[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy visit ncicap.org] host: the u.s. population is 330 million and 3.2 million people have donated $200 or more to campaign 2024.

that's less than 1% of the population. and the cost of this year's federal campaign is approaching $10 billion already. in 2020, $16 billion was raised, 2% of the population donated. we're going to talk about money this morning on the "washington journal." and we want to know whether or not you have contributed to a campaign. if you're satisfied with our campaign finance system, 202-748-8000 for republicans to dial in. 202-748-8001 for democrats. independents, 202-748-8002. you can also send a text message to 202-748-8003. please include your first name and your city if you would and you can participate in the conversation on facebook or on

x. just remember @cspanwj. now, according to the federal election commission, u.s. population, 330 million million. 50% were male, 43% were female. of the dollars contributed, males contributed 70%. females, 30%. that is less than 1% of the population. and again, about 2% of the population made a campaign donation of $200 or more in the 2020 election. now, the figures that the limits that the federal election commission puts on donors, here they are if you contribute to a candidate committee, such as contributing to kamala harris or donaldrump directly to their campaign, $3300 per election. now, most elections are a primary and a general.

so that's essentially $6600. if you want to contribute to a potical action committee as an individual, you canonibute up to $5,000 per year. we'll get intsur p.a.c.'s later, that is unlimited. $41,300 per year. and at t state-district-local party committee level, it's $10,000 per year. latest fundraising total direct through the campaign. kamala harris, $284 million raised, $96 million cash on hand. former president trump, $217 million raised, $128 million cash on hand. and that goes through june 30 of this year. these numbers are hard to find. and if you type in the question

how much has been raised and spent so far in campaign 2024, you get all sorts of numbers. you've got individuals. you've got p.a.c.'s, all sorts of things. here's a chart that gives you a sense of the mac rose. in 2022, the congressional races, about $9 billion. but in 2020, you can see the figure there. the charge, over $16 billion. and if we come down here, here's the chart. the total cost of the election in 2022, the last one was $9 billion or so. in 2020, a presidential year, $16 billion. 2018, $6.7 billion. 2016, $8 billion.

the congressional races versus the presidential races, in 2020, congress raises cost nearly $10 billion. and the presidential was $6.4. in 2017, it was $5 billion versus $3 billion. this is from u.s.a. facts. this is a group started by steve ballmer -- u.s. political

campaigns collected around $8.6 billion. about $5.6 billion came from political action committee. individual candidates have drawn over $2 billion while party committees raise over $929 million. $188 million or so for the democratic national committee. political fundraising has brought in $5 billion since november 2023 alone. 137% increase in total funding between november 2023 and april 2024. during the 2022 cycle -- 2020 cycle, about $10.6 billion when adjusted for inflation.

so you can see. this is a lot of numbers we're throwing out here. we're just trying to give you a sense in the macro of how much money is involved and where the money goes. but we want to hear from you and whether or not you've donated to a campaign before. tyrone in harlem, democrat. good morning, tyrone. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. yes, i've donated, but nowhere near $30 billion. [laughter] just thinking about how astronomical the numbers sound, but got to recognize that we got mostly billionaires in this country that would make way more than that and mow corrosive money and politics is to our democracy and how much damage has done and continue to do to the forward mobility of our country. you got a person like elon musk

and switch how this campaign is going. money and politics made that happen. it changes the trajectory and where four country is going. it is tearing our country apart. host: hey, tyrone, to whom did you donate? caller: i donated when biden was in. i donated to ms. harris. and i will continue to donate my little bit of money i do have because i want to see our country move forward. and i just see how much damage, you know, big money interest is to our country and how it changes how this whole situation is being dealt with. host: what do you do up in new york city, tyrone? caller: i work for the city. and i've been living in harlem all my life and i love where i live and i love my city. and i want to to see things get

better in our city and people say we don't want the police, we want good policing. we want people to be safe. you know, just like everybody all over this country -- host: tyrone, thanks for calling in this morning. juliet is an independent in rockport, massachusetts. juliet, have you donated to a campaign? caller: no, i have not. speaking of money, interestingly enough, i just read, i think it was in the washington examiner that in just one senate race in ohio, i believe it's senator sherrod who's in a very, very tight race, he won't even acknowledge kamala harris because this is how tenuous his -- host: the incumbent democrat, yes. caller: ok, few. $300 billion, with a b, just in one senate race. and -- host: where did you get that figure, juliet?

caller: i think i read that the washington examine err, i'm not sure. host: $300 with a b? caller: no, i'm sorry. $300 -- well, i could be mistaken in that figure. but you look at the swing state in the country, that's where this $30 billion is being spent. i mean, we don't see advertising in massachusetts ever. and sadly, our campaigns are bought and paid for. we have no voice. kamala harris was on the stump last night, we the people, we the people. what? we the people? our votes don't matter. it's the big donor class that is buying these elections.

the u.k., they have absolutely no big donor dollar contribution whatsoever. it's restrictive. host: so juliet, since there are different avs for doting, how would you propose we finance such a system? caller: you can't put the genie back in the bottle. that was eight years ago. host: right. caller: and look where we've come since eight years. and peter, i just was thinking about you yesterday and i'm so happy that you're on. because you have appeared on for maybe two days or three days out of the week and you brought up the 2025 project. because people from out of the clear blue -- i listen to "washington journal" all the time. and all of a sudden, they're calling in about 2025. i mean, you had the fellow from the heritage foundation talking about it. just like any other guest.

where did this name come from that people were reiterating it constantly? i read this in the "new york times," the washington examine err, "the wall street journal." there was never a handle about this and all of a sudden, people are calling in about the 2025 and you started questioning about people. what did you read? can you say something about it? they had no answer. so this has spread like wildfire and democratic party are propagating that -- host: we're going to leave it there, juliet. thanks for calling in. she mentioned $300 billion and i hate to question callers, but that figure has to be incorrect, especially when you look at this chart from open secret that in 2020, the entire spending in the federal campaign cycle was $16 billion. so, perhaps maybe $300 million was the figure that she saw in

the sherrod brown senate race. joel is a republican. good morning, joel. have you contributed to a campaign? caller: no. i used to, but when i gave to the republican party and i'm sure the democrat party, it's the same way you get bombarded. so no, i don't give anymore. i'm over 80 years old now. and we need term limits. when you have to buy to get elected and that's what this is, my grandson will never be president. they used to feature us that in school, oh, you could be president in this company. -- in this country. no, you cannot be a president in this country anymore. and these billionaires who's given either party $3 million, $4 million, they're going to get that back. it's threefolds.

they know this. and the people that are running, they know who give this million-dollar so they're going to get it back in the future. it might take them four years, depends on how long the person is elected this time. but they will get double or triple back what they gave. host: all right, joel, thank you for calling in. pro-p publica breaks down the difference that you can donate. when it comes to super p.a.c.'s, these are when they're unlimited donation, single issue groups, think advocacy groups that focus on abortion, the environment or taxes. partisan groups. these from super p.a.c.'s linked to key house and senate leaders like the congressional leadership fund associated with house republican leaders and the senate majority pac. while lawmakers themselves are restricted from soliciting

unlimited donations to the super p.a.c.'s they're tied to, the people running these groups can do so on their behalf. and a third group, less familiar is family interest. basically, this is when wealthy family member dotes money to a campaign or a supported pac, for example, bob healey's campaign was supported by a super p.a.c. mostly funded by a $2 million donation from his mother. william is from ohio, independent line. william, ever doted to a campaign? caller: very seldom. i mean, i used to be a republican and my wife was democrat and we got bombarded with stuff all the time. but very little. you know, i quit doting a -- donate long time ago when -- turned the republican on its head because i cannot stand that man because all he does is give

tax breaks to the rich. and that's why they give him such big donations. they like tax breaks. they get about 10 times in as they put in. and harris campaign, they're just fighting like heck right now. and, you know, i thought it was a stroke of genius to do it the way after he picked the worst guy from ohio, my home state be vice president. we already got george and that's the biggest idiot wide receiver. and you know, you just -- you get money in cash. you just pass tight the headquarters. they don't want to know your name or they'll bombard you. so thank you very much. host: lewis, democrat in south river, new jersey. good morning, lewis. caller: how are you doing? host: please go ahead. lewis, you got to turn down the tv. you'll hear everything through the phone. and we'll ask you the question. have you ever donated to a campaign? caller: no.

host: all right. what do you think about our campaign finances? caller: i think they're, you know, they could do better. host: all right, lewis. 202 is the area code. you can see them on the screen there. 202-748-8001, you're a republican, you want to talk about donating to a campaign or our campaign finance system. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. now, don't forget our text number, 202-748-8003. we'll look through those. include your first name and your city, you would. all right. 2024 campaign cycle. axios. outspends g.o.p. nearly two times on presidential race. you can see here even when it comes to campaign ad spending, when it comes to digital, the

democrats are spending so far, $111 million, the republicans, $27 more. broadcast ads, $105 million. $80 million for the republicans. connected tv, $69 million to $34 million, cable, $32 million-29, radio, $8 million, and the republicans are spending on satellite as well. while there from campaign ads that are out, we want to show you both kamala harris and donald trump's plays campaign ads. >> the one thing campbells has always been, fearless. as a prosecutor, she put murderers and abusers behind bars. as california's attorney general, she went after the big banks and won $20 billion for homeowners. and as vice president, she took on the big drug companies to cap the cost of insulin for seniors. because kamala harris has always known who she represents.

vp harris: this campaign is about who we fight for. we believe in the future where every person has the opportunity not just to get by, but to get ahead. where every senior can retire with dignity. but donald trump wants to take our country backwards, to give tax breaks to billionaires and big corporations and end the affordable care act. but we are not going back. i'm kamala harris and i approve this message. >> this is america's borders are and she's failed us. under harris, over 10 million illegal here, a quarter of a million americans dead from february. migrant crimes, and isis, now here. >> do you have any plans to visit the border? >> i haven't been to europe. i mean, i don't understand the point that you're making.

