extended until just about a year ago. now the federal government is pushing back when states try to disenroll those folks who are eligible. it is a feeling that you need to get as many people on as possible and it is getting people onto plans that are not very popular. the aca marketplace plans prior to these expanded subsidies never topped 10 or 11 million per year. that is about half of what the cbo estimated were going to be enrolled. you only got an expansion when you provided the free stuff. people love free stuff. host: the issues of waste, fraud, and abuse, trying to expand these programs. andrea ducas, you agree that this is the fault line when it comes to health care? guest: it is hard to say because there has not been a lot of that

has been part of the discussion around health care from one of the parties. it is challenging. what dr. zinberg shared is right in terms of that being one of the faultlines. we take significant issue with that analysis. i think there is a difference between somebody who is a sole proprietor and self-employed person trying to estimate how much money they will make at the beginning of the year and somebody who is fraudulently and lowering an insurance plan -- somebody was fraudulently enrolling in an insurance plan. to the extent you have actors engaging in that kind of activity that should not be happening, and there's a difference in belief about what to do about that. one way to handle fraud is to go after fraud. another way to do it is to pick everybody out with health insurance. it is an odd choice to be making. that is one fault line. there is one party for expanding access to tax credits and government subsidies to purchase

private health insurance and there is another that has worked very hard to limit access to government-funded insurance and care. host: health care in campaign 2024 is our topic this morning. democrats (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. andrea ducas and dr. joel zinberg are our guests. andrea ducas with the center for american progress action. what is that? guest: where a nonpartisan think tank that works to advance progressive policy across united states. host: we mentioned at the top of paragon health institute. i know you also work with the center for committed -- for competitive enterprises. explain to viewers what those institutes do. caller: paragon is not -- guest: paragon is a nonprofit health research institute in washington

dc and aims to improve american south by empowering patients and reforming government. the competitive enterprise institute is also a nonprofit think tank in washington, d.c. and is a libertarian think tank that tries to improve government , limit its influence, and empower people and empower individual liberty. host: our guests are with us until the top of the hour at 9:00 eastern. start calling in. dr. rosenberg -- dr. zinberg, what happens to health care affordability and and access under a second trump administration? guest: there is a lot of handwaving about what will happen, but during the first administration health care access was pretty good. the trump administration tried to expand access by improving people's ability to choose the

types of care that is best for them. that included things like short-term limited duration plans, association health plans, reimbursement arrangements. these are all things that give people improved ability to choose their plan. the association health plan is way for small employers to band together and purchase insurance together as one big group that gives them a better price and incentivizes small businesses to provide insurance they would otherwise not be able to afford. the biden harris administration immediately reversed all of those lands and put them on hold and ultimately change the rules. i think you would expect to see more of that in a future trump administration. host: would you agree that health care access is pretty good in the first administration? guest: absolutely not.

what was on the first trump administration was a relentless attempt to overturn the affordable care act and its many consumer protections. we also saw a former president intent on having roe v. wade overturned and who nominated justices who did exactly that. you asked before about faultlines, and the biggest one is access to abortion and a women's right to choose. we also saw president trump an act pretty harsh roles early on in his tenure like the punch archewell which threatened people who were not citizens of the united states with deportation if they use public benefits. we saw medicaid enrollment decline as a result of that. we saw defunding of the people that actually help people access the marketplaces. we did see some attempt to introduce more transparency to

the health care market, which was certainly a welcome change although has had limited impact. host: plenty of calls. kevin out of lakewood, washington. you're on with andrea ducas and joel zinberg. caller: i am one of those black male callers that is supporting, harris from earlier. on health care, we should not trust any republican to do anything positive for people on health care. they've been trying to kill the aca ever since it has come out, and then you have the republican states not accept the aca and not implement it. you've had kentucky, unified idaho, you have people who are poor in these states put this on the ballot and when it gets to the people they vote for it.

mr. zinn berg is saying -- dr. zinberg is saying people lie about their status in order to game the system and get benefits. i could see some of that happening because people are desperate and the insurance companies have be people down over the years. denying people claims at the time they really needed the service. i would never trust a republican to have anything to do with health care. host: got your point. joel zinberg? guest: i thank you for your comments and question. i think you have to look at the campaign to increase government provided care. it is just a question of do you

think government provided care is the answer to everything or would you rather have the choice of what kind of care you want. do you want to have to enroll in a plan that some bureaucrat in washington has decided is best for you or would you like to choose the plan that is best for yourself? no one is talking about repealing the aca. there are things you can do to improve the aca. you can expand health savings account that allow people to take tax-advantaged money and then use it to decide what care is best for then and expand the type of things they can use it for. take part of the aca's subsidy and allow people to put that into their health savings account so they can then decide how to use that. you expand so of the other choices i talked about or do you want to have this self campaign, increased subsidies i talked about were enacted in 92 a1 --

those were enacted in the american rescue plan as though there was some emergency because of the pandemic. there was, then in 2022 when the pandemic was winding down those things were extended and now you have a push to extend those subsidies permanently and that means $383 billion of spending over 10 years according to the cbo. we are in the middle of record deficits now. is that what we want? do we want part of the subsidies to be providing subsidies to people with more than 400% of the federal poverty line those subsidies now applied to. you have a family making close to a quarter of a million dollars. they are getting subsidies across the cbo of -- people with

higher incomes are getting subsidies. is that what we want? people who can easily afford care on their own have to get subsidies from the government? they are getting subsidies for a type of insurance that has narrow networks, that is lower quality than employer-provided care, but this is coming right from the kaiser family foundation and also from a paragon publication, these are extremely narrow networks were people find it hard to obtain care. less than 40% of the doctors in their area are in their marketplace. people cannot find a specialist who can treat their condition. host: i get the sense andrea that you wanted to jump in. guest: i will focus a little bit on the marketplace. there is so much to say. i think is interesting that so much of the conversation is about whether we subsidize care or access to insurance for people who do not have any other

option that is affordable. individuals who cannot afford the job-based coverage if they haven't offered and those who might be self-employed or do not have access to any other health insurance. we spent a lot more time subsidizing the job-based coverage. that is not free. that cost a lot of money. we made a decision as a society that that is a valuable thing to pay for just as we believe it is a valuable thing to pay for and helps in order to enable them to access care. we ought to believe that people who do not have that option -- some folks to get zero premium plans. others pay in. i want you to speech the experience and start a personal story. my floor -- my father works for small business.

when my parents got divorced he did not have access to affordable health insurance. he had a cancer diagnosis and at that time the exchanges were set up and we could get him a plan. for him the experience was do not get care or now we have the affordable care act and subsidized coverage and he could get care. it is remarkable that we are having this conversation about whether that is something a nation like the united states should be offering its citizens. guest: i think that is a little bit of a strawman. nobody is talking about abolishing that option. you're looking at a system where 92% of the people who get exchange plans are getting the subsidy. these are extremely unpopular plans. no one was signing on in the past and very few people are signing on now who do not get a subsidy. if these plans are so wonderful people would be flocking to them.

you have gone from a situation where people in a certain income range were being asked to pay 1% to 2% of their income to purchase a plan and they did not think it was worth it. now that you're giving it to them for free they will sign up. if it was not worth $30 or $40 a month coming out is being given away. it tells you a lot about the plan that is being pushed as opposed to alternative options with i have prescribed and making it easier for people to get through their employment. host: let me bring in colleen from california on the line for independents. caller: calling to chat a little bit about the affordable care act. taking a look at it from a middle-class persons framework. most people in california are middle-class. the affordable care you between

$850 to $1000 a month to get it, especially if you are an independent contractor, a realtor, or a beautician. you cannot get on any other type of plan, you have to pay for that yourself. by suggesting -- my suggestion is there is a sliding scale. i went on the affordable care act and i realized you are paying around $900 even if you do not include dental. most of my friends who are beauticians and realtors do not have insurance because they cannot afford it. then you have our governor who puts noncitizens on plans that is kind of destroying the middle class. what i would what i would suggest is just like, shouldn't be a sliding scale. it should be a fine thing ten to 12% of my gross income, affordable care act, then i think people may be the millionaires and billionaires

should be paying ten to 12% and that extra money where they are paying 10% on let's say i don't know what struck any millionaire, the bushes, the kennedys. that would help pay for the noncitizens who are on the plan. shouldn't be a cat. anybody should feel the pain of paying this exorbitant amount of money. >> let's bring this to the roundtable. andrea ducas. >> thank you for the question. i think this speaks again to the benefit of the internet subsidies which created a situation where nobody over certain percentage of income, nobody is at that level should be paying more than 8.5% of income towards premiums. that was one of the things the enhanced subsidies fixed. once you get 400% of the federal poverty line you were eclipsed. .. hing. now we have a situation where nobody at that level will be paying more than 8.5% of their

income toward subsidies. in california -- states make different sores -- make different choices about who they want to provide expanding coverage to. i would agree that is important to actually make it such that people can afford access to the plans. if i have insurance through my job it would be very expensive for me to pay the full cost of that premium for myself and my family alone. that is why there is such a limited take-up of cobra programs when people leave their jobs. there is a subsidy that allows them to pay -- to afford the coverage. i would agree it is important to make sure people have the support to afford that premium. host: dr. zinberg? guest: there heavy plans of the federal government so when you say you want the millionaires and

billionaires, your pirating the bernie sanders line, they are paying. ral government is subsidizing all of these plans and they are doing it with revenue they collect via taxes. we have the most progressive impact tax system in the world. that money is being collected and used. i think most americans would probably be surprised to learn that someone with 750% of the federal policy line needs a subsidy to buy health care. why can't they pay their fair share at that point? why are they on these plans they would not otherwise buy with the some sort of subsidy? one party once to let wasteful

subsidies expire at the end of 2025 and the other ones to extend them permanently with a bowl of including as many people as they possibly can under government provided health care plan. host: let me bring in bradley in georgia. democrat. it works better if you turned on your television. then we can hear you better. caller: i would say the original sin of tying your health care to the employer. i don't know why we did that. no other country in the world does that. kids younger than me, they want to burn all of this down. health care will cause the crumbling of the country. the prices for everything is unsustainable. we are thinking about subsidies. there is note -- the only way to

solve the problem is to abolish the insurance industry. the doctors need to be making less money. look at this guy, they make millions of dollars. we have to go to health care. backcountry is so sick. our country is on the brink. obamacare saved my life. it is trash except for two things. pre-existing conditions and the no limit on what your deductible is. because of that, if you are poor is fairly isn't. the people that make a little bit of money. host: how did it save your life? caller: i had a torn knee when i was 30 playing basketball. for two years i am limping

around. i finally got the affordable care act and with surgery by february i had been my deductible. never mind the surgery, but i had a drug problem, so i was able to take the affordable care act and go through rehab with nine months. they had to pay for all of that. i got nine months in california. host: bradley, thank you for sharing your story. dr. zinberg, do you want to start on that one? guest: no one is talking at this point about getting rid of the affordable care act but we are talking about the best way forward. there are things you can do to improve the current system that have bipartisan support. you could look at what is called site neutral payments we are wasting

money because we pay more for the exact same services that are provided in a hospital setting then we do in the outpatient setting. you can perform the medicaid program. you could perform a medicare advantage program by improving or making it more flexible in saving money by looking at the various benchmarks, the various bonuses that you get for quality that are probably not really warranted. so there are all kinds of things you can do to save money, but you don't have to improve the health care system overall by expanding this really unpopular government program. i am happy that the caller called in and told us the story and its a that he was able to obtain the care he needed, but how do you provide that care? that is really what we're talking about today. is it via this expansion, limitless expansion, because

realize these are all heavily subsidized government programs and when you create government subsidies, invariably what happens, the premiums skyrocket in our deficit skyrockets. we have to face the music at some point. host: got the point. the response? guest: two things here. first i want to challenge the notion that nobody is talking about getting ready the affordable care act. it is setting rules for the insurance system and it is also opening up new coverage pathways. one of the main things was instill consumer protection. i used to negotiate benefits. at that time you could be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition. 60% of them didn't cover maternity services. i have a young child, if the ad

more than three year infections a year. that is what the affordable care act fixed. it also created a pathway to expand medicaid not only to young children or pregnant women or parents or caregivers, but a very low income people who still have kids and it opened the affordable care act in marketplaces which contrary to this idea that they are unpopular, we learn from the department of treasury that what in seven americans have turned for coverage. that is amazing. i would not call that an unpopular policy. but to the caller's, we do have a significant issue in this country when it comes to health care prices. we also have a real challenge when it comes to health insurance deductibles. not only on the aca marketplaces, but for job-based coverage.

they were introduced in little over 20 years ago and that is a significant issue and it has been really heartening to watch states like california, massachusetts, new mexico experiment with ways to actually use the marketplaces. look for ways to lower coinsurance. one of the things these subsidies to limit how much people pay out-of-pocket, but we also need to be regulating, we are closing entity -- holding entity's account of who are competing fairly, not price gouging, looking for ways to actually bring prices down. guest: i'd like to point out, by the way, you just mentioned medicaid. much of the expansion in coverage from the aca came the other medicaid expansion. what most people don't realize is that is an expansion that

requires the federal government to reimburse the federal matching amount, four percentage at 90% of the cost of the care as opposed to much lower amounts for the people who were traditionally in the medicaid program. the people who the medicaid program was supposed to cover, was created to cover. single moms, moms with kids. now you have a 90% match rate for able-bodied adults. and as a result, states are taking that up and they are trying to for every possible service into that, and that is actually hurting the people who medicaid was traditionally created for. funds and programs are being diverted to these folks who really could be getting care other ways. this is kind of what i mean when i say it is a single-minded attempt to get as many people less possible into a better program.

we published a paper dealing with reducing overtime, that matching rate back down the rate of all these states copy for which at the moment, if because of it depends on the income of the state. it would save a lot of money, you would reinforce a program for the people for whom was originally intended, and then we would propose possibly lowering the floor so that richer states, which are taking advantage of these programs to fleece the federal government, essentially, they pay their fair share where you propose bringing the floor down to 40% which would affect a few wealthy states. host: about 20 left in 25 minutes this morning. new york, republican. caller: my issue is that you are so focused on people having

insurance, but just having insurance does not mean people can slip or care. i have a family member who gets insurance through the exchange and can only afford a philanthropic plan. they can afford to go and get an x-ray because it is so expensive. and also now this person qualifies for estate plan, now it is getting counseling, that was getting counsel for drug addiction. i just think there is a difference between having insurance and having the care, and that is what we have to make it, so the people can access care. guest: exactly right. if you have an insurance card that you can't use, what value is it? which is why it is important not only to be expanding access to coverage, but you want that coverage to be generous, comfort

as comprehensive and not need care in and of itself. it has been heartening to see how these have been improved to experiment with lowering deductibles, with lowering coinsurance, seeing some of the positive results. something that i love to see across the u.s. it's also why when people have access to expanded medicaid, they enroll. if they had the ability to get coverage elsewhere, i think they would do that the majority of people on medicaid work and they don't have access to affordable coverage outside of that one of the previous callers talked about how high health care prices are and again, that is a state problem. we can see how dramatic that growth has been in part i would say because of the rate of consolidation. so many markets in this country are heaven -- heavily consolidated.

a big insurer, when that happens in markets generally, he starts the prices go up. something that actually needs to be addressed and it has been wonderful to watch the biden harrison street opus on that and look for ways to protect consumers, to look for ways to bring prices down. but that is something that should be happening intended with coverage expansion. we also have to make sure the system is functioning well. guest: that's a really important point you've made that we focus on expanding coverage but not focusing on health. and there's really two aspects to that, to what i'm saying. first, all of these expansions under the affordable care act have been into plans that have extremely narrow networks where the enrollees, the patients find it very difficult to obtain care. so as i mentioned earlier, most of the expansion occurred the medicaid, which is notorious for having poor access to care.

many physicians don't want to participate, many hospitals limit participation via centrifuge. number two, you have the affordable care act marketplace plans which as i mentioned earlier, the kaiser family foundation and paragon have very narrow networks. people report having difficulty obtaining care. either there's no one in their network, no active participating physician, or even if there is a purchase fitting physician, good luck trying to get an appointment. it can take months because they are so overwhelmed, and particularly when you throw on all these able-bodied adults who now are clamoring for a spot that medicaid positions as well. strut the second aspect of a want to talk about is the single-minded focus on expanding coverage when in fact,

insurance, while it is very important protecting people's financial health, their financial situations by protecting them against catastrophic expenses if god for bid they did very ill, actually has a lot less to do without health than most people believe. the economic advisers where i work put out in the economic report of the president a help chapter back in 2018 talking about how important or unimportant health insurance is for health care, in the literature indicates it has a very minimal effect and probably only for certain groups. we are kind of updating that via forthcoming paragon paper that's going to look at the literature on how important insurance is for actually improving health. and again, it's far less than you would believe. what is important? people's behaviors, do they

smoke, are they overweight, and they get healthy food? these are important things. these are the things that really influence our health much more so than whether they have insurance or not. again, i'm not saying they shouldn't have insurance. insurance is important. obviously they've been getting health care, but the literature indicates that these other things are actually probably far more important. host: before we get too far into the segment, the idea of creating, developing and creating more medicine in this country and not relying on imports of medicine, donald trump has talked about using tariffs as a way to promote and stimulate more production of medicine in the united states. what are your thoughts on that? guest: one of the things that we struggle with here is shortages even of generic medications. that is a function of having not

only to rely on outside suppliers but because outside suppliers are also so have the concentrated. host: in the region? guest: in terms of where they are produced and even the materials that go into production. and even within the united states. just following the hurricane, iv bags, you might have one place that produces 60% of the countries iv bags. that is a problem especially when you have a climate where it is becoming more and more volatility driven. they spend some interesting models that would try to amp up production here. i think that's important. apart from spurring the production of medicine, is also the issue of just generally the price for medicine.

