now the war is not

♪ host: good morning. july 30, 2024. the house returns at 1:00 p.m.

for the next three hours, "washington journal," and we begin with a focus on the supreme court after president biden yesterday called for a series of sweeping changes including 18 year term limits for supreme court justices and a new code of conduct. his morning we are asking if you think there should be changes for the supreme court and what would you support? phone numbers to call in, (202) 748-8000 if you think changes are needed. (202) 748-8001 if you say no. and if you are not sure, that is ok. a line for you as well, (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a text. that number, (202) 748-8003. if you do, please include your name and where you are from. otherwise, catch up with us on social media on x @cspanwj, on facebook at facebook.com/c-span. very good tuesday morning. you can start calling now. president biden laid out the changes he is proposing for the supreme court in a speech

yesterday at the lbj presidential library and in this op-ed in the "washington post," the headline, my plan to reform the supreme court and ensure no president is above the law. in that op-ed, he argues for a new constitutional amendment barring immunity for crimes a former presidentommitted while in office. that in response to the blockbuster supreme court immunity ruling that came on the last day of the court's term in june. he called for 18 year term limits for u.s. supreme court justices. and he called r binding, enforceable code of conduct and ethics for the supreme court, playing that out in that op-ed -- laying that out in that op-ed and in the speech. here is what he had to say about a new code of conduct for members of the supreme court. [video clip] pres. biden: i am calling for a binding code of conduct for the supreme court. [applause]

the supreme court's current ethics code is weak and even more voluntary. voluntary. any code of conduct should be imposed. justices would be required to disclose gifts, refrain from political activity, recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have a financial or other conflict of interest. most people don't realize that congress passed the law decades ago that says all federal judges, including supreme court justices, have to recuse themselves from such cases. but the current justices insist on enforcing every crime themselves without any public oversight or compulsion. that is their decision.

at my work, the court was enforcing requirements, but they are not. the court is not some police in -- self policing. we need a mandatory code of ethics for the supreme court, and we need it now. host: president biden yesterday in texas. that code of conduct and the idea of 18 year term limits is an idea that would face long odds as it would need congressional approval. unlikely to get approval in a republican-controlled house. they need 60 votes in the senate. president biden playing that out yesterday -- laying that out yesterday as he heads into his final months of his one term in office. it was former president trump who talked about democratic proposals to reform the supreme court on his truth social page. president trump not seeing them as reforms. this is part of 21 earlier this month.

democrats are attempting to interfere in the presidential election and destroy our justice system by attacking their political opponents, me, in our honorable -- and our honorable supreme court. that is part of what the former president had to say back on july 16. it was yesterday on the floor of the senate that senate minority leader mitch mcconnell responded specifically to this proposal from president biden. this is what he had to say. [video clip] >> he wants term limits on justices. never mind what the constitution says. never mind the senate. president biden has left his allies in composition of the court so they want to surrender the constitution to change it. he wants what he calls an ethics code. that already exists. what the president is actually

imposing is a stealth process for people other than justices to decide cases. again, constitution be dammed. the fact is that president biden himself came to office and stood up to investigate whether to change the supreme court. this morning, the president thanked the commission for its insightful analysis that supposedly informed his reform proposals. never mind now. never mind that this commission is cochaired by one of his closest political confidants. did not actually recommend that he do anything. host: mitch mcconnell. that was yesterday on the floor of the senate. the senate back in action today at 10:00 a.m. eastern. you can watch live on c-span2. the house is in at 1:00 p.m. eastern. and plenty going on at capitol

hill this week. ahead of the august recess in which members are usually campaigning. it is the deputy fbi director and another who will testify on the security failures on the attempted assassination of former president donald trump. you can see that hearing live at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. that is where we will go after this program. also on c-span.org and of course the free c-span now video app. taking your calls on supreme court reform. do you think changes are needed for the supreme court? that is the question for you in this first hour of "washington journal." first out of philadelphia, good morning. caller: yeah. yes, i think there needs to be a change in the supreme court.

this should not be able -- they should only be able to stay in their a certain amount of time and they need a couple of independent justices. because right now, the supreme court is not for all people if they don't have no independents on there. host: how do you ensure an independent justice in a system in which the president picks the nominee and the supreme court confirms that nominee? caller: yeah. host: i should say the senate confirms the supreme court nominee. go ahead. caller: that would be right. because right now on either side, it would go all democratic were majority democratic on the supreme court, it is too liberal. if it goes all republican, it is too conservative. with an independent, it makes the votes more even. you know what i mean?

because independents don't go for either side. that is the only way. i do think the forefathers knew the country would be like this. but right now, the supreme court is more conservative. and a lot of laws they are pressing either think -- passing, i don't think the forefathers would want it that way. donald trump, if he commits a crime, he can get away with it. the abortion law, women were dying and they wanted women to have the right to choose. but that is just my belief. thank you for letting me speak. host: david is in clinton, maryland. good morning. you are next. caller: good morning, john. how are you doing? host: doing well. go ahead. caller: i want to piggyback on that. i think it should be four democratic, four republicans,

and one independent swing judge. right now, it is a -- host: they are often described as liberal and conservative and there have been swing justices on the court for many of the years that the court has been in operation. how do you find that independent? how do you find that swing justice? caller: it is just a one sided court right now. it needs to be four democrats, four republicans, and one independent to make it fair. you know what i'm saying? there needs to be a cutoff age at 70 years old or 15 years on the bench. host: what president biden is proposing, an 18 year term limit. writing in his op-ed in the ashington post" that the united states is the only

constitutional democracy that gives lifetime seats to its high court. term limits would help ensure court members change with some regularity, and that would make the timing for the court's nominations more predictable and less arbitrary. you will note that former president trump had three picks to the supreme court in joe biden one in his four years in office. the president saying in the op-ed, i support a system in which the president would appoint a justice every two years to spend 18 years in active service on the supreme court. the court turning over every 18 years. getting your thoughts on those proposals, asking you what changes you would make in the supreme court or if any changes are needed at all. this is gary and fletcher, north carolina. good morning. caller: yes, sir. i hope that maybe you can inform some of the listeners who are calling saying they are making laws that are favorable to this party or that party. they are not partisan.

the one thing everybody is missing is they do not make laws. they interpret laws as new issues come up, as different things in life, things are created, like modern technology and things like that, how it is used. they interpret the law and how it applies with that new thing that comes along. host: the major -- a major interpretation they made was the idea of presidential immunity and how far-reaching presidential immunity is. that was on the supreme court this most recent term. do you think their interpretation was correct? caller: yes, absolutely.

they were able to look into it as they saw the existing law for how many years, how they fit it into new things that may come up, whether it applies to that law or does not apply to that law or it may have been overemphasized or ignored. and they try to bring it into clarity. but they do not make law. laws are made in another branch of government. the constitution and things they are dealing with are cemented. they are not to be changed. host: on that point, president biden calling for a constitutional amendment when it came to this presidential immunity issue. he wanted it to be that no one is above theaw amendment,

making it clear there is no immunity for crimes that a former president could have committed while in office. this is more from president biden yesterday on that topic specifically. [video clip] pres. biden: most recently and most shockingly, the supreme court established trump versus the united states, a dangerous precedent. the world as you know, with the president of the united states has immunity for potential crimes he may have committed while in office. immunity. there are no kings in america. each of us are equal before the law. [applause] no one is above the law. the law of practical purposes, the court's decision almost certainly means a president can violate their oath, flout our laws, and face no consequences. justice sotomayor said, and i

quote, on the majority's reading , what if the president orders a navy team to assassinate his presidential rival, immune. takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon, immune. in every use of the power, the president is now a king above the law. that is what justice sotomayor wrote in a dissent. folks, just imagine what a president could do tripling the civil rights and liberties given such immunity. the court is being used weaponized a -- used weaponize -- used weaponize an extreme vision.

they need to be held accountable under the court of law. the president is no longer restrained by the law. and only limits on the abuse of power will be self imposed by the president alone. that is a fundamentally flawed view and a fundamentally flawed principal a dangerous principal -- flawed principle, a dangerous principle. host: that was the president in austin, texas, yesterday afternoon. his proposals quickly endorsed by his vice president and presumed democratic nominee in 2024 for president kamala harris. this ia statement from harris erday saying there is a clear crisis of confidence in the court after it was called into question after numerous scandals and decision after decision overturning -standing precedent. that is why the president and i are cain unimposing term

limits for justices, requiring justices to apply wit ethics rules, and finally she writes no one should be above the law so we must also ensure no former president has immunity for crimes committed while in the white house. kamala harris and her statement yesterday. getting your reaction and asking you if you think any changes are needed to the supreme court. if so, what? this is best in florida. good morning -- this is beth in florida forget good morning -- this is beth in florida, good morning. caller: good morning. yes, changes are needed. changing up the longest sitting one sounds like a good idea to me. we had back in 2012 with citizens united with state

personhood, which meant money started flowing into politics. we the people, the average voter, can in no way means that kind of money. and now we have got a vice presidential candidate for the republicans that is basically bought and paid for by peter tiel. i can't even name all of the billionaires that are trying to fund trump, and we have seen it was because of money from the big donors that joe biden just got tossed to the side of the road. yeah. that citizens united, match it up with the upcoming project 2025. you look at the chevron decision, took away expertise from all the government agencies

that have been created to be there for their expertise. you look at the dobbs decision. a medical doctor does not have the expertise any longer to decide on what a woman state is that woman's -- woman's fate is. yes. the 18 year idea is the best thing i heard. i really did not want to go into court packing, but i think we might even need to get there too. host: you are talking about adding additional justices to the supreme court? caller: yeah. whatever. yeah. host: are you worried court packing becomes a court packing arms race if a democratic president does it and then a republican president does it? caller: if one side does it, the other side will do it the next time they are in power and we

will end up with i don't even know how many. but the 18 years is a straightforward thing. every two years, the president gets to put somebody in. mitch mcconnell stole the constitutional right from barack obama to put a justice in. and then he turned around and put amy coney barrett in in six weeks. so, yeah, there needs to be some changes. host: that is beth in florida. this is rick in quebec, canada. good morning. caller: yeah, i just want to say that the court packing idea sounds good. i find that the justices are really just over there time limit -- their time limit. host: court packing or the term limits? caller: the term limits, that is

a good idea for 18 years, limited time. as far as kamala harris not being as i seem to hear now -- not being eligible because she is i guess a woman of color, i find that to be stupid. but just listen to some of the republicans how they speak of her. that should be something that the world should take notice of when they talk about racism. thank you. host: from minnesota, good morning. caller: morning. hey, yeah. it is interesting. a couple of months ago, i called. similar question. i said something in the sense of they studied 10, 15 years, and that goes above my head. what has happened since, definitely have to correct that.

i mean, just the presidential immunity, to my understanding of a free country and so on, no. that is an absolute no-no. and just adding that anybody that called joe biden close to senile should check their own level of abilities. i mean, that is how strongly i feel about it. host: in minnesota. to illinois, doug, good morning. caller: good morning. yeah, i say no to changing the court. there is no need for it. biden is just looking for something.