>> kamala harris failed. weak, dangerously liberal. >> i'm donald j. trump and i approve this message. >> she is failed us. under harris, over 10 million illegal here. a quarter -- host: and that was a replay of the same ad, that's why we cut out of it. those are the most recent ads by kamala harris and donald trump. sophia, new york city, independent line. have you contributed to a political campaign? caller: yes, sir, peter! i'm so happy! two months ago, i feel -- beautiful, c-span is my home. today is the 11th. my son's birthday is the 11th. whenever c-span says 45 years, my son was born october 11, 1979. i love c-span. and you should get a nobel prize, the way you handle the

republican convention. you should get a nobel prize, peter. host: sophia, just to go on, what campaign have you contributed to and why? caller: yes, i did donate for republicans. all my life, i've been republican. i did donate the last time a republican is paul ryan. yes. now, i did -- not much, for a woman we're going to have a woman president, peter. and you -- from minnesota and the minnesota vice president. you should be proud. you should get a nobel prize. host: why do you say that i'm from minnesota? caller: i think you say the last time. host: i went to school -- yeah, i did. i do have family up there in minnesota and i went to school

up there, but i'm a proud hoosier. [laughter] sophia, thank you for calling in. appreciate that. thomas is in delray beach, florida, republican line. hi, thomas. caller: how are you? host: have you donated to a campaign? caller: i have actually worked for multiple campaigns. so yes, i have. host: in what capacity? caller: well, my father, tom conley is the mayor of delray beach. i worked for several congressional campaigns, democrats and republicans over the years at the house level, not the senate level. and i wanted to call specifically because you had a caller a few minutes ago from ohio and they repeated a very common misconception that trump's tax cuts only help the rich. this simply isn't true. because if you look at the bracket of trump's tax cuts, anybody earning $10,000 a year or more saw a cut in taxes.

the question i have for democrats, if you think donald trump's tax cuts hurt the middle class and hurt the working class, why hasn't biden repealed those parts of the cuts? so, my time working for campaigns have kind of inspired me to seek a career in politics because frankly, i think i could do an honest job and i think i could do a much better job than a lot of the people we see today. host: that's thomas in delray beach. dwayne tweets in. no, i have not contributed to any political campaign after witnessing how much major donors like apex, big pharma and financial institutions give to candidates. i am not chipping in my much-needed $10. the politicians in both sides have our debt over $35 trillion. this article is in open secrets, unprecedented surge and dark

money floods 2024 campaign. and this article is back from march or some of the figures might be a little bit outdated. but i want to read just a little bit to give you a sense. while federal campaign finance play priors political action committees, slug super p.a.c.'s to disclose donors to the s.e.c., the source of funding be concealed behind contributions from shell companies or dark money groups such as 501-c4 nonprofits that do not disclose the donors. during the 2022 congressional election cycle, federal political committees reported taking in $616 million from such donors, more than any prior midterm cycle. so far this election cycle, 2024, contributions from dark money groups and shell money is outpacing all prior elections

and may even surpass the roughly $66 million in contributions from unknown sources that flooded 2020. the dark money is pouring into federal elections that is not disclosed to the fec. during the entire 2022 election cycle, 501-c4 nonprofits reported less than $25 million in spending to the fec, the lowest total since the supreme court's 2010 citizens united decision on corporate political speech -- host: this was on open secrets.

kenny, north carolina, independent line. kenny, have you contributed to a campaign? caller: yes, i have. host: which one and why? caller: i contributed to democratic party because i'm concerned with the way the country is moving. but i got a few things i want to say and i don't want to get short on time by questions, but you know? just as long as you give me my time, it's ok, you can question me all you want. but the reason i called in is that the citizens united, the supreme court made it possible for foreign countries such as cpac, if you notice. there's three elections where they donated all this money and they got democrats out in that primary. right now, the way they got it set and this is the supreme

court's fault. they can contribute -- foreign countries can contribute into tour government. big-time money. so that's who's really running our government. if you notice how much power that cpac got and i want you to tell how much that one organization contribute to our elections. but the main thing that i wanted to tell you about is that the foreign countries is starting to run this country now. because of the money that they can bring in here, the supreme court made it very possible for them to do it. and people really need to look at that. and that's something ms. harris is going to have to take care of. host: kenny in wilson, north carolina. well, recently on this program, he was talking about corporate money in campaign.

>> finns united was a supreme court decision that basically opened the doors to corporate expenditures in our elections. that has been prohibited for decades and close to a century and the supreme court in that decision said that corporations can spend money on that election provided two things. first that all of that spending be openly disclosed and second, that essentially that spending had to be independent of any candidates or fully parties. and one of the main problems we see in campaign finance today is both of those conditions, essentially the prerequisites for corporate expenditures and for super p.a.c.'s which came directly after that, both of those conditions are not being met because of the dark money problem that we just talked about. a lot of this spending is not disclosed. it's hidden from the public. and as we've documented, there's a report about this last fall. the problem with the independents requirement is that it's all been a complete fiction the super p.a.c. and dark money

groups are often working directly, hand in glove with candidates and with the political parties. host: ok. back to your calls on political contributions. chuck, cardinals on, west virginia. democrats line. chuck, good morning to you. what's your take on this conversation we're having this morning? caller: well, first of all, i have to agree with the previous caller. the citizens united decision as probably done more to corrupt the political process than anything in recent memory. i'm 65. i'm retired. i'm on social security. i have a pretty good pension. i was never really in the habit of donating politically until, until fairly recently. first of all, when the dobbs decision overturned roe v. wade within a week, i made a $500 donation to a national abortion fund so that women who couldn't afford abortion care could better get it.

earlier this year when biden was still in the running, i contributed $100 to his campaign. i was getting kind of depressed about it because i saw how he was really going downhill and i was really thinking boy, if, you know, if it comes down to trumpn to trump vs. biden, trump is probably going to win. i think the last straw for him was when he had a covid infection, and for somebody his age, that is probably really, really bad news. after kamala harris took over, i donated $200 to her campaign. host: thank you for calling in and sharing your point of view. next is danny in arizona, republican. hi, danny. caller: good morning, sir. i have not contributed any money

for the simple fact that i am broke, thank you to the democratic party and all their stupid policies that corrupted this -- our middle class and whatnot. and, sir, if i could make a quick thing here, why don't you guys invite, like, sean hannity or jesse waters or laura ingraham or any of those folks on your program, to give the honest truth about what is going on, because the democrats are so misinformed. msnbc and cnn get their minds of poison, sir. host: danny in yuma, thank you for calling in. when we talk about pacs and super pac's, it is the cycle we

talk about, and the money they've raised. at the blue, identified a committee, $1.3 billion raised. win red, 900 20 million dollars. make america great again, $178 million. never backed down pack, senate leadership find, you can see the figures here as we go. we are into the $125 million range at this point. future forward usa, house majority. aipac, american-israel public affairs committee, $90 million, the service employees international union, $67 million. the progressive turnout project, $64 million. club for growth, 64 million dollars, democracy packed, and some of the list, $52 million

down at the bottom. you can find this list yourself on opensecrets.org this text messe, i am 68 years old, and iegan dating money to the democratic partyn 2016. i began donating this year, $10 a week. we have to save this country from donald trump's tierney. he's too old, he is a criminal, he's un-amecan. we need to support the democrats, because they will save our democracy. weave to stop the extreme right from destroying this country. live in the virgin islands, where we are disenfranchised. we are not allowed to vote for president, even though we are in american territory. that was chris -- cliff in christianstead, u.s. virgin islands. [no audio] (202) 748-8003.

mark, a psalm of, have you donated to a political campaign? caller: yes, sir. the most recent one was the 2020 election. host: is the year congress in east falmouth? caller: he is not, actually. but i liked his story about being a harvard grad and joining the marines. he's a real awesome dude. if anyone wants to read his comments about what j.d. vance about tim walz, how j.d. vance is trying to denigrate tim walz's military service, it's a really good read. he's an awesome patriot, and i think he will do good things for this country. host: well, you know, you did

bring up tim walz. i was saving this article for later, but it might be a good time to share it with everybody. we got a video. first of all, this is the "new york times." the harris campaign said walz misspoke. they are trying to clean up remarks made in 2018 by her running mate that gave the impression he served in combat, days after the campaign, that inadvertently drawn attention to them, to illustrate mr. walz view's of responsible gun ownership. mr. walz represented his years in the national guard and background as a hunter. he's closed in support of commonsense sense gun legislation that supports an amendment rights, including background checks. "we can make sure those weapons of war that i carried in the war

is the only place where those weapons are at," mr. walz said in the clip, which the campaign shared just hours after ms. harris named him as her running mate. mr. walz deployed as part of his operation enduring freedom but not in a combat role. a spokesperson said in a statement on saturday that mr. walz's remarks had been a misstatement and that he had not tried to mislead anyone about his military service. "in making the case for why weapons of war should never be on our streets or in our classrooms, the governor misspoke," says ms. hitt of the campaign. that said, this is in the "national review." should walz nod along as an

interviewer calls him a veteran of afghanistan? mark antonio wright writes, i was pointing to a video i had not yet seen about tim walz nodding along to greta brawner as she introduces him before an interview. his biographical information and military resume are read back to him, and in it, bronner describes walz as having "served in his battalion in operation enduring freedom in afghanistan. we are going to show you that [video clip] video. greta: tim walz, democrat of minnesota for the highest ranking enlisted soldier ever to serve in congress. certain his battalion and

operating in enduring freedom in afghanistan. i read that because i want to preface our discussion with your military career, because you are trying to stop president obama from withdrawing the army. host: you can see governor tim walz nodding along when greta brawner reads his bio. what makes this clip especially alarming to the author, mark antonio wright, is the fact that anyone who has appeared in television interviews nose, biographic details such as those read by brawner are almost always provided to the interviewer by the interviewee or at least verified. indeed come in the few tv expenses i have made in my capacity as a national review editor, i have been asked to

provide relevant details about my own military service, and i discussed the military and made related matters such as the war in ukraine. how is it possible that this is blatantly inaccurate statement made it onto the air? the author writes i'm very skeptical that greta brawner made of that detail out of the blue. that's not how these things work. at the close of the introduction, as bronner transitioned to the topic at hand from a proposed obama era reduction and the armed forces, brawner tells the congressman, "i read that," i.e. the introduction because i want to preface with yourilary career is because you two are trying to stop president obama from drawing down the army. that is in "the national

review," and the author is correct that biographs are provided by guest or by website. have you ever donated to a political campaign? caller: good morning. actually, i called in as an independent with your call screener. host: gotcha. caller: i just wanted to clarify that. host: ye ip got that,. caller: great. i have an unusual background in having worked as an operative in washington, d.c. host: for campaign? caller: for campaigns and candidates both, 501(c)(3)'s and official pac's. host: ok. you've worked on both the nrc see the dccc? caller: correct.

host: are you a hired gun, so to speak? caller: i've worked for monsanto and fdiu. host: do you think that you can donate and it is unlimited, is that a balanced system? caller: no, it is absolutely in balance and the fact that the 501(c)(3)'s versus the psycho candidate has come of the fulcrum is in a different place if you are trying to create balance in there. your typical 501(c)(3) just

grazes basically the american population, is what i determined. host: we are going to show here in just a minute, we are going to talk about some of the biggest donors and who they are and their names, and, frankly, while we have got you on the line, let's get this a try. back to opensecrets.org, the tub donors to outside spending groups. the top one so far is a timothy name timothy mellon, and he has donated a total of $115 million, $90 million of that to the conservative side as opposed to the liberal. 100% to conservative 702 liberals. the first couple of donors, ken griffin, they are all giving to the conservative side, but then

they top liberal donor was michael bloomberg, the former mayor of new york city, $26.8 million, followed by reid hoffman of it linked in, $19 million. reid hoffman is the first one to break 100%. he gave 98% to liberal causes, 2.1% to conservative causes. benjamin, as a fundraiser, how would you go after someone who has that kind of cash to donate? caller: you give them very specific targets for outcomes, electorally or congressionally. like you tell them that i work for members of the house to select services committee on intellectual properties, and you start gathering up all the money you can from entertainers, because that is their vested interest. you tell an individual i can griffin that i'm gathering money for a candidate who's trying to

seek a place on the financial services, and you intend coming to elicit money from individuals who intend to have that be an investment in their future success. host: in your experience, it's not allowed, but is there coordination between that financial services candidate and the pack that you are raising money for? caller: yes. it is all done off site very cleverly done. there are associates in offices near rnc and dccc, etc., where you can go off-site, and you have an interlocutory, who receives the information from the candidate, from the pac,

etc., and they have a staff member who, with a clear conscience and with plausible deniability, can yes raise money without particular effort being where the application of those funds would be directed. host: so when you see a figure like tim allen, timothy mellon, 115 million dollars, michael bloomberg, 26 million dollars, where does that money go? caller: one of the great posters was, you know, consulting. if you can't make money on the solution, you make money on the problem. so the idea is there are vast resources of basically media campaign spending war chests that are created with so much of this money, and a gets the cycle back into the media corporations

that are adhering to the political causes which then can i hate to say it, is something of a ponzi scheme for our cast here in america, individuals who intend to reinforce their own industry, so to speak, with these political contributions. host: benjamin, what are you doing now? are you still in the fundraising business? caller: i am no longer. when i started a family, i had to leave washington, d.c., frankly. it's too expensive, and not what i would want to raise a family around. host: did you make a lot of money fundraising? caller: sadly. host: "sadly"? why sadly? caller: i think the candidate

should live in the district the person since the check from, not washington, d.c. and beyond. that does not do anything to fuel our economic cycle. you can look back to the 1950's and draw a direct line from money going out of local zip codes and political arenas to "head quarters" of the host: political fundraising world. what kind of work are you doing now? caller: education, finance, for education purposes, trying to help universities to survive and thrive for the next generation. host: so you are still fundraising but for universities? caller: correct. host: thanks for your time this morning. we appreciate it. elaine, republican, frederick, maryland.