one of the things that hopefully callers are aware of is that thanks to the inflation reduction act at the medicare program which is a very large provider of coverage in the country and now negotiates prescription drug prices for their first time, the program is not able to do that before. and as a result leasing the prices decrease in 20 of the six from the negotiates prescription drug prices to go online. people are expected to save about $1.6 billion. in addition to looking for ways to ramp up to mentor production there's also a lot we could be doing to bring down the prices of pharmaceuticals, including not only through direct price initiation but by picking on issues like the patent system, the fact that so much money goes into producing drugs that provide no marginal benefit compared to what is out there now because the focus is on money, not on producing drugs that extend life supply better. there's a lot that we could be

doing as a society to actually address the issue. host: on this production of medication. guest: there's really two things. they the production issue and where it's located. more than 90% of the active pharmaceutical ingredients come from china, any the production of drugs, particularly generic comes from china and india far more than here. a supply-chain issue that we have to deal with. not merely a health issue, a national security issue. we don't want probably are foremost foreign enemy to maintain drug supplies. the second issue, dealing with drug pricing. everyone would like drug prices to come down, but the question is how you do that. do you do it by instituting a so-called negotiation program which is really just the government aiding prices because

the companies are being told you accept our price or we take away everything you earn on this drug and more the attacks come or you have to exit the medicaid program. it's not a negotiation in any normal sense of the term. many scholars have said that this is going to decrease the number of new jobs that we have. if you include an account for all of the failures only one in 10 drug that actually makes it through to the market and even all of those are practical. if you then deprive the manufacturers of the money to develop those new drugs they are going to develop less on r&d and

they will develop fewer drugs and the university of chicago economist estimated 100 or fewer drugs in the coming decade. and that is particularly important because the way the inflation reduction act set up this process, it disadvantages a small molecule drugs by imposing controls on them for years earlier than the biological drugs. oncology drugs, the drugs we used to treat cancers, are largely small molecule drugs. that means the companies are going to turn toward biologic drugs and making those drugs rather than the small molecule drugs and we are going to have a shortage of the drugs that president biden has said he really wants to develop. still it's going to have a decreased number of new drugs and they're going to be disproportionately the ones we want to treat cancers. host: about 10 minutes left, loretta, florida.

ray doing today? how are you doing today? we look at the kimberly in california, good morning. caller: hi. my experience with the affordable care act is similar to what dr. dash is saying. medical services. host: kimberly, i apologize your line is not coming through. you seem concerned about the affordable care act but i couldn't make out. i don't know if the -- you know what she was bringing up, i am. tom, republican, good morning. caller: thanks for taking the call. i'm a retired physician,

basically forced out of business by obamacare. i got tired of telling people that you have a $10,000 deductible, not to mention the complications, the documentation, submission of claims to the computer. they've made some good points. i would like to go in further and reduce the -- the big 800 hundred really you have in the room of the fact that we've got a huge way the massive die meeting -- kids can even get into the military because they are unfit. no insurance program is going to be able to cover it. we can argue politics, conservative or liberal.

you can't argue arithmetic but some are just on pace for the crime disease that are exploding now even in their young population. it's just exploding my colleague in the hospital, as soon as they are able to retire there leaving the physicians. -- possession -- profession. to say nothing about the lack of expensive things we have put the spring lab cover and equipment. changing your diet or lifestyle,

why not focus on doing some preventative care and education? host: chronic disease, preventative care and also manpower shortage in the future. guest: there's a lot to unpack and thank you for that. prevention chronic illness, we talked about education, behavior change. you are a physician. the ability to make out the traces already have they come right? center for american prevents constant good jobs, a walkable community, safe housing, not having exposure to lead or expressed as.

you one high-quality education that enables you that and it it's a nuisance relators they would say who is funding a public school? my mental patella -- protection help agency who is interested in building the kind of society were people can live long and healthy lives in there at less risk running these it's a different way to have this conversation about i think

leaders hurt is an attempt to boost strategy areas in the visiting and said they are you responsible for everything because it impacts health. let's look at what happens when the government gets involved. you have the nutrition pyramid, which falsely tells people that fat was the problem. eat more carbohydrates and as a result, people began consuming more calories, and we have an obesity epidemic. result of government intervention. you had the government with the agreement of various professional societies saying we were under treating pain. use more opioids. now we have an opioid pandemic, opioid crisis which is actually decreased the life expectancy in this country in a way we've never had an air history.

over 100,000 people are dying of drug overdoses every year, and you can pull it right back to government intervention here. so the question is how do we want to do this? by saying the government should pay for everything, by saying we ought to have rent controls so we could keep people in their homes? actually no, it actually makes it harder for people to get good homes. another government policy that is actually probably impairing her health we need to be looking at the causes of these chronic diseases, and adjust where we need to go. we can't be focusing on trying to strive everything into health and claiming that is actually health there. we get a focused merely on expanding coverage into plans that are that make it difficult people to access health care. we need to be focusing on the chronic diseases that are the

this country. host: time for maybe one more phone call. interlocking michigan, independent. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. my question goes back to a previous point that was made two or three minutes ago, and it is in regards to the negotiation of pharmaceutical pricing. and i guess the question goes down to referring to the fact that this is going to just take everything and companies can develop the drugs. regards to the pricing, how does that sit with what they say companies charge for europe or australia which i understand is a much overprice, where does that fit into this pricing model waiting for the money to be able to develop these trucks.

depressing goes year of solesky will have to cover with the pressing here in the states. guest: there's no question we have what is called a free rider problem where americans care most of the cost of developing the drugs and paying for them, and we need to address that problem. european countries have strict -- most of them have strict price negotiation problems, and what happens is partly as a result they get access to the same drugs either later or at a much slower manner than we did in this country. so we get the benefits of the drugs more quickly. how do you want to solve that

problem, the approach of the lasted this treasure matures these regulatory barriers so you can get more generics approved, or branding drugs approved. where his situation were more than one in -- excuse me, 90% of the drugs we use in this country are generic so we actually pay less for those generics here than they do in europe. that is because they move together to get drugs approved more quickly and most people realize in 2018, drug inflation was actually negative. i'm not talking about real terms, i'm talking about novel terms you bring your generations, bringing new brands of drugs and biologics and by assemblers on more quickly, and you will get competition. you will get the generics. no question you want to make it

easier for those things to get on the market and that does require more effort and hopefully will be seeing more of that in the future. you dictate the prices. even thou this is highly touted, those drug prices are not going into effect for another two years. so we haven't seen any of that yet. guest: to that point, other countries make different decisions about how they pay for pharmaceutical drugs. i want to just push back on this idea that negotiations going to innovation take us to a time where we have fewer and fewer important drugs being developed. a couple of years ago, somewhere between 40% and 80% of all new drugs provided either marginal or no benefit relative to what

was already on the market. right now as we are designed to maximize the production of profit, that look like trying to get a drug approved that might be something really small but has the potential to generate a lot of revenue. another form of innovation meant to say this is how much we are paying, how much we want to pay for this type of drug. spend your own money doing something truly innovative, bringing something brand-new to the market. that is a way to think about it. additionally there was a congressional report that found that some of the top pharmaceutical firms spend more money on classified facts and dividends than we did. i think you should say something when you have a political candidate encouraging other countries to withdraw the citizens -- system they have in place.

joining us our roundtable andrew dugas and the center for american progress action and dive into rosenberg of the paragon health institute and the u.s. senate. elizabeth warren cger participate in the second this week. live 7:00 p.m. eastern and 9:00 republican senator john barraza. here on espn2, free mobile app and online that in the order.

♪♪ robert swanson campaign and fly the ratio what from the british crown to revolutionary. american history presidential election. lasting impact of 1960.

the first election in which all states participated. during the american story. watch american history tv saturday on the scan to the full schelen your program that will watch anytime only. ♪♪ fast reliable internet connection is something no one can live without. , reliability, value and choice.

a front row seat to democracy. >> from those surveyed and get those news from. when you public official device, 57% responding, that's what they choose most in 2024. most. 29% say they sometimes choose those digital devices. it is in the single digits when it comes to the never and rarely categories. television, only 33% of those in 2024 saying that is where they get their news from. 39 percent saying sometimes where they get their news, and the 22% saying rarely do they get their news from that platform. it goes down drastically when

you go to radio, specifically when it comes to radio. only 11% saying they get their news from that. more sing sometimes they get their news, 29% saying they rarely get their news from radio. pew took a look at social media and asked the same question. the percentage of adults who get news from social media. in 2024 25% of those responding saying they get their news from those sites. sometimes at between 9% -- sometimes at 29%. in the never category, 28 percent responding saying when it comes to news consumption social media is not it. that is some of the folks from w thing that, you can tell us where you get your news as well. if you want to let us know it is (2) 748-8001 republicans,

(202) 748-8000 free democrats and independents (202) 748-8002. text us at (202) 748-8003 and you can always post on our social media sites on facebook and x. let's start with kendra in virginia. independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i mostly get my news -- i try to find stations that are unbiased. i have been watching c-span washington journal for over 10 years now. i used to watch cnn and then i stopped because i realized they were really left leaning. my most recent station i watch since 2021 is newsnation.

that is the station i watch, mostly in the evenings to get my news from. host: when you watch, you say you look for bias. what is it in the news coverage you look for that you say i will stay with the station or not stay with the station? caller: i want to make sure they are covering, as far as with political news, i want to make sure they are covering things fairly. i do not want them to just cover one person most of the time. when they bring on guests i prefer they bring someone that is going to talk about one candidate and then have another person that will talk about the other candidate, not just bringing someone on that is going to bash one candidate stop

i want to make sure whoever they bring on, there are views from both political sides. host: kendra in virginia. let's hear from hannah in connecticut. democrats line. caller: i usually go straight to c-span and i also listen to msnbc and cnn at my local channel, which is cbs. i would like to say that when i went to vote -- since covid came about i had to register all over again and i am 77. i thought i was all set with that. they should talk a lot bit more on television to let us know that you have to register in some places again. i would also like to say i only have one time to talk. i'm try to say all i have to say

now. i think president biden come up with the task force to study all of these gases that are being dumped into the ozone. that is the reason way we have -- why we have all these hurricanes. just to have a study on what the spaceships are dumping out into the earth as they come up and go back down. host: is to keep on the topic, i know you have a lot of things to talk about. when you watch your various news channels do you watch just the news portions, to watch the opinion shows, watch all of it? what is that for you? caller: i am also looking for the news because of a storm is coming up or something i want to make sure we know about it. i wanted to say one thing. one thing i will let you go. jd vance's wife is indian and i

think kamala harris should be looking at that group of people. host: let's go to ben in pennsylvania. caller: as far as my go to sources for news, i imagine i'm a little bit of an outlier when it comes to being an arctic supporter of president trump, i watch everything from fox to msnbc. i watch the opinion, i watch the news, nightly news with lester holt is my preferred in terms of nbc abc cbs. i do want to say c-span is by far the most reliable news source out of all of them. i feel you are the only ones left who truly give a nonbiased opinion on issues throughout the day and throughout the months and throughout the election. that being said, vice president harris interview with bret baier on fox, i respect her for doing

that but we cannot forget president trump has been facing adversarial media for the last 10 years and doing it regularly. to answer the question directly, i like to get all of the opinions and make my am decision. host: there is ben in pennsylvania. you can continue on with thoughts. maybe they have said something you can agree with or go to other places when it comes to news consumption. (202) 748-8001 republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. the caller just mentioned the interview the vice president conducted with bret baier. one of the topics is the question about how her administration would differ from that of the current president, joe biden. here's part of that exchange from yesterday. [video clip] >> you are not joe biden and you

are not donald trump but nothing comes to mind you would do differently? >> my presidency will not be a continuation of joe biden's presidency. like every new president that comes into office i will bring my life experiences, my professional experiences, and fresh and new ideas. i represent a new generation of leadership. i am someone who has not spent the majority of my career in washington, d.c. i invite ideas from republicans who are supporting me who were just on stage with me minutes ago and the business sector and others who can contribute to the decisions i make about my plan for increasing the supply of housing in america and bringing down the cost of housing. addressing the issue of small businesses which is about working with the private sector to bring more capital and access to capital to our small business leaders, including my plan for a $25,000 down payment assistance

for first-time homebuyers and for small businesses extending the tax deduction from $5,000 to $50,000. >> we have heard a lot about those plans. your campaign slogan is a new way forward and it is time to turn the page. you have been vice president for three and a half years so what are you turning the page from? >> first of all turning the page from the last decade in which we have been burdened with the kind of rhetoric coming from donald trump that has been designed and implemented to divide our country and have americans literally point fingers at each other. rhetoric and an approach to leadership that suggests the strength of a leader is based on who you beat down instead of the strength of leadership is based on who you lift up. host: that was a portion from her interview with fox news. you can see more of it at their website. we are askg where you get your political news. someone posting on her facebook

site saying -- someone posting on our facebook site saying he goes to multiple sources. re-- marie saying newsnation and foxbusiness and also i connect the dots from all of the jor news media, they'll connect the dots which is so fake. jennifer jones saying i listen to everything. the media, new sites, political fact. that is part of the media diet they consume leading up to an election. let's hear from harry in albany, new york. independent. host: good morning -- caller: good morning. i have been an independent for over 30 years. i don't really watch a lot of local news. i can just pick that up on

youtube. as for the national news i wait for msnbc and sometimes i stay up for lawrence o'donnell. during the workday i'd like to listen to podcasts including dan carlin common sense. we may agree or disagree but he is an excellent presentation. when i get the chance i have subscriptions to foreign affairs and foreign policy. i try to take a broad approach and use the occam's razor, reduce it down to the most common sense. host: harry in new york. coal is from england on the democrats line. hello. go ahead. caller: after all of these years i think the television news channels in america to a good job of the broadcasting of political views and political stories about the election.

i get my views -- my political news on the american news. they do a great job. c-span does a good job as well. host: we get a lot of people who would say to watch a channel like the bbc or other international news and they get more from that versus american news. how does american news differ from what you might see in your country? caller: you do more in views about american politics like the election in america. in this country there are little segments of it. the coverage will increase over the next two weeks. i do rely on a more in-depth conversation with the american television news headlines.

host: thank you. there is cole joining us from across the pond to give us his take on political news. you can at doors to the mix like doug in alaska, independent line. caller: good morning. i get my news from cable and i stay away from a lot of the obvious bias people -- commentators, i do not think they are news people. they have their own agenda for the agenda of the people they work for like cnn or fox. the podcasts to me are very important. a lot of youtube, i watch the debates and congressional hearings.

i try to keep up on almost all of them. i like to get the information from the horses mouth. it is just after a while i think most people would probably understand that after a while you hear one new server say one thing and there obviously biased -- they are obviously biased towards one of the other candidates. it is a little bit too much to swallow. you try to find the debates or interviews on youtube -- that is a good resource. host: do you have a favorite political podcast? caller: i don't have a favorite. i jump around a lot. to be honest i try not to remember too many of them.

i like the way bret baier did his thing with kamala yesterday. i thought that was more of the hardball questions. kamala needs to do more of those mainstream interviews. she was brave by going on fox. it is not enough. we are not getting any serious substance from her. for me she is kind of an unknown. as far as what i can find out as far as the history of her, it does not gel with what she says. i am sorry. that is the way i see that. host: that is dug in alaska

giving us his thoughts. let's hear from ralph in virginia. republican line. caller: hello. how are you doing this morning? host: i'm doing well. how about you? caller: i am doing fine. c-span is more honest than the others. what i usually watch is fox and cnn. sometimes newsmax. maybe nbc. c-span is more honest. you have c-span and you have cnn. cnn is biased to kamala harris, fox is biased to trump. they do not report like they used to when you had those old-timers that were reporters. you have the facts now, you get

their opinion and not the facts. that is the way it goes. like kamala harris, i look at both of them trying to get their views. i look at trump. as far as the views and how they're are going to solve the problems, it looks like trump is more biased than she is and she will not answer the questions. she will skirt around them whenever in and so forth. the thing she says like the $25,000 credit to new homebuyers, she know she cannot do that, it has to go through the house. it is just terrible what we get from cnn and fox that is mostly the two i watch. i am really disappointed with them but i really appreciate c-span and i thank you for being

on there and listening to us and that is about what i have to say. host: ralph in virginia giving us his thoughts. you can call the lines, you can post online, and tell us where you get political news. the viewers mentioned fox. they hosted a town hall yesterday hosting women friendly to the former president being reported. this is from the hill. "former president trump and foxes townhall call himself the father of ivf and claimed credit for the fertility treatment conservative supreme court justices through into uncertainty by overturning roe v. wade." here's a portion from that town hall yesterday. [video clip] >> you want to talk about ivf. i am the father of ivf so i want to hit this question. >> welcome back to georgia. we are so happy you are here. we are all very blessed to be here with you.

