, could be unwilling to vote in that case or maybe we go with a third-party candidate. that is something she needs to balance out carefully. host: how do you think the media should cover the selection of a running mate? do you think there should be more focused on their policy,

their experience? guest: that is near and dear to my heart. news media coverage of the vice presidential selection department. my conclusion, and this is looking at actual media coverage from 2000 to 2020 and looking at the things journalists tend to bring up when they cover potential running mates. you're seeing it now. pros and cons, mark kelly, here are the pros and cons come andy beshear, so on. i could track what they talked about. they mostly talked about electoral considerations. who could help win the election. they talked too little about experience and qualifications. one of the juicier findings there is that journalists were as likely to talk explicitly about whether someone is qualified to be vp or president as they were to talk about their physical appearance.

a lot of the stuff is very superficial. i do see some improvement may be in the last cycle or two without journalists talk about vice presidential candidates. i would encourage that more and more. that is why i'm out here today and doing as many as i can. we need to think seriously about this. not overstating the electoral impact. that is done too often. let's talk more about qualifications, who can govern, what it tells you about the leadership of the presidential candidate. that is what matters to voters in the long-term interests of the country. host: this is anne, a republican in tennessee. caller: first i want to say good morning to my good friend carol. i want to ask this gentleman if he thinks kamala harris added anything. all she was famous for was raising bail money for criminals

and wanting to defund the police. she said more cops do not make the streets safer but she has security all around her. she also wants to take away guns but i guarantee her secret service has guns. people need to look at her policies. guest: i will go to the question part. what did she add to the ticket? that is a good question. all these conversations about what impact, i go back to the conventional wisdom, these assumptions about what would matter or did matter last time and that is why look to look at the evidence. my co-author and i look at analysis of why people voted the way they did. in kamala harris's case the perception was she would help by and among women voters and black voters. those are groups that lean towards democratic voters, could she help that much more?

this is a study we did in the process of our book. we looked at her affect on black women voters in particular compared to the general electric -- compared the general electorate? did she have more of an impact on those groups than anyone else? yes she did. she seemed to increase joe biden's advantage among women and black voters, but not by much. in the past when we looked at what we call targeted effects, women vice president candidates, 1984 geraldine ferraro, 2008 sarah palin, did they help with women? no. no evidence of that. this perception that a candidate because they belong to this group they will help with that group, they will choose the vote with that group, that does not always turn out to be true. mike pence in 2016. everybody knows he delivered evangelicals, right? no. when we dug into the evidence we were able to pick up on survey

evidence of the same people over time throughout the campaign focusing on evangelical voters. we did not see any spike in support for donald trump following his selection of mike pence among evangelicals. they probably came around to trump for other reasons, in particular because they tend to be republican and that is what decides how people vote, their partisan predisposition. they might latch onto a vp choice and say that is why i did it, that person is from my state and they share my view on this. usually that is way of rationalizing a choice they were always going to make. host: before i let you go, your newest book is called "i'm here to ask for your vote, how presidential campaign visits influence voters." how do they influence voters? guest: there you go with the conventional wisdom about what really matters, that may be trump's rallies decided the 2016 election or the tag on joe biden about staying in his basement was decisive.

what i find in this research is campaign visits usually do not have much of an effect overall, possibly because you have both candidates campaigning pretty heavily. maybe if someone drops off you see more of an effect. when campaign visits influence people, and here i think it is more interesting, it tends to happen not by mobilizing voters, people tend to think they must have rallied the base of the party and gotten people who already agreed with trump but were not sure if they were going to vote, got them out to vote. there is not with the evidence indicates. there are more effective at persuading voters. some people might not have their mind made probably they are hearing about it from local media and are influenced by a friend. people sometimes do change their mind.

let's hope people are critically evaluating what they see. whether that is a vice president pick or campaign manager. host: the co-author of the book to running mates matter, thank you so much for joining us today. that's it for today's "washington journal." we will see you tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. have a great day, everybody. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> with 100 days until the november election and president biden dropping out of the race,