have you ever donated to a political campaign? caller: i'm an 85-year-old woman. i've lived all my life, and i've never seen the country as bad as it is under biden. please, please get out and vote for trump. save this country. that woman is coming -- he did everything he could to get all the illegals -- please. host: thank you,, ma'am for callinin from frederick, maryland. text message "i contributed $25 to liz cheney's last political campaign. i would like to see a three-month limit on all

political campaigns. these things drag on and on, and the millions spent on them to be better spent on the economy." that is kenny in hainan, alabama. james in the work, new jersey, a defendant line. james, good morning. have you contributed to a political campaign? caller: i contributed to some of that, hundreds to bernie sanders campaign, 2015. host: i apologize, sir, it is a little hard to understand you. to whom did you contribute? caller: bernie sanders i gave $100 and bernie sanders campaign in 2016.

[indiscernible] and his wife jane wrote me on the computer, and i did not know who jane was, so i used colorful language, and voila. host: all right, james in newark, new jersey. carmen, to whom have you donated? caller: yes, i have, i donated to the democratic party. host: when you say you've donated to the democratic party, in what capacity? to the democratic national committee, to which entity did you donate? caller: usually when i feel compelled to do something, i donate directly to that person. host: using their website or something? caller: yes, yes, thank you.

so, here is the deal. first, i want to talk about your ad, the two ads you showed earlier. in the trump ad, i saw a lot of exaggeration and fear, and in the kamala add i saw a lot of hope, even though some of it might be exaggerated,, right? that is one thing. the other thing, super pac's and dark money should be illegal. i don't know why that is legal today. i'm retired, 65, going on 66. this all started under ronald reagan. ronald reagan underestimated a super wealthy and corporate correction. what happened with the trickle down. ? well, i think we'll see it is not working anymore. i just retired, and i cannot

make over $22,000 if my spouse has social security, too. so now i'm stuck in a situation where i have money and i cannot use it. with the small pinch and i get, i'm not broke, but i'm also nowhere wealthy enough that i can go on the vacations as a senior citizen. i bust my hump all my life, and i find out later they made all these rules for social security. so i just want to put my plug in. if you are voting for a republican, you are voting against senior citizens. you really are. i just, you know, a lot of policies are based on, whether it is prescription drugs or supporting the pharmaceutical companies, the list goes on. you are really not educated. people need to get educated in this country. host: thank you. paul, new york, republican. good morning to you, paul, are you a donater? caller:caller: i good morning.

i have been in the past. i have donated to what i perceived to be conservative candidates. i'm basically a conservative. i think the whole idea of money coming into the process, you know, has its abuses, naturally. we can see that. but when you contribute to a republican or, you know, they conservative. i'm a big trunk fan. i have been for a long time. we have to offset the free press that the media. that is a plain, obvious thing. they get free walk against any of the democratic candidates. i can't believe that we are actually considering the democrat ticket, kamala harris and walz. these people, they are disgraceful in terms of their background, and terms of their

commitment to this country. host: paul, have you contributed to the trump campaign this year? caller: yes, i have. and i'm retired, so i can't do a lot. host: you contribute to the limits of $3300 per cycle? caller: yes. i have done win red in the past, but i was not comfortable where those moneys were going, so i contribute directly to the candidate when i can come and it is limited. like the gentleman before me, i'm retired and living on social security, so it is hard to do. i have to say, the gentleman who was a fundraiser at the end of occupation, that was very enlightening, to hear that man get his expertise. i enjoyed that. host: yeah. he seemed really legit. caller: yeah. he did, he did. host: regardless about what you thought of his opinions. caller: yeah. it was enlightening.

host: i agree with you. to go back to where we started, the sec has limits on what people can donate directly to a campaign, and that limit is 33 hundred dollars per election cycle. this year, there is a primary and a general, so you can contribute about $6,600. if you can pull that chart bac up, i cannot find mine right now. there we go. if you want to contribute to a political action committee, you can contribe 5000 dollars, however, theup pac's are different. those are unlimited. you wt to contribute to a national partyommittee, $41,000 or so a year, state or district local committee, $10,000 per year. the hard limit on donations to official federal election committees is 123,000 dollars or so, but as we saw and one of the charts we looked at, we know

individuals are contributing hundreds of millions of dollars through different means. david is in texas, independent line. thanks for holding. have you donated to a campaign? caller: no, i have not sir,. host: why? caller: i thought about it. if i were to make a contribution, it would be to trump. the democrats are just, i don't know, they -- the whole abortion thing does not sit right with me. i don't believe in killing babies. under no reason, unless maybe the life of the mother. i go back to the bible when it comes to that, then i believe that any time you put the woman's rights to choose, you are going above god.

and i believe in internal condemnation. i am glad for the supreme court justices trump put in. i don't like the fact that he's backtracking on it now, to try to get back in office, he's kind of like wheeling and dealing, saying, well, yeah, i believe in circumstances and stuff. i think he should stay solid on that. that was a really good thing that they did, because they are murdering too many babies. host: all right, david in texas, we appreciate your time this morning. what do you do in texas, david? caller: i drive trucks. host: long-distance or local? caller: i go regional. i just do regional. but i don't knowg, god just put that on my heart. host: thank you for calling ant.

carl, clearwater, florida, democrat. have you contributed to a campaign? caller: i have been since 2008 with obama. being a low propensity contributor, i see the energy shift, some of the energy in the democratic rallies seems to convey a difference. although you reading about those maximum limits, it is kind of concerning, and you can see how it has become such a piece of the machinery that really is not about policy. and just i quickly wanted to interject two things with the abortion conversation, since red states are putting bans, the amount of abortions has actually gone up. and then also with the tax cuts, in 2017, that was $3.5 trillion that was financed on the back of middle-class people, so we have to pay that back.

the rich pay about 8% to 10% of their income that is generated, and trump wants to extend those tax cuts in 2025 for an additional cost of 4.5 trillion dollars, so that will be almost $10 trillion to help people that are really well-off. even though some middle-class people are receiving it, the majority of the benefits are kind of benefiting those making over $1 million. host: what do you do in clearwater? caller: i'm a project manager. host: i apologize, what does that mean. caller: i manage projects. [laughs] kind of set expectations for a consumer products company. host: thank you, sir, for calling in. last call, north olmsted, ohio, independent line. are you a political campaign contributor? caller: not really.

i'm 94. i've gotten to see a lot of things change in the world, but the people that control the federal to the politics, no matter what people understand, it is money that controls who ever is in office, no matter if they are democrat, republican, or independent. and that is a fact, and that is what i learned over my lifetime and over my years. it is irrelevant who we vote for. it's the money system that controls the country in the world. thank you. host: that is the first hour of the "washington journal." we get two guests coming outcome of the first is nick jacobs, he wrote the book "the rural voter: the politics of place & the disuniting of america rural, urban, if they are the same. after that, and coulter will be here to take your calls as well. we will be right back.

announcer: c-span's coverage of political party convention, chicago for the democratic national convention. want to live beginning monday, august 19 as the party puts forth the nominee. administration track records and their visions of the next four years as they fight to retain the white house. the democratic national convention live monday, august 19 on c-span, c-span live or online at c-span.org. don't miss a moment. visit to the latest update and to watch for full coverage of the 2020 republican national convention. you can also catch up on past conventions anytime on demand at c-span.org/campaign or by scanning the code. >> richard has written and edited for the national review

magazine. he has also written books about george washington, james madison, john marshall, alexander hamilton and the founding fathers he calls a gentleman revolutionary. now comes his latest, painter of the american revolution. he is most famous for his squad for a very large paintings about the revolutionary war on the walls of the rotunda in the u.s. capitol building in washington. his latest book glorious lessons , painter of the american volution on this episode of book notes plus. but notes plus is available on the c-span now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. host: right now on your screen is nick jacobs who is a

political science professor and co-author of this book, the rural voter, the politics of place and that this uniting of america. professor jacobs, how do you define a rural voter? >> start with an easy question. rural america and rural voters are about 20% of the american population. the diversity in rural america is unmatched. it is actually much more difficult question than we are often led to believe in abstract terms about an urban electorate and a rural electorate. my current hometown in rural maine is very different from the rural south which is miles away from the rural west. i have a good friend, a co-author on other projects would laugh at my five acres can haired is 500 acre ranch. the federal government alone has upwards of almost 70 definitions

for what constitutes a rural community, so there really isn't one definition. but when we talk about the rural electorate, what we have increasingly found is that there tends to be one political party that dominates those regions. the further out you get from major metropolitan or urban centers, the more likely you are not to just find a republican voter, but entire communities where upwards of 65, 70, in some instances 80% of the community is voting for the republicans. >> we want to show the electoral map here. this is broken down by county and you can see the rural areas are much redder while the urban areas are much bluer. why is that? >> ionly takes us about 400 pages in the book to explain

that, so i will give you the short answer. the first thing we need to keep in mind when we explain this divide which is so visible on the map, so visible every two and four years on election night receive these stark color differences is that this is a phenomenon that has been developing for almost 40 years. in the book, we go all the way back to 1800 to try to understand whether or not this divide and partisanship is truly unprecedented, and we find that, indeed, differences between rural and urban voters is historically unparalleled ultimately, we settle on a number of reasons. i think anybody who tries to present a single or simple story as to why this divide exists is missing it.

i hate to give you the classic academic answer that it is complex, but it is complex. a lot of this is related to changing economy, how the rural economy has fared with post industrialization and globalization which is sort of hitting burrell areas and a number of different ways after the 1960's with the consolidation of agricultural and natural resource extraction economies and then globalization taking off in the late 90's and early 2000's, subjecting manufacturing and agricultural commodities to pressures from afar. some of this is cultural and how berlin communities are seeing themselves in the larger story of who we are as americans, what value rural people might be brooding to the table. some of this is political in

have both political parties have managed expectations as to who they are with and certainly who they are against. so i think if we were to simplify it into a catchy way, a lot of this is driven by an increase in the sense that i am burrell. ruralness matters to me were other sorts of identities might have been more prominent at earlier point in american political history, that burrell this -- ruralness is tied to a sensodyne economically worse off, culturally not as well appreciated and politically i don't have as much power. host: you live in maine, you are a college professor. do you think that you share the same attitudes as perhaps some of your neighbors? guest: i live in maine, which is interesting because although

waterville, i think it would meet very few definitions of a city, it is only about 16,000 people strong. when it comes to partisanship it is notably different than my neighbors who have just lived 50, 20 minutes outside of an urban area. but i personally believe is sort of beside the point. i am a scholar of american political geography. i'm interested in why people hold the opinions they do, even if they are not the opinions i share. i think my only bias, people have reasons for the way the food. as a college professor who

spends a lot of time in urban spaces, it is incumbent upon me to try to understand the experiences and the stories of individuals and people who are not like me and do now i would, neighbors even if we don't always agree on politics. host: we are talking about urban and rural and other voters with a political science professor. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents. we will set our social media site text number as well in case you want to get through that way. according to the usta come up rural america's 7% of the u.s.. the population in rural areas,