i am the mother of three small children and i have many friends who've struggled with fertility issues while trying to grow their families. while they are pro-life they are concerned the abortion bands will affect their ability to access ivf and other treatments. although abortion does lie with the states what is your stance on that and what would you say to those women? >> i got a call from katie britt, a young fantastically attractive person from alabama. she is a senator and she called me up like emergency because an alabama judge had ruled the ivf clinics were illegal and had to be closed down. a judge ruled and she said friends of mine came up to me and they were so angry. i did not know they were going. it was fertilization. i do not know they were involved. now that they cannot do it she said i was attacked in a certain way. i said explain ivf very quickly.

within about two minutes i understood. i said we are totally in favor of ivf. i came out with a statement within an hour, a really powerful statement with some experts, really powerful, and we went totally in favor. the republican party -- alabama legislature a day later overturned the judge and approved it. we are the party for ivf. we want fertilization all the way. the democrats tried to attack us on it and we are out there on ivf even more than them. we are totally in favor of it. host: that was from fox yesterday. let's hear from mississippi, independent line. caller: i wanted to say three things. i mostly listen to npr, which i really enjoy. they're all things considered

program. obviously the editorial stuff can be hit and miss like any editorial stuff. there is one thing i wish i could afford. i am on a fixed income that i cannot afford. the thing i cannot afford is the economist. if i had the resources i would love to be able to subscribe to the economist every week. i think it is a great magazine that does a great job of the big picture. the one thing i'm grateful for -- npr is good for general coverage but if you want to learn about economic crisis or any problems in the world i think amy goodman's "democracy now!" from pacifica is beyond comparison in terms of deep dives into things like the israel/palestine war or back when the economic crash happened in 2008 they were right there from the beginning talking about

it. they are great. host: great. >> i hope i said your name right sorry about that.t thanks for calling. democrat line. >> i get my is from spin and. msnbc and larry o'donnell and i watch fox news everyday just for a few minutes to see their opinion. usually i find this. whatever every other station says, boxes the opposite. everything on fox is to divide. ... i subscribe to mother jones. i must've read at least 25 or 30 books on trump written by x republicans.

i will tell you something. the thing that scares the living daylights out of me this election is if trump wins, i cannot tell you how many people are going to leave this country -- seriously, they've already made plans to leave the country. i feel like the only ones will be left will be the billionaires and the poor people like me. i am elderly, i am in my 80's, i cannot afford to leave the country. this is my biggest fear. as far as i am concerned trump is criminally insane and he tells you right on the news he will get even. everybody is going to leave. all the journalists he threatens to put in jail and all of the jimmy kimmel live!, stephen colbert, all of these people will leave. any by that has enough money to leave will leave. host: let me ask you about a name you mentioned, heather coxe richardson. why is she worth listening to? caller: i listen to her on

youtube and she has an article. she is positively brilliant. host: what did she write about or what to she talked about normally? caller: she is a presidential historian. she teaches at bu and mit and talks about what is going on. she says the republicans are not trying to win, they are trying to steal the election. they know they cannot win so that all they are doing is trying to steal it. she says do not believe the polls. the polls are lying to you. trump wants people to think he is going to win so when harris wins they will think the election is stolen. host: betty in massachusetts. let's hear from romain in virginia. republican line. caller: i get my news from npr, "the new york times, the bbc,

amy goodman's democracy now! is one of the only news outlets in america that tells the truth about what is happening in gaza and palestine with the idf. i also listen to al jazeera english outages era arabic. -- and al jazeera arabic. they have been telling the truth about what is happening in gaza. now we have 100 american troops in israel, boots on the ground, we are going to get involved in

this genocide. i also listen to amanpour and company and i read the washington post and the new york times. and i listen to washington journal, c-span. i really appreciate your program. host: thank you. that is romain in virginia. this is allie from facebook saying while it is true that stf not all news houses stretch the truth, i must confess fox news does raise my blood pressure. a news junkie and i watch and read most of major new if you are from texas in ne jersey saying i have a digital subscription to the app uptimes and get political -- t epoch times andews om the mouth of politicians.

thech times orts facts only. adding no fox, msnbc, cnn, abc, cbs, nbc. they are all one sided. th iglenn in new york saying he gets his political news from everywherer else you're getting half the story. it is cnbc, newsnation, newsmax, watching our network as well. texting us as a way you can reach out and let us know your thoughts on where you get political news. we will take your thoughts on the food lines for the next half-hour -- on the phone lines for the next half-hour. (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 democrats. independents (202) 748-8002. text us at (202) 748-8003. if you've called in the last 30 days if you can hold off on

calling again. also: the line that best represents you. you are on, go ahead. caller: i am enjoying your show this morning. i get my news and information and my news source is the real news source for me as c-span. it is totally unfiltered. when they say they are unfiltered they are unfiltered. i do watch msnbc because they are basically unbiased. newsmax and fox news prop trump up too much for me. i tried to be well-rounded as far as the news sources i get so i know what is going on. my mom used to say keep your friends close and your enemies

closer. i have always had a problem with that, but it has some validity to it. i do watch. my main sources are msnbc and c-span. with c-span as far as i am concerned you cannot go wrong because as far as i am concerned they are not biased, they just tell it like it is, whether you like it or not. msnbc is basically the same thing as far as i am concerned. they are not as thorough and unfiltered as c-span is. my first choice as far as my news source and news information will be c-span. host: thank you for calling and letting us know your thoughts. let's hear from michigan on our independent line. hello. caller: hello.

i get most of my news from c-span and pbs. i also -- my main source otherwise is dw news out of germany. i go to bbc. nhk news out of japan. and out of south korea. and cbc out of canada. very seldom do i look at cnn or fox. maybe half a dozen times a week. i find the four new sources give very good political coverage on u.s. news. host: pew research did a survey

about local news coverage and what type of information people look to. when asked the question of the percentage of adult who sometimes get news about each topic, it is the weather that tops that list. crime, government, and politics coming in third of those responding. followed by traffic and transportation, arts and culture, and the economy. among those who get news on the local topics, the percentage of those who are extremely satisfied with the quality of it , with that satisfaction level, the weather coming in at the top category. at the bottom, government and politics news when it comes to that level of satisfaction. when it comes to local news coverage. you can add that to the mix. if local news is something you watch for political news and you get something like that.

suzanne in maine, republican line. caller: good morning. i am suzanne johnson from kittery, maine. the best news and unbiased and true comes right from washington, d.c. ralph nader. ralph nader's newsletter is something not to be missed. it is so interesting and mind-boggling. you have to understand what he is saying. you have to appreciate the intelligence and investigation he does to put out the newsletter. ralph nader. host: is this a newsletter you get by email or is this physical, how does it work? caller: is on the internet. you go to ralph nader.com and

you have his newsletter you can subscribe and it comes to your email. the other one is friends of animals action news. people think americans -- the whole world thinks they are the only species on earth. there are other species that we live with and they are disappearing. they have their own problems and they need to be heard. if humans do not speak with them we continue to lose species other than the human race, which are losing themselves by killing each other. there is hope. friends of animals out of connecticut has action lines and is a very good newsletter that involves people and laws and animals. thank you. host: suzanne.

let's hear from jason in florida. independent line. caller: i have a wide friday of new sources i would like to verify -- i have a wide variety of new sources i would like to verify facts. the media, like the 6:00 hour at msnbc, the 7:00 hour with erin burnett on cnn, rachel maddow. fox news, here is where the pandemic starts. you have a new source that judges have called an entertainment news source for their later afternoon hours. this is where it goes back to the beginning of nazism where fake news was the slogan hitler had used and this is

just following right in place for trump to use fake news. when you have to disregard every fact being presented to you by the unbiased media sources because it does not match with your understanding you are getting from friends sources online or fox news, the entertainment source, this is where we have a big problem with misinformation and disinformation. that is literally the fungus that has grown on the walls of our republic. host: mary is next in south carolina. democrats line. caller: good morning. the best place you can hear from the person themselves is to search. if you have tubi or youtube all

you have to do is go to search and type in who you want to investigate and hear what they have to say. if you want to know more about donald trump or what he had to say from childhood all the way up to adult, all you have to do is type in trump and everything will pull up and you can hear what he has to say all through his life up to now. i like to hear from the person, what they have to say. i do not believe everything the news is saying. the best thing is to hear from the horses mouth. that is with kamala or anyone you want to know about. go in the search and type in the name and everything will come up and you can watch it and here it. that is how i learned a lot about his history of what he is trying to do. kamala, all of it.

that is the best because you hear right from the horses mouth. that is the best news you can get. documentaries. documentaries are made where you can hear -- i saw a documentary that had c-span on it, had fox, msnbc, all of it. all of the different parties like the democrats and independents, to me that is your best because you are hearing from the people, not the news people. it comes directly out of their mouth. to me that is the best news. host: that is mary in south carolina. the vice president sat down this week in an interview with the radio host charlamagne tha god talking about her economic agenda. there is of that interview. [video clip] >> i have been in this race about 70 days. you can look at my work before those days to know what i'm

talking about right now is not new and not for the sake of winning the election. this is a long-standing commitment, including the work i have done as vice president and before when i was senator and before that. a lot of what i am doing is about my economic agenda and opportunity economy was born out of the work i did as vice president and before that as senator most recently to get access to capital for our entrepreneurs. the work i did in the senate was about getting a couple billion more dollars into our community banks and building on that when i became vice president. i created the economic opportunity council, bringing in some of the biggest banks and technology companies to put more into the community banks. one of the reasons why. i've been a lawyer for years. black entrepreneurs only get 1% of venture capital funding. only 1% goes to black entrepreneurs. we do not have the same rates of

access to capital, be it family or through connections. this is why i have done the work of putting billions more dollars in working for billions more dollars into commute he banks which go directly to the community. my work around the $20,000 is building on that and understanding -- i convened a group of black entrepreneurs way before i was running for president in my official office at the white house. to hear some of the obstacles they were facing and one of them was what we need to do around getting folks that help to just be able to buy the equipment they need to run their business. often times we find that when black entrepreneurs and black people apply for credit, they are denied at a higher rate than others. we have also seen come in the data proves this, that the realities also tend to dissuade

black folks and black entrepreneurs from applying for credit. my point is to work on every way we can approach the issue to encourage people and invest in their ambition. i know the ambition is there. i know the talent is there. i know the innovation is there. certainly the hard work ethic. this is not new work for me. host: let's hear from david, new york, republican line. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i am fine. caller: i think everything collapses in terms of media. we had something called the fairness doctrine. i would like everyone to research the fairness doctrine. if you remember what cnn was like in the 1980's and 1990's,

they had worldwide bureaus. real journalists, people that were there that had 25 or 30 years of providing information, people like walter cronkite who were there just report the news. now what i find is people in the media are leading their own personal narrative, corporate narrative, their own belief systems. last night kamala harris had an interview on fox with bret baier. she was abysmal. i don't know if you saw it but i am sure you did. she was very weak and her answers were so rehearsed and were not asked in a certain order she falls apart. i am watching cbs this morning and the soundbites from cbs this morning were her making points against trump and looking like

she aced the interview. trump has an interview with the latino channel, they played every single baddest soundbite. it has been proven, abc, cbs, nbc, 90% of the reporting on harris and 90% of the reporting is negative. getting back to the fairness act. is that fair? is that real reporting? i believe there is an interface -- and i did not want to sound like a conspiracy theorist -- there is an interface between the corporate media and the powers that be, those 100 republicans who are talking bad about trump in the military-industrial complex or what i call the media industrial complex who has a certain story they want to tell. i will bring you back to the hunter biden laptop. 51 national security experts --

top people in the government you're supposed to be protecting the country allied on a letter written by antony blinken who has an agenda to have a war in ukraine. i will go back to the fairness doctrine. the fact that we are being fed not what we need but what we want. host: that is david in new york. let's hear from john in california. democrats line. caller: thank you. i think there is not really any political news reporting. what i used to really like is the nightly business report on pbs. you may think that just has to do with business. if you would watch that report, it was a pulse on what was existing, what was happening.

there are things that are determined already. legislation that has happened, positions that have happened, and then there is the undetermined. who will win the election and that sort of thing. there was a meltdown by donald trump the other day and i only saw it on youtube and it was reported here and there he stood there for half an hour and swayed to the music and all of that. that actually happened. when i tune in, i like c-span, i watch that regularly. when you see people on the floor talking, legislators, senators, congresspeople. anytime i've watched mainstream. there is a difference between mainstream and podcasts and other things like that. when i watch these things they do not give direct answers. they have a position. you just played a trip of kamala

harris going into detail about entrepreneurs and the funding they need and all of that. everything under the sun in this country that is politically managed, there is a status quo. there is something going on. how did that work out? how did the legislation worked out? many people have been in office for how long? what are their age groups. all of that stuff you could ask about political news and what has changed. there is not a place where you can go to get a holistic look at the condition of the body politic in this country. there is so much division right now. that is what you get. they take a stand and that is the answer they give. i just wish i had more of an idea of what is going on in the body politic in america.

it is frightening everybody. host: john in california. let's hear from connecticut, republican line. rick is next. caller: thank you for having me on. i somewhat -- this last caller phrase things reasonably well. i feel like we do not have a lot of data. i just listened to that speech you folks had with vice president harris. it is a lot of cheerleading as well as on the republican side a lot of cheerleading but no data to back this up. that is what i would like from news media is actual data to say this part of the country diminishes forces other folks to go elsewhere for business loans

or what have you. who are these folks that are doing this if that actually exists. the rest of the country can come together as a group and say you cannot pick a group and avoid lending them money or what have you. there is no real raw data to back these things up. i find that your program, i just started to really listen to cnn in the past few months once president biden dropped out of the race. i wanted to find real data and not msnbc or nbc and not even fox news because they go one side or the other. i do listen to different podcasts from different folks.

no one provides these percentage pieces of data. i would look to you folks because you seem pretty sharp. on providing some of this follow-up data on things that former president trump said her vice president harris says so we are educated and we can make -- host: rick in connecticut adding us know his thoughts. one of the podcasts former president trump appeared out recently is called flagrant and he spoke about how the media perceives how he speaks in public and other related issues. here is a clip of the interview. [video clip] >> i do a thing called the weave and there are those that are fair that say this guy is so

genius and others that say he rambled. what you do is you weave things in. >> you do it. >> you have to have certain things. you need an extra ordinary memory because you have to come back to where you started. >> you can go all the way over here and get back. >> i can go so far here and there and i can come back to exactly where i started. it is something if you do not come back to where you started. [laughter] the weave is the way. i was telling a story at a rally in front of thousands of people and i started off and then you weave something into the story. i mentioned air force one. i mentioned air force one and then i said how i got 1.6 billion dollars of the price of air force one, and then you have to come back to the story, where was air force one taking you. i call it the weave. some people think it is so

genius. the bad people say he was rambling. it is not a ramble. it is a weave. we have fake news. we came up with lots of names. i thing we should make a weave a part of that staple. >> i don't even want to know the answer. host: that was from the flagrant podcast. let's hear from marianne. where you go from -- where you go for news. caller: thank you for taking my call. regarding the question you asked, where we get our news, i personally like to channel surf the news. msnbc, cnn, c-span, cbs, abc, every single day morning noon and night. i go through the situation room, rachel maddow, the morning joe

show, joy read -- joy reid. i watch them all. i point this out to everyone i talked to. these shows are the mouthpieces for the democratic party. the view, rachel maddow, joy reid, morning joe, they are the mouthpiece for the democratic party. i also notice the brainwashing of the general public who believe what they are saying. they think united states citizens do not have any -- on who to vote for. that is old time thinking. anyone can think for themselves and these shows, every single day, rachel maddow, joy reid, it is brainwashing.

it is literally brainwashing telling you you have to vote for this, you have to vote -- is ridiculous. republic -- the public is getting tired of it. they are really getting tired of it. we are not stupid people. we can vote who we want to vote for. stop being one-sided and tell both sides. host: that is marianne in indiana. let's hear from josie in new york. democrats line. caller: good morning. i have never watched news because i do not like it unless it is something like an emergency. for the past three or four months i've been watching c-span because there's not a lot of propaganda in between. they get opinions of people, which is nice. the american public. i really enjoyed the show. sometimes i watch a podcast and

i see news if there is an emergency i will watch the news quick and just get through it. i am not a news person watch her. the lady just said previously that people are brainwashed. that goes both ways. people do get brainwashed, which is really sad. you have to come to your own opinions on what you think is right or wrong or your convictions. i do appreciate being able to call in and i wish everybody the best and god bless everybody and have a wonderful day. host: josie in new york. leno in canada joining us on the independent line. caller: how are you? host: i am fine. caller: i get my news or my information -- i watch msnbc, cnn and a lot of podcasts.