host: that is doug in illinois. more reaction in the newspapers this morning, including the hill newspaper on capitol hill saying it is justice alito that has no authority to regulate the supreme court. that in an interview with the wall street journal's opinion section that was published on friday. it was that statement by alito that guarded reaction from chuck schumer, majority leader of the senate, on the floor yesterday. [video clip] >> the good news is the constitution provides immunity to the senate current morass. they have the authority to exercise that congress has the authority to speak -- congress has the authority to speak on constitutional issues. the constitution is clear, the supreme court does not get the final word. an option i am seriously considering is drawing up legislation clarifying that the

president is not immune from violations of federal law. one of the justices recently claimed it was no provision in the constitution that gives congress the court's. i respectfully suggest this justice reread the constitution because it is plain as day that congress is well within its rights to conduct oversight. accountability should not be a dirty word when we talk about the supreme court. americans across the ideological spectrum agree that checks and balances are necessary for a system to thrive. they agree those checks should apply to the supreme court just as they apply to other branches of government. it is no wonder the court's positive ratings are at an all-time low. if they cannot straighten it out themselves, congress should. host: chuck schumer yesterday from the floor of the senate. the senate back in at 10:00 a.m. eastern this morning. you can watch on c-span2.

this is the response to president biden's proposals for the supreme court and the editorial board of the wall street journal this morning calling it an assault on the supreme court. they write, never mind the spectacle of a man who has been in public life for 50 years demanding term limits. they say the justices specifically on the code of conduct already had one that they enforce that is nearly the same as the larger judicial code. the difference is the demand for outside enforcement. democrats on the senate judiciary committee want lower court justice to investigate charges of ethics violations and then rule on the justices's behavior. that they write is an implication for partisans to siege the court with complaints, however trivial. the danger of ethics complaints and provide by the press and partisans would lead to the impression of routine corruption on the supreme court, and they write this would further undermine respect for the court decisions.

they have more to say. it is a long op-ed today. if you want to read it, it is their lead editorial. this is curtis in jacksonville, florida. good morning. caller: good morning, my brother. thank you so much. yes, i am for term limits for everything. no one in office is staying there for decades -- should stay in there for decades. the supreme court overhaul is long overdue, especially the last few years. they have shown us it is all about money and ideology, what one believes in. it has nothing to do with the constitution or the law. lastly, no one, no one, no one should be above the law. i have to obey the law. i am a common man. nobody is above me. everybody should have to obey the law. we don't need a king in this country. thank you so much. host: cindy in mississippi. good morning.

you are next. caller: yes, i just don't think it is going to change anything. you are just going to have more democrats, more republicans, and it is still going to be the same, just bigger chaos in america if we do that. and as far as the judges recusing themselves off of cases, i think the democrats are just going to step into more you know what because then they are going to go back and make all of those judges that were partisan judges against trump be recused and that will wipe the slate clean. host: explain what you mean by that, cindy. caller: i mean if they are going to go in here, it is all about immunity because this is all political in the first place. it is all about immunity for a president, which i agree with that, democrat president and a republican president. they need to be able to do their job. clinton when they had all of

that stuff, they had immunity for that then, about all the chaos it caused america. we just need to get back to the basics because if they packed the courts, it will be a pact chaos more and more and more. i am a republican, and i have not been happy with the supreme court either. so just make it bigger. host: cindy in mississippi on the immunity issue with joe biden calling for a constitutional amendment yesterday to ensure the presidents do not have blanket immunity for crimes they may have committed in office. it is in the constitution. ted waiting. caller: yes, good morning. i think the supreme court is fine just the way it is. you can i have a court with your views all the time. you have to take the other end

too. thanks a lot. host: in garland, texas, you are next. caller: good morning, and thank you for taking my call. yes, i do think that perhaps people on the supreme court have been there too long and they constantly think they will be there forever. they think they can say anything and they can do anything. i want to also say that last night i was listening to governor gretchen whitmer. i think kamala was thinking about her being vice president, and i never heard so much profanity. i think they were very disrespectful. and i don't think i ever heard kamala curse.

i feel like they put themselves in the bottom of the barrel. i think we just don't need that kind of stuff. they were very disrespectful to her and disrespectful to the american people. they were using s words and d words and things i never heard before. i was just very disappointed because young people listen to them. we don't want our young people using them as models for how they express themselves to the american public and to people abroad. and that is what i have to say. and thank you very much for taking my call. host: it was a rally for kamala harris for president yesterday in pennsylvania in which gretchen whitmer and shapiro spoke. this is about two minutes from that rally yesterday. [video clip] >> kamala harris for the people was not just in the courtroom. was in the halls of power.

as united states senator, she never forgot those lessons she learned fighting for the underdogs. she stood up every day as a united states senator fighting for the middle class, fighting every day for our working families. kamala harris chose our great president, joe biden, pennsylvania's own joe biden. [applause] [crowd chanting] he chose kamala harris to not just campaign with him. he chose kamala harris because he wanted to govern with her and because he knew she was ready. vice president harris has been battle tested. she is ready to not just be the standardbearer of our party but to be the 47th president of the united states of america.

[applause] she is not only ready, she is damn ready. you know who else knows she is ready? donald trump knows she is ready. you know how i know this? because he is afraid to debate her now. did you see that? and it is not just because she is a skilled debater in a courtroom prosecutor who knows how to make the case. he is afraid to debate her because he cannot defend his record. host: pennsylvania governor josh shapiro yesterday in pennsylvania. if you want to watch that event in its entirety, you can do so on our website c-span.org. it is just after 7:30. this first hour of "washington journal," we are asking you simply if you think changes to the supreme court are needed.

if you say yes, (202) 748-8000. if you say no, (202) 748-8001. if you are not sure, that is ok. a line for you as well. (202) 748-8002. looking for your text messages and your tweets as well. this is carl in west virginia saying joe biden is such a fraud here, he talks about hi and the supreme court when he is in fact guilty of sli his office to many foreign countries to enrich himself and his family. as far as term limits, he says we should look atess for term limits. say sang the supreme court, which is supposed to be impartial, has become an arm of the republican party. the changes proposed by president biden will help restore credibility in the court. some of your reaction as you have been watching this morning. want to hear from you, especially on the phone lines. (202) 748-8000, (202) 748-8001, and (202) 748-8002 the numbers on your screen. this is richard. good morning. you are next. caller: hello?

host: go ahead, richard. caller: yes, sir. i am not sure about changing the supreme court, but i do think we should change it to where congress has term limits. you have people staying 34 years, enriching their selves on taxpayers. there is the change we need to make and then we can talk about joe biden proposing changes. lord have mercy. four years, 50 years in this government. no, no. host: how long do you think someone should be able to serve in congress? caller: the president can only serve 10 years maximum so make it two terms for senate six terms for congress -- senate, six terms for congress, for the house. host: six terms for the house? caller: maximum 12 years. host: under your proposal, would

you be able to go from the house to the senate or the senate to the house? caller: no, no. 12 years. how many of those people got rich using insider knowledge? knowing what the government will do, what contracts they will approve, and then buying stocks and stuff like that. they are corrupt. i don't think the supreme court is corrupt. i think they interpret the constitution as they see it. but as far as changing it, i don't think anybody should have a lifetime job. host: so you would be open to doing that for supreme court justices eventually if they did in two of congress as well -- to members of congress as well? caller: i was in the military. how long can you serve in the military? 30 years? host: is that when you had to

get out, richard? caller: that is when i was put out. i'm disabled. disabled veteran. i did not have a choice. yeah, i wanted to serve as long as i could. not because of the money but because of what i believed in because there is no money in it. host: richard in alabama, from the yellow hammer state, to the bluegrass state. another richard, in louisville. good morning. caller: i just sat here and watched two campaign commercials for the demonic party. my first question is as far as the supreme court and changes to it. what do you think the supreme court thinks of when barack obama, nancy pelosi, chuck schumer went to joe biden and told him even though 14 million people voted for you in the primary, we are going to tell them we don't care what you did?

we are going to tell you we are going to kick you out and we are going to put in this kamala. we are going to put her in there and she will run. what you need to tell the american people is it takes a constitutional amendment. joe biden said there needs to be a constitutional amendment. chuck schumer says, no, no ob encompass can change this stuff. chuck schumer cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. you need three quarters of all states in the united states and their legislatures to approve a constitutional amendment, plus two thirds of each of the house and the senate to make a constitutional amendment, so all of this is for not. it would take years to me years to change what needs to be changed or what you say needs to be changed. and joe biden thinks things need to be changed in the supreme court. you have three branches of

government, and that is what it would take so long to change things, because they want to make sure you get it right. thanks. host: richard, before you go, do you think there is any constitutional amendment right now that could garner that would support that would actually pass? i think we lost richard. but this is tim in new york. good morning. you are next. caller: good morning, john. i just want to say as complicated as this issue is, a lot of people are not giving a lot of thought to it, especially the callers from fox news that seem to not have the good sense they were born with. the supreme court is chosen by certain organizations like the heritage foundation, which automatically puts in certain mindsets of justices. they had the american bar association choose people who were more center, which would

then be for the senate to be chosen on but you would have these far-right or far left justices sitting on the bench making decisions that were absolutely ridiculous. i mean, it is absurd. as for the congress having term limits, i see this from friends of mine all the time. it is completely ridiculous because if you look, there are plenty of senators and congressmen who have their own children filling their seats, running in their place. they still have to answer to the israeli lobby and the military lobby and all the other lobbies, so you are just changing the faces.

not the organizations they have to speak to. these are not solutions that can be dealt with in a superficial way. you have to get rid of the money that is in politics. and then you have to remove the agencies that are influencing the system. host: when you talk about term limits for members, members will come on this program and when we bring it up, they will say that they go before their constituents if they are in the house every two years and voters are picking them to return. they will say it is because of experience and expertise on topics built up over the years. that is the counterargument to term limits for members of congress. what do you say to that? caller: if that were true, i have to ask them, why do so many, something like 97% of existing congresspeople,

actually get reelected? because they are gerrymandering the country, ok, and getting money. aoc was recently offered money from aipac if she would change her tune and become an influencer of the tribe and other liberal people who were in favor of palestine. let me just -- instead of being in favor of the palestinians, the slaughter of these people, the media has changed the word to mean you are in favor of hamas, which is a pr campaign that i just find disgusting, and that our media system is going right along with because their people have been in the media -- there are people that have been in the media that have talked against israel and have been removed from their positions. so this gives you some indication. and they are not even the most

powerful lobby but they are one of the most powerful lobbies. so this is who a lot of these congresspeople dance to. so it does not matter who is sitting in their chair. they are still dancing to the person who brings them. host: that is tim in new york. josephine in livingston, new jersey, you are next. caller: good morning. i am about to say that the state of new jersey has one of the best state courts in the nation. so much so that it is considered as a precedent-setting case -- precedent-setting case when they make a determination. first of all, they have to leave when they are 70. no matter whether the governor is republican or democrat, certain seats are assigned to democrats and certain seats are assigned to republicans. when someone is sick or whatever, they pulled them off from the lower courts in the same order. so no matter what you can say

about it, there is no one complaining this is republican setting or democratic setting. it is a fair decision. it needs to be applied also to the fed, i mean the supreme court. host: not just term limits, but an age limit is what you want. caller: oh, no, they have an age limit. you have to leave at 70. the supreme court, not this one, rule because they're used to be a rule on the book for civil servants. you had to leave at age 70. the supreme court ruled that was ageism, and they threw that out. now this court here will do whatever they want because it is apparent when they went in front of the committee and took an oath saying we will not change precedent-setting decisions. they lied. say what you want. that was a lie. thank you very much. host: that is josephine in the garden state. this is rita in tallahassee.