46 million, which is 40% of the total population. there is about 1.8 9 million farms. the median farm worth is about $1.4 million. one point $4 trillion of gdp comes from food and agriculture, which of course originates in mostly rural areas. want to show you some voting trends as well. you can see here the breakdown between urban, rural and suburban voters and how they voted for either president biden or president trump. 66% of urban voters voted for president biden. 33%, president trump. then you get to beryl and to describe 65, biden 33.

how do you reconcile that? >> so reconcile this with gdp or the economy? host: give us a breakdown of how urban voters, do they have different concerns, different values, different visions? guest: i will start with the commonalities. i think there's actually a lot in common between the laces and although the electoral map is going to give us an image of a starkly divided electorate between red and blue america and lead us to the ration that donald trump was a republican candidate support entirely comes from red america or rural america, the truth of the matter is that millions more voters for donald trump were outside of

rural america than was in. you can win an election if you depend only on 20% of the american population and that is true even in the republican primaries. upwards of 70% of donald trump support in the iowa primaries came from non-burrell. so there's a lot that is motivating republican or conservative voters regardless of geography. sometimes we speak to that is the fundamentals. we know that on average if you are older, the more likely were to look vote for the republican candidate. if you are white, if you don't have a college degree. and there are a fair number of these demographic explanations that get heightened in rural america because rural america is

composed of these demographic factors or the risk of education and age that leads to a sort of bump. but the fact that rural america is whiter and older and less educated than urban america cannot on its own explain the urban-burrell divide. i would just give you a good case in point. often at a national level, we talked about the age divide for the youth gap, the fact that young voters are an increasingly important segment of the democratic electorate. cities are younger than average. for a whole host of reasons in terms of economic opportunity, post educational opportunities, they are younger than the national average. but even though rural america is older, when you look at how

young people in the rural areas are voting, they are not devoting the same way as young people in urban areas. some of that is compositional differences but some of it is related to what i would call the rural difference. what we call it is a related, that the far explanation, economic anxiety about the community and the sense of being politically powerless. >> driving through rural america think there is nothing more alive than donald trump we guess that we are upset and plenty of images we confirm your suspicions febrile america's pissed off. you may have read that rural america is anxusbout immigrant rural america's fallen behind doesn't know how or want

to cat up. you may be sitting there thinking of course they voted for trump and watch fox news cecily what else are theyoing to do? it is so boring and here. but when we talk to our neighbors, it is hard to believe that someone like donald trump could be so popular. what we driving it? -- what were you driving at? guest: i think there's a lot of exclamation thrown out there for why burrell voters voted for donald trump. i think some of those explanations are what we might say voter motivations are true. there is a certain antiestablishment that is percolating in the country that led to millions of new voters in both 2016 and 2020 to show up at the ballot box when they never have before and vote for a candidate who promised to blow

it all off, what have you. i think that there are other parts of the electorate that are voting the same way, but his motivations are very different. this isn't to deny that there is xenophobia in the electorate for racism or antiestablishment eeriness of -- antiestablishment terry and his. some people had called it rage or rebellion. but our political system, beautifully, in some ways, simplifies outcomes. almost by design. but just because at the end the day we are given two choices does not mean that voters only bring with them two sets of motivations. so when we talk about, and this was part of my colleague and co-author motivation in writing

the book, when we talk about a huge segment of the electorate and burrell voters and the only thing we can say about them is one thing, i think everybody deep down know that that is perhaps wrong. what you might not notice the level of complexity, and when you talk to burrell voters even if they are portrayed as rebellious and enraged, in fact the way a social scientist often measures those attitudes and beliefs turns out on average burrell voters are statistically less likely to be enraged or rebellious or support political violence. we did a content analysis of new york times articles for about two and a half years of news coverage in rural areas and donald trump was in the plurality of coverage on rural areas even when it wasn't a political story.

and yet you are denying the fact that millions of non-trump voters live in burrell america, denying the fact that rural america is the most likely segment of the electorate to not follow national news and often somehow portray them as obsessed with national news. real people can contain multitudes. nobody describes other segments of the electorate in such broad strokes as we do the rural electorate. host: i wanto get your reaction to this notorious q from a couple of years ago, president obama. in pennsylvania and like a lot of small towns in the midwest, years and nothing's replaced25 them. it is not surprising when they get better they cling to guns or religion. >> gap.

that is a quotation that a couple weeks later i think got a sincere amount of reflection. i don't think just because he got beat up in the press for it, he recanted and acknowledged that although i think he is speaking to a certain degree, correctly about economic dislocation economic change that has left millions of workers out of the modern-day economy, the notion that this all boils down to bitterness and that they are clinging to something denies the fact that there's actually a fair amount of hope in burrell communities, a significant amount of pride invert communities, and the definition of ruralness that sense of identity doesn't boil down to guns or christianity.

just to elaborate on this point ever so slightly, yeah, i mean, a significant number of rural residents for burrell voters have a firearm in their home, a majority do. but millions of gunowners live outside of rural america as well. they are not called gun clingers even though they are not using their firearm and often cases for hunting as a majority of rural gunowners do. rates of religiosity are strikingly similar between burrell and urban areas, one third of both rural and urban individuals identified as agnostic or atheist or nuns, which is a new category. when you include religious minorities, rates of believing for finding religious faith important to yourself almost statistically similar. and yet is burrell people who

are somehow clinging to these beliefs when they are present everywhere. i think the frustrating thing you often hear about many burrell individuals and their way of life is simplified to those two issues is that neglects the set of issues that are distinctively rural. why is it not going back to the set of economic issues that are particular to the rural political economy instead of those culture war issues? why don't we speak about those? host: nick jacobs is our guest. the dis-uniting of america. let's go to your calls. brandon, vermont, democrats live.

caller: can unami ok? host: we're listening. caller: you are a professor at colby college which i believe is in new hampshire, correct? guest: maine. caller: i'm in vermont and we have two places that we consider cities that the rest of america would probably laugh at us. and we are definitely blue. we are blue to the point where my vote doesn't matter. i am just throwing out there that there is an exception to every rule, i guess. i don't know why and i don't have the answer to that. host: let's get a breakdown from professor jacobs. vermont is kind of an outlier. guest: yeah, vermont is also an outlier because it is one of only four majority burrell states. it is actually the most burrell,

i think the caller thinking of colby sawyer college which is in new hampshire. vermont is a little bit of an outlier. it is unique, it is unlike the rest of rural new england in some ways, and a lot of that is historical and different internal migration patterns that made up a good amount of the back to the land movement. i don't think that is the only reason vermont is blue. what is striking, though, is on the issues or on the beliefs, on the ways of living or the importance and different ideas among the burrell electorate in new england for vermont, actually not too dissimilar to the issues and ideas and beliefs that are recurred throughout rural america. and so i guess what i would say is unique about vermont is you

have a political establishment, partisan organizations, government that has been able to effectively speak to them. i don't think bernie sanders a few with the presidential candidate in 2016 or 2020 was going to win the rural folk. what i do know is that when he was running in the democratic primary, this support is much stronger than any other democratic candidate in burrell constituency including by some individual estimates, about 10% of would be trump burrell voters. bernie sanders carried an a+ rating from the nra for a long time. the issues he speaks about play real strong in the burrell electorate as a recent poll from the rural democracy initiative. these survey populist eat this

they can cut in a left or a right-leaning direction. what is different as you actually have candidates on the democratic side show up in burrell vermont because they have to win burrell vermont. other way to win a statewide election in vermont because it is majority burrell. that dynamic doesn't exist in other parts of the country, many other private the country. host: illinois, republican line, where is mended? caller: we are right on the boot . if you look by iowa and missouri, you see the middle of illinois to the left side. host: do you consider yourself rural? caller: we do. i'm a business owner in illinois. a small town, about 2800 people. the one thing i don't like, i've heard a lot on here are wealthy

people that need to get more money. a lot of small corporations, that's not true. the other problem we have in illinois is because of how we are set up. you notice most of the state is red, but chicago is blue. two county is pretty much make up the voting for illinois that makes it go democratic. i would really like to see a little study on how many democratic states that are ran by the democrats, show that a lot of your democratic states with their policies are broke. host: that was pat in illinois and during that, professor jacobs, you were showing a map of illinois and you can see that it is an electoral map and you can see most of the state's red and then you get up into

chicago, the population center, and it is blue, blue, blue. guest: i don't want to deny the fact that there are lots of republican voters living in the suburbs of sick cargo -- chicago and lots of democrats living out in burrell and benoit as well, and those maps to have a simplifying effect that speak to the corporations rhetoric. this is something that the does i think have a lot of dynamism we talk to rural voters and when we study the burrell electorate. small businesses are the core of rural america, the core of urban america. they are the core of suburban america. what we see actually on this issue is the deep commonality between different political regions or political

geographies, and how the american electorate either earned them -- either urban or rural is thinking about the fact that corporations, not small business owners, are getting bigger and that small business owners are having a tougher time competing with corporations. in burrell america, the most vivid manifestation of this, more common than in american flag or a star on a barn is the dollar general. he talked to a lot of communities that are sort of stuck in the middle between living in a food desert, increasingly living in the middle of a medical desert, not able -- and a lot of those exists because of corporatization that is taking place, and what do you do when the dollar general wants to show up and build a new store? that means you are not driving

30, 45 minutes to go get basic necessities. dollar general has made some promises to maybe put medical care in their establishments. what that often means is that the local small business owners can't compete. we see that in my part effect. host: our next call is sean, independent line. from where in maine are you calling? caller: i'm calling from naples. host: where is that and how big is it? caller: i grew up in florida and the population in naples is about the size of my graduating class, you will put it that way. host: go ahead and make your point. caller: i think the biggest difference between rural and urban voters is two things. reliance on government and investment in our communities.

i think right now with our blue governor, we have a huge investment in the blue cities in our state. lots of infrastructure, lots of apartments, lots of things to help people. most of the state's red. in the red sections, we don't even have streetlights. we don't have transportation. we don't have very much of anything. if a child grows up in burrell made and wants an apartment and to that of his home, he's forced to move to portland where apartments are available. there is not much there. when everyone is funneled in department, that is where the major investment in the state goes. may be more dollar general's would pop up in burrell main if there is more investment in the rural communities where people do prosper and don't ask for much. i think that is the stark

difference between burrell and urban voters. guest: no doubt because the majority of the population not only in maine but nationwide lives outside of her communities, the majority of taxpayers spending is going to go outside of rural communities. the question is whether or not burrell gets more than it sends. i will refer to this is a balance of payments. for every tax dollar it spends, how many it gets back. and this is a remarkably difficult question to answer. i think the caller's right to some extent that when it comes to certain government programs, especially very visible instances of government spending , streetlights is a very good example.