and obviously c-span. you had a caller that said they are getting brainwashed. it is not brainwashing it is the facts. msnbc and cnn, i do not watch too much cnn. it is facts. they are not lying. it is where people get their information. it is not brainwashing, it is just the facts. host: what you think about your own broadcast network in canada, the cbc? caller: for some reason i am stuck on american politics. at times i do watch it but i am so into american politics. i just want to say kamala harris

did awesome last night. she did very well, considering it was fox. we don't get fox up here. host: leno in canada. if you go to the canadian broadcasting company their headline story is about that fox news interview the vice president participated in, part of the news coverage wherever you get your news. viewers have been telling us for the last hour about local news and where you get it. we will hear from angel in washington state. independent line. caller: guess who is there, it is mr. pedro. i will tell you that my main go to sources for news and all kinds of different information is -- i am addicted to the drudge report. i look at that daily. it is total click bait but it

has a lot of good info. i also have a lot of sub stack channels i like to visit. i have learned so many things from substack's channels, especially about cancer cures which is an amazing learning thing, and of course washington journal. i am addicted to you guys. i've been watching this forever. 4:00 every morning, i am in washington state and i get up. and dr. john campbell on youtube came out and exposed the tragedy of the massive deaths from the plot shot, we will just call it that. for tv i switch from cnn to fox

news. i interchangeably switch to both of them because i want to see both views of the left and the right. that is out i have been. as far as getting my news sources, i like to spread it out. get everyone's views. i do not like to feel like i'm just one-sided all the time. i think that is important. host: one more call from mel in new york. democrats line. caller: i get my news from midas touch network. the reason is because they provide a lot of information we do not get on mainstream media such as cnn, fox, msnbc, abc, the rest of the networks. host: new york, demo always text (202)-748-8003.

nbc picks up on something a caller and mr. thomas brought up about the ultimate dinner. former president trump will address the center in new york and vice president harris' campaign announced she would not, fighting a scheduling conflict, but mr. trump -- she will be the first not to attend the event. the president's remark are expected around 9:15 this evening. you can see that on our website at c-span.org, follow along on c-span now, and you can go to.org for more information on the event. jd vance will be in pennsylvania for a rally. you will see that also on our main platform on c-span if you would like to see it there. c-span now and our mobile app. that will be in pittsburgh, pennsylvania tonight with jd vance, and then governor tim

walz. this rally will kelace in north carolina, and it is the state's first day of early voting. 2:00 this afternoon on c-span, c-span now and c-span.org. you can go to the website for more information. patrick, florida, democrat. go ahead. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: yeah. i'm a democrat. i have a question for c-span. what is it everybody, trump is talking about the border and the american jobs to america, and [indiscernible] and everything from china, and

he has all the legal people to do his work and does not want to pay them the right price, but when he ran in 2016, he was in washington, and he had nothing but illegal immigrants working at the time, and he wanted to do deportation. his wife is an immigrant from a different country, so he needs to send back his wife first before he sends anybody back to their country. that is what i have to say. host: jim, new york, republican. caller: hi. i remember october 25 or 26th, you had a guy on there was sandwiched between two democrats, and he talked like i did about what is going on in

his neighborhood, and you cut him off like you cut me off every time. i'm telling you, i'm not stupid. i was at the united states marine academy for 20 years, so i'm not stupid. what is going on here is you cannot compete. if you have nine families in a house, it is not very effective, you cannot compete with these people that are coming in because they can work with these wages. think about with the mortgage would be on that house. you have cars all over the sidewalks, music through the weekends, the cops finally did something about that. i had to sleep in my office. i used to go to my office 40 miles west of here because they

are blasting music that you can hear from one mile away. it is a bad thing that is happening in this country. host: ok. let's hear from joe, maine, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. maybe you should have told new york to talk to his counselor. anyway, what i would like to say is i was watching a few weeks ago, and the host had an 82-year-old woman call about who you are going to vote for, and she said she would never vote for trump, and listed a very long line, and had the p word and all of those things, and she said, and he is a rapist, and the host said, oh, no, he is not a rapist, he was not charged with rape in new york, and that is true, but the reason he was

not base in new york, you have to have penetration to be charged with rape. the host neglected to say that. could you comment on that? don't you feel like you should be telling the truth when you ask people where do you get your information? things of that nature? and if you don't know by now, i will let you guess who the host was -- host: democrat line, missouri. caller: good morning. i just would have really liked to know if your last guest has looked at project 2025. he said republicans will not cut social security, and he seems like to me, he was not aware of the information they already put out. they will cut it. they will take it away if they are put in, and we just have to get the senate and the congress,

the democrats have to stand up to save our country. i appreciate you taking my call. host: the washington post has a story looking at pictures made by the 20 35 director. and personal blueprint condemning what he sees as violent rhetoric and calling on jd vance to retract what he wrote for robert's book. if we are going to ask the left to tone it down, we have to do our part, as well. there is no place for that violent rhetoric, and tontine, especially in light of the fact that president trump has been subject to two assassination attempts. roberts, who took over the thing take in 2021, declared revolution during an appearance

on a pro-trump podcast in july before a gunman attempted to assassinate donald trump at a rally in pennsylvania. the same month, roberts started marketing his book and featured an image. roberts the client to be interviewed and roberts remarked on the podcast and was meant to warn of left-wing violence. dennis, new york, republican. caller: i don't understand, number one, why the election is so close. under donald trump, we had no world wars, we had a secure border, we had no high-end place in, and the country seemed to be more united. that is just one good thing. my question is for the democrats. today, on the news, they had a task force to find missing children. 325,000 missing children in this

country under this administration. they found 47 children, and the children and parents and guardians should be happy. they never said where were the children and where they came from. there is a lot of this going on under this administration. we have the world's number one six traffickers. why isn't this the ministrations doing something for these children? and i would like answers for all these 47 children they reported today. they never said where they were or who had them. host: carrie, philadelphia,, crack. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i wanted to talk a little bit about last night's interview with fox with vice president kamala harris, did you happen to watch that? host: we aired portions of it this morning.

caller: i would like to know, there were a couple of questions that she would not really give a good answer for. how many illegals were in the country? i think she should have known that answer right off the bat being the vice president and being in charge of the border. do you agree with me? host: why do you think it is important? caller: i think it is important because people should know we are breaking all these people into the country by the millions. sooner or later, they are to come into our country, the health care will be affected, our schools will be affected by it, our social security will be affected by it. but you don't want to answer, i understand fred let me ask you another question, she was also asked when did she know about president joe biden's capacity, and she did not answer that either. i found that strange, and i'm a

democrat, i was thinking of voting for her, but after i saw what fox did to her, i do believe mr. putin will be kind to her either. i don't think she will be able to stand up to that. host: phil, florida, independent line. caller: hi, thank you for taking my call. i would like people to be aware that we have these ebt cards that are given to the low income people, and i was in line one day, and a lady ordered two units and a large cappuccino and paid for it with that. this is not -- this is in massachusetts. i cannot afford that. the next time i was in line, a lady went to a sushi place and paid with ebt card. why is it that people who are

low income, why are they buying something that i cannot afford? why can't they be restricted to essentials and not anything they would like? we can say thank you to elizabeth warren for that, we can thank her for people being overweight. thank you, elizabeth warren. host: the new york times reporting that two veteran prosecutors have left mr. smith's office. the departures amount to an acknowledgment that any trial in the case will not happen for many months, and one of the prosecutors played a prominent role in early court hearings with documents that have been turned over to the counterintelligence section rate according to people familiar with the move, they handled intelligence related cases and returned to its previous role,

and according to those same people. lee, democrat line, kentucky. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: it is open forum, so i wanted to speak on something that your guest had said, a couple of things. i tried to get through when he was on, but i cannot get through. i wanted >> speed we will leave this here but you can finish watching it if you go to our website c-span.org. live now to the state department for today's press briefing. live coverage here on c-span2. >> yahya sinwar the leader of hamas was killed in israeli military operation in gaza yesterday was a brutal, vicious terrorist responsible for the death of american citizens, israelis, and civilians from more than 30 countries across the world. his decisions and it was very much his decision to launch the

terrorist attacks of october 7 unleashed idea of tragedy in the middle east. 1200 people murdered on october october 7. 254 hostages kidnapped and hauled into gaza, including children, infants, elderly and many women of all ages. or than 40,000 people dead in gaza, many of them civilians. that is the bloodsoaked legacy that yahya sinwar leaves behind. he didn't just launch this conflict but for the past year has refused the efforts of the united states and our partners to end it. refused to return home the hostages who have been separated from their families for more than a year. refused to agree to a ceasefire proposal endorsed by united nations security council and countries around the world. and who in recent weeks refused to even negotiate at all on a ceasefire and an end to the war.

there are 100 hostages who remain in gaza including seven americans. and, of course, there are 2 million palestinians who continue to suffer the consequences of his decision to endanger their life. the path sinwar wanted for the region, death, destruction, instability, chaos is a path that we know the people of the region reject. the of the past year cannot be the future as they do not need to be the future. it is time to chart a different path. so over the days ahead the united states will redouble our efforts to return the hostages home, to bring an end to this war, to alleviate the suffering of the palestinian people, and to love the people of gaza to begin to rebuild their lives. with that, matt. >> i'll start with this obviously the please don't quote anything without allowing me

someone else to ask about the other very big story of the day, which is of course the new u.n. partition proposal for western sahara. >> okay. >> so when you say that over the course, over the days ahead u.s. will redouble your efforts, how exactly is that going to happen? >> saw a few things about that. first of all as you know we have been trying to achieve a ceasefire and return the hostages held come alleviate the suffering of the palestinian people and end the war for many months now, and the chief obstacle to reaching the ceasefire has been sinwar who has refused to negotiate at all. he said no time and time again. that obstacle has been removed. can't predict that that means whoever replaces hamas will agree to a ceasefire but it does remove what has been in recent months the chief obstacle to getting one. we will continue to with our partners to try to find in into

the war. the secretary already today while on air force one with the president flying to berlin called the prime minister of qatar who has been one of our two mediators, other mediators working to reach and into the war. he he called the foreign minister of saudi arabia to talk about the path forward and will be having additional context in the days ahead. >> what exactly does redouble your efforts mean? >> avs redoubling our efforts to try to get an agreement that would bring the hostages daschle look, so come understand what we want. i want to know what that actually means, redouble. does it mean we will be making twice as many call? >> you know the proposals that is been on the table for some time. we will try to push that proposal for. we now have a difference, we don't who will be on the in other end of the goshen, but of sorting would not be sinwar so it is a very given situation. now, i don't want to predict too much what our efforts will look

like over the course of the day because we're just hours after what is a seismic event that changes the nature of this conflict. but we believe it is an opportunity to try and bring an end to this war and we're determined to try to seize that opportunity. >> okay. but are you, but, but -- are you going back to a place where, where you were two or three, two months ago? because i just don't -- >> we are -- from a policy perspective and what strategic objective perspective what we want to achieve where in the same place. we're going to tend you to try to push forward the same proposals we've done with our mediators. let me -- so here's the difference. over the past few weeks there have been no negotiation for in into the war because sinwar has refused to negotiate. there's been no path to ending

this war because sinwar has refused to talk about releasing the hostages or come to a ceasefire. we now see an opportunity within being removed from the battlefield, being removed from the leadership of moss and we want to seize that opportunity. >> thanks. >> a couple things. can you confirm sinwar died yesterday? >> he was, so i assume he died yesterday. i will allow the israelis to pick exact result but it was as result of an operation that they conducted yesterday i don't leave that he may where he was brought down and lie there for hours. the israelis will be the ones to conduct the testing and can provide any result. >> confirmation but that is your -- >> the operation they carried out was yesterday. i assume that he died instantly or fairly shortly thereafter the israelis can speak to that. >> has qatar, leadership and qatar after the sector spoke to them, do you expect or do you

know if they know who hamas has chosen success going to be? >> i don't think anyone could say with any certainty. hamas has a process they go through in the situations but we saw them growth of that after an earlier death. i can only expect them go through the process again. i don't think anyone can predict. people can always speculate about who the next leader of hamas will be but i don't think anyone can predict with any degree of certainty. but what i would hope, what we would help is at the weber the next of hamas is, he will look at what has happened over the past year and look at the suffering that hamas' actions of wrought upon the palestinian people, who they aim to represent, whose cause they aim to advance, and will look and decide that they ought to pursue a different path forward. they ought to pursue a path that isn't one of death and destruction and chaos and harm

to israeli civilians and harm to palestinian civilians. but one that the united states has presented, that egypt has presented, of the countries in region and around will have presented at the doors and so that's what really pushing for. >> are you equating that to indirectly, you know, to i guess the remaining leadership there? are you communicating that with the united states hope and what you are speed is another speak about communications our mediators have. we are communicating with qatar, committee can do with other in the region. our position is well known. of course we don't know who the person at the other end of the phone is going to be. we don't know who would be making decisions for hamas now. what we do know is that the person who had been the chief obstacle to moving forward is now fortuitously no longer with us. >> last question. so i know he hope this is a big opportunity for a ceasefire

negotiations and a deal and return the hostages autoformat macro, what about for two-state solution? >> of course of that is the goal who want to see. that has been our policy for some time. we ultimately want to see a path forward that allows palestinians in gaza to rebuild their lives, to rebuild their neighborhoods, to have security, to have palestinian led governance that they choose, not that is imposed upon the by the outside world, to live free from the grip of a brutal terrorist organization as opposed to have -- how they've been living in gaza for the past couple of decades and ultimately and independent palestinian state where gazans are reunited with the west bank. >> that's just like a lot of hope and no chance or have you seen any i don't no indication that that could come this could create an opening? >> well, i do want to just step back and this i think will be an

answer i give to a lot of questions like that today, which is we are just hours after a very significant event. i think we're going to have to watch and see how things settle before people can make predictions about how the days, weeks and months ahead will play out. one thing we do know for certain is that the world is a better place with sinwar gone from it. and he gives us an opportunity we didn't have as long he so-called the shots from us. what that means is we have to wait and see in the days had. >> you said he was obstacle. on the secretaries last visit to israel he said very publicly that netanyahu was on board with the ceasefire plan. is that still the perception of the united states that the israelis are on board with what is on the table? >> they had accepted the bridging proposal. these remember what else he said at the time is there were still

remaining pieces to the children needed to be agreed between hamas and israel. so we have gone significant down the road to first get into agreement on the framework and then on the proposal but there are still a number of implementing details that needed to be in a committed to be agreed to. and israel was going to face tough decisions in getting there and we were going to push israel to make those tough decisions here and so that remains the case. but what happened in the interim after that visit that hamas just walk away from negotiating table. and so the work we wanted to do to bridge of those final differences we could do because you didn't have two partners to talk to. >> there was a issues at the philadelphia corridor and all that. is it the oppression of the united states the need to be efforts as with the israelis are now baby push a little harder to get -- [inaudible] >> as i said, of course there would be tough decisions that the israelis will need to make to get an agreement to end this war. we have made clear up any number

of times with a very direct can't conversations with them about the need to make those tough decisions. but we were not even in a place to do when you had no one at the other end of the table willing to even agree to negotiate. so you can't tell the israelis have to make tough decisions when sinwar city under the sensing undated going to negotiate the end of this at all. we're now at a different place. what that means going forward, too early to tell that we do believe it is an opportunity we want to visit. >> edges pursuing that. there is lebanon and the war has expanded from where we were a few months ago. when we're saying when the secretary of defense are saying at the time to in the conflict, doesn't also meet lebanon. >> was we do what is notably a diplomatic resolution. now the company face different situation in lebanon. there are still hezbollah forces in close proximity of the israel

border, the border between israel and lebanon. .. withdraw north of the river. it relates to the world, there are separate tracks logistically talked about those likely a number of conversations you are

waiting down the early this morning they believed they will but we had a number of realizations try and confirm the. lance netanyahu in the future. >> you just said is release this morning, can you give us a little more tax did it come true this building for the pentagon? to market came in multiple channels. as you know, we have multiple channels of communication and we were told over multiple

channels. >> you have been saying will bring an end to this war between thomas and israel but we've been watching sgt. terrorism operations that hamas is reconstituting. the time is now. >> other times of the hostages knowingly. the want to see us just returned home. it is important and we want to make sure they take the strategic objectives but they have published other objectives

of the course of the past few integrating hamas' military capability in no space the laundry attack and anything like october 7. they maintained thinking abilities. "we discussed is how they take it turned in during ways. a fast-forward and like that is a consent military fast-forward's continued to fight. 400 new idols going in a day or like.

we want to see is a half : and listen for the day after where reconstruction in gaza security and have a political will. other thousand is the kind of place the operations ongoing into that. i. >> hamas daily still poses a threat it right to put pressure

on hamas and free also just terrible ultimately we think the passport will not just continue military operations will have to repeat over and over again because our judgment and judgment are partners around the world, a path forward that doesn't include the reconstruction and rebuilding the political path forward in gaza is not a path that will provide winning support. we are interested in pursuing. >> you have an assessment in regular contact in the last few hours like you have an idea where this is on this right now?

and to this conflict? >> it will talk to the prime minister in the coming days in that conversation. >> the day after place, there have been conversations will release back, it's been long worked on, is the time no? >> seize the opportunity created by that and that means an opportunity to the day after. the conversation or are partners in other countries around the world.

in the days ahead the family for only our second the alleged. >> jake sullivan said this but it is separately. >> was never believed to work together separate the political resolutions with the state of level of trying to find a cease-fire agreement. continue in his. we'll is believed really brings

about stability so if you can bring it gaza biden's warrior and push forward. and we continue to pursue return all the hostages. you achieved that objective in

the days ahead there is cost of. money will have the opportunity want to know. >> will review could see how they would return hostages but you will return all the hostages he will north will you will achieve thinking as long as you need to achieve not just military for political objectives.