good morning. caller: how are you? host: i am doing well. what do you think about the proposals from the president yesterday? caller: i thought for a very long time there needed to be a change to the supreme court. the united states is a young country in comparison to a lot of places around the world, and i think that what the past 10 years has shown us is that there were things that our founding fathers did not consider would ever be a possibility in our government, and i think that if we go back to when barack obama had an opportunity to put someone on the court and was basically blocked from doing so, it showed us that there was room for deceit in the process. so let's fast-forward to now we are in a place where we potentially have two new seats coming up. and if we don't have the house

and the senate, then possibly they will not get pasted -- pas sed through. but we also learned in the process is having the justices on the court for a long time leaves them open to a lot of skepticism on where their decisions come from, where their money comes from, how they are able to get favor from people with money as opposed to just making fair and just decisions. i don't care who is in office to make this decision. this decision needs to be made to save our democracy. and i think that is the thing we need to think about in this moment. host: that is rita in florida. this is debbie in maryland. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. good morning. i am just calling because i do believe that i am not sure whether any changes should be

made on the supreme court, but i think there should be a lot of changes in some of the court systems like in new york. they got democrats. that is a democrat place. they are going to vote against trump. so you have a supreme court that i believe is pretty much fair, and i am not sure if anybody else could do any better. and as far as them having to be a certain time in the supreme court, i think they are doing quite well. and how they can change, want to change that, when you look at new york, the judges that are going against trump, they are all democrats and no one is complaining about that. and just stop and think. if you are a democrat, do you want to go in front of a republican? no. if you are a republican, do you

want to go in front of a democrat? no. i think the supreme court, they are not giving trump the authority to kill people and do this. it is from when he is in office, and it will help joe biden also. joe biden has a lot of luggage on his side. he says one thing and does another. he says he is not going to -- i mean, you never know what is going to happen. and i would just like to know why people want to replace people in the supreme court, which i believe is pretty much fair, and why they don't talk about replacing judges that are definitely in new york on the democrat side that are going against a lot of the laws. that should be double checked. host: debbie in maryland. more reaction from the political websites from capitol hill. is a writing calling for

the joe biden reform to the supreme court is longue. president biden's proposal is the logical conclusion to the biden-harris administration and congressional democrats's ongoing effort to delegitimize the supreme court. there calls to expand and pack the court will soon resume. it is telling that democrats want to change it because they disagree with some of the court's recent decisions. this dangerous gambit of the biden-harris administration is dead on arrival in the house, he said. that from the speaker of the house. about 10 minutes left in this first segment of "washington journal." getting your reaction to the proposals from president biden yesterday. holland, ohio, is next. jackson, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. host: what do you think? caller: the limits of the supreme court justices, absolutely.

i think a good example is when the president speaks and the justices, they never stand up. they never applaud. they sit there and remain neutral. i think with what we got going on today, that same behavior should apply. we got so many leaning far-right justices devotees. i have been around for 70 years and have never witnessed such partiality in the justice system. when that right there is displayed, i think we absolutely have to make some adjustments. we have to limit the time that our supreme court justices are there, there in office. and as times change and we start

noticing the partiality that has been applied to the american people, it is time we have to make some changes. that is my opinion. host: to robert in florida. good morning. you are next. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well. caller: good. this is the supreme court the highest court -- isn't the supreme court the highest court in the land? it does not seem logical you would allow a lower branch of government to rule over the supreme court, the highest court in the land. host: robert, what do you mean a lower branch of government? the whole idea is coequal branches between the legislative, executive, and judicial. caller: well, why would we have the highest branch in the country, the supreme court, right, if we are going to let some other branch of government control them? that does not seem logical.

and it seems to be like this is an effort to control the supreme court. they don't like their decisions when they are fair and logical, right? so the next thing to do would be to say that they have to have some sort of limits or control over them. that is not good. host: so not a check and balance but controlling is how you see it? caller: pretty much. you know, we are going to delegitimize the supreme court if we allow other branches of the government to make the rules for them to abide by. host: that is robert in florida. this is art in maryland. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i agree that the supreme court should be left alone. they are coequal. no other branch should have authority over them. they should look to congress for

term limits. you look at the dingell family, debbie dingell from southeastern michigan. a family member has held seat in southeastern michigan for 90 years. she is there. her husband was there was the longest-serving person -- was there, who was the longest-serving person. and then joe biden, 36 years in the senate. they need term limits in congress. start there, clean house, get them out. thank you for taking my call. host: jim, pioneer, ohio. good morning, you are next. caller: morning. i would like to propose a periodic reconfirmation every five to 10 years. i would say six years. the constitution says justices serve during good behavior, but it does not describe what good behavior or bad behavior is.

i would say every reconfirmation to determine that, good behavior, bad behavior. and also, in 1868, congress set up a nine justice system with nine appellate courts. since then, the appellate courts have expanded to 13. dan they found a balance. we need more -- and they found a balance. we need more justices. host: a reconfirmation, would it be for going back in the supreme court? would it be in a reconfirmation process you see members of the senate kicking off active members of the supreme court? caller: it would be the same as the original confirmation process to put them on, and it would be to determine, have they had good savior or bad behavior during the last six years -- good behavior or bad behavior during the last six years? if they did not have good

behavior, they would need to be impeached or removed. host: back to the bluegrass state. clarence, good morning. caller: good morning. i dialed the no line number. obviously, i don't think they should change it at this point. i think the reason they want to do that, the democrats, i remember not too long ago when trump was president and he appointed two justices in his term there. host: three. caller: three, ok, i stand corrected. so the republicans are the majority in the supreme court. so i think that when that happens, the democrats were, whoa, it could be years, and i

think that is why they really want to do that. i mean, i don't want to be into it, but i will say the republican side strongly things the way they do, most republicans, and most democrats strongly think the way they do. we are a divided nation. i am 60 years old. in my lifetime, i have never thought our country would be in the condition we are right now. but that is basically it at this time. i think that is why they want to do it. i don't think they should do that right now. i will say this. why do they want to have term limits? why don't they have term limits? they have term limits for the presidency. why don't they have term limits for the senate?

no country is perfect, no matter what we do. but if we did that, it is like we get nothing done. because it is like every four years you got a president. one side will win. ok, let's destroy everything the last one did, what he spent money on, for nothing. let's start all over and go the other direction. and then the next election, the others, and it just was back and forth. no wonder we are in so much debt and wasteful. host: clearance in kentucky. to the beaver state, this is in portland. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. 250 years ago, our founding fathers would not have any idea that people would live into their 80's or 90's. and in the 1970's, we found that

government officials lie to the public. so term limits for congress, senate, presidential, and supreme court is needed. term limits. the supreme court is correct and can be corrupted. term limits. thank you. host: susan, georgia. good morning. go ahead. caller: hello. i am just wondering why all of a sudden joe biden gets off his couch or wherever he has been hiding for all of days and he makes this announcement. i can't believe it. it is another one of the things that the democrats are going to do and say about kamala harris, how wonderful she is. host: susan, you still with us? caller: she was in office. they are crowning her a queen.

they just want to get trunk out of there. it is so obviously blatant -- it is so blatantly obvious. host: this is dan in the keystone state. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. host: what do you think about these proposals, dan? caller: i know a third of the supreme court nominees were put in by the republicans have sexual assault allegations brought against them. and you have donald trump, who is convicted of sexual assault. and they do need to put some sort of reform in. how many more justices are going to come along in the future that are going to commit crimes, and the next thing you know we will be going through this mess all over again? that is all i had to say.

thank you. host: dan in pennsylvania, our last caller in the first segment of the "washington journal." stick around. there will be plenty more to talk about, including a conversation today with two top political operatives about the shakeup in the democratic ticket, about the trump-vance ticket. first, we will be joined by marc lotter, director of strategic communications back for the trump 2020 campaign and connected today with republican politics. we will talk to him. and later, we will talk with democratic pollster and strategist carly cooperman, getting her opinion as well. stick around. those conversations this morning on "washington journal." ♪ >> saturdays, american history tv features historic convention

speeches. watch notable remarks by presidential nominees and other political figures from the past several decades. this saturday, jesse jackson calls for party unity after losing the 1988 democratic presidential nomination. >> when we divide, we cannot win. we must find common ground as a basis for survival and developmenanchange and growth. >> wattoric convention speeches, satuays at 7:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span 2. and watch c-span's live campaign 2024 coverage of the democratic national convention. and you can watch the republican national convention anytime on our website. >> the c-span bookshelf podcast feed mx. it easy for you to listen to all of c-span's podcasts that feature nonfiction looks in one place, so you can

find new authors and ideas. we make it convenient for you with critical authors -- from our signature programs, "about boks, "after words," "booknotes+"," and "q&a." you can find it on c-span.org /podcasts. >> c-spanshop.org is our online store. there is something for every c-span fan, and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. shop now, or anytime, at c-spanshop.org.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: with just under 100 days to go until election day, we welcome back to the program marc lotter. he served in the trump 2020 campaign communications team. have you ever worked in a campaign where a person your candidate is running against changes within three to four months of the actual election? guest: no, never this close. just when you think it will happen in the campaign, sometimes life changes everything at the last minute. host: do you think the trump campaign lawyer's prepared? guest: yeah, they knew of the possibility following the disastrous debate, but they knew he did not really matter who was at the top of the democratic ticket. the results were going to be the same. there was a reason why they were the most unpopular president and vice president in the last seven or so years prior to that

debate. people did not like inflation, the open border, the wars going on. swapping names out on the bumper sticker is not going to change the underlying factors. host: democrats say one thing that absolutely changes is the age issue that was so much a burden for joe biden now shifts down -- now shifts to donald trump. is that fair? guest: obviously harris is a younger president, but i do not think anyone questions whether donald trump has the energy or the fortitude to not only campaign that serve in the white house. it is a nice try, about -- but i do not think anyone is questioning whether donald trump is up to the rigors of the white house. host: what do you make of the polling numbers, getting -- getting closer and closer where it was further and further apart biiden? guest: it does not surprise me. democrats were very demoralized before the switch out, so there

was some pent up energy. i think there was pent-up donor money sitting on the sidelines, as many had publicly said they would not continue funding the campaign. we expected this. i think the trump campaign expected this. they also expected there to be a shift in the polls through her honeymoon, but once we really start getting into her policies. her campaign for president in 2020, which did not even make it, and what she has said since then, the underlying factors will be the same. once the sugar high falls off, we will probably be close to where we were. host: you were there in 2020, worked in the trump/pence campaign. do you have any role in the campaign for 24? guest: no, i am on the outside. i am at a think tank. we are the ones out there putting the white pages together in the research, getting ready for the next time there is in america first president in the white house.