rural communities are not going to receive as much. i think a lot of the spending that does take place in world communities and evens out actually tipped the balance of little bit in favor of rural communities is invisible. most states have a funding mechanism that takes money from city property taxes and redistributes it throughout the state to the benefit of rural school systems. rural school systems in maine would not be able to provide the level of services that they do, especially for our most vulnerable and in need children if not for a certain degree of subsidization from urban communities. there's millions more miles of roads that need paving in verily america, although i know in burrell main it often doesn't feel like i roads are getting

paved. you've got to pay 15 miles of road compared to the five miles downtown, there's going to be an imbalance. all this is to say i think the caller's impression of spending is not necessarily wrong and they certainly think it is indicative of how a lot of rural residents feel they are treated by state and federal governments. some of that i think is well warranted in terms of what we can see and how we interact with government. i often hear this when we talk about girl advantages compared to urban advantages and federal dollars is something like a farm bill. you often hear especially a lot of liberal commentators, your

average girl person didn't benefit because your average girl person is receiving a subsidy, it doesn't work in one of those giant consolidations that is receiving it and in fact, the subsidies make food cheaper for all americans. on the one hand, i think we get a lot of their verily advantage in spending long and on the other hand, i think there is a certain amount of interdependency between burrell and urban governmental services we need to acknowledge. host: the next call comes from carol in texas, democrats line. you are on c-span with nick jacobs, author of "the burrell voter." caller: thank you, good morning to you both. i'm calling about invest texas, which is conservative and goes red in every election, about the

school systems. our governor has been pushing for three or four legislative sessions now do have school voucher program which will help people who already have money get to the finish line to put their kids in private school and it's not going to help anybody that is just a regular citizen, the money that we give that is not going to get them into private schools. so it is another thing that just helps wealthier people, hurts the public schools all over the state and for the life of me, i can't figure out by everybody in west texas continues to vote red and go conservative. host: when you look at the electoral map for texas, east texas where tyler is is also very red. caller: yes, that's true. we have the same problem in east texas, but i'm concerned about

west texas even though i do live there because these kids don't even have the internet service and other things that we have. they are disadvantaged and i think we should be working toward strong public schools for every single child in the state. host: nick jacobs? guest: this is going to be one of the most important issues i think invert politics over the next couple of election cycles. right now you are seeing it play out in texas in really interesting ways where a lot of the opposition for school choice bills, voucher programs, the expansion of charter schools, whatever sort of different flavor that school reform took that is being promoted by republicans statewide, and a lot of the opposition came from

rural communities. and what we saw in texas in this most recent primary cycle is that the governor went after members of his own party from rural constituencies that were blocking that dale and were sort of raising the loudest set of criticisms. the notion of school choice in the county that might only have one school is deeply problematic. i think it goes to show the complexity of the world. that here is something nationwide are partisan minds are somewhat clear. josh shapiro in pennsylvania, democrat may lost the vice presidential selection because of his support for school choice perform.

and president obama was a very loud advocate for those types of reforms in urban areas. but when we talk about ruralness, why voters feel the way they do, here is a policy that at one level seems to make sense of republican, but when it gets translated into a rural context where burrell setting, even deep republicans are going to have opposition. that is the importance of place. we speak about political geography or the defense we will make, those are the types of interactions that we are trying to make sense of. host: how big was your study for the burrell voter? -- burrell voter? -- rural voter? guest: roughly 10,000 interviews from alaska to lubbock.

we got even those small towns, it is what we believe the largest survey of rural voters ever conducted and more important than the sample size which allows us to speak of the questions like the one i did earlier about how rural new england may or may not be different from the rural southwest or someone, it was a survey designed to ask about rural issues. we heard back from so many of our respondents saying finally, i'm taking a survey speaking to a she's in concerns that are affecting my community and not just the ones that we often tend to rely on that are sort of general and broad in scope. host: good morning to you. caller: i just want to comment on a couple of things the

professor was talking about. i say rural and ruralality because i believe that we even have people from urban cities and large cities run to the hills. part of it is because people are just looking for that solace, but also they need people that live in rural areas and they are limited in terms of economics. so i think it comes down to dollars and ents -- cents but it also means that some other areas might not have that. we have to start looking at education because i am in washington, d.c. but i ran away and educated myself, and i live in a burrell town. it was very small. i felt limited in education.

so most people will migrate and be transient and go to larger cities because of the larger economy. a larger education, and the greater opportunities. so the ruralality as i call it are people who stayed behind, and how many americana cities do we have people say i need to leave, but stay? sam walton, who decided to build walmart said the people aren't moving, so i must build something for them. that is how we came about in the economic world. we have to look i think at the economics as well. host:. we are going toleave it

there and get a response . guest: at the end the day they couldn't imagine themselves leaving a place they call home, the family roots they put down for generations i think a lot that connection to place this felt in many different types of communities. if you ever met anybody from long island or queens, new york, the notion of living anywhere else, they would deny it. when it comes to educational opportunities, one of the things that we see among rural youth isn't so much a lack of desire to go to college or university, that colleges, and especially large estate research universities tend to be clustered in urban spaces. and it is not just a material cost that might be associated with moving to a city and having the resources to do that and

travel back home, that can be a big unknown. that can be a big burden. the same type of burden they can take a young person and stake them in the middle of a college in a rural area the disconnect can be quite jarring and that is one reason why we see -- one of the main reasons that we see that the rural youth are some of our least likely to want to attend college and some of the most likely to drop out of school once they get there. thankfully, a lot of those institutions are finally coming around to that troubling fact and are providing support networks for that group of students that we provided for other groups of students. so understanding that burrell is different and we might need to tailor our policies and our ways of thinking to those differences is a good thing, i think.

host: washington, independent line, one minute. caller: i just wanted to put my two cents in. thank you for letting me talk on this. there is an emotional divide actually between burrell -- rural. i was born in a very urban but very conservative areas, and then moved up here and then bought a farm. low educated, that is part of it. when i got here, everyone was very friendly and everything else. i've been here 19 years and about halfway through that, the conservative voice kind of took

hold and it's really hostile out here, i've got to tell you. host: thank you very much nick jacobs, final comments? guest: one of the things that would just remind everyone of an a think it is something we all know the down, is that often the most visible members of our community, the ones that make politics very central to their ended, they are different, they are special. just as i wouldn't go to a city in generalize about an entire beautiful and diverse population and the couple of instances i may see walking down the street, i think we should similarly generalize about rural populations when we drive through the countryside and maybe see one or two instances

of the loudest voice in the community? host: nick jacobs is co-author of this book. professor jacobs, with this written for a general audience or academic audience? guest: we try to split the difference. many people have found that it is quite accessible. we set out with the hope of bringing rigorous empirical analysis. this is not our hunches or a collection of anecdotes. the largest survey of rural voters ever conducted, but we've heard from hundreds of people across the country that is accessible. somebody even found artichokes rather humorous. -- our jokes rather humorous. host: thank you for being in the program. about one hour 15 minutes left in washington journal. and coulter is next. ♪

announcer: on saturday, august when he four, book tv on c-span 2 takes you live to the washington convention center for annual coverage of the library of congress national book festival since 2001 we feature hundreds of in-depth and uninterrupted author talks. this year's guest including the library of congress, pulitzer prize winners, and more. the library of congress' national book festival, live, saturday, august 24 beginning at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. weekends bring a book tv, featuring leading authors discussing their latest noiction books. the 50th anniversary of president richard nixon's resignation from office with three conversations on the 37th

president, author of the book watergate, a new history provides the confidence of history of the watergate scandal in 1972 break in president nixon's resignation two years later. michael thoughts with his book focuses on the nixon administration reacted during the 100 days after the watergate break-in. former advisor to richard nixon and ronald reagan takes it behind the scenes look at this ministration. want online anytime at book tv network. >> rather latest collection of c-span products, apparel, books, home decor accessories. there is something for every fan and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation.

shop now or anytime. washington journal continues. host: now enjoying this from west palm beach's columnist, author, political commentator and older. -- and coulter. who are you going to vote for in the selection? caller: donald trump because if he loses he will be running again in four years and then he will have lost four successive elections. truthfully, i really like his choice of j.d. vance which i recommended back in may. can't trust trump as far as i can throw him, but i do trust j.d. vance to care about the left behind people. >> in 2018 you wrote a book called "in trump we trust." guest: that was 2016, the

campaign. host: sorry about that. guest: by the way, it is a great book, i stand by the book. i wish for public politicians would read it. i gave a copy to some of my favorite republicans. i do think the 2016 from campaign, it was one of the greatest campaigns in world history in part because it really changed the republican party. to a party i preferred. and that is instead of just laws of permanence, useless foreign wars and tax cuts, it was about three things. immigration, trade, no more pointless foreign wars. and i've been waiting to vote for that basket of issues deals like my entire life. also just a lot of things, not

talking about your family, please drop a family biology -- biographies, please stop invoking rather reagan. all of these i'm optimistic, i guess from reagan, i pointed out that regular mandated 1980. he's very far from optimistic, he was viciously attacking jimmy carter. no one wants to know about your family, stop with that. and the up from the bootstrapped stories. john kasich was a postman's father. can you please just tell us what you're going to do for the country. i love trump coming out and saying i'm rich and going to fix the country but the main reason, and if you read the book, by the way, i make it very clear that personally, trump is an awful, awful person. we are making an exception this one time because we need a wall on the border. host: do you know him at all?

guest: i have met him in new york. i grew up in connecticut. i sort of followed him in the tabloids. was not a big fan, as i think very few people in connecticut are. not really our style. he was the only republican running in 2016. i sensed many of them -- sent many of them copies of my previous book which i highly recommend. apparently the voters will keep saying we want less immigration and the politicians will keep giving us more immigration. he was the only one in my very first tribute in miami with jorge ramos of univision. on my way to the miami airport the book came out the next day, i get a email from trump's office asked me to fedex a copy

of the book to them. and a week later becomes out, everything said about immigration as anyone who has read that book knows was directly from "adios, america." and even though i found him as any normal person would, and absolute rnc --, he was saying all the things i wanted some presidential candidate to say. i started introducing him at rallies which i think was first in iowa, flying back from l.a., and one of my friends said wait, you are not supporting donald trump, are you? and i said i've been waiting my whole life for someone to say we need a wall on the border, we need to deport illegals, shut this whole thing down, and he is saying it, so yeah, i'm

supporting him and i don't care about his personality. host: we are going to begin taking calls in just a moment. the numbers are up on the screen. she is the author of 13 new york times bestsellers. when is the next book?coming out ? caller: guest: i think i've said everything i have to say. host: you are not working on a book? guest: i am doing my sub stack. most of it is free, so everyone should sign up. it is loads of fun and on the book front i feel like people aren't reading books anymore which i attribute to two things. one is twitter which is just so fast. i guess tiktok with the other one. but for people who like to read, twitter is our thing. in the news just comes so fast.

books almost don't make sense anymore. columns, that is great. and the other reason, i swear it is because of all the books. and as a writer i know other writers. every book by anyone on television is ghost written and a ghost writer is one thing, they are obviously not the greatest writers out there or they would be writing under their own name, but the work i put into my books, i wouldn't do it if my name wasn't going on the cover. people buy these books thinking they are getting what they know as a book and then they started reading it and i think most of them kind of turning to paperweights. so let me assure you i research my own books, i write my own books. i mostly edit my own books and i think they are really, really good books. host: ann coulter as a law degree from the university of michigan where she was editor of

the michigan log review. what do you call your sub stack? guest: unsafe is just overtaking the world. what is going on in britain right now, the riots. i think most alarming and received in this country, but rural england has gone way beyond it with the online safety act where they are arresting people in britain -- i shouldn't laugh, it is so sad to see in the country go under but they are arresting people for things they post online. in our congress, they pretend they are only doing it for kids, the kids online safety act, and i think everyone has seen. i guess around the time trump became president, the march through the institutions has been complete, and the wokeness has taken over. conservatives stopped being able to speak. it used to be a protest, stamp

their feet are in question and answer, good time was had by all. then it became very violent. ben schapiro and me and miley annapolis, literally riots preventing us from speaking and the reason for that is they claim your words are five, but it isn't violence. it is always an unsafe space. i need a safe space. your words make me feel unsafe. so a little warning for anyone going to my sub stack, this is totally going to be unsafe. host: do you kind of look forward to going into a combative situation like a college campus that maybe doesn't want you there? guest: absolutely. it used to be the joy of my life, college speeches were so much fun.