>> in the days and weeks. >> we will have those conversations privately. i would say the conversation with prime minister we probably take the. >> thank you. going back to the statement and they knew opportunity with priorities first and hostages.

something that is to bother you that this didn't start october 7. october 7 will happening. my question is, if you help and achieve in this in the operation but what you are going to do after the war in this conflict. >> it's such as the united

states the countries in the region and around the world make clear their views. in the countries in the region ready to put aside decades long and normalize relations. countries inside the region for economic development and it's sending in the world.

to realize their aspirations. we cannot make that choice for the governor of israel. the upside of ultimately going forward and the risk of not pursuing and other countries make their own business they will the security council and ways for some by sanctions and

for pressuring the government to apply by law. in the initial immunity in the agencies of the un taking any action making this most powerful ally and it is several times. that has been the tradition of the iraq state go without making

any predictions it will happen in the future and it played out and they are different paths for the region. they will have to. they are seriously concerned about their safety. >> i don't have any assessment made from here. he should or otherwise they will

be held accountable if they should be. you americans continue to hold and play and touch. >> part from hostage talks there are steps being taken right now. >> the you like your downplaying posted.

when the military makes these operations here and ultimately run them and bring about good to the war. >> it is the backdrop of iran earlier level the u.s. understanding going forward. >> i will read those conversations that has few weeks. battling israeli forces on the battlefield and have significant it is rather than doing the.

>> i'm sure terrorist groups will try on this hero but it's important everyone remember the facts. rule gaza with an iron fist before october 7 that brutalized palestinian and gaza and they are responsible for the death of palestinians so i would hold they look, actual consequences of his life for the palestinian people. >> remarks today basically was

all kinds of pressure will all kinds of international pressure fighting. with today's development, i know it's early but u.s. says fault. >> i will say that we boys make clear we ported israel conducting counterterrorism operations target the leaders of thomas. not only did we make clear week support this but we provide active intelligence support.

>> it has been on the table. benjamin netanyahu and senior officials. we did have important decisions we would need to make.

it was our assessment to get to a deal on we walked away from the table. i will refer you to what i said in the beginning, without a doubt there are tough decisions to make to get to the ultimate agreement. that person is removed in this position. >> we were negotiating with him and we believe we get to it and

in the process of trying to get there. that is the difference in what's happening. >> you have a situation and getting to the end of the discussion about k pressure is being vindicated by the. going on.

>> i'm saying how are you going to incentivizing? >> security for israel. have an agreement and even before we have to this position for we argued over the implementation from of the agreement that israel accepted so israel never agreed to a

cease-fire we put on the table and hamas didn't accept it and came back up provisions and negotiated and we have differences between the two firms and hamas walked away i can't tell you what they are going to do and they will ultimately find it and we have seen them previously to gauge will teach. >> it is this level that we can

negotiate on. >> it is absolutely if you look at he was an really he was responsible for, made a decision to watch and didn't have just military control for political control as well.

>> i'm just saying -- >> you to the site before with the counterproposal put forward. the things you propose and in this proposal. he also said what comes next it would look back and assess happened.

>> the terrorist organization by the court who will engage with our mediators. >> and capable to negotiate and make sure we can deliver. >> i don't think you should think excuses. >> unwilling to negotiate and he refused to.

>> let me ask you another question -- >> i didn't think that was a question. proposed right after the election coming up the day after. i'm number of trips the secretary conducted on going to

select conversations. i'm not going to predict when we might support a proposal that we are seized with proposals and security in the political path forward. it is unified in gaza under palestinian control for people can use their leadership. >> people through forward.

and we are engaged with multiple members government. and will forward finally in these institutions.

>> ... system. >> we think it is important and having specific steps. and in the south? >> i expect we will be represented there. >> the compass is still a week away.

increasing the pressure on those leaders when it comes to this specific operation, israeli operation. >> i just don't want to make any reduction other than to say a major obstacle to conflict has been removed.

china is in a list. >> we have seen chinese companies with components where russian companies turn into january weapons and we have imposed sanctions. this was the first time we saw a chinese company manufacturing a weapon itself and was sent russia and used on the

battlefield and that is likely continue to work with allies and partners around the world practices acceptable. >> the secretary has a focal. >> they have on their united states of america. anyway we will pay.

over the past two years we will continue. >> the impact changes. >> thinking about ending the war and you uphold in gaza. the ministers and the idf. >> is a matter fact we ultimately want to see israel fully withdrawn from gaza. we they have a right as any

country does people but what we want to see is a terrorist threat from gaza eliminated. who would need to see them operating in the. >> a complete withdrawal. >> the u.s. envoy and would not consider withholding for food and medicine.

>> you look at the letter the secretary sent and policy at implemented by not taking steps to allow humanitarian assistance, we want to see israel take those steps that we need to see much more.

the support to israel. our objective is israel take steps getting into gaza in the conversation we are having the. our engagement was in on this and pushed to take steps and we've seen them take important steps.

and it was important. >> i should let you live through the disappointment and go ahead with the question. >> you might imagine it is bogus our lives. the action discussed with my colleagues.

they this week about the. >> three more americans for these activities given the

reaction. >> we have seen reports gathering more information on security. in these hours ahead. thanks, everyone. >> c-span2 live coverage o campaign 2024 continues later y with the debate between two candidates representing massachusetts and the u.s. senate. challenger participate in thean second debate this week. democratic challenger scott morrow in the debate hosted by wyoming. goodage here on e

every sunday on c-span2 discussing the latest nonfiction books. 6:30 p.m. eastern, doctor marty makary said what happens when the medical institution makes mistakes of public health. 10:00 p.m. eastern on "afterwards", stephanie baker bloomberg news looks at the us-led economic sanctions and vladimir putin's invasion of ukraine and punishing putin interview by author and brookings institution senior

fellow. ♪♪ all foods cofounder psychology professor discuss their books. the rise of the whole foods grocery store chain.

>> rationality of functioning society with irrationality in the united states. >> what comes to questions about the future and we should look to the experts. >> listen to q&a on our podcast from our great c-span no podcast. >> union organizing for the general philosophy. the history of the national labor relations of 1937. corporate accountability,

workplace violation, the role of the federal government and challenges in the labor movement. the national press club. being. [background noises] >> expenses there ready so we are ready, to. oon as i can conts microphone. there we go. perfect. good morning, welcome to the national press club, the place

where news happens. i'm emily wilkins with the honor of being the 117th president of the national press club and a correspondent for cnbc in washington. thanks for joining us of the national press club for headliners panel on unions, labor and the national labor relations act and thanks to those of you joining the discussion online or by tuning in on c-span television and radio. we are very happy to accept questions from the audience and we will take as many as time permits. if you would like to submit a question please admit email headliners. it is plural at press.org. and right labor in the subject line. the survey by gallup published in august found 70% of americans approve of labor unions. in the past several years millions of workers around the country including high profile -- in the past several years

millions of workers around the country include in high-profile campaigns at starbucks, amazon, wells fargo and apple stores have sought to organize. in data the bureau of labor statistics released shows union election positions were up 27% from fiscal year 20 23 year 2024. and doubling since fiscal year 2021. yet 10% of wage and salary workers or 14.4 million workers belong to unions in 2023. that's now 20 -- down 20% from 1983 according to the pls. meanwhile employers are increasingly challenging the constitutionality of the national labor relations board and its power to enforce the national labor relations act. spacex recently winning a stay in a texas court that stopped the nlrb from pursuing administrative cases for unfair labor practice. and in april the supreme court heard a challenge brought by

starbucks after a lower court ordered the company to reinstate several paris's does who were fired after they announced plans to unionize. in june the court sided with starbucks. exploring these with us today we are delighted to have with us an all-star panel. we have national labor relations board general counsel jennifer abruzzo who is responsible for the investigation and provocation of unfair labor practice cases. general counsel abruzzo had previously worked for more than two decades in various roles of the nlrb including field attorney, deputy regional attorney and deputy general counsel. she served as a special counsel for strategic initiative for the commute workers of america. brian patrice, general counsel of the labor international union of north america mid-atlantic regional organizing coalition is a frequent presenter of panels at the union lawyers alliance

and the national employee lawyers association in relation to his work obtaining new visas. and the international president of the news guild communication workers of america a former reporter at the arkansas democrat gazette and the los angeles times. part of a group of workers who organized the first newsroom union at the los angeles times. he was elected president of the new guild in 2019 and since then more than 7500 workers from 180 workplaces have organized with the new guild. please join me for a warm welcome for our esteemed guests. [applause] >> now i think i get to move to this chair. we can have a great conversation between the three of us. i just want to start off with a broad general question and feel free to take this in a direction you want. tell me about what you see for

the purpose for the national labor relations act. >> we went out of order there. sorry about that. so obviously the purpose of the act is to restore balance between workers and their employers. it's very clear through the industrial age that employers had too much bargain leverage for workers and workers as a result were suffering inadequate wages and working conditions, safety problems pride the act was established by congress to give workers greater leverage and also to control the violence that resulted from the fact workers were struggling often violently with their employers to get dignity at work and fair wages. so the purpose of the act is to allow workers to come together to act as a more powerful

bargaining force in the economy against increasingly large employers. so that i think is the purpose of the act and then all these other rights are designed to make sure workers have free choice to make the decision to come together and bargain with employers and they will in fact recognize their representatives and bargain with them so that workers can get better wage conditions and safety at the job site. >> general counsel of the nlrb. brian is 100% right, the statute is a most 90 years old during the great depression 1935 congress enacted it. there was a lot of industrial instability, wildcat strikes going on because workers lacked channels of communication to engage together and with their employers to improve their work circumstances. and that was affecting a failing

economy. so it is a statute that's designed to level the playing field between employees and their employers by promoting the practice process of collective bargaining. allowing for workers to freely choose who they want to collectively bargain on their behalf with their employers and to otherwise engage with one another to improve their wages and working conditions and address issues of mutual concern. so we are enforcing a pro-worker statute. a pro-worker statute. i am often maligned, i don't know or often asked what do you do about the situation where when a democratic administration and the nlrb is prounion and

when a republican administration is the agent -- the agency's pro-employer and there is this flip-flopping and back-and-forth and what are people supposed to do. the answer is the statute is not prounion and it is not pro-employer. it is pro-worker. and we promote workers ability to elevate their voices and be heard and seek the respect and the dignity they deserve in the workplace and get a piece of the pie for the value they add to their employer's operations. so that's what we are about, that's what we've been about for 90 years and we will continue to be about that forever. >> >> those were great views from lawyers. i will not speak like a lawyer but the thing that strikes me about the act is probably the fact that it's provided some any

basis protections that many americans have no clue about. i grew up in rural arkansas and i did not know any thing about unions. i thought it was a far off thing. big bulky guys down in mines or putting together cars and so i didn't have a clue it all that i could actually form a union. the national labor relations act provides americans working in the private sector the right to collectively bargain to negotiate to talk about their wages, this is something that is super taboo in a lot of newsroom circles with the workers would mostly represent but a lot of workplaces it's taboo to talk about your wages. it something you can legally do. you can talk about your working conditions or your benefit to come together and try to make them better. at a basic level the thing i love is it is this amazing power that every american working in the private sector has right there that they can take advantage of and most of them don't even know it. >> that was a fantastic overview

, i want to get to the news today that we did see this increase in these decisions over the last year can you just talk about why you think we are seeing this increase now. what does it mean to you and what does it mean for the future of unions. >> a lot of it has to do with education as john said. so many workers it's a very broad statute. it covers unionization of course but it also covers workers just engaging together talking about issues of mutual concern, talking about discrimination in the workplace. advocating, engaging in social, racial and economic justice advocacy where there's a nexus to something going on in the workplace. we want to case where there was racial discrimination happening at home depot, of the workers

were complaining about it internally obviously it had a broader impact socially. we said that was a concerted activity. the press has done a wonderful job in getting the message out there because workers need to know there is a statute that protects the rights to talk an with -- with one another about health and safety issues or whatever is of concern to them and they cannot be retaliated against for doing so and if they are there is an agency that will not only protect their rights to engage in that behavior but to remedy violations and a hold the violators accountable. and so it's really i think the education is key, knowledge is power. there is strength in numbers and so the more we can get out there and advise workers about the rights that they have, the better.

i think that's why we are seeing this surge and certainly during the time i've been back at the agency, i was with the agency for 25 years than out during the trump administration and now back in my current role as general counsel. i do think that we are seeing underserved vulnerable populations actually feeling empowered to elevate their voices and be heard, to demand to see -- a seat at the bargaining table with her that's their established labor organizations or through homegrown ones. it does not really matter. i think labor organizations need to be nimble. there is no one-size-fits-all. workers are organizing in different ways using social media for example. they are bargaining in different ways. hybrid bargaining, a virtual bargaining. i see where workers weathered through established labor

organizations are not are feeling more empowered to engage with their employer and i hope we see more of that. i will say we -- fiscal year 21 when i came in as general counsel today, our case intake has increased 47%. so it's wonderful. i think it is wonderful. i don't want to see violations of the statute but, and certainly workers need to file charges with us. we have no independent investigatory authority. so we have to be out there and educating not only about rights but about the agency because otherwise they really have no place to go, no private rights to sue in court. they have to know that our agency exists. so education. >> to build on that, the other thing is when we talked about

the purpose of the act to level the playing field and what we are seeing recently is areas where the playing field was previously seen as level it's now not level and we are seeing that increasingly with higher educated employees. even medical workers, position -- physicians, nurses. everyone in the hospital seeing private equity by medical practices and doctors who used to consider themselves as having a very high leverage position economy going lower and we are seeing that across the board with educated workers. so we are actually seeing the lack of a level playing field stretch with the economy. it isn't going away it's getting worse. it's spreading to places where this was originally passed people probably never thought that a worker like this would need a union. and now increasingly some workers are coming to the idea may be unionization should benefit my profession as well.

and i do think that -- see that a lot in the statistics around the energy around collective bargaining right now is that more workers in new industries are saying this is something we need because we need a level playing field. >> the fact that 2018 when you guys started these unions it was not that long ago. i'm wondering if there was a tipping point for you or a moment where you are just like we really need to have more power on the sides of the worker. >> it started when we got a link in our slack channel at the l.a. times. for me it started we got a link in the slack channel for our group and journalists were all in love and hate slack for work. and the link was a hidden youtube video from the director of hr now -- announcing with so much glee in her voice that she was eliminating our crew paid vacation time. and switching to an unlimited

flexible time off which would mean we could take as many days as we wanted. but effectively meant that we were not accruing value in our vacation and our paycheck every single day that we could then use two for having a kid, for planning for some emergency, for some medical procedure. it was stripped away from us because we did not have a union. so it became a very quick conversation of may be we should form a union. that was the case for so many folks, so many journalists we've seen over and over again, mentioning private equity spreading across the economy but hedge fund private equity have taken that on. all with global capital. the chicago tribune, the baltimore sun. bought up the orlando sentinel 11 years ago bought at the denver post and has basically been siphoning resources out of it. and really reducing the number of working journalists and local communities across the country.

so we've basically seen this huge wave of organizing in response to really terrible conditions at least in the news industry where we've lost 35,000 workers in the last 15 years. through the consolidation, through the in coach -- encroachment of equity. and i think journalists like a lot of other workers are just like that is ridiculous we have to stand here and fight back because this is something we care deeply about and if it's not can it be the boss because they're controlled by private equity then it's good to be us. >> that was i think a really illuminating example of some of the things workers are being making us think a we need to get together and see what our power can be in pushing back against some of these practices. i know were having a number of questions come in. if you're in the room if you want to take one of the cards there write a question and you can pass it who sitting there in the lovely purple dress. we had a couple of questions come in.

forgive me parker for slaughtering your last name. this question jennifer is for you. the agency walked away from its litigation around joint employer rules. can you give us any insight into that decision and what next steps are providing in the standard sprayed and if you could start off with a five second version of that for the few people here who don't know what that is paid >> sure. the trump board joint employer rule was -- joint employers are two or more employers that are controlling some terms and conditions of employment of a set of employees think of a dominate -- a company using a contractor and they have employees but the dominant company is controlling the wage range or the schedules, opening and closing up the stores or any number of things or a franchise,

or a franchisee situation. we had that with mcdonald's for example. so that's what a joint employer is, a relationship is. the trump board issued a rule that i won't go into the gory details about why they issued a rule. if there was adjudication initially there were some issues with one board member who failed to recuse himself. they decided to issue a joint employer rule basically said you are not a joint employer unless you control a essential terms and conditions of employment and that control has to be direct and substantial control and then they lifted what the essential terms and conditions of employment were. which did not include health and safety. at any rate the biden board then

issued its own rules because that's the only way you can typically undo a previous rule. which went back to more of a common-law which was direct or indirect control over terms and conditions of employment. and that got enjoined i am not a board member as you know. and so -- there is a law -- wall between the general counsel side which is a prosecutorial arm and the board side which is the adjudicatory arm. and never the twain shall meet. i can engage in apartheid communications with them so i do not know exactly why they decided to give up the ghost on the joint employer rules there. however i do think personally that they could go back to adjudication and go back to the

correct standard in my opinion which is the direct or indirect control which is the common-law factors. >> jennifer we do have another question here from a law 360 reporter which hopefully this one you will be able to answer. while your office recently released a memo about non-competes in state or pay clauses how does your theory about the lawfulness of these provisions balance the rights of employers and workers? >> let me just start with that last piece. workers have rights. unions and employers have obligations under our statutes. let's just start there. in terms of the restrictive covenants which there's a number of us at various government agencies who are all looking at this obviously from our different lenses. but the issue with non-competes

from at stay or pay arrangements where you've got to sign off and you are required to stay at a particular employer for two years making a hypothetical for two years if you don't stay for two years you have to pay back $100,000 may it's prorated if you stay a year or what have you but it's a substantial amount of money. or basically just indentured servitude, forcing people to stay at their employing entity. despite how horrendous the working conditions may be. and so from my perch with regards to these restrictive covenants, as we've been saying, the statute was enacted to equalize bargaining power between workers and their employers. and when you have these

restrictive covenants whether it be a noncompete or fair pay or something else you are taking away one of the greatest weapons that workers have which is to threaten to resign or to actually resign in concert and go elsewhere to get better conditions. you've taken away that weapon because they can threaten to resign or they can even resign. but where are they going, this a geographic restriction. there's a time restriction. you are killing them from actually engaging together because of their unlawfully fired, where they going to work while the trying to get the job back trade will they have to relocate their family. if they go on strike and one supplemental income where will they go because they are subject to these restrict of covenants. so to me it's clearly chills employees exercise of their rights to unionize, to engage in

protective conservative activity and our job is to make sure that there are not restrictions to those rights and if there are violations that we are quickly remedying them. you brought up very early the issues of spacex and other companies that are challenging us. i just want to say out loud and this is kind of evidence i think. but it is worth saying. it's a distraction right because we are trying to hold violators of our statute accountable and when you've got these deep pocket corporations that would rather spend money fighting and litigating versus provide their workers with better wages or better benefits or whatever it is that's what their workers want. it's truly is a distraction from

them being held accountable as violators of the law. so you know a lot of the reporting is about constitutional challenges and spacex got that in texas in district court where there more than happy to enjoin us at the fifth circuit and we will see what happens. but their goal is to just stop us from doing our jobs. and we have been governing labor-management relations for just about 90 years now. everybody in this country. we are the only federal agency that enforces the only federal labor law in this country. it would be chaos if the agency was not allowed to perform its functions and do it properly.