host: what you make of the project 2025 and all of the focus and attention that has gotten in recent weeks? guest: i think it is hilarious, to be honest with you. think tanks are an industry in washington, d.c. there are think tanks on the left, think tanks on the right. they get paid by the word, and they are hoping that their thoughts, their policy priorities are adopted by a president or a governor or a candidate for congress. nine times out of 10, they will say, regardless what side you're on, i like what you did with this, i like where they did over there, we will combine things together and come up with a policy. but no think take speaks for a candidate or campaign. that is what we trust that campaign to do for themselves. host: i should also know you work inside the white house. what do you do? guest: i was press secretary for the first year, than i was a special assistant. host: what is a special assistant to? guest: i was part of the white

house can occasions team, spent a lot of time briefing and prepping and talking to sean spicer when he was press secretary, then later -- host: time for you to call in and ask the questions you want to ask. (202) 748-8000 for democrats to call in. republicans, it's (202) 748-8001 . independents, (202) 748-8002. as folks are calling in, i wonder if you think the trump and now j.d. vance campaign should have been more prepared for the amount of attention j.d. vance's comments in prior interviews from years or months ago are receiving again today? guest: i was with then governor pence when he became the vice presidential nominee in 2016. you asked every vote you ever took, every public comment you made, every interview have ever done is going to be scoured,

going to be dumped on you all at once. when kamala harris names her running mate, we are going to do the same thing to them, and we will get two weeks of intense scrutiny. it is part of the vice presidential cycle. ultimately, j.d. vance's addition to the ticket is not as much about what he may have said or voted for, because ultimately, people will go into the polls and cast their vote for president. no one says i am voting for vice president. what i think j.d. vance offers is something i do not think a lot of people are covering enough. he was once very critical of president trump trade he once had questions about president trump. he was vocal in those questions. so he can go to an undecided voter in pennsylvania, wisconsin, michigan, anywhere in the country, and say, i get it. i was just like you. i had my questions, my critiques, my criticisms. but when i look at the record of donald trump in office or kamala harris and joe biden and i look

at their plans for the future, i came across, because i think the america first policies are what makes our country safer. so come on in, the water's fine. host: do think he is doing that? do you think he is acknowledging he even had concerns in the first place? guest: i think you cannot disagree there were concerns or they were very public, on social media and the interviews. it is the journey since then which can really go out there and connect with people who may still be on the fence. or they may love the trump policies because things were more affordable, things were safer, the world was not at war, and the border was secure. but they may not have liked the tone or the to or whatever. but they can go i can get beyond that, because i do want to get to a safer country, i want to get to a more prosperous country. joe biden and kamala harris don't offer that, they just give us more of the same. host: yeah a lot of the focus in the mainstream media is on the childless women comments from years ago. it was j.d. vance who was on fox

news, responding to some of that criticism he has gotten. this is about 90 seconds of that interview. [video clip] >> i have heard from many women, most of whom were conservative, and they would very much like to vote for president trump and you , but, senator, they are disappointed. nuns and priests aside, do you agree there are people who very much love this country and are invested in its future, but they also happen to be childless? >> oh, of course i believe that. if you look at the full context of what i said, it is clear the democrats are trying to take this out of context and blow it out of proportion, which is what they always do, because they do not have an agenda to run on themselves. if you look at what the american people are most concerned about, it is not an out of context quip i made three years ago, it is about kamala harris, and the southern borders open, it is a fact the democratic party has

become supposedly antifamily and some of their policies. you just heard kamala harris, in a surfaced clip recently, talk about how it was a bad idea to have kids because of climate change anxiety. what i'm trying to get out here is it is important for us to be profamily as a country. of course, for a whole host of reasons, it is not going to work out for some people. we should pray for those people and have some of the for them. i still think that means we should be profamily, as a party, and i think our country has become particular hard for parents, especially under the policies of kamala harris. host: that is the response j.d. vance has on fox news, supposed to what you're saying, talking about his journey to donald trump, a message you think to connect to more people. guest: i think that is part of the process. we already in the oppo dump that they are currently doing on j.d., the trump campaign will do that on kamala's pick here in a

week or so ok once you get beyond that, on the campaign trail, that is where you start to make those connections. when you look at what j.d. was actually saying, he was saying what i think he should be saying, that the america first agenda is very profamily. we shouldn't apologize for being profamily. it does not mean that for those who chose not to or can't aren't important as well, but families make our country better. they make our communities better. we should be encouraging families. host: who is the harris picked republican strategists are licking their lips about to do their opposition dump, and who do you think that harris picked is that republicans are more concerned about? guest: i do not think we are concerned about any of them. the biggest question, if i take off my partisan hat off and put on my campaign, political operative hat on, it would seem to make most sense to pick governor josh shapiro. she has a math problem.

the math is not in her favor in battleground states. even with her honeymoon polling bump, she still trailing. i do not see a pathway to 279 without pennsylvania, -- without 270 without pennsylvania. on the other side, she has another problem. josh shapiro is jewish, he is very pro-israel, and that does not align with the radical base of the democrat party and could hurt her in michigan and minnesota and other areas. right now, you think about the democrat party and its longtime relationship with the jewish vote, you think about the party that praises tolerance, she may actually not be picking the most sensible pick because of anti-semitism that'running rampant in the democratic party now. that is a real problem for her. host: what is the best pathway, what is the map democrats have

the best chance of beating donald trump on? guest: right now, it looks like the southern states are gone. the southern states are firmly in donald trump's category. georgia, arizona are outside the margin of error. it would seem she would have to go the traditional blue wall with michigan, wisconsin, and pennsylvania, where she is trailing in all three of those states as well. again, donald trump does not need to win all of them, he just needs to win a couple of them of all of the swing states. when it comes to the way things stand right now, he needs just one more day or a couple of electoral college votes to get to that magic number of 270. host: before we get to calls, your thoughts on joe biden yesterday, these reforms he is proposing, supreme court reforms that mitch mcconnell has said is dead on arrival in the senate, is not going to get 60 votes to overcome the filibuster and that the speaker has also said is not coming up in the house?

guest: it is ironic that a man who has been in washington, d.c. in elected office for 54 years now believes 18 years is the right term limits. it also before tells me that the so-called self-proclaimed defenders of democracy, who ignored democracy and cast aside their presidential candidate for politics is now turning their sights on another coequal range of women in the united states supreme court and attacking the integrity, attacking the foundations of that court because they do not like the way it is currently made up. again, it is politics, not about democracy or our constitution. ultimately, i think joe biden did this as part of his deal with progressives, when basically the party wasn't fleeing him, prior to him dropping out. the squad, the radical left, some of them stayed in his corner to encourage them to keep running, that was probably part of the deal he made, that he

would call for these reforms, even though there is zero chance you will get it through congress , no matter who controls congress. you're not getting the 2/3 necessary to do constitutional amendments, let alone the three quarters of the states. if they try to do it by law, i would love to sit in the supreme court chambers when chief justice roberts is sitting there asking the government's lawyers so you think i am not qualified to continue serving, let me rule on that. [laughter] host: plenty of callers for you this morning. ruth in texas, line for republicans. you are on with marc lotter. caller: good morning. i have a question about campaign finance reports. my subtle number got mixup with a democrat, apparently, even though i am a republican, and i get these text suggests all the time wanting me to donate to the harris fund or some other democrat. with paris, as soon as she was

announced as the candidates, i started getting these text messages saying if i would donate $5, $10, $15, it would be matched five times, six times the amount. then it would be reported these huge sums her campaign raised immediately. i would like to know who is providing those matching funds, and are they part of that report of how common, everyday people have donated all this money? is that making sense? guest: yes, ma'am, it is. hopefully you can hit "stop" or some thing like that to remove yourself from those text lists. ultimately what happens, generally speaking, is you have a major donor who will pledge a certain amount of money to the campaign -- both sides do it.

so -- i am making this up, but say i pledged $10 million of matching funds, so if you donate this, they will not it up to that care that is how they basically do that. host: do they have to report both a big donor and the? big donor and a little donor when they do that? guest: yes. the big donor is outside of campaign finance laws. most of that is going to super pac's and things like that. host: it is called matching even though the money is going one way to the campaign and the other way to -- guest: basically what happens is when those campaign contributions come in -- i forget what the limit is, i think it is $3600 -- $3600 goes directed to the campaign, the rest of it goes to the national party, then it goes to the super pac. they basically all take their cut from it. host: this is why people have a lot of frustration with campaign? finance law? guest: yeah, i don't understand it. it is a whole industry here in

d.c. caller: good morning. i know you realize we are in what you call the silly season of politics. when september and october comes around, when people wake up out of their slumber, they are going to vote for the person with the personality. and there is going to be a demographic that will change all of the swing states that are going to be voting this time. so i hope you are prepared for a loss -- host: what is the demographic usace going to wake up and start voting? caller: definitely it is going to be young folks. i'm an old guy who has a million, it seems like, nieces and nephews, and they are going to be voting for kamala harris with no hands down, no matter what, because we already went through the trump years, and we don't want to go backwards.

host: marc lotter on young voters. guest: polls show a number of young voters have abandoned the democratic party, and they continue to do so, because so many of them cannot afford to get a shot the american dream. you cannot afford to buy your first house because mortgage rates are astronomically high compared to the last 20 or so years. people cannot afford the cost of gas and groceries. their paychecks are not keeping up. while they are looking to get their first start and get out on their own and make their own path forward, they are finding, many times, they cannot afford to do it. that is one of the reasons we have seen a double-digit shift from the failed policies of kamala harris, joe biden, and the rest of the radical left, moving over back to the america first policies, because things were more affordable. you could get your first house, you could afford gas and groceries and maybe something else, to get yourself out there, moving forward. ultimately, that's what is

ultimately going to come down for this election. so many people are still struggling because of the high price of things, because of the challenge it has become because of joe biden and kamala harris. host: a headline from the associated press -- harris and democrats keep calling trump and vance weird. you think this line of attack is an appeal to those younger voters, millennial voters, voters on tiktok and instagram? guest: it is their latest line of attack. i could probably show you 100 plus media photos of kamala harris, joe biden with their social media influencers from tiktok in the white house. i think most of americans would call that weird. this is kind of the silly season, as the previous caller mentioned, and both campaigns will probably do it, but when you throw those pictures up there, i have a feeling most everyday americans are going that is weird. host: syracuse, new york, michael, independent.