and when i could see a particularly hostile audience i always want to just throw my speech over my shoulder and say let's just start right in with questions and answers. this is kind of ancient history. most conservative speakers that simply been shut down, but i'm nice to think it because they are young, though i might be tougher with the james carville type. i let them stamp their feet and call me ugly and a everything else, but i do take their questions seriously and try to answer them. and they might add especially at the better colleges i didn't really interesting actions. one of the funnest speeches i ever did was to the yale political union, they call themselves the parting of the left, the party of the right, some in the middle.

it went on and on and it was really fun, they were really smart liberals. and that is a blast. host: you're are not working on a book, that's the first time i've ever talked to you where you are not working on a book. this is kind of where this is the first time i've not see you wearing a cross. guest: oh. well, i started wearing the crossed sort of intentionally when i was riding high crimes and misdemeanors and part of the reason for that was madonna had kind of driven crosses out with these videos of her masturbating with a cross and they kind of forget what necklace i'm wearing because you don't see it under your neck. so i started intentionally wearing a cross all the time and it got to the point that at these college speeches but i would be signing books

afterwards, i would notice, and it didn't take long, every single girl in line was wearing a cross. so within a year or two i thought my job is done. madonna took it out and i brought it back. but now i think my work is complete on that. i do sometimes still wear the cross but i like jewelry, eyewear other necklaces. host: recent column, you wrote that probably for all the wrong inadvertently and for the wrong reasons donald trump made an important point when he said of the democrats most recent nominees she was always of indian heritage and i didn't know she was back into a number of years ago when she happened to turn black and now she wants to be known as black. why do you say that was an important point? guest: i write about this a little bit in my book, about racial demagoguery, and also about immigration. the important point he should

have made is that the entire purpose of affirmative action set aside civil rights law's, laws that limit constitutional rights, freedom of contract, freedom of association. all of that was to make up for the legacy of slavery and jim crow, so unless these benefits are going to roughly define foundational black americans, the descendants of american slaves, you have taken away the whole purpose of this, and that is exactly what has happened once we got this huge load of immigrants. now a thai who arrived on wednesday will get an advantage applying to college and corporations over a heterosexual white male in particular. that is the biggest hate group, but any white american. all of the civil rights laws and affirmative action and so on have been twisted into antiwhite

hatred and open, egregious discrimination. so to make the point that kamala is not a conditional black americans, and i am always pointing out to black people, have you noticed indians are getting all of the diverse jobs? what did we do to indians? 90% of illegal immigrants are from the third world, and mostly they just -- mostly we just run around saving them from tornadoes and earthquakes and coups and starvation. they know us, we don't know them. but to twist the concept to this diversity is nothing but discrimination against white people. that point should be made not just to, as i think from is always thinking he will win the black vote, he will not win the

black vote. you ought to do things because they are the right thing to do . he thinks we will get the black vote by being soft on crime. anyway, not only to point out to black americans their history is being stolen by immigrants, but to remind white americans that this whole diversity thing is just discrimination against them. host: let's hear from our viewers. as you can imagine, the phone lines are that up. guest: [laughter] host: bob in illinois, republican line. go ahead. you are on with ann coulter. caller: good morning, peter. hello, c-span. a pleasure to speak with miss coulter. a comment and a question. unfortunate that miss harris has a policy but she had to swipe it from donald trump.

you predicted on the bill barr show that trump was going to win in 2016 and his chin hit the desk. do you have any predictions for 2024 for? thanks a lot. guest: thank you. i want to predict trump three days after he was announced and that was because of the issue of immigration. i cannot stress this enough, whether it is here, western europe, whether it is donald trump or boris johnson, the british voted for brexit. they will not stop. i have no predictions for this race. i will say -- all year i have been saying, not necessarily publicly, that trump is going to lose, trump is going to lose, trump is going to lose. the night of the debate, which i have to say shocked me, shocked me, because they shot biden up

with enough drugs that he was fine during the state of the union address is. i was blown away. i was watching it in a roomful of democrats and live tweeting it. at the end of the evening, i said, thank you for the best night of my life. so that was pretty amazing. after that, i said my thoughts, wow, trump really has a chance now. now, i just don't know. i think any other republican could beat this democratic ticket. it is the craziest, most left-wing ticket, most anti-israel ticket, the most pro-criminal ticket. it is unbelievable what they stand for. but i think the way the democrats and this ticket and the media are going to do this is let's try to get to november without americans finding out what their positions are. just keep calling them joyful and keep laughing. i have been watching a lot of them, including on c-span.

so thank you very much for that. i recommend everyone watch both tim walz and kamala harris at the uaw speech where kamala brings back the fake black accent. you grew up in oakland and montrealers. preposterous, the accident she pulls. but both of them, the things they say and the way they laugh at things. yesterday a great one in an interview with kamala back in january. that is where you see the weirdness of the laugh. it is not the tender of it, which is weird enough.that cackle is weird. the strange thing is nothing funny has been said. nothing funny. what she is sort of relying on is -- i think people who have been on tv know this. when you are on tv, someone

laughs at something they just said that is not funny but the polite thing to do is to laugh along. on the other hand, if you are on tv, you will look like an idiot if you are laughing at something that is not funny. so you kind of have to strike a balance between being polite and not looking like a more on. that is what kamala is relying on. there was a great clip going around twitter earlier this week. she is sitting with i don't know who the two women are. it looked like a woman's apartment conference. i did not know who was on the other side. she goes on this thing about wokeness and who is woke-ist and you have to be woker, but the whole time she is laughing uncontrollably. the other women are, looking at her. you thought bubbles over their heads.what

on earth is this woman laughing at? nothing funny has been sent. host: minneapolis, minnesota, democrat, you are on with ann coulter. caller: yeah, hi. thank you for answering my call. good morning, ann. just a couple of things. a couple comments first and then a question. first, you made some comments about bringing up family as part of the campaign. i would say generally family is part of what holds value for people who are running for office. if you have a tight family unit, that is part of what you bring when you guys are campaigning. i also want to say i am in minneapolis, minnesota. particularly as mr. walz has been picked as the vp nominee, there has been this narrative, particularly outside of cities and minneapolis that the city is burning and that there are

zombies walking around and it is a cesspool. i am walking around in central minneapolis right now right along the light rail station and no people are getting shot, no people are dying. i did this at 11:00 last night as well. this is my question for you, ann. as you might guess, i am not a trump supporter, but i think that he really demands absolute loyalty from folks. does not reciprocate that to folks who are not loyal to him. i think we see that with his comments about brian kemp recently. when you talk about your change of support for him, what comments has he made about you? you feel any retaliation about speaking out against him? thanks for your time. host: miss coulter? guest: i want to go through the comments first. politicians talking about their

family. yes, of course, family is very important. but we will see that. there are biographies written about politicians. what i am referring to about going on about families is that it is an identity thing. because you are the son of a postman, that is a reason to vote for you. because you are the child of an immigrant, that is a reason to vote for you. that is what i really, really hate. in trump we trust. i looked up all the debates, every single debate. we had to hear about the hard rock story, basically that these guys were losers at every debate. please tell me what you are going to do. we are going to see your family. that cannot remain hidden. as for minneapolis, i do think anybody thinks the blm riots are going on now so you are under a misapprehension on that, but we

do have a recollection of protests that did multiple million businesses and burnt down the third precinct in your city. i think people remember that. thank, tim walz, for specifically holding off sending in the national guard for four days. even with the very, very left-wing mayor of minneapolis begging, begging for the national guard to be sent in. but no tim walz did not,. refused to send in the national guard. not only that, his daughter was tweeting out to the protesters, hey, word to the wise, get the word out, national guard not getting sent in, in case anyone wants to know. she was actually tweeting advice to the destroyers, the people burning down businesses. and his wife weirdly said that

during the riots she kept the windows to the governors mansion open so she could smell the burning tires. wow. what was the question? i don't even remember. host: wanted to know what nickname donald trump has given you. guest: oh, not a nickname. has he attacked me? do you pay attention to the news? in defense, i attacked him. throughout his presidency, i started slowly with gentle constructive criticism. i did not leak this, but i think our shouting in the west wing was so loud that there are any number of people who could have leaked it. it came out months later in february or march of his first year in office. i showed up in the oval office and we had a screaming and cursing fit. host: over immigration? guest: yes. yes.

and also trade. he had done nothing about the trade issues that he promised to at that point. he was letting paul ryan run the country. i said he was not doing anything different. he made a promise with the wall. when are you starting? when are you deporting the dreamers? it was quite a long cursing argument. publicly, i started my border wall construction update, which i would send out every day during the trump administration. miles built today, zero. miles built yesterday, zero. next update tomorrow. i did that basically throughout the trump administration. he finally started to build the wall or a fence or whatever. in his last year in office, and according to his own homeland

security, he built miles. let's hope with j.d. vance he learned his lesson and will keep his promises. but no, he has viciously denounced me on twitter several times. i am always out and about winding my -- minding my own business and people start emailing me, why is trump attacking you? what did you do? he has attacked me. he is not famous for his loyalty. but once again he is the only person running. it is between kamala harris and donald trump. there is no chance of walz. i am sorry, no matter how much she tries to run from her responsibility, biden put her in charge of immigration. that is the number one issue. it is what now, 12 million have come in just under the biden administration? they are hauling them in as fast as they can. it is another disaster. and i thought one of her

speeches, maybe it was the las vegas when yesterday, claiming she is for border security. yes, they all say it. unless they are building a wall, they are not for border security because nothing else will work. the rest is just words, words, words, and that is all we get for 20 years. every presidential candidate, oh, we need border security, we need boots on the ground. we will have drones. what are boots on the ground going to do? are you going to shoot them? what are drones going to do? are we going to amuse ourselves watching them go across the border? it was funny at least. can entertains ourselves. unless the bones -- we can entertain ourselves. unless the drones are dropping bombs, they are useless. israel is a country with self-respect. and it has a wall. wow, the first year the wall was up, it cut down i think 98% of illegal immigrants getting across.

this was reported in the new york times. 98% success was not good enough for israel. they found the weak points and made it even stronger, put up cages. no, there is no being being flown into the interior of the country. you are being held in cages at the border. when you want to go home, you could go home or stay where you are. we will keep you well fed. you will not die. but you are not coming into the country. whereas the biden policy, free food, free medical care, free housing. all of which incidentally right now, laws on the books, are against the laws of the united states. even a legitimate refugee. not one of these is legitimate. has to be held until a final determination of their immigration status. anyone trying to get into our country legally or certainly

illegally has to be checked, has to have all vaccinations, no contagious diseases, has to prove he will not become a charge of the united states. they are walking in and being given their welfare card. sign me up for your snap benefits. no, that is against the lot right now -- law right now. cannot have any criminal associations, terrorist associations. biden-harris need a border bill to stop what is going on at the border biden-harris need a border bill to stop what is going on at the border. trump managed to do it and was not going gangbusters, and now we see the laws on the books. other hundred mayorkas and joe biden and kamala harris are doing it intentionally. host: is it true you told vivek ramaswamy that you could not vote for him because he was "too

indian?" guest: not too indian. i liked many of his positions but i would not vote for an indian for president. i think president is different. so did the founders at least in the sense from the very beginning you have to be natural born which says something, but i feel like many of our constitutional rights, free speech for example -- oh, my gosh, even britain will not respect free speech my gosh, even britain will not respect free speech. thank god we have a first amendment and the right to bear arms. these are very unusual provisions. very important to our country. i think other countries would be wise to follow us rather than us following their crap countries. freedom is a wonderful thing. it is a hard thing to be learned.