>> kind of just following off of that. please feel free to jump in here if you guys have thought sprayed what needs to happen now that some of these big companies have figured out that there are ways they can sort of sell your work, put you through this really long court process and take you away from your main mission of litigating some of these claims. >> shout out to the law 360 reporter for her great question and congratulations on their eight day strike that they won last month. >> i think that one of the biggest challenges right now for jennifer and the entire board is underfunding. they do not have enough staff to actually adequately handle that increased whether it's elections or unfair labor practices. they lost about 40% of their staff since 2010 which is really decimated their ability to move quickly so they need proper funding. i think personally the budget should be doubled based on the

amount of need that there is out there and separately i think there should be some real aggressive penalties for companies when they violate the law. we file unfair labor practices a lot, almost every week against major news companies across the country for violating federal law as we see it. and we get rulings but it takes a while for them to actually move through the system especially when you have lower staff. we've been on strike of the pittsburgh post-gazette for two years. and it's taken a very long time for the unfair labor practices to go from a charge to a complaint to getting a full board ruling that we got last month a few weeks ago. but there really should be some aggressive penalties i think for companies and for employer specifically. i think there should be strong fines. i think there should be potential jail time for companies and bosses that break the law.

this is the law, there should be consequences for violating the law. as jennifer said. >> i just need to jump in. a lot of people violate the law and get out with like paying a fine. why go as far as jail time. >> you've got ceos making millions of dollars a year and spending millions of dollars paying attorneys to violate the law. so for instance of the pittsburgh post-gazette it's a pretty straightforward issue. it's a lack of following the law and bargaining in good faith is the specific wording but showing up for the bargaining table and agreeing to move a little bit here and there. to work out a compromise to get to a contract that's also about arguing and agreeing to pay for health care. the actual cost to resolve that is minuscule to the amount of money that these companies and specifically large chair people

like john bloch and alan block the people of the pittsburgh post-gazette lock indications to actually follow the law instead they're spending millions of dollars hiring attorneys. i think they should be held accountable. there should be more penalties. they should face jail time if they do it. and it's not out of the realm of possibility for the board to actually call the u.s. marshals and go after folks who do violate the law when it becomes this bad for so long, or needs to be serious consequences. the law is just followed. >> i'll piggyback on that. >> the current law does not allow jailing employers except for extreme instances of contempt of court. but i do agree with the comment that we do need to have more respected norms around this issue because what we are seeing is employers just do not respect the idea that the workers have

the right to make this choice. the workers make this choice, they make it unmistakably and the employers still do not care. and we see this, a lot of this started as really kooky right-wing theories of attacking the national labor relations board based on the supreme court had clearly rejected and we were seeing them come back like zombies now 90 years later. which is a clear indication of the employer's contempt for this idea that the workers have these rights, the workers forced them to sit across the table and bargain. so we do need as a society to translate the widespread respect for collective bargaining that we've had as seen by public sentiment. we need to find a way to translate that into a norm that all the important players are willing to respect. if we have that if we can get

that we will see the operation work much better. more freedom of workers to join unions and bargain. but we have to get to the point and a lot of that is going to be public opinion. with respect to company's the do show complete contempt for the collective bargaining law. if they are good essay i want to have courts enjoin collective bargaining law in the country, they need to take that into account. they do need to fill these norms and it's incumbent on every citizen. to say this is an important right and we don't like it when you show contempt to it. >> we do have a question from the audience talk of the kinds of workers and the laborers union of what changes under the

current nlrb have helped them in organizing or bargaining. >> we represent construction workers and it's kind of exactly what you would expect particular with laborers for their mostly people who carry heavy things on construction sites and you shall go up shovels to dig. the thing that this administration has been doing that has most benefited the workers. this is not exclusive but i think the general counsel has done this better than anyone else probably in the country which is deferred action for workers who do not have immigration status who are victims of violations of the rights under u.s. laws. the country has always had a problem with enforcement of laws and criminal laws, civil laws if people who are victims do not

feel free to report when their rights are violated and that has the effect of undermining standards across the country. there's been a program to provide deferred actions to those victims so if the laws can be enforced. this is at a major positive impact in terms of bringing forth complaints, violations, people who have -- we have recently and example of workers who are having their supervisors shake them down to say you get your paycheck and then say hand over some portion of it. it's like a bully, a schoolyard bully taking someone's lunch money. it is at that level and they are doing it because the supervisor felt certain there's no way this worker will report me. the worker is going to report him. and we would not have this tool without the deferred action.

to protect workers who have these violations. so i think that is probably the most significant thing that we have had showing a direct affect on the ground for workers who have very immediate problems. >> we have a question that says does the nlrb protect. it sounds like the answer is it does. >> yes. whistleblowers are very broad term. it's a very broad term but in general the technical answer is technical. it protects certain activity for mutual aid protection. it's very easy for the nlra to protect we have a look at the specific fact. if they are whistleblower on behalf of other employees including themselves than absolutely provide protection for them. >> that's the more -- that's where you are more protected

anyway. when you are forming a union or decide to go on strike you do it as a collective. there is power in the numbers so the more you can bring your colleagues together to do something the more protection you'll have regardless. >> i just want to say one thing about what brian very eloquently said before and i'm happy to hear that some of what we're doing is making a real impact on the ground which is obviously our goal. you know there's a lot in the news these days about immigrant populations and i'm very proud of the fact that we have issued a number of memos, one of which was about immigrants are employees under our statute and are entitled to the same rights as everybody else and we have made sure that they have safe access to our operations when they need us and that they are treated with dignity and respect. and certainly we are engaging

with dhs to ensure that those that are assisting us, our enforcement actions are protected and are not exploited again. typically you get these vulnerable populations, immigrant populations in particular that is exploited once by the schoolyard bully that says here is your paycheck and now give me some money back. certainly we don't want them to be exploited once again by a threat of deportation for example. there's plenty of as we know legal -- people who are legally here and so just to say it's really important that we recognize that we are all in this together and you know there's a lot to say about collectivism and unity. >> we only have a little bit more than 15 minutes left. still have a ton of questions and i will try to get them as quickly as we possibly can.

another one for you jennifer. a number of companies have contended the nlrb structure is unconstitutional. an emergency petition was submitted this morning to the supreme court to stop and administrate if hearing against an employer. will your office biju dictating these cases while these constitutional agreements are considered and does this change anything for you about how you litigate unfair labor practices? >> the short answer is yes but we are not can estop what we are doing. and we have been successful. we have been unsuccessful in certain district courts in texas. we've been successful in other district courts elsewhere in batting back these request for pull, nary injunctions or temporary restraining orders or administrative proceeding. we are knocking a stop, we are going to continue to enforce the act as we have. john raised a really good point about the lack of resources. our case in taste is way up.

you gave a statistic. it's in the field office of 48 offices around the countries where the vast majority of the work is performed. we have lost since 2011, 62% of the field offices. it is a huge resource issue. and it is because we do not have a reasonable appropriations and congress really needs to step up and provide us as i said earlier we are the only federal agency that protects the only federal labor law in this country and we want to and do the best that we can. but justice delayed is justice denied. there are inherent delays because of the lack of resources , i.e. funds available so that i

can staff up. it is really crucial. all of that being said we have the greatest board agents. they are super committed to the mission. they are super committed to effectuating our congressional mandate and they are doing everything that they can to help workers in this country and i will say all the cases that are brought to us about 40% of those cases are found to have merit. sometimes workers get confused and are not sure what agency this goes to so we gear them -- steer them to another. but we find merit in 40% of all cases that are brought to us. and we settle 96% of those cases. >> upfront for complaints issue or right after perhaps. so the vast majority of the

violations are getting remedied once they are investigated and i recognize there's a delay in the investigation but we actually are getting remedial relief rather quickly for victims of unfair labor practices. there's very few that actually get -- go through the adjudicative process. >> the statistic you laid out earlier is still very interesting. the same number of petitions and cases go up you still have district offices handling these go down because of a lack of funding. i think 2022 was the first time in nearly a decade congress increased funding. i believe the nlrb is currently underfunded by 100 20 million according to some estimates. and you laid out the impacts really clearly there. i'm sorry everyone wants to ask you questions today so we have another one. if donald trump wins in november do you worry a trouble point general counsel will undo your agenda.

>> trump is not in a win in november. you can move on the question. >> we do have to answer that question i'm sorry. >> this is what i will say. so we are a government of people by the people and for the people. this government official is going to do everything she can and i will tell you all the agencies, board agents will do all they can to protect workers rights and to hold violators accountable. i think that no matter who is in the job i go back to what i said the beginning. which is it is a pro-worker statute. and if you take on the job per your congressional mandate you are required to protect workers rights in this country. >> i wanted to make sure no one

had anything else to ask. i know the nlrb has expanded its interagency collaboration with partners like the ftc and doj to promote competition in labor markets. what has been the biggest win for these collaborations and what's on the horizon for this whole of government approach and this is from chris. >> i really applaud the biden harris administration. i've been with the agency for a very long time. as i said earlier and we really have broken down the silos, we really are taking the toll of government approach which is in essence means we are sharing information with one another. because unfortunately when we see violations of our statute which is a very broad statute we often see violations of other statutes. for example workers are complaining about the fact they did not get overtime and they are suspended as a result of that.

that's falling under our statute. they engage in collective protected concerted activity. and it also falls into fair labor standards act. they get the overtime they were entitled to under the law. and so we are talking with one another, we are co-investigating when appropriate, we are co-enforcing. and i'm really proud of the work, the partnerships that we continue to develop but we start develop these under the obama administration with regards to worker protection agencies. but where i've expanded our interagency collaborations has been with those that are the traditional worker protection agencies. the ftc, the doj, antitrust division. because we are looking at we are all about the same thing. you want to stop unfair and deceptive practices, you want to stop misclassification. you want to stop employment

structures and models and practices that are creating vertical restraints on competition that are affecting consumers, that are affecting workers. and so we are all tackling these looking at it from our different lenses. but the goal is to all address them at workplaces at the same time as possible so that workers can actually enjoy working in a conducive environment and which benefits not only them but their families and communities. if they feel empowered to elevate their voices and if their employees actually -- employers listen to what their concerns are and address them, then workplace conflict diminishes and that's a win for everybody and i will say with the ftc and doj antitrust which

-- what has been nice is the educational piece between the two, because i'm certainly not an antitrust expert by any stretch of the imagination. we provide technical assistance to one another which i also think is key and we are assisting with doj antitrust merger investigations so that they are considering the effects on the labor market. the effects on workers, not only on consumers, not only on product or service markets. >> different collaborations. >> it is a continual. we are all trying -- our goals are the same. it is just how we get there may be different. the idea is to ensure that we are doing all that can for working families in the country. >> the -- i do want to say how

much i appreciate general counsel abruzzo's vision of the national labor relations act. i think her view of the fact that non-competes as we discussed, those sorts of impediments to an employer -- employees, her ability to see that that has an impact on the division of really understanding the role leveling the playing field has really been, i just really appreciate it. i represent construction workers. you might think we have no problem with non-competes. we have the guys who hold the paddles and tell you when to go who are subject to noncompete agreements because of the intellectual property they might acquire holding the paddles. this stuff is so widespread and reflects the way employers have maximize their leverage in the

employment market. and nothing was being done about it until the biden administration, including the work of the general counsel here. i think it's been really valuable and really important that we have this sort of vision of really an act that provides freedom to workers and i do think that is what the -- it should be about. it should give a tool to workers to act on their own behalf to improve their lives and we are having a lot of trouble getting there with all of this employer resistance and people trying to get the extra. but that should be the vision that we all share. >> we had a question again from the audience from you. and the person who wrote it wanted to see what you would say to a midcareer journalist who opposes his union organizing because he feels unions are only for dangerous jobs and that it

re-allocates midcareer salaries to inexperienced reporters. >> it is pretty common that different types of workers will have different questions about unionizing when they're going through the process. i remember early on organizing it happened in every single one of them especially in newsrooms in particular because you have young workers who are fresh out of college coming into the newsroom being taken advantage of by the employer, paid next to nothing with terrible benefits. there's not a lot of people in their late 30's and 40's and a lot of newsrooms and there's a lot more veteran journalists who have been around for maybe a few decades at the organization and built up a lot of time. the thing about unionizing is there's benefits for everyone. there's a benefit for a veteran journalist in having job security. if they've got seniority of being at that workplace for a

while, they are probably going to be one of the highest-paid journalists in the newsroom this gives them the chance of job security. they will be the first one laid off. when you're owned by a hedge fund that's typically what they are kind of angling to do. it also helps you negotiate better health care agreements. i remember we've seen in the tribune properties there were eight different types of health care plans you could pick whether it was an hmo or a ppo and the younger journalist ended up getting the most expensive in terms of high ductal plans because they could not afford the monthly premiums. the more veteran journalists who may be had a spouse or some kids would opt for the health care plan that covered their entire family. and when you are in a union and you come together and you look at these issues you are like we are all paying way too much for health care and we should all pay less and have better coverage. so it's really about a question for me is your care about the

actual work and your colleagues and your mission. and for journalist we have an ethical duty to minimize harm. we do that making sure we don't take advantage of sources. we also do that in the workplace to make sure we are not letting younger workers are women of people of color taken advantage of by a company that is actively creating inequities. we have a duty to hold -- it's on us ethically to make sure that the employer follows the law to make sure that the newsroom leadership is doing what they are saying rather than doing their standup meeting where they make a bunch of promises. i think it's actually a very solid ethical thing and if seen a lot of people come together recently on strike we were on strike for 24 days at the rochester democrat, -- chronicle to fight for a successor contract. some of the best leaders with a veteran journalists who were really trying to build an organization in the newsroom that was good for rochester and

future generations of journalists. >> i also wanted to ask because we talked about some of the concerns facing the overall enforcement agencies and some of the current shifts that we are now seeing with employers and employees. i know there is legislation out there which is backed by think it's mostly democrats at this point. but can you talk about if that law was passed what it would do, what would it change and would any of these issues that we discussed today benefit from that. >> as far as the proactive. one of the things it would change would be both to make it easier to originally establish a union and collectively bargain the first contract, the traditional statistic on bargaining the first contract is less than half of successful elections lead to first contract. it is very difficult to do. the proactive would actually

establish a process where it would have to happen quickly over short amount of time and if the parties don't agree they go to arbitration in a manner similar to employees similar to major league baseball on the good arbitration over player salaries. that would provide profits to get into a first contract which would be extremely important change to the act because that's what that is all about is getting to the contract so if you're not delivering that, so that would be a massive change as well as greater protections for the initial organizers as we discussed. there is this problem that there needs to be more deterrence against employers paid a talked about norms but we need more penalties. maybe not necessarily jail, but more employer -- penalty so they comply. and they would deliver that as well. all of what we are trying to do

with that proposed change or any changes currently is just to make it easier for workers to establish a union. the problems that make workers form a union are usually not world historic. a lot of times it's a bad supervisor or a crude lead. it's a very practical problem. if you make it that they have to go through a gauntlet of hostility and intimidation to get there, it is not as useful as a tool for addressing a simple problem like my supervisor is really a jerk. it is important that the actual decision to choose to join a union be obtainable. workers come together so we want this. so i think it will be the step in the right direction. >> i just come back to the thing we said earlier, which is that we need funding for the nlrb.