good morning. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i wanted to ask you about your former boss, mike pence, and his thoughts on donald trump. lastly, do you remember "braveheart"? guest:the movie, yes? caller: where he was being drawn and quartered and said "freedom." donald trump does not present freedom. guest: i would disagree. donald trump represents freedom, the freedom of americans to make their own economica choices, to be able to afford the basic costs of living. he is for the freedom provided by a safe community and lead -- and dealing with out-of-control crime, which is going on. and kamala harris being very soft on crime. let's not forget that kamala harris raised money to bail out

the rioters, looters, arsonists of the blm rioters of 2020. she did not seek out the most harsh charges of eight gang -- of a gang member convicted of murdering a police officer. and also the conviction of standing up again and not the weakness that provoked the aggression of folks like vladimir putin and russia and iran, through its proxies, against israel and the middle east. host: do you talk to mike pence much? caller: i have not talked -- guest: i have not talked to him for about a year and a half or so. i know he has very devout thoughts in terms of where he things we should be going as a country, as a party, and he is going to put those out there. that is his right. he has been a longtime leader in the conservative movement. that is what we see right now.

we see leaders on both sides -- host: do you think he has a role to play in the months to the election? could he have any role to play in a second trump administration? guest: i do not speak for the former president or his campaign. probably, given their public disagreements on some things, i would not think there would be, but you never know. host: to one of those blue wall states you are talking about, michigan, this is heather, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. you are on with marc lotter. caller: hi. i don't understand. i grew up a democrat. up until the last election, i thought, oh my god, we cannot have hillary, she is going to push the button. and we cannot have trump, he will get us killed with his mouth. i will tell you what, i did not

know what fake news was. i do now. my eyes are open. i've become a republican. i have a lot of respect for our government, for the police -- my father was in the navy 31 years as a master chief and then an officer in the police station in the bay county for 13 years after that. i have a lot of respect. what i do not have respect for is i see the abuse going on with the president, and nobody is addressing this. i don't understand how his wife can't get in trouble, how kamala can't get in trouble. that is abuse, elder abuse. the buddy is seeing it happen. why is nobody doing anything about this? host: stay on that, marc lotter,

and your thoughts on not just joe biden's withdrawal but comments made by some republicans that he should leave office if he is not fit to run, they do not think he should stay until the end of the term. guest: there are two sides. america and the world need a strong leader. they need a leader fully in command of his faculties, his decision-making process, and, ultimately, it will falter joe biden to decide whether he should and can continue to do that job, and/or his vice president and cabinets if they believe he is not up to it. he obviously believes he is up to it. we saw it in austin, texas yesterday. i will leave that decision to him. but it is very important that america's enemies knkow we have a strong -- know we have a strong, fully capable leader in

office. on the political side, it is a disaster. assuming joe biden is capable of completing the job, he should do the job, and let's have a campaign separately. why on earth would you want to give your political opponent basically the keys to the kingdom, access to the white house air force one, signing executive orders. that would be a political disaster, which is something completely separate from the needs of having a fully competent president in the white house. unless something happens otherwise, joe biden is that guy for the next six months. host: to the volunteer state. this is vivian, democrat. caller: good morning. i was calling, so please let me get my point over. look at this man lying. he no what trump did with the insurrection, causing people to get beating, congresspeople running for their lives and he can say straight that trump is fit for our country?

how is he fit for the country when he raped a woman? they are talking people without children should not be able to vote. then with the supreme court, getting a rapist on the supreme court? all people need to go. talking about joe biden, the supreme court are taking money, bribes. then you are talking inflation. it is the rich man making stuff higher. they did that with covid, they raised prices on stuff. they are people who made money off the disease that killed millions of people. host: you bring in a lot of issues pale let's let you jump in. guest: it is important to remember that inflation was 1.4% the day joe biden took office. even president obama's former economic guy wanred the bi

den-harris administration to not do the american rescue plan, it will cause inflation. and what they did, dated -- they did it anyway, and it caused record high inflation. prices have gone up 20% on average once joe biden took office. when you get to the others, groceries, utilities, it is dramatically up even more than that. that was not the case when we had donald trump in office. we had rising paychecks and next to no inflation, 1.4%. they were warned not to do it, and they did it anyway, and now we have inflation. -- guest: i want to talk about project 2025. i read part of it, and i believe

they did some part of project 2025 during the reagan administration. when i read it, i no problem with it about people are using it as a fear monger among the democratic voters, saying they want to take this and that, you know. i believe project 2025 is ok, in my opinion -- host: what do you like about it? caller: i like they want to straighten up america's defense, saying the defense system, because since under the clinton administration, our military has become weak. he downsized the military through all the branches, and

that really caught up with us during 9/11 -- host: we want to take those points and let marc lotter jump in. guest: and the thing to remember about project on is it is not the official policy of president trump or his campaign. he has been very clear about that. as we were talking about earlier, these kinds of written reports are what think tanks do. i work for another think tank, that is not part of roger 2025, during our day job, and is -- it's part of our name to think tanks. they think about stuff and write it down, proposed solutions. there what i think ultimately, a candidate for president or congress or governor or estate alone maker will look at your research, proposals, it maybe cherry pick a thing year or two in this area.

you put it together and try to come up with a policy that works. think tanks are an industry and washington, d.c. you have former administrations from both sides of the aisle that go from there government work to the think tanks and write about ideas and just hope one day that candidates will get on board with it. the heritage has been doing it since the days of reagan. host: why did you join your think tank and have you ever had a situation where a proposal that you have has been picked up and made public policy? guest: absolutely. the american first think tank was born out of president trump. we have senior administration officials in the halls of government in the white house, agencies during the time of the trump administration and a few of them were in before that. they bring that level of

expertise and knowledge and to not only say what you should do but how you could get it done if you're candidate gets on board with that idea and adopts it. we've had a lot of success, especially at the state level because a lot of ours can be translated into the state whether combating china or purchase of ever cultural land, school choice, regulation reform. a lot of that is happening at the state level and we work in the halls of congress as well, especially for the new majority to shape and influence proposals in the house and senate. sometimes we are fully successful and sometimes we get some of what we want. host: what is your policy area of expertise? guest: i am communications but we have 20 policy centers covering every angle of the government from health-care to immigration and the border,

deregulation, the economy, foreign relations, the military. we run the gamut of all of it. host: this is ronald on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. i personally would like very much to see donald trump, but unfortunately, i do not believe that the democrats will permit him to win because our voting system is just not free and fair. the heritage foundation feels that the chances of having a free and fair election is at 0%. as what occurred in 2020, i am quite sure with democrats and cheating and robbing trump of an election so that he is

criticized when he mentions this as being a big lie but actually the media never will even explore the possibility that biden having been elected it was a big lie because it was not a valid election. host: let me stop you there. guest: one of the things that concerns me about this is we have had six presidential elections this century and four of those six elections, the losing side has questioned the result. so while too many times we spend our time here in washington or on television saying, this person is wrong, this person's claims are wrong but we never do anything about it. one of the things we do at the america first policy institute is we have a center for

elections. our motto is make it easy to vote but hard to cheat. democrats have objected to the loss and demonize the presidents george bush and donald trump, calling him illegitimate and fabricated claims of voter fraud in ohio. both sides would rather sit and talk about it rather than come together and say what can we do to strengthen the integrity of our elections so that moving forward neither side should be able to question it and be able to say that they question the outcome and the result. host: do you question the results of 20/20 and do you think we will have a free and fair election in 2024? guest: there were a lot of changes made in 2020 under the name of covid, whether the use of dropbox is found to be

unconstitutional by the wisconsin supreme court in the way that many states, including pennsylvania and georgia cast aside the signature match requirements for mail-in ballots. you had estates mailing live ballots out to everyone on their voter rolls regardless of whether you were still alive or a legal voter or eligible in that state. these live ballots are just going out. there were a lot of abnormalities that occurred that we need to make sure don't happen again. a lot of states have tightened those either through their legislature or judicial process and have come back to say, you did it in covid and we are not in covid and that is not happening again. i have a lot more confidence and to either side i would say if you are concerned about it, then make sure you get out and vote. the only way you can make sure you have your opinions counted, weighed in is to get out there and vote in we will see how it

works out and hopefully, no matter how it comes out, both sides will have confidence to say this is the outcome. host: to the hoosier state, this is an in fishers, indiana. caller: i would like to say that i have been in the ag industry for 43 years, and all of the immigrant labor, helps with the food and milk the cows and cuts the meat come when you deport those people, inflation and food prices will go through the roof. why aren't republicans talking about that? guest: my hoosier state where i am from and i spent a lot of my time in indianapolis. republicans are talking about it. president trump has been clear that he supports legal immigration and creating more pathways for immigrants to legally migrate here, especially those working in the critical ag sectors. it needs to be part of a broader

package that does secure the border and stops the flow of illegal immigration. that is where the focus has to be. we have to stop the flow of illegal immigrants, people coming into our country uninfected with no documentation , no known whereabouts, background or anything. we can get both accomplished, we just have to get congress, the democrats, on board with doing a system where we can make sure we have the workforce needed to do those jobs such as in agriculture but stop the flow of illegal, unvented immigrants coming into our country. host: phil is in brooklyn park, independent. caller: good morning. i have been a very cynical, logical person.

i think what guys like you failed to realize is the amount of anger in the american women and they are going to vote like in november. host: on the female vote. guest: kamala harris in the female what has in some places created new energy. now they have a new candidate supplying energy but it is a mistake for political parties on both sides to think any voting block that is monolithic, there are a lot of women who are struggling to put food on the table, deciding can i put a full tank of gas in my car or buy groceries. or how long can i stretch this

dollar into the next paycheck and who worries about crime and illegal immigration and whether the college education daughter is going to go for a run and be raped and murdered by an illegal immigrant that kamala harris allowed into the country while she was the borders czar. there are a lot of different things that motivate voters. i think a lot of people think that you just won't buy it what you checked on the box. and that despite the demographics, a person of color, union member, hispanic or latino logo, just because we as a group of voted one way in years past doesn't mean where voting this time. host: did republicans do a good enough job to reach out in 2020 the lead up to the 2022 elections and expectations of

the red wave that never came in the election? guest: we are trying to make those in roads and throw with that. what we are seeing is in 2024, the traditional democratic voting blocs are breaking apart. donald trump is getting rear -- near record support from black americans and hispanic americans. we are seeing many women in the suburbs coming back and i think it is because of the policies. they do remember that things were more affordable in the world was safer in their communities work to savor it when we had america first policy is in the white house and not what we have when you have a radical like kamala harris who believes we should be defunding the police, decriminalizing illegal immigration and basic raising money to let people out of prison who have gone on to be found guilty of rape and murder. host: to georgia, david, a

republican. you are on with marc lotter. caller: i would like to see a quote and i think people are intelligent enough to vote the way they want to vote. i think they will think about what they are doing. i think that we should not be ramming things down each other's throats and aching back, the democrats or the republicans. host: how do you think people will vote in georgia? caller: i think it is going to be a split. i really think the hard working blue-collar workers are going to vote the way they feel.