i want someone who has been here. i said that immigrants should wait three generations before they start bossing us around because we have an unusually successful, prosperous nation that shines and does the most in the world. but understanding how to live with the right to bear arms, due process, states deciding things instead of the constitution, and at the moment, so much under threat, the right to free speech, there is no such thing as hate speech. i did not speak at cornell, my alma mater, this year. completely orchestrated by the head of the aclu. i interviewed her. she is so fabulous. i told her, all this time when you were defending free speech,

i thought this was just a front so the aclu can defend pornographers and communists. now it turns out you, not the aclu, but you actually believe in free speech. she has become such a free-speech hero. i was shut down at my alma mater a couple years ago, and she just kept harassing the administrators and the provost and the president, and this time when i spoke, the provost introduced me. i was invited by cornell itself, not a group on campus. then a college professor introduced me. it was lined with police just to be sure. it is kind of a big thing because the universities all sign free-speech pledges but do not force them -- enforce them. thank you, nadine. she has a really wonderful book. host: greg is in virginia, independent line. you are on with ann coulter. go ahead. caller: good morning.

i have a quick comment and a question. i am frustrated because i don't see either party really addressing things like the national debt, which i think is a very serious problem. i don't even think trump is addressing it in a serious way. we need something. we need tax reform. we need entitlement reform. i mean congressmen should be running down constitution avenue with her hair on fire because our economy will go off a cliff and no one is addressing it. host: thank you. ann coulter, debt. guest: the caller is absolutely right. the problem is politicians have an incentive to do things today that will make people happy and let future politicians 20, 30

years from now deal with the fallout. to the extent any party talks about this at all, you have to admit. it is early republicans. but no, i don't think there will be enough votes for that. there are things that are popular that would help the issues that they caller mentioned. i always say, fixing immigration makes everything easier. the amount of money being sucked in, sucked out of the federal government by immigrants is astronomical. they always fiddle with the numbers to hide it. but just the translators, the massive amounts of crime being committed by immigrants, which is also lied about, covered. the judges, public defenders, jail cells, the english as a second language classes, and this is to say nothing of -- new

yorkers are getting a taste of it now. you should see the border states and places like california. you know miss, giant, heaping amount of welfare being given to immigrants, legal and illegal. compared to nativeborn americans or american headed households. by now, since reagan's amnesty, that includes a lot of recent immigrants. illegal immigrants collect the most in illegal immigrant headed households. i will tell you why i say that in a second. they collect vastly the most amount of welfare followed by illegal immigrants followed by american headed families. the reason i say american headed or illegal headed is one of the ways they lie about this is by saying -- by counting illegal aliens drop an anchor baby as american. that is american. what does most welfare go for? it goes for the kids.

it is the illegal alien anchor baby who is sucking in all the welfare to support his entire family. no court and no congress has ever said -- officially ruled child of illegal immigrants is an american citizen. that is a footnote. that was not part of the ruling. and now just acts like it is true. that is something trump absolutely could have changed with an executive order. a great federal judge, and boy he is not conservative, richard pozner. he was pray while but he is retired now. absolutely brilliant man. and again, not a conservative. he used a concurrence in one of his opinions years ago to bag congress to deal -- beg congress to deal with the custom of anchor babies acting like the children of illegal aliens are american citizens.

no, the 14th amendment was specifically written about former slaves. that is what it was about. even the former planner on the supreme court said this is not about freemen. this is about former slaves. they are citizens. they are citizens of the jurisdiction in which they live. it is not about an eight month pregnant mexican running across the border and dropping a baby. you really think that is what the country was thinking about immediately after the civil war? it is exclusively about black people. oh, harry reid, former democratic leader of the senate. he used to give speeches on this on the senate floor, how insane the treatment of this creation of anchor babies is. really ferocious speeches. but then i guess democrats realized the immigrants are voting for us, so let's keep the gravy train going. host: ann coulter is the author

of 13 new york times bestsellers. you will find them on her website. peter is calling in from new york, republican line. go ahead. caller: yeah, good morning. good to see you, ann. governor glenn youngkin of virginia just signed an executive order cleaning up the voter rules in virginia. and i heard it reported that there were about 80,000 listings that they took off for people who had died or people who had moved. and there were about extends names of people who were not american citizens. they had a guy on "washington journal" earlier last week, mr. becker i believe his name was, talking about how the electorate is being monitored and that

there are not these illegal people voting and we have nothing to worry about. in your opinion, do we believe that is the case -- do you believe that is the case, and do you believe they are actually taking these people off the voter rolls? host: thank you. guest: well, yeah, i am sure they are taking them off. i am sure governor youngkin did and every republican governor ought to be doing this sanchez got elected. what was that, 30 years ago? it was proved there were heaps of fake ballots and that was enough for her to win. i think it should not have been challenged. even if an election is stolen, you should not contested. you will always look like a sore loser. richard nixon. c-span is celebrating the 50th anniversary of his resignation.

by the way, why was he not a selfless hero the way biden is? there is reasonably good evidence that an election was stolen from him. eisenhower encouraged him to contest against john f. kennedy and he said, no, for the good of the country i will not contest it. what is his first name? john foon. he clearly had an election stolen from him. he won the election and suddenly all of these ballots come in from indian reservations that weirdly 99% of them voted that year. he did not contest it. he was a gentleman about it and he went on two or four years later to beat the senate leadership tom daschle, or minority leader i guess it was. that was historic. people who reward you.

anyway the loretto sanchez victory was contested. he was right on the facts but should not have contested it to get another one, al franken. he won by some minuscule amount in minnesota and over the next few years, there were enough convictions for illegal voting that it would have switched the election. you have to understand that to get a conviction for voting illegally, you have to admit that you knew it was illegal for you to vote. if someone voted illegally, it is a tough crime to prove. i believe more than 1000, don't hold me to that, i read it a while back, frequently, provably people vote who were not allowed to vote. overwhelmingly democrats, duh. which is why my proposal is, which will never happen until the pumpkins called the house,

senate, and presidency, probably not even then because they are not doing anything, is one day to vote. constitution refers to election day. election day. at least for federal elections, there should be one day. yes, democrats are going to cheat. they have what we call unmotivated voters. republicans like to go out and vote in the polls. it could be raining, snowing. democrats have to do with unmotivated voters. so the longer you give them, this early voting and mail-in voting, they have to drag their voters to the polls on a gurney. give them six months. they will get a lot of voters. i think there should be one day to vote. democrats can lie, cheat, steal all they want but they get 24 hours to do it. states could pass these laws. that is my solution right there. simple and clean and constitutional. host: last call for ann coulter.

this is from harlem, democrats line. please go ahead. caller: thank you, peter, and good morning, this coulter. i thank god for you, and yes i am a democrat. i cannot tell you. i was just listening to what peter read a few moments ago, that piece about kamala harris and her being, you know, grabbing onto her "blackness." i'm 54, and you are absolutely right. and yes, former president trump mentioned about her all of a sudden finding out or becoming black. but again, i'm 54. and i remember, it brought back to my remembrance, during her time, what was income a prosecutor or whatever she was doing -- it, a prosecutor or whatever she was doing, if anyone brought up about her being black or saying she was

black, she had a visceral reaction to that in her body language. she did not want to be thought of as black, certainly as a prosecutor back then. she had put so many black people and particularly black men in jail. unfortunately, black people have a very short memory span and it is hurting us. it is hurting us right now. host: we will have to leave it there. thank you for calling in. ann coulter? guest: even if she had always -- and thank you very much for your call. even if she had always been an american black, it is factional she is not a foundational black american. again, that is why america has all of these provisions like affirmative action and set asides and civil rights laws. it is because of the shame and guilt about slavery and jim

crow, both little democratic enterprises by the way. so it all has to be spent on black americans. not on any loser with a grievance from around the world. that is what it has become. i listened to that column you mentioned because it always makes me laugh, all of the good diversity jobs are going to immigrants. the head of a letter of the affirmative action programs, like 200 affirmative action or dvi administrators -- dei administrators, they are often indians, a lot of indians. i went through the immigrant hosts on msnbc. i forget, there are like eight of them. three or four foundational black americans. i know msnbc, they are so proud of their diversity. no, it is not about diversity.

it is about integrating black americans into mainstream american life and giving them benefits to make up for slavery and jim crow. i think some affirmative action programs went a little far and are not really helping. but that is what it is about. we have completely pretended to forget what the point of this was. host: ann coulter. the text disappeared. there was a text in my preview i wanted to get you to answer from carolyn in boston. as we approach the 250th anniversary of the u.s., who is your favorite and least favorite president of modern times? guest: um, it is a cliche, but you kind of have to give it to george washington. if you are going to skip the cliches, calvin coolidge. and least favorite, lbj. it is very, very dangerous when

democrats control the house, senate, and presidency. i think the lbj period was the most destructive period in american history. the last time democrats had all three branches, wasn't that the first two years of the obama administration? yeah, took away my health care. i could not keep my doctor. i think that was an absolute disaster. but under lbj, we got the 1964 immigration act. and that has perhaps destroyed the country irrevocably. also got a lot of terrible, terrible dysfunctional social welfare programs. and he was just a really bad person. not that i care if your policies are good. host: anncoulter.com is the website.

thank you for coming on this morning. guest: anncoulter.substack.com. host: i am so sorry. got it.thank you for coming on. guest: thank you. host: a half-hour left of "washington journal" this morning. whatever you want to talk about policy wise is on the table. you can see the numbers there. go ahead and start dialing in. we will be right back. ♪ >> tonight on q&a, we sat down wi two world war iieterans, steve ellis and another, to talk about their experiences during the war. >> what i remember the best is when we were on our way to the invasion, a big island in the philippines. the convoy was under constant attack from the japanese day and

night. i looked up, and there was one coming right at us. fell out of range. i waited a few seconds and i gave the order to bomb. i wonder if we are going to get that. was not afraid. did not feel any rush of adrenaline. just a very calm thing. we got that. >> that is when the antiaircraft fire from the japanese below starts to get close. and on the dangerous mission, the antiaircraft shells are exploding all over the place. the navigator, myself is just sitting there hoping the

bombardier will say "bombs away" and the pilot can take over. >> world war ii veterans tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on the free c-span now app. >> "washington journal" continues. host: (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 four democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents. what is the public policy issue you want to talk about? if you cannot get through the phone lines and still would like to make a comment, the text number is on the screen. (202) 748-8003. include your first name and the city if you would. you can also make a comment via facebook and via x.

real clear politics, every day they put out the latest polls that have come out and they put them all in a list by day. here are the recent polls that are out as of this morning at 6:00 a.m. you can see in pennsylvania that harris is up four. up four in michigan and wisconsin. up two in pennsylvania when you include the third party candidates. up five in michigan when you include the third party candidates. and up six in wisconsin when you include the third party candidates.and those are all by the new york times cnn college poll. that is a switch from just a few days ago. you can see here that an pennsylvania, it was trump 46%, harris 44%. wisconsin, 49% to 48%.