it can actually be enforced. again, the agency is really underfunded. the challenge with -- organizing drives are very challenging in themselves, right? an employer can voluntarily recognize workers or push for an administration, but then you start bargaining and right now for the news guild we have 91st contracts we are currently bargaining for. and that is literally half of the number of bargaining units that have unionized in the last five years i have been president. now for us, you know, i mentioned it earlier, we are also realizing we just have to do more collective action, and you are seeing that in workers at uaw going on strike. we have had before four strikes so far this year. from the l.a. times to

continuing to be on strike at the pittsburgh post--gazette. we have had newsrooms gone strike in the past, the new york times or washington post, but you have to move to withholding your labor to move the company to agree to what i think are commonsense proposals to make the place a better place to work. ms. wilkins: this is a fantastic discussion. i feel like we could have gone on for another hour, but before we wrap and i ask a final question i wanted to take a moment to think our headliners. and the headliners team member who organized today's event. donna, thank you. as well as the program manager and the club's executive director. we are also very grateful to have the privilege of hosting our extraordinary guests, and there are three of them.

we are honored to offer you the official log of the national press club. it has been given to celebrities, ambassadors, heads of state, and now you are joining the ranks. thank you for taking the time to be here today. also while we have -- it is less than $10, yes. [laughter] you can also get it in the gift shop, but it only counts if it is handed off to you after the panel. i want to let everyone know about a couple of events. we are going to be hearing from craig unger, who will discuss his new book, the secret history of the trees and that stole the white house, and october 29 we will be welcoming veteran affairs secretary dennis mcdonagh you, who will deliver an update on the state of america's veterans and their families. and now for the final question. i'm going to ask everyone for short answers. why do you think journalists have been as successful as they have in unionizing so many

newsrooms over the last couple of years? mr. petruska: hard question. at the end of the day journalists, we are weirdos in that we really love our work. we love the idea of seeking truth and telling stories. for us it comes with this very core passion to protect that work and make sure it is better so we are unionizing at a record pace to continue that work for future generations. ms. abruzzo: i would hope we are helping in that regard in terms of being very aggressive about our enforcement activities so that people feel comfortable engaging together and not fear being retaliated against. mr. schleuss: i will combine those. the additional pressure in the workplace in order to have a good workplace to live in, and also making it easier to organize, you know, the biden

nlrb decision that made it easier for workers to organize. especially in cases where the employer is either delaying or resisting the organizing drive. i think that has helped and played a key role in increasing employees' willingness to file petitions and utilize the machinery of the act. the protections are more robust and the ability to get the union you are looking for is more obtainable. i think those have been important. ms. wilkins: i love the range there, from the technical answer, top i love our jobs a lot. thank you for being here today and thank you for joining us here at the national press club. [applause]

with the debate between the two candidates running to represent massachusetts in the u.s. senate elizabeth warren and her republican challenger participate in their second debate this week hosted by

boston and new england public media live at 7:00 p.m. eastern. live at nine wyoming republican senator facing off against his democratic. live coverage here on c-span2, c-span now our free mobile app and online. >> an annual survey examining the public's views on immigration, the abortion, the economy and the roots of fascism among the participants for the event. from the brookings institution and the public religion research institute. it is one hour and 40 minutes. o watches or hears this. this is a very exciting day for

us. this is the 15th joint effort by brookings and prri, cooperating on prri's extraordinary annual survey. 15 years is a long time for an institutional marriage. robbie jones of prri said we are way past the seven year itch and this is been a fruitful partnership for my colleagues and i. it has been a wonderful partnership. we have learned a lot from robbie, from melissa who is the ceo at prri. we are grateful to be here. some of you may have read columns lately by ezra klein in new york times and my colleague jean robinson in the washington post and also our friend and

colleague elaine said stop reading polls, stop doom scrolling. after this event you can stop reading polls. not just because i am obviously biased, but also because the survey really sheds important light on issues we should be thinking about as election day and perhaps its aftermath approach. in a campaign where the words "enemies within" have become part of the campaign dialogue, this catches out not only polarization. you thought we couldn't get more polarized? this survey suggests we are even more so. also as robbie will show -- no one does power points as well as robbie in his presentation in a

moment, there is real division about the role of violence in our society and in the electoral process. it is a very troubling time that is a country we need to come to terms with now but also after this election is over. i want to thank catalina navarro of brookings who has done so much, particularly to pull this together today. one of the great things about this partnership is we have always had awesome some respondents to this survey. a veteran and somebody who has been there with us is joy reid from msnbc. at the brilliant a.b. stoddard of the bulwark has joined us today. even if you are not a numbers guy, which i confess i am, you are in for a real treat today. in the process of enjoying that treat you will learn a lot of stuff you did not know.

welcome, everyone, and i want to welcome, the president and founder of prri, the author of some extraordinary books. robbie has been at the forefront of demonstrating the racial and racist past within our religious traditions but also pointing the way towards reconciliation. his last book -- let me plug the last book. title should have written down. it is "the hidden history of white supremacy." it has a section on efforts communities have made to achieve reconciliation. a profit of problems but also a profit of solutions and he knows a lot about numbers, robbie jones. [applause]

robbie: welcome, everyone. it is great to see a full room. we are coming back from covid, still. it is nice to see everyone in the same room. a quick thank you to ej and bill , i feel old, joy told me i should use the word seasoned. i thought before i jumped into the numbers i would give a highlight reel of the 15 years and some findings that have had a long shelf life as we have gone along. just a few quick ones. i will not take too much time. all the way back, the 2010 to the present. if you can think back to what politics looked like in 2010 compared to what they look like today.

we've been tracing these trends along the way. remember the tea party? we were one of the first people to break that the tea party was actually a rebranding of the old christian right. that half the people who claim to be a follower of the tea party also claim to be part of the christian right. that was not how the tea party was branding itself. there were branding itself as a libertarian movement. we found that only about one in 10 americans were true libertarians. in america if you are economically conservative you tend to be socially conservative as well. the other thing we've been paying attention to is the sorting of political parties by race and religion. remarkable today that the republican party is 70% white and christian in a country that is 41% white and christian. the democratic party today is 25% white and christian. the racial and religious

polarization, in addition to the ideological and political polarization. the other thing we -- in 2016 when trump first entered the scene there was a lot of debate of the role of the white working class. is it economic anxiety or cultural anxiety? it turns out it is both. we were able to quantify that if you're going to make a recipe for white working-class attraction to trump it would have to be two parts cultural anxiety and one part economic anxiety. one of the things i constantly still get lack jaws when i mentioned is sometimes the assumption about where religious groups are on particular issues are completely wrong. among american catholics, the catholic church, the hierarchy has staked out a strong position

on lgbtq rights and abortion. it is not at all where catholics in the pews are. most of the time we tracked this they look pretty much like the general population. that is to say supportive of abortion rights and supportive of marriage equality. that is something people often do not know. we've been tracking demographic shifts as well and we were able to track -- we were one of the first just put a spotlight on the fact that during the tenure of our first african-american president we experienced a seachange in our religious demographics. we went from being a majority white christian country graphically speaking, if you take all white christians together, we were 54% white and christian in 2008. that number today is 41%. that seachange happened during barack obama's presidency. part of the thing that sets the

stage for a lot of anxieties and nostalgia and resentment we are seeing is the shifting demographics in the country when we had a very visible symbol of that change in the white house. finally, one of my favorites and one that has the longest shelf life and is still getting you to print almost 10 years after we asked the question is the question about candidates character and how much it matters for people. in 2011 we asked the question was do you agree or disagree that a candidate who commits an immoral act in their private life can still behave ethically and perform their duties and their public life? when we asked white even chuckle protestants this question in 2011, only about 3 -- when we asked white evangelical protestants in 2011, only about three in 10 said yes. and we asked this after trump received the nomination in 2016, it went from three in 10 to seven in 10.

during that same period trump's favorability went from the mid-40's percent up to about 70% in that same period. with that i will jump in to where we are today and hopefully we have some things that will stand the test of time today to the very challenging moment we find ourselves in in this election cycle. 15 years of doing this survey, you see the long-term trends in the presentation. this is a fairly large survey, over 5000 interviews. the typical political poll you see run by me, this is about five times as big as typical poles in the media. we want to thank the carnegie corporation of new york who has been a long time supporter of this since the beginning. also the ford foundation, the uua project as founding this

year -- for funding this year. where are we? we asked the standard question if we are heading in the right direction or wrong direction. we will count three levels and give you a sense of where people think we are. in the country it is pretty dark out there. it is only democrats who are a majority saying we are headed in the right direction. independence bank to 29%. report -- independents down to 29%. republicans at 6%. in the local community the pattern still holds but the numbers go up. about half of republicans say things are going in the right direction. they are divided. independents and democrats at 7%. there is my personal life and hear the partisan split goes away. most americans think in my

personal life things are going in the right direction. that tells you a little bit about how to read those big numbers, it is more complex a picture in the top numbers often tell you. another question along these lines, this is been a standard question. we first asked in 2013, not just today, i will to hat to bill on this one. we were sitting around a table and thinking about how to ask questions about the countries changes. i think a lot of people think of the 1950's as a benchmark time. they think things were better or worse in that somewhat mythical golden age. sure enough, when we asked this question it has all along the way been a huge divider by party. we asked it in 2013. it was 55% democrats and 23% republicans saying things have

changed for the better in this country. the gap is still there but it has gone up. among democrats it is 68%. republicans remain fairly steady. this little blip of 46% is the end of trump's term. there was this one moment at the end of trump's term people thinking things were going for the better and as soon as he loses it drops back down to this historic place. this is a big divider in the country today. what about this year? we had about 10 questions about what were the most critical issues for your vote in this election year? i will give you democrats and republicans. there is some overlap but not a lot. here are the top things democrats say are critical issues for voting in the country. there are four that reached a majority of democrats. the health of our democracy, the

cost of housing, abortion, and health care. abortion is unusual for democrats historically. this is a post dobbs phenomenon that we are seeing abortion jump up as this high of a priority. you see crime and immigration are quite low for democrats. i will leave these i will put up the republicans here and you'll see there's agreement on democracy. democrats or republicans show something different for the health of our democracy. we also had jobs and the economy andot if it's not jobs and econy it's basically inflation and its not just generic economics that increased cost components driving democrats and republicans here that but you will see atd the bottom of the

things that drives voters are with the enemy within the fear in the country something going wrong and that is what it's reflecting. the other one is look at abortion among republicans, way down. it's almost twice as large as the margaret to say the critical issue and that isep an inverse f what we have historically seen over the last few years. the this striking down the road bee wade. i'll give you this comparison here. here's what critical issues look in 2020 and the last cycle abortion and immigration from the top so in 2020 republicans, far more republicans that abortion and immigration.

look at 2024 how that changed position. so again today now immigration 71 and abortion 29. we ask this question another way in the last one was critical only ousted in a harder way and that is the litmus test question we said would you not vote for who disagreed with you so would it be a dealbreaker for you onat this question and immigration andw abortion a percentage said they'd only vote for a candidate who shares their views on the issue so here are the parties republicans and democrats and if we opt to dissuade its far more republicans who say immigration is aan dealbreaker more than immigration is a dealbreaker in the inverse is true among democrats. the majority of democrats i

would not vote for a candidate who disagrees with me on the issue of abortion. the other one i'm going to show you here are christian nationalism. we also track the support for christian nationals in the country today and to give you the overall numbers three in 10 americans today affirm christian nationalism. these are things like you i should declare itself a christian nation and u.s.-led should beat raced on the christn and christian should exercise that over all areas of american society. a theocracy outlook and among those who shared those views you'll see onth this side they look like republicans and the majority of republicans do prefer christian nationalism. some among us say they agree with christian nationalism and

among those who are skeptics or reject or so than immigration. so sticking with immigration one of long-standing questions we asked is about what do we do with the approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants like what is the right policy to deal with that? we do the latter good work in 2012 to come up with a three-part question and i'm only going to show you one. the question but the question basically says how should we handle people who are in the country illegally should we a allow them away meeting certain requirements bai allow them to become per residence but not citizens or c identify -- and this is just the top part of that question. the people who say we should allow them away provided they meet requirements in 2016 we

have fair majority of republicans agreeing with the statement. it wasas a consensus across pary lines and it drops andee we hava drop in 2019 and now the bottom is dropping out here. only 36% of republicans today agreeing down to 53% when we asked this question in 2013. democrats have largely remained steady and you could see this divide in you can see it's a 20-pointal gap that's now blownp to a 40-point gap in 2024. so here's one e. j. mentioned the rhetoric we are hearing and again their number questions in

our partnership that i is a social scientist never thought i would write and this is one of them. we need to know how many americans today believe immigrants are poisoning the blood of the country? less [often in my view that's straightf as. it is rhetoric so here we are and it turns out 23 americans agree with that statement that you'll see you where that comes from so this is a classic case of asymmetric polarization and the republicans are far more outside the general population and the democrats, 61% of republicans and three in 10 dependent and 13% of democrats andly hear the same number. there's only one religious group

and that's evangelical protestants the group that supports the last election cycle aid intended for trump. you can see the effects here 60% here and why catholics are the next group out that they are still below majority and other groups are either at the population are below the population in terms of the religious landscape. this is surely an alarming situation and this kindd of rhetoric that this kind of support among one of our two nature political parties. i want to look at the national poll and where it's really true the national poll is not going to answer that question. it's only swing state polls that make the difference in the electoral college but to see the religious landscape here. these numbers are from the large samples at the end of august in

beginning of september. we did go back into the field to check the numbers again so i'm showing you the bigger sample here. basically it's divided among all registered voters at the national level in here is to divide and has always in the american religious landscape the two groups are evangelical and -- and there's no group that is the more supportive votes. no group that's been more opposed than african-american protestant and that's the same today and the other thing you'll see the group's attend a support trump are christian groups and in fact one shorthand way you can describe the american electorate is in 1980 is to say you could boil it down to this that christian groups vote

republican and everybody else bodes majority democrat. that's a clean divider since reagan in the administration all the way through and trump has largely held on to that voting pattern over the last few election cycles on our lot of changes. that might be the most dark or both think their ardor lotth of changes with a different kind of candidate that we have at the top of the ticket in the last election cycle on the republicat side. when i first started doing the survey every year there were news articles and they would basically say this the more likely you are to go to church the more likely you are to vote republican and i always thought there was something a little wrong with that. what's wrong. with that is it's mostly true for white people and if you break it down it looks different but so here are white americans and youak can se at the top those who attend

weekly or more and those at the bottom sometimes are never in you can see it. 76% voted for trump and 21% for harris and it flips when you get to those who attend seldom or never. even among white people that's largely ineffective white evangelical protestants in his partly structural because there are many mainline protestant churches like methodist and protestant who don't even offer more than one service so the categoryrv is stacked by its vey nature with white evangelical protestants overweighted so here are hispanic americans and you can see the pattern still holds but it's the attends monthly part were crosses the line. what's your digital monthly or more tilts the other way and here are african-american

protestants. the more likely you are to go to church the more likely you are toupport harris among african-american. the other way. so first the democracy in the 2024 election so again a number questions that d we only trend back to 2021 because we started asking questions about political violence after the insurrection ont january 6. we don't have trends to go back before that because that's not something that would be likely needed to be asked about the theory are. because things have gotten so far off track for american patriots resorting to violence in order to save the country and here are the partisan group divides on that question. a remained fairly steady a little up and down. fairly steady. the main things to say is we he three in 10 republicans today

agreeing that a true american republican may have to resort to violence and with democrats and 18% of independent. one of two of our major party saying yes we might have to resort to violence. we asked others that had violent implications to them and i'll show you the patterns of those seeking seats not just cherry-pick the one particular question here. we asked one about armed poll watchers. there has been a call for people to show up to the polls armed to the teeth to watch and verify the vote so do you agree or disagree that we need armed every day citizens to show up at the polls even if it makes some people uncomfortable on s the second question is the same one i just showed you just general.