people are working and are probably going to vote democratic or republican and have their mind set. a lot of people figure, i am going to vote my heart and the way i feel. i think people are intelligent enough to make their own opinions. host: what is the role of unions in this election? guest: this is the problem with the democratic party. i remember seeing them giving speeches in michigan and somebody come up and say i am a uaw or teamster or a member of a union and i don't care what our leadership does because they just blindly endorse democrats. the men and women working and doing the work were supporting

donald trump. it was the same thing in minnesota in 2020. we were at a giant rally of ironworkers and minors and we were literally across from the union headquarters which had biden-harris bumper stickers and the people actually doing the work were celebrating andy campaigning for donald trump. kamala harris' green new for ev mandates are going to put 20,000 autoworkers out of work primarily in michigan, indiana, ohio in the building sectors of our state. that is a problem for them and she is going to double down on that. more and more people are drinking with the demographic ties and say i am voting for what is the best interest of my family, job, community and the safety of my neighborhood and country. and now you look at what is going on in europe the safety of

the world. host: in albany, line four democrats, larry, go ahead. caller: i wanted to make a statement. he said that under president trump that the economic was 1.7%. i don't know why that during this time when obama took office , we had bad inflation and we can -- came back up by 2014 and had brought that all the way up. once we got it up, donald trump took over and in 2014 in 2015,

we were all doing good. when donald trump took over, and he took credit for. anyone that was under the obama administration would step up until the truth. we were doing good, 2014, 2015. host: is -- what president is responsible for the tv when they are in control. guest: under donald trump we have the lowest unemployment rate at the time in recent history, lowest unemployment for black and hispanic workers and for women, the second lowest ever reported.

paychecks were growing and all of that was handed to joe biden who basically flushed it away, even though he was warned that if he did his out-of-control trillion dollars spending in his environmental and climate change agenda it would cause inflation. it did and we are still trying to deal with the 20% increase in prices. gasoline is 50% higher than it was when donald trump was in office. host: marc lotter, republican campaign strategist. you can follow him on x in the run-up to the election day. i appreciate your time. guest: thank you for having me. host: coming up, more phone calls in open form. and later a discussion with carly kuperman, a democratic poster and strategist. we will got to open form right

after -- open forum after the break. ♪ >> since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry c-span , has invited 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 unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> the house will be in order. >> c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979 we have been your primary source for capitol hill,

with balanced, unfiltered coverage, taking you where the bills are decided. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington, live and on-demand. keep up with the biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, the court, campaigns and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips. you can stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling information for c-span networks and radio. plus a variety of podcasts. it is available at the apple store and google play. it scan the qr code to download it for free or visit our website . c-span now, your front row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere.

>> stay up-to-date in the latest in publishing with book tv's podcast about books with current nonfiction book releases plus a best seller list and industry news and trends through insider interviews. you can find about books on c-span now, our free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: here is where we are on this tuesday, july 30 on capitol hill. the house back in session at 1:00 p.m. eastern you can watch that gavel-to-gavel when they come in. the senate is in at 10:00 a.m. eastern. also this morning you can watch the senate on c-span two. on c-span at 10:00, we will show

you a senate hearing. the accurate -- acting secret service director and fbi director will testify on the failures leading up to the attempted assassination of a former president donald trump. it is a joint judiciary meeting, just after our program ends here . and now, it is our open forum. any public policy or issue you want to talk about pitiful lines are yours to do so. the numbers are on your screen. we will go right to your calls. linda is up first in southport, north carolina, republican. caller: good morning. i just wanted to let you know that our power bill has jumped up tremendously. my understanding after trying to call around it was for the new -- green new deal.

i don't know why i have to pay for this to put it in and i do not agree with the windmills. host: how did you fall -- find out it was about the green new deal? caller: i called the power company and could not get somebody in the united states. and then i called the north carolina utilities commissions and she said it was past to the democratic party in north carolina. i went to google and look it up and low and behold it is what they said. host: what was past that raised the power bill? caller: to do windmills for power. my understanding was for putting in the charges for electric vehicles. host: this is york, independent. caller: heat for a dimension

that when trump was president he added $9 trillion to the deficit . he did it with little to no oversight. and one more comment on unions, it is well known in new york that trump would never let a union worker set foot on any of his worksites. host: to worcester, massachusetts, robert, democrat. good morning. caller: did a good job questioning the last gentleman you had and i give you credit for that. you ask the right questions. the person that i would love to have run would be hakim jeffries. for amy klobuchar.

and when joe biden harris and did not have go back to hillary clinton. host: why do you want hakim jeffries? caller: he is a very intelligent man taiwan. he is a very intelligent man. he could work across the aisle get whatever issues we have in this country, hakim jeffries should be the nominated man for this country.

host: how long have you followed his career, since he became the minority leader for before that? caller: brooklyn all the time and all the time. i see the good work he is smarter than the senators. -- i wish biden nominated him and amy klobuchar. host: this is lewis in colorado, republican. good morning. caller: good morning, john. i have three quick ones for c-span. you have to start every show with an update on the american hostages being held by the radical muslim terrorists in

gaza. number two, you had a guest on may 2 months ago, mcclintock, the representative. and the host allowed the callers and the guests to have a brief interchange. they were allowed to back and forth. and third, the love of pete, you have to get maybe an ai program or something -- is to be somebody fact checks all of these. anyway hate to waste my 30 day on suggestions but i watch the show every day and i appreciate it. thank you.

host: this is rudy in chula vista, california, independent. caller: how are you today? host: doing well. caller: i believe the republicans are making up lies, especially the one that trump for being the vice president saying that harris, because is a woman and never kids, she is not capable or stuff like that. they are kind of ignorant and we definitely don't need an ignorant present like trump is, back in the white house. he didn't do crack at all. i think it is disgusting that we have ignorant people voting for trump again because he does not know how to do his job. control the coronavirus he didn't do nothing.

jeffrey will good be a good vice president, the speaker of the house for the democrats pretty will do a good job. host: i haven't heard him being in the running for it. do you think he is a surprise picked by the resident? caller: that would be nice. he is educated and very professional in his job. he is young and now the old man is. he was a biden's old now he is the old man. we need a new generation. kamala harris we wish her well and i prefer her instead of trump back again. i am an independent vote both

ways. when i see it is a good person i will be honest and vote for them . host: you made me sit in paul krugman's column in the new york times mentioning j.d. vance. he says there are talented politicians, intelligent politicians and then there is a j.d. vance. he tried to calm the furor over dead panning that he pats his hiding who he really represents behind a can of. you can read that in the op-ed pages of today's new york times. this is a fae in ithaca, new york, democrat. caller: born. -- good morning. i want to put this out to kamala harris.

i really feel that it's to pick the best person that will work with her and has very strong international skills. this thing about picking just a governor from the swing states, i don't think that is appropriate, i think they should pick someone that fits the job and that is how you are going to win. bowing down to the swing states, i don't think that is logical. host: who do you like? caller: i didn't have time to think about that. i think chris coons has been very that she comes across as uniting both parties hearings

and work with the fellow republican on that panel. he struck me as one that would work well in bringing independents and republicans on. there is a number of out there that would do a great job in unifying but you need someone. we are in a lots of trouble in the world. i am worried about what is happening in the middle east. i also wanted to put out there that honestly, i watched span every day and i love. all of the moderators to a great job. thing is, it is unbelievable that this country is allowing like or even vance to be able to

run. is unbelievable to me. i'm very worried about this election. very dramatic with they have done to women. alone. donald trump never happened to run. we are being laughed at around the world. host: when you say be allowed to run? anyone meets the constitutional requirements, should they meet it -- should they be able to run? caller: do you think he meets it ? he tried to overturn our government. he tried to kill his vice president. let's talk about assassination.

host: this is jeanette and her, republican. caller: i have had tried to kill vice pens and of story. -- vice president pence, end of story. trump is a sociopath, psychological. host: you are calling on the. what happened on january 6, i am a but i am going to vote kamala harris class and is smart i

don't vote by party anymore, after january 6. he has not deserved office again. psychopath, if they him back here, he wants a dictatorship he says. he wants to be a dictator. i don't want that i will move to russia. host: to the buckeye state, jim, independent. caller: i live in the fabulous city of russellville ohio. my comment is this, a couple of them. situation with our country is

there are too many sabre rattles. i would like to see a true independent get in there and run no party lines. let's talk together and deal with this together. it used to be like that years ago. i am a vietnam vet and party lines are destroying this country with the voting. host: is a true independent right now? caller: nobody. if you see what goes on the independent, they go for the democratic side in congress. they are not true independents. who was the last -- host: who was the last true independent? caller: i would believe that

truman was. and although they were democrats, let's be up with this. they ran the country with the will of the people. right now it is under party lines. host: you don't think we have had true independents late 1940's? caller: i don't, if you really look at it. kennedy was a good independent, he was. he blended that party that. but as far as after that, johnson wanted to go i believe in civil rights and everybody has the right to be in this country. with. the last thing i have to say, no

that in george washington work? they were not a denominational faith. about every step george washington made, it was about divine providence. got up above the choice for all of us down here and is how this country was think that is what is wrong with our country we have to come together as individuals, not as a group

party. host: to pennsylvania, and, dennis, democrats. caller: thank you for taking my call. i will try to stay on the subject of the law and order party, the republicans for so-called republicans. they try and carry on that you don't have right wingers on the show. you had one that was as far right as you can get and the other guest who are supporting a candidate that the trump university was a fraud. the trump charity was a fraud. he is a convicted sex offender. he is a convicted felon. they say about him being a businessman but has filed six bankruptcies. also getting off of that subject , i am going to go to c-span

itself. i have dish network and in the middle of night contract and unless they give me a real good price, i will probably be going to a streaming service the next time and that means i will be losing unless you come up with a different plan to get on different services. have a nice day and thank you. host: this is rick, a republican. caller: i feel sorry for the democrat people. i really do feel sorry for them. i feel sorry for everybody that has to live what they are having. i am thinking in a commonsense way democrats don't like the

poor. they are trying their best to get rid of the middle class. sad because like the democrats love chaos. it is very sad how they do that said to struggling with groceries and stuff in the democrat down. struggling to they are just stubborn. host: diane is next back in the state -- in the hoosier state,

independent. caller: i want to know why in october 2023 128,000 1845 -- 128, netanyahu jon alterman guest: -- host:2 netanyahu,845 -- 100485, children, terrorists who hate the united states. harris and biden did nothing. the are breaking the security and medicare. they are only letting them in to get illegal votes, the democrats.

my father-in-law has parkinson's dimentia and harris did nothing. it is pitiful. host: to rochester new york, democrat. caller: good morning. will you republicans stay out of our business. i am tired saying how the economy was for trump. by did a great job had to come through the depression that bush did. when trump got in, he had nothing to do. all he did with the tax cut. he just talked about the borders. , georgia, nevada, arizona, carolina, i don't want to hear from arkansas, tennessee and

other places. we need to hear from the swing state voters. host: entire series on swing states and lines for swing state voters watching. we will have it. caller: one more thing. there is no james comey. when he did that to pillory two weeks before the election, we won't have that. host: this is noland in louisiana, republican. caller: trying to coming over here joe is bringing them in.

and i used to go with democrats but i went trump got in there. if they don't watch it, we are going to lose everything. host: chris in oak park, independent. caller: i have one suggestion for the harris tickets and that is mitch landrieu, the cochairmen of her campaign but i think in terms of the balancing of the ticket he brings a lot to the ticket being a stalwart democrat and is from what is now a red state, new orleans recovery from katrina. everything to the ticket to make it a nice balance between the south.