carolina, 49% to 45%. you can see the polls have changed with kamala harris running for president. this is from the washington times. while other governors were lowering taxes, walz socked minnesotans with tax taxes. he has a food more than $10 billion in tax increases, imposing new taxes on everything from retail deliveries to workers earnings, overseeing one of the most dramatic shifts for higher taxes in the country. again, that article is in the washington times if you want to read more about it. this is from the hill newspaper. with the olympics ending, thought we would share this with you. the los angeles mayor says the 2028 olympics will be car free. ahead of the closing ceremonies in paris, attempting to address

a big issue for the next games, the l.a. traffic. the only way to access olympic venues will be public transportation. the city will borrow 3000 buses from all over the country and asked businesses to allow their employees to work from home. "part of the no car olympics means getting people not to drive," bass said. that is in the hill newspaper. now to your phone calls and voices. mustafa in michigan, independent. hi, good morning. caller: good morning, and thank you for taking my call. my top policy i wanted to talk about is the neglect the democratic party has two the black community. as a proud u.s. army veteran and a proud foundational american that built this country, i have historically voted democrat. but i have broken chains and i will not vote for that party.

i will not support until they support three issues. we need reparations professional black americans, an anti-black american hate crime bill, and third, stopping and deporting biden's illegal economic immigrants. lastly, i would employ you and your listeners to stop referring to for additional black americans as african-americans. we are not africans. thank you, and i will take my comment off the air. host: what do you do? caller: i am an engineer for an aerospace company and am a professor at the community college. host: so if you are not going to vote for the democrats, where are you going with your vote? caller: it depends on who is going to address those three issues. right now, at least one issue will be addressed by the republicans. you know which issue that is. host: the immigration issue. caller: that is correct. host: thank you for calling in.

julian happy valley, oregon democrat. julie, good morning to you. caller: good morning. i am the happiest person on the planet right now because i got through on your busy line. i can't hear you. my thing is muted. my tv is muted. i can see you talking. host: no, you cannot look at that. there is a delay. just look out the window. just look out the window in oregon. caller: ok, i am looking out the window. host: we are listening. caller: i am calling from the cardiovascular progressive care unit at the hospital in happy valley, oregon. i just had open heart surgery. i just got a valve replacement. anyway, i am feeling like a million bucks because i got 30 years added onto my life. i am 69 years old. i am not retired. i am just getting started. ok? i have comments on everything. number one, i live in oregon. we have vote by mail.

vote by mail is how it should be across the country because guess what, there is no cheating. there is no line. you just get your ballot and you have to mail it in on time. that is it. just mail it in. it is the answer to everything. vote by mail like oregon, that . i was trying to get through on the contribution line. i never contributed to everything in -- to anything in my life. i am 69 years old. last week i got out. i had open heart surgery on july 31. i got out august 5 or whatever. i contributed $30 to kamala harris for the first time in my life. i had to come back to the er. they brought me back to happy valley to check out what is happening, why i am painting, whatever. i am going today. i am going home today. ann coulter, she says kamala

harris' laugh is irritating or whatever she said about it. i don't mean to be, but her voice is irritating and so are all of her policies. she wants to vote for trump for the border. that is crazy. for the border, kamala harris and tim walz, whatever his name is. the answer is money. more money from guards, helping countries that need help. the immigrants are not bringing in the drugs. that is coming in other ways. they just need -- not build a wall. that is the dumbest thing. forget the wall. host: all right, julie. thank you, and best wishes for your recovery. continue your recovery. ivan in georgia, republican like

your turn. caller: yes, i am 88 years old, concerned, it sounds like america is going to you know what in a hand basket. i am getting ready to go to church now, and i am praying to god. if that woman thinks harris will do anything about the border, no. i have neighbors across the street. it is some kind of farm. he told us my husband said you are not supposed to do that. he said call the police. the police won't do anything because where i am at they are all democrats. that is why i did not tell what city i am in because i am living there. there is no telling what will happen. that is what i got to say. i am definitely for mr. trump. host: the next call is paul in beaumont, texas, independent line. hi, paul. caller: thanks for taking my call. actually i was trying to call in when ann coulter was on.

regarding immigration, i think illegal immigration is not correct. but i just wanted to ask, the u.s. birth rate is, you know, low. as such, we do need immigration. if we don't have immigration, we will have inflation because there is not enough people to do the jobs. so that is my only question on the immigration front. we need to reduce illegal immigration, but we need to create a path towards illegal immigration or accept the fact that we will have inflation, wage inflation, which is maybe something we can live with. but people need to know that. host: in the washington post this morning, a column about nancy pelosi. this is paul's column. representative pelosi has a new book out. now the former house speaker

pelosi recounted a story in a 100 minute interview with half of a dozen reports that veterans who chronicled her 20 year reign as the democratic leader. the long sit down with part of her book tour promoting the rf power, which details her rise and fall and rise back up to the powerful post in congress. the book which she started planning years ago started about how she wielded power more effectively than most of the other 55 speakers, all white men. also published in the wake of another illustration of pelosi's continuing influence, even as she rejoined the rank-and-file without a seat on a legislative committee. in the preface of her book, she writes about know your whys, a slogan she has used for years for those who want to run for elected office so they can be

granted by the right principles for the job. her why has always been a three word mantra, for the children. signifying leaving the planted cleaner and safer with a bottom-up economy. finally, this from the column. pelosi will attend the dnc this month in chicago with no real responsibilities. as leader of the carcass, she was cochair of the previous five conventions. other than a likely speaking role, her main political role these days is still raising money and giving advice when asked. no speaker in modern times has left the post and stuck around in office this long. but pelosi rather enjoys the freedom and dispensing wisdom. that sounds like the mix of a crime boss and a local party activist. this is in the washington post in case you want to read the whole thing for yourself. from covington, louisiana, democrat, hi, gordon. caller: hi, how are you doing? host: what is on your mind? caller: my concern is i am 70

years old. i am very concerned. we used to be a nation of laws. the situation going on in gaza, bombing schools with kids and women in it. i am saying, how can we be a nation of moral standards and we are supporting a nation like israel to kill innocent kids and women? we need to change the outlook in this nation and come back to our moral standards. don't give them bombs to kill innocent kids and women. in this country, if a terrorist is in the building, go in and get them but you don't have to drop a bomb and kill innocent kids who have no responsibility, nothing to do with the incidents. so my thing is this, we need to change our outlook in this

country about the respect of other nations and other people in the world. give them respect the same way you give the people in israel the respect. host: that is gordon and covington, louisiana. this is george in michigan, independent line. hi, george. caller: good morning. my comment is on the previous segment with ann coulter, i heard her mention what the democrats had with the uaw leadership last week. that lady, i think she and everybody else in this country needs to know that i work for the uaw as a member for 40 years, and there are many, many, many of my fellow uaw members that can see through the democratic bs. we are a lot smarter than ever leadership gives us credit for being. we are not indoctrinated into the democratic way of doing things. we think for ourselves.

i think you will be surprised how many uaw members are actually going to vote for donald trump and the republicans. because you can see i while back they were pushing the electric cars really hard. why would the uaw want to cut their own throats by going and producing electric cars when they can stay with what we have had and has served us for very well -- served us very well for so long? as far as the immigration subject, i think donald trump made a comment last week and one of his rallies that he was going to start deporting them as quickly as he got into office. a lot of people think that will be a very hard thing to do. i think all mr. trump has to do is ask for help. i would be willing to bet there are a lot of people in this country that would be willing to help him deport those people. host: that is george in

michigan. this is john in lake elsinore, california, on our republican line. good morning, john. caller: sorry, i am just a little bit shocked at the desperation to go out and deport people from the last caller. anyway, my point, let's start with the immigration thing. by the way, i am not a lifelong republican, but i have always leaned to the right. i called in on the republican line. i should be on the independent line i probably will not be voting republican until the republican party stops with the political theater. this is really getting a little old, folks. anyway, back onto my main point, which is immigration. we are talking about immigration. everyone talks about immigration. donald trump was concerned with the border. how come i never hear anybody talk about the fact that donald trump had a majority for two years? zero legislation.

no legislation at getting the border, regarding immigration. this is the problem we have had in this country for 75 years, folks. come on, we know this. both sides have needed to do something about immigration for decades. the fact that people pretend this is some new issue is insane. i'm sorry. it is a little bit hard to talk. i am foaming. you have so many things you want to say when you are on the spot in the situation so i about a little bit of a loss for words. host: we have to leave your comments right there and talk to kevin and washington, d.c., democrat. hi, kevin. caller: hi, peter. last time i called, i had covid so i need a little time to sort out my thoughts. i wanted to thank you guys for putting on the speaker about

israel yesterday. i got covid so i needed a little accommodation. you guys had a program on, heritage tradition, and they had a speaker, robert, the head of the center for disease control. at the end of the talk, he said the chinese used a protocol. it was an intellectual property from the united states, the man-made creation of covid. i want to tell you about another talk you might have missed. it was on kato.org. science magazine, science.org

has an article may 15 and they had the timeline. redfield was not only the center for disease control director, he was also advisor to larry hogan. i hope hope commission for covid. host: we are going to leave your comments there. appreciate you calling in. jerry in oklahoma city, republican. it is your turn. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call, sir. i would like for them to look into the dominion voting machines they operate with. i have knowledge that they were designed originally from venezuela to fix their -- for venezuela to fix their elections and i am kind of a read about that get i also think these

politicians that make false accusations like adam schiff, they waste taxpayers money but all of the stuff and when they find out these people are lying, they should have to pay for their lies, to the taxpayers. and i think immigration is a big problem in our country right now and i think we need a portable. different countries protect their borders. they do not allow them in the countries and much less support them. i agree with the caller that called in and said our country is being drained by the entitlements these people are getting. host: let's leave it there. we appreciate your calling as well. two lead stories this morning in the new york times. you can see them, harris leading in three key states, new polls show. we showed those earlier. the story next to that of a truck's circle -- trump's

circle sees him lose grip. insert the story, here is the headline. trope circle sees a disoriented man losing grip on his bid. ms. harris, longwood fueled and -- long ridiculed and underestimated. mr. trump has responded with one unforced error after another while struggling to land on an effective and consistent argument against her. he has found the change this orienting, those interacting with him say. mr. trump had grown comfortable campaigning against the 81-year-old incumbent who struggled to navigate stairs. suddenly find himself in a race against a black woman nearly 20 years younger who has already made history and is drawing large and excited crowds. the people around mr. trump see

a candidate knocked off of his bearings, nothing like the man who reclined on july 15 as he watched thousands of delegates cheer him on the first night of the republican national convention. and it goes on. in case you are interested, that is in the new york times this morning. let's see if we can fit one more call in here. woodley in georgia, democrat. apologize, we got one minute. caller: trying to get my one minute and make the best of it. there was a caller from oklahoma who talked about the immigration policy. he doesn't even know what he is talking about. the guy in georgia, we get died around the world. the next thing is the former governor of minnesota jesse ventura made a very daring significant observation about tim walz.

as a national guardsmen, he said national guardsmen are never deployed into combat. i don't know if it is true or false but jesse ventura made that statement the other night. i want to commend c-span for the open dialogue, and i also want to commend kamala harris and tim walz for trying to take this country into a very pleasant day. thank god for c-span. host: thank you to everybody who called in this morning. it was nice to see you all, and we will be back at 7:00 a.m. tomorrow. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