may need to resort to violence to save the country the third one is one about voter fraud and every day american rising up even if it requires violence. if the 2024 election is compromised by voter fraud every day americans need to make sure the right the leader takes office even if it requires violent action. here's the first question about armed poll watchers again three in 10 republicans and if you look at again these are peopl who are sympathetic to christian nationalism is a full one third of that group who favors armed poll watchers. democrats is a down around one in 10 in the second 13 in three republicans generally say americanan patriots need to rest to violence to save the coury and the last one is every day americans need to se up. it's less on that question but

the patterns are still clear republicans are twice as likely than democrats to say this and christian nationals may be almost three times as likely for those who do not support christian nationalism. this is quite alarming and i had to remind myself every now and then this is a big deal and something that's a quite nail in the country. the other question here we have is not exactly about violence but it is about essentially a coup. support for trump overthrowing the election is not confirmed as the winner he should declare the results of the ballot and do whatever it takes to assume his rightful place as president. measures along with demographic ones. among thosee who believe the people who were convicted for violence and generous excerpt

political hawks and we have a question question and i'll show you in a minute three in 10 say yes. if he is not declared the winner he should do whatever it takes to assumee office and among thoe who believe the 2020 election was stolen from president trump it's about a quarter. who saved bye bye the weight 62% of republicans who believe the election was stolen from presidentwh trump. then this one republicans who have a favorable view of trump if he's not confirmed he should do whatever it takes and the christian nationalism run on the same number again. do whatever it takes and it's interesting this doesn't even say anything about legitimacy or not. if we don't get the outcome we want is what we should do. this is a nonpartisan poll so we asked the same question about harris. if harris is not the winner she

should do whatever it takes and hear democrats with a favorable view of harris one in 10 so it's a half again likely republicans and those who disagree the election was stolen one in 10 and christian nationalism one in 10 of those you disagree a single digits so again you can see it's nonexistent on the democratic side but it's about half of what it is on the republican side. so looking back at january 6 of 2020 election to give you the lay of the land this first question is on the disagree side people who disagree the trump broke the law to stay in power it's almost all republicans, 80% of republicans disagree thatof trump broke the law compared to 9% of democrats and here's the number that the 2020 election was stolen from trump 62 over pop -- 62% believe the election

was stolen and nearly half of republicans believe people who have been convicted by a court of law in their role of the january 6 attacks are patriots and the single digits for the democratic side. that's dark and worrisome. i thought i'd begin with three things. they are still agreement on some of these issues. here is one. three-quarters of the country agree that we should require supreme court justices to retire at a certain age for a certain number of years instead of serving for life and you can see it's nine in 10 democrats and six in 10 republicans and about as strong as you're going to get in this environment for agreement on substantive issues like supreme court justice tenure or theco other one here s laws that make it illegal for opposition to laws that make it illegal to receive a va at

approved drugs known as the abortion pill for medical editionsrt of 68% opposed restrictions there and you will see even a majority of republican voters on the abortion pill and eight in 10 democrats but a majority of republicans there and finally ivf. if anything should be the third rail and reproductive health gets this. 85% of americans opposed laws that make it illegal for people to seek ivf or in future fertilization to have a child. there is no statistically significant difference between republicans and democrats on these issues and it's actually quite remarkable. on a sunnier note i will wrap it up and handed over to the panel. [applause]

v we now begin the production phase of this event. those of you who haven't seen my face in the previous 14 years i'm a senior fellow in government studies here at brookings. it is really my pleasure to welcome this all-star panel. if i were to do justice to the resumes of all of them we wouldn't have any time left for panel discussions so i l won't. i will simply introduce them you

party met robert jones into his right stage left or reverse the nose is melissa beckmann who is the ceo of the research institute. to her right is a.b. stoddard, a veteran columnist and political analyst now at the bulwark and we also welcome back joy reid who is the host of the readout and political analyst for "msnbc." each panelist will have about five minutes and if you look to your left, you will find

catalina navarro who will hold up to one minute card when you have one minute left. and then i stop card. [laughter] in order to get in all of the panel questions with a high volume of internet questions we have received i will be tough. as you see i have some support from the american people in that. [laughter] andd they would before we start to ask you if you haven't done so already to please, please, please silence your cellphones or pagers. with that melissa over to you. >> good morning. can you hear me okay? before i begin my comments i want to welcome everyone here on behalf of c. r. i n. to say

thank you to the brookings institution. this is the 15th annual american values survey that this is then i think our longest in a partnership and dare i say the most fun. it sighs of pleasure and catalina thank you for keeping the train running on time. i want to announce the incredible work of our staff. please take a look at the survey and fellow essentials -- social media as well. i wish to speak about the role of gender in this election. i'm a a political scientists who study gender gender and politics for more than 20 years. i never run across an election in memory where gender has played such a prominent role at this year. take for example the rnc

convention. i found it notable when trump was introduced to accept his party's nomination family members he chose dana. this is what dana said before she introduced trump sheip said this man is the toughest most resilient human being i've ever met in my life. i would i also say the electionf j.d. vance represents a more traditionalistst views of ameri. i think we are all familiar with the comments made to tucker carlson when he was running for senate about the threat posed by childless cat ladies in america but to single out democratic leaders are in kamala harris by name is how does it make any sense that we have turned up country with the people who don't have a direct stake in it. he's also opportunity of having

parents have the more voting rights in nonparents. this view that he is talking about is one where making children or having children makes you more protonated list america which may have serious policy implications for american women if there's a second trump administration given where in that landscape but also project 2025 a heritage foundation blueprint for what they'd like to see enacted in the second trump administration. project 2025 banning abortion nationally banning the morning-after pill and contraception in advancing idea of personhood for fetuses which would threaten access to ivf which we just saw the one thing united the nation that most americans support access to ivf. what does it tell us about how

gender will play out in the selection this election? verse above the gender gap in o american policies typically speaking since 1996 american women have voted for democratic presence by majority vote and picked up. in 2020 our last election men voted for trump 53% compared to 45% for biden and biden's advantage to women was 65-44%. they gave us recent tracking data and if you look at the two-way race men are breaking forec 51% to 27% in harris has n advantage among women voters 54-41% but even more revealing it's not just knowing the of the voter but their attitude about gender and gender roles. one of my favorite questions from the archives my personal

favorite is we specifically asked americans do you think society has become too soft and when we ask that in 2011, 42% of americans agreed. where are we today in 2024 in the ad? we have gone through the me to movement and there's arise of young feminists making big strides in american politics and 43% of americans there so we haven't seen much difference there. if you look at the gender breaks within that question be found half of americans compared to 30%% american ally that among partisans this is notable. only 20% of democratic men agree that america has become too soft and two-thirds a republican women agree americans have become too soft and feminine.

if we look at that particular measure among registered voters in two-way racegi we find 80% of americans who agree society has become too soft and feminine tend to vote w for donald trump compared to 77% disagreed that society has become too soft voted for kamala harris. last bit of comments what does that tell us about other voters we are hearing about. there's lots can discern among democrats that trump is making inroads with latino men and black men and women look at that measure that i put into those groups only 42% of young men 18 to 29 degrees the societies become too soft and feminine. 42% of hispanic men agree so i don't think a doubling down on masculine themes that we hear all the time on the trump ticket

will necessarily bring young men black men are latino men to vote for trump. i do think it has the potential to animate lots of anger among young women. i written a book called the politics of gen-z and i take it deeper dive into the gender divide a young -- among young women and men and gen-z women are the most progressive in society today and far more likely to identify as feminist than their mothers or grandmothers and gender equality has become a huge subject among women. the talk that we hear from trump will animate younger women to turnout higher numbers this election cycle. i do think however the strong man language is about trying to motivate talking about childless cat ladies and talking about the need for having a great protector and donald trump saying recently in the campaign

trail is trying to get his base to turnout for this election cycle but we'lll know pretty soon. thank you. said thank you so much melissa. aba. >> i have two, 23 old and the -- and they are using -- algorithms to separate them and i'm worried about having grandchildren. i'm heartened byre what melissa says that it's not as we fear that pew had a finding the few monthsas ago late spring early summer that believes advancement for women has come at their expense and that's what vance and trump and the roe zone try to amplify that they are getting left out and cut out. women i do think there will be a

boomerang effect. it's condescending to women that he needs to be their protector but i was fascinated by the findings in the survey. i find the same things alarming and broadly outlined about violence and my main take away was news max in la and previously dive into the numbers insm the survey and find what people's opinions are and where they are getting their media there's a direct and correlation. when i look at where we are in this election i ride for the bulwark and we hope to defeat donald trump and we hope that harris is a change agent in the electorate and not as an incumbent. what i found in these numbers is the pessimism in the electorate obviously for harris and the

economic stress numbers are concerning. 66% believe the economy is change for the worse in the last four years. just not true and it's not a number so that's a shocking finding to my inflation the price hikes are new. people who are experiencing the prices for the first time in their life experiencing anxiety and we saw inflation higher amongst all voters and abortion lowest on the top issues is concerning for harris. was lessigration serious as a litmus test issue i was surprised to find it more of an issue for independence that was in 2020. the country is dramatically shifting on immigration and it shows in the survey. citizenship the pathways down

and dreamers support the dreamers is down 10 points and 2018 in six years. the support for the wall up in 10 years and the 57% number showing the influx of immigrants and in their social services 57% overall is a high number and immigration has grown more salient than abortion even though it's lower litmus test number gets grown in salience more than abortion since 2020 posted dobbs. i found that stunning. america's reputation is change for the worst in the last four years by 5%. america's reputation around the world and this is stunning

statistic 65% of independents which i found really depressing. there is skeptical party and less tribal than republicans and democrats for them to view her situation and you could take afghanistan withdrawal and separate that out but that i found stunning. 53% agreed that trump broke the law to stay in power and that is the low number to me as an overall number. 54% of independents. seven points down in a year. he reflects on the part of the electorate as a whole the trump corruption and criminality and it's very concerning. 49% agree there is -year-old danger of trump being a dictator and one third of republicans say

that. i was going to use robbie's positive ending on ivf. [laughter] i have two childrenn as a resut of ivf in this number of 85% and the scotus numbers the fact that 7% of the country understands the way our government works and the fact that there should be term limits on the supreme court justices service and i thought that was encouraging as well. anyway i look forward to thelo discussion. thank you. >> thank you very much and i want to echo the same to bill and robbie and my buddy dj

catalina and a.b. and thank you for having us. our kids are similar in age and my kids are much older. when i started going to the survey went right to poor things. the first of course is the question of political violence because i do believe this election is a litmus test for american tolerance. the elements of fascism are rooted in this nationalistic drive for women to be subordinate to men and for strong man driven nation and deep state-based religiosity and all of that is in these number so the question of whether people must resort to violence in order to ensure the right

person becomes the leader of our country the most likely to support political violence, 41% and 30% of those watch "fox news." i think it's a media problem and we have some other media that's losing people towards fascism. the second number was the question of america has become too soft and feminine. i think that is a fascist litmus test because it tests the question of whether men and women accept the idea of modernity. if you look at countries that practice the oppression of women like afghanistan and iran or go back to countries like south if you you look at society where women are suppressed yet those elements and political violence that includes abortion activists

and these things go together so the question of whether this lady is too soft and feminine a majority of hispanic protestants agree that it's not shocking as is a social thing and 25% of black protestants agree and so the places where you were seeing trump resonate among people of i think you can lookre to that anecdotally and udp are a lot of complaintspl within some black religious folks and black men and women or latino men and women about what they see as the feminization of society. this question of whether or not immigrants are poisoning the blood of the country, this is one of the most terrifying things that you've heard of presents a candidate say. it actually shocks me 23% of jewish respondents agree with that.

19% of black folks agreeing with that in 60% of republicans agree that immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country. that should actually scare everyone in the last one which might have been the most scary for me is the question of whether we should corral undocumented immigrants in camps evangelical protestants, 75% are the most likely to say militarizing cams for undocumented immigrants and the catholic church is -- i've been catholic since b i was six. we became methodist and i became a bath -- baptists i've been all over. the catholic church is a prime future so free to have a majority of white catholics say there should be armed camps and

white mainline evangelical protestants 56% of mormons a formerly persecuted group of americans agree there should be armed camps. 42% of blackof protestants and % of hispanic catholics favor this policy and we are looking at this on readout the question of whether latinos who believe this think that your average border patrol official or national guard member or police officers going to be able to tell who is an undocumented immigrant and who isn't by your your shade and your accent. i am curious what makes them think that they will take marco rubio or the name of the son of

j.d. vance. he is a child. christopher ruffo is married to an undocumented immigrant who came from this country from thailand and does she think your average cop will be able to discern that this particular person is -- they are a lot of black people who you can't tell from latino. i have relatives you might think they are hispanic but they are black. how is a cop going to tell quickset police and my family and i can tell you they can barely deal with the social services aspect of their job let alone being able to discern who is documented and who is not. more than half of americans who attend church weekly or more, 57% believe there should be armed camps. those who attend the church if he times the year 51% favor putting illegal immigrants and encampments. that is the scariest thing in

the survey because it shows american tolerance for fascism is growing. it's not getting better. the one piece of news regarding the survey is this is global and such is happening here. if you look at argentina and maduro and venezuela the difference is that americans have reviewed ourselves exceptional and not capable of falling into fascism for the 191930s we came that close to supporting. this is not a country that's completely immune from fascism. usually ourur hatred and anxiety has been hyperdirected at black people are right now we are at a moment where the fight is even more so over gender. it is a question of whether america is willing to tolerate the leadership of the woman and

a the woman of. this election will be the ultimate litmus test for whether america is capable of becoming a fascist country and will find out on november 5 or maybe sometime in december or january. >> on that cheerful note. [laughter] not bringing the joy. let me tell you what's going to happen now. we will be divided into two segments. the first of those two segments we will address questions to the panelpe sometimes to specific individuals and sometimes to the panel as a whole. then we will turn to questions interspersed with questions that we have received. when it comes time for questions

please introduce yourself by name, by institutional affiliation if you choose and think it's relevant state a question. there'll be no time for speeches. there many questioned the that will getet a more than i fear we have time to accomplish. let me begin with a question for robbie that we in fact received on line. it's such a perfect question that i decided to throw his way and here's a question reads. please clarify the difference between two groups, first group christians who believe that religion has a legitimate role in life and second groupsth of people you call christian nationalist that you have

pioneered the study of. >> it's a really important question. a reallyqu important question ad i want to say one quick thing to did joyce is comment about the armed encampments dipped in exumation dipped in exumation point on it we purge from calling for alienum enemy act which would be the thing you would do to marshall does and just as a reminder that act as how we got japanese internment camps in this country so this is not something we haven't done before not even theoretically. it was operationalized and i want to point that out to the question of christian nationalism is an important point and we have a long tradition in this country of religious groups having all kinds of appropriate influences on public life. we have separation of church and state but that's never meant separation of religious influence in public life. our measures of christian

national him were designed to respect that difference. we designed the question to address christian nationalism and they weren't fuzzy things about christians having influence. about christians having dominant in public life. when you say u.s. love should be based onw the that's not influence bets one religious tradition o determining law or e won't have a country anymore this idea the only way to be truly american is to be christian. so it's all about if you you were a christian sect vis-à-vis other citizens and they did a study in 2023 with brookings where we had a whole study. you look at what questions we used out of a set of five questions we used and we were careful to make sure all five

questions statistically held together so you could measure how tightly correlated they are with a high correlation and othernd factor analysis they hag together and one is not going to find the others going up that way but all highlyr. coordinated together and the content is about dominance and the theocratic view. it's three in 10 americans who are in that category of either wholly agreeing are mostly green with a statement and two-thirds of the country leaning the other way. again a majority of republicans 54% of republicans who affirm that christian nationalist view and two-thirds of white evangelicals who do that. >> i'm not going to move on to a series of cultural questions for the panel based on the survey.

the first of these cultural questions concerns the issue of crime. i think it may be a sleeper issue to some extent. here is one of the findings with the survey onme crime. 52% of hispanics and 50% of african-americans see crime as a critical issue compared to only 40% of -- how should we understand those numbers? >> i would say because a disproportionate share of black and latino americans live in cities and live in big cities and disproportionate live in cities where crime is higher they are under police when it comes to protection and over police 20 comes to arrest crime

is sort of an ever-present issue and more so in communities. if you are white american living in an affluent suburb you really only think about crime and what you see on "fox news" in which you envision a world in which people are marauding through the streetsle and killing and that's what we view as kind. your officers are friendly and you know themyo by first name ad you might come to sunday lunch. you don't encounter them in a negative way even if you think they are smoking weed or doing evenen harder drugs and likely e arrested for it if they are. or this guy just went wrong give him a break and bear lucky to get away with non-adjudication. we saw this in the mayor's race in new york city where black voters were heavily invested in the idea of crime fighting because again crime is and thought very much in their

communities and they can't count on the police and they are experiencing that issue in a different way. i wouldn't read that into more support for donald trump is people reflecting their own reality. >> in 2020 there was an erosion from the democratic coalition among latino and black voters on this issue and that's why you saw biden in this term repeatedly fund law enforcement in greater amounts and in the state of union and other dresses when it to put this on the policehe slogan. republicans used it very effectively against democrats in 2020. so that was a pivot that remain

several years ago in reaction to the data they saw in the 2020 election and what's also fascinating that the survey is the fact social media tends to make voters enjoy a perfect example your voters protected from this that you see them on socialed media. when you see videos of people living or the baby oncr the suby she says thingsck are elsewhere but in her personal life things are pretty okay. the whole nation is going to in a handbag. that's a result of social media and it's so different that was 30 years ago in terms of how

they interpret the state of the country versus the state of their own. >> it's ingesting we are literally in manhattan. >> would it be fair to conclude fromld these numbers and in minority communities unlike communities to call us for more policing and better policing? >> the charlemagne interview became up and that was one of the issues who are the police? the police generally are called from immigrant communities. they are largely italian americans and one italian americans were coming and they took a working-class job in the lot of irish americans became police and their love of caribbean americans in black

people who become police because of the good pension job. a lot of them are people of so defending the police and their own economic lives so