i don't think anybody is going to listen but thought i would throw in my two cents. host: around, plenty more to talk about this morning, including we will be joined by a democratic pollster and strategist, carly cooperman, to talk about campaign 2024 and the challenges a democrats this fall. we will be right back.. >> expense coverage of the political party conventions, headed to chicago for the democratic national committee should. watch live beginning monday, august 19 as they support their presidential nominee. here democratic leaders talk about the administration's track record and vision for the next four years as they continue the fight. the democratic national committee live up monday, august

19 on c-span, c-span live, or online. visit our website for the latest schedule updates and to watch our full coverage of the 2024 republican convention. you can also catch up on past conventions at c-span.org/campaigns. >> if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-span.org, deals of key hearings, debates and drink markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights. these points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos. the timeline tool makes it easy to see what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and spend minutes on c-span's points of interest. >> nonfiction book lovers,

c-span has a number of podcasts for you. listen to best-selling authors and influential interviewers on the afterwards podcast and on q and a, wide-ranging conversations with authors things happen. notes plus our weekly hour-long conversations that regularly feature fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics. and the about books podcast takes you behind the scene of the publishing industry with insider interviews, updates and bestseller lists. find our podcasts by downloading the free c-span now app or wherever you get your podcasts, and on our website, span.org/podcasts >> "washington journal" continues. -- span.org/podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: carly cooperman is joining us. nine days since joe biden

announced she was stepping away. what can and can't only tell us about the race today? guest: pulling is a snapshot in time and tells us about where the race is now but does not predict what is going to happen in three and a half months from now. what we know is there has been a dramatic reset in the race from what it was a few weeks ago before joe biden out. the pulling at the time showed trump had picked up a significantly both nationally and in swing states and every battleground state. with the reset that has happened with kamala harris, it has now become a closer race most of the polls largely still has is a advantage but it is neck and neck and we have seen, and the swing states have narrowed the gap. is there is a lot of is he is

him among people whom he beat once were thinking of voting for biden and then stepped away with the concerns about his mental age and fitness and now it is a reset of what is happening going into november. host: how you measure that enthusiasm and re-engagement from people you say may have stepped away from the race? guest: two things that are key to me that have come out. first the change in harris' favorability. she has traditionally had low ratings in the spring, summer and when she was vice president. she was consistent with where biden was who had lower ratings. and we have seen bump in her readings and she is now around the low 40's and her

un-favorability rating has gone down as well. we see whether temporary or long-term remains to be seen but a noticeable uptick in her in that regard. the second thing i have noticed is who her supporters are, democrat -- demographic looks different than with biden. a lot more younger voters and those who are nonwhite and people of color. this is the constituency that historically made up democratic support and yet biden has been struggling with these groups. we will look to see how it changes down the road. she will need to expand beyond the democratic base but the people supporting here are people who were depressed groups before when biden was running. host: how different is it today from the coalition that put joe biden into office in 2020? we had a guest on previously on the program saying that donald

trump and republicans are breaking up the usual blocks of coalition that democrats rely on to get over the hump. guest: historically, joe biden in particular and democrats, he has taken a lot of pride in his connection to unions and ability to get blue-collar workers. this was a coalition and that the voters that trump was able to tap into when he won in 2016 and this group is what trump had his eye on as he goes into november with the union and trump trying to reach these voters, group c is trying to reach -- a group is trying to reach. there are now younger voters coming back to the democratic side and nonwhites. these are groups that we have seen support for biden was much lower among these groups than

they were in 2020 and also what the pulling was showing it was lower in these groups and what kamala harris has now. biden was able to build a coalition that consisted of dependent and moderate voters, suburban, suburban women typically, and these are groups that kamala harris will have to tap into to some extent if she will be successful. host: what did you make of the j.d. vance pick last week? guest: two weeks ago the republican party was running high and there was a tremendous amount of unity we were seeing behind trump especially in light of the assassination attempt. with j.d. vance come at the time it was that trump is in 1980 excessive for the republican party and ensuring that the legacy.

this is a bright young person who is well spoken who can carry this on and make compelling act. it almost didn't matter who tomkat as his running mate at the time because it was all about donald trump and the republican party is behind him and it was either you were with trump or not and that is all that mattered. i think the rollout of vance has not been as successful as republicans liked coupled with the fact that the whole campaign was built against running against joe biden with kamala harris at the top of it is a completely different race. i am not sure if would have been picked if that was set up. there been clips circulating about what vance said and old things resurfacing.

they will realign on how they will make their arguments in the case against,. i am not sure about that playing out. host: other lessons that kamala harris should learn from the j.d. vance rollout? guest: i think the harris campaign is looking to have somebody that is a counterpart to what she offers. it will be 70 with legislative experience, border experience, likely from a swing date and likely who can connect to some of the voters in more urban and rural areas and looking for somebody who can counter and be just a partner in terms of what she has to offer, as well as the vulnerabilities. they are well aware of her strengths and weaknesses and how

they can be exploited. and we see the trump campaign will try to paint her as a liberal and even farther to the left and the weaknesses that the biden campaign has in terms of immigration, inflation. they will for a partner and she is looking for a partner who can complement her. host: currently cooperman is our guest in this last admit. a democratic pollster and strategist. if you want to talk campaign 2024, now is the time to call in. (202) 748-8000 four democrats, republicans (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. the rollout yesterday from joe biden the reform for the supreme court, that republicans have set are dead on arrival in the house and senate and will not pass before election day and

questions about whether they would pass at all. what do these reforms in this rollout do as you look at it as a campaign strategist on camping 2024? guest: you can't underestimate what a dramatic transformation has taken place supreme court and the rulings they have had recently and the circuited takeover of the court. what we see with the power the court and half with the rulings. between the justices that trump was able to appoint in the wide range of rulings that have come out, it has really put a lot of attention to the supreme court and their power. the government is supposed to be a system of checks and balances yet they are appointed for life.

they can have lasting impact. there is no accountability beyond that. i think a lot of people would probably buy into the fact that something like term limits makes sense. even the role of the justices not seeing themselves. the supreme court in terms of ratings is at an all-time low. structure of getting something passed like that is difficult. you bring attention to something that i think a lot of people, even people who might have supported some of the recent decisions might have a pause to say, it is kind of crazy what is going on with the supreme court. host: this is jim in west virginia, line for democrats.

caller: i would just like to say that you know what they say about trump, you either love him or he will hate you. so what is going on here is people need to understand that from the beginning, trump with the whole russia thing that the republicans want to think he did nothing wrong, he certainly did. paul manafort, roger stone, all of these people were sentence and some of them went to prison and then trump became president and pardoned them. everything that sells is made in china or indonesia. it is not america first that he buys himself -- his stuff from.

his daughter ask it in china. it is really a danger for this country. i guess that is all i have to say. host: how would you respond? guest: i think from the democratic perspective there is the belief that trump is selling one thing and doing another and there is some hypocrisy that exists in terms of how he business and what he is selling to the american people. there is a large off of the electorate who truly believe what he has said in terms of the other country is hurting the american economy and needing to turn within to develop our economy and jobs being taken away by people that are non-americans and is something that has hit home with people as

the economy itself hasn't struggled per se but the cost of living is high and inflation continues to be problematic. trump has been able to be successful with making this argument to people and in terms of white so hard. something that resident -- resonates. host:host: jamie. caller: i have a question on biden wanting term limits with the supreme court. that's a slap in our face. and in my heart of hearts, i really feel like the biden who score to defend us have been able 300, at least, spitting off poisoning a day. they've allowed harm to come to

american citizens by illegals. i've seen it in the house committee where people have been -- has children that have been raped and murdered by illegals that should not have been here. that's not good. they have brought the american citizens a piece from unaffordable groceries, taxes and interest rates. they perpetrate foreign wars. they glorify the lgbtq community which i don't have a problem with. but i do have a problem with chemically castrated children. i mean, kids should be able to be kids. in my heart of hearts, there seems to be nothing good about the democrat party. i can't have kamala harris for a president. do you see what i'm saying? we are struggling here. host: what do you want to pick

up on? guest: i think the point about the border is something that democrats know is a weakness. biden came into office and trying to come up with a policy that showed compassion of people coming in and what resulted was the republicans were able to really -- in terms of spread the migrant crisis all around america and the biden administration is trying to respond to that within the past year by putting forward some restrictions and trying to come up with a policy that was both tougher and had compassion and, you know, this is an area that has risen to the top of people's minds and issues that they're concerned about. and, you know, the biden administration is pointing to the legislation that they tried to pass.

i think you're going to see kamala harris coming to bat right away try to take the border acknowledging it's a weakness and something needs to be addressed, as well as the economic concerns by the caller. she's hitting on concerns that voters feel and that are important and that, you know the democratic party needs to be responsive to. host: a reminder that the senate in at 10:00 a.m. you can watch that over on c-span2. a joint hearing by two senate committees to look into the assassination attempt on president trump. so stay here for that hearing at

10:00 a.m. i think i see over your shoulder you book, "america unite or die" came out in 2021. remind viewers what the premise of that book is about. guest: yes, that's right. i wrote that booking with my business partners. i'm shown about the divide that had seem to be bigger and bigger and, you know, ended up being right after the january 6 attack on the capitol that took place. it looked at how polarizing and divisive our country has become and trying to understand how we got there and essentially the two americas that exists and also look at the types of reforms and things that could be done to try to bring the country back together. two different sources of

information and there's almost two different narrative told without overlap is something that's really problematic and, you know, there's this idea that there could be bipartisanship or unity is something that feels like a distant memory even though it really wasn't. i think the hope is that there can be ways for democrats and republicans to work together and not necessarily such extreme opinions and visions on every set of problem that many people really do agree on in terms of the problems that are out there in their country. host: what are the ways to bring the country back together and can it be done in an election year? guest: it's very hard in an election year for sure. and i think that, you know, despite the fact that people are so resistant to negative attacks

and to all the advertisement and they don't want to hear it, there's also the belief that they're effective. so it's against the candidate goal in trying to build support to call for unity. but i do think that -- and look, i think donald trump in particular has been very successful by running a campaign that does involve fear and it involves these attacks and really pushing people to the sides. but i think that americans want to hear calls that include optimism and the desire for unity and to come together and i think there is an appeal of that too. and i think both campaigns would be beneficial to have that in their message and i do think we'll see some of that to some extent from kamala as she tries

to reintroduce herself to america. but beyond that, policies of people can join together on in terms of -- and that bipartisan aspect in terms of election reform where the system is being more open where there are candidates that can represent, you know, many people or more candidates can be involved in races and being agreeable and inclusive. host: how long do we have to unite or die? guest: look, i mean, i'd like to be optimistic in that it's never too late. i think that you have presidential election coming up and donald trump is probably one of the most polarizing candidate

we've seen in history and it certainly makes it hard right now but i think that it doesn't mean that after the presidential election that we can continue to have been those kind of goals and that there will continue to be the -- trying to make an optimistic call and trying to work together. something like that four years ago might have been giving a lot of -- instead, it's not looked at with that aspect. host: here's another call from michigan city, democrat, dave. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you, carly? guest: good, thank you. how are you? caller: good, thank you. i've enjoyed listening to your views and sharing about your

book this morning. the reason i'm calling, just to point out that i am more upset than at any time in my life about the state, political state of the country. it is sort of polarized and to democrats who are progressives and mad at republicans who want to take the society way back and leave out a lot of our different groups. i am thinking that the excitement and popularity and criminal case ma of kamala harris is going to take care of that for us. and while volpe turnout may be close to 200 million this year, it's going to be a democratic blue wave that is coming.

i have been seen this since lincoln ran against three other candidates and i wonder if you could find any parallels between the pre-civil war, the antebellum america and today's society. and i appreciate your thoughts. guest: thank you. i feel what's happened in the last month alone has been unprecedented between, you know, what started with the poor performance by biden and within the few weeks, never have we seen a presidential candidate drop out so quick and completely throw into question, you notorious whole campaign that's expected to take place now.

i think a lot of people feel this way that there's really far progressive part the democratic party that is certainly, the loudest and it feels like oh, this party is so far left and i'm on the right-hand side, you've got the republican party that is at least speaking the loudest and seems to be dominating as donald trump has really taken leadership of the republican party. and it seems like there are so few as you would describe as moderate republicans. in reality, there are a lot that don't follow those two

categories. this does speak to the vision of the country and i think that there are candidates that don't agree with those two extremes. and there from voters that continue feel that way. and so i think that there's only more to the two parties than these two extremes and when you see the parties infights that takes place on both sides, to some extent, it's a good thing because you really just can't lump the country into these two extreme sections. it's just that given the culture, how people get news of social media about the loudest voices, it seems like that's dominant. so i share the concerns and the frustration but i think that we're going to continue to see that there is more nuance in american politics. host: what percentage of voters do you think are actually undecided with less than 100 days until election day?

guest: it's small. i would say less than 10% for sure. maybe 5% or 6%. i saw that one of the voting box that we've been looking a lot is who we call double heaters. this has been up to, i think 24% of independents. these are voter who is don't like or were unfavorable for both donald trump and biden. and we saw at least in the polling with the announcement of kamala harris that number has gone down dramatically. i think that when you have donald trump running for president, everybody has an opinion about donald trump already. there are very few who don't. so the percentage of people who are undecided about this election is small. and i think at the end of the day, a large calculation out of people is whether they want donald trump or whether they don't donald trump and how kamala harris pulls them one way or another impacts things.

but it's a small amount and the way our presidential election systems works, it's those voters in the key states that from going to push things one way or another. but in addition to undecided voters, it's also a turnout game and getting people to show up, and who shows up. trump was able to pull in his successful election in 2026 a lot of -- 2016 a lot of people that haven't been shotting recently and showed up and voting for him there's a concern for biden and going into this election and we'll see if that has dissipated with kamala harris at the top of the ticket. host: was there anything to learn about american use of president trump in the wake of that unprecedented stretch of surviving the assassination attempt and then going into a convention at a time when usually people get a bounce. what did you see from the

numbers about american's views on donald trump? guest: there are certainly in terms of favorability ratings picked up. there was the belief that he looks presidential both from the convention and the contrast taking place between him and biden in the aftermath in from e debate and perception of being a leader, watching his response to the assassination attempts among his supporters. the belief that he was the heroic person. that being said, there wasn't significant bump in terms of his overall standing in the race. you see it move a few points, bulletin swing states and in national polls, but it wasn't a huge bump that we saw in terms of -- that being said, as things continue to -- it all got mixed in because the calls for biden to step down were growing and

growing and his ratings were just dropping drastically. and it was democratic voters. by the end, almost 70% of democrats were saying they thought he should withdraw and step aside and they didn't think he could win the election. so, that sort of reached its peak for donald trump and now we've seen a complete flip in terms of where the polling shows things now. so what remains to be seen is this is a bump for kamala harris and now we're shifting to the next few weeks where she's got to define herself before trump defines hers. host: back to the calls. this is leighton waiting in texas, independent. good morning. caller: yes, sir. how are you? host: doing well. caller: my grandfather was a democrat and he's gone now. and he told me he would haunt me if i ever vote for a republican.

and i have. and i don't understand where the democrat party or the republican party, either one, don't -- neither one of them support r.f.k. can you tell me that reason? host: carly cooperman? guest: r.f.k. impact of the election has been very interesting because we've seen him pull support from both republicans and from democrats over the past few months. seemed like he was going to pull more from biden than democrat supporters and it look like he was getting more trump supporters or republicans that was coming to his side based on some of the views that's

articulated. and then it also start to differ in terms of -- and more recently, it looked like it was hitting biden worse than it was hitting trump. the amount of support r.f.k., i believe he's hit his peak, probably at the late spring, early summer. and we have the third party candidates but as we get closer to the election, those numbers go down because voters start to think for better or for worse the way our system is set up if you're voting for a third party candidate, you're hand the election to the other person that is not getting losing support to the third party candidate. but i do think we've seen r.f.k. have a certain appeal that reached more people than we've seen from third-party candidates in a long time. that being said, you know the effort of getting on ballots in different states and i think

what's happened over the last month, there's been so much attention in both putback on donald trump, as well as now kamala harris that there just has not been as much focus on r.f.k. we expect to see more from him during the convention and trying to do some counterprogramming and when he wasn't on the debate and i think that hasn't really broken through. host: and the real clear politics there, poll to poll, just put it into perspective for viewers. we can put it on your screen. donald trump at 44.3%, with kamala harris, 42.5%. r.f.k., under 6:00% at this point. jill stein polling, just over 1%. cornel west at just under 1%. real clear politics does their average of polls where they take all of the polling data and puts

out those numbers on a daily basis so you can find that at realclearpolling.com. guest: at one point, upwards of 10%, 12%. it's a shift. so from what we've seen back to the spring. host: wayne in castle, republican. go ahead. thanks for waiting. caller: yes, hello. host: what's your question or comment? caller: my question is the ms-13 and fentanyl. why isn't biden addressing that issue more compared to president trump who mentions it all the time. and i know a lot of military were supporting president biden -- i'm sorry, correct that, president trump, they're not supporting president biden. and on ukraine, president biden basically said he wasn't going

to put any boots on the ground and we wouldn't be having the ukraine and israel war right now if president trump was in office, i sincerely believe that. i know friends from game, japan, and south korea, even in taiwan that don't want this president because they want somebody that's strong and to stand up no those leaders of those countries. and that wasn't going on when president trump was in office and president trump got to meet the leader of north korea and tried to make peace throughout the world. and that's the reason i support trump. as a former democrat, i'm happy to be the party that doesn't put his hate and violence. and that's basically are my

comments and also -- host: wait. you bring up a lot. carly cooperman, what do you want to touch on? guest: i think nobody would say that the fentanyl crisis was not -- very, very, important and highly brock mask. -- problematic. it continues to be a problem today and it's something that is complicated and complex in. terms of the foreign policy issues, i think trump talks a big game and it's easy for him as presidential candidate right now to say whatever he wants to say about the conflicts in ukraine and israel. but biden certainly does not want the conflicts to continue and if anything, it seems like he's doing everything. he continues to want to do everything he can before he's done being president to bring

the israel-hamas conflict to an end. i don't necessarily -- i think that any u.s. president that this power right now would have a very hard time because american presidents don't necessarily have the ability to control all the conflicts that are happening out there. but america needs to continue to advocate for democracy and democratic values and that's what it's trying to by supporting ukraine and by supporting israel. and in terms of everything else, it's just gotten -- it's been very, very hard for the united states to navigate that issue. they're doing everything they can to advocate for it and ending to the israel-hamas conflict but it's proven to be very, very difficult as things continue. host: a question for tony in florida, our text messaging service. has the vice president benefited from positive coverage from the

media and will the bump that she's received by durable through election day? guest: it's a good question. she's certainly has gotten a lot of positive coverage the past week. i think it speaks to some extent just the shock in what's happening in terms of having this sitting president drop out of the race so close to election day. and that has been a ton of enthusiasm for kamala. and to some extent, you're seeing the press report on that. and i do think that there's been this marvel around what's happening playing out. but i don't think that if there's any bias towards her when you get coverage, it's certainly not going to left. because the trump campaign, starting today, has their attacks lined up and they've got this going. and she's got to get out there and start advocating for herself to finding her policies and her positions, making the case that, you know, the good that she's

done as part the biden administration addressing. time is going to tell whether he's able to sustain the bump that she has received right now. it's not going to happen with her make her case. and so, i think that whatever happens this week is absolutely a snap in time and we've got a few weeks before the democratic convention. she's got to name her vice president. and it's going to go from there. host: just about five minutes left in our program today. again, we're going to be taking you to that senate hearing on the attempted assassination of former president trump. it's a joint judiciary and senate homeland security meeting. you can see the photographers lined up. some of them are starting to enter the room. we'll keep taking your calls here with carly cooperman until we take you there live on c-span. nate in milwaukee, democrat.

good morning. thanks for waiting. caller: good morning. thank you very much for having me. i have -- i just like to add the response to a prior caller that biden went to ukraine and has been helping ukraine with the war in russia not to attack ukraine and it was trump's v.p. pick who wants to walk away from ukraine. so i think that argument was very backwards. but i was going to talk about two other things. one of which is global warming. a question trump dodged repeatedly during the debate which has been part of the heat wave we've been having this summer and the record number of people dying due to -- excuse me, heat wave death, what trump would do potentially nothing about and kamala harris would. and the other is that with trump, i actually have the first

presidential candidate that actually tried to steal my vote. and what i mean by that is he tried to have hundreds of thousands of votes not get counted back in the 2020 election. i think it was very important when kamala harris said when visiting here that we want to count every vote. and i've point people to two different headlines. one is president trump pursues to throughout how over 200,000 ballots back from december 1 of 2020 and wisconsin -- excuse me, jensen knell, the largest newspaper in wisconsin, an article that titles supreme court upholds biden's win. in wisconsin, it's typical for a voter to have to show their photo i.d. when requesting an

absentee ballot. host: let me stop you there. this hearing is about to get underway. carly cooperman, a chance for a quick response. guest: yeah, the idea of protecting democracy is something that's really pork. to voters. it had been an issue in a lot of different polling and it has been a strong point of both the biden campaign and it's going to be a strong argument for the democrats because people across all parts of the aisle, independents monitor too, not just democrats. the idea that we need to preserve our democracy and you can't have somebody come in because i don't really like what happened is something very real and something that matters. and there's a lot of noise that's going to take place in the election but that's just the scene. you're going to continue to hear democrats argue that this is one that can't be ignored. host: carly cooperman is democratic pollster and strategist.

if you want to follow her on twitter @carlycooperman. that's going to do it with us on "washington journal." we're back here tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. we're now going to take you over to the senate. that hearing with the judiciary and homeland security committee, a joint hearing on the attempted assassination of former president trump. a deputy f.b.i. director will be testifying at that hearing. that is getting underway momentarily.

>> the committee will come to order. just over two weeks ago, a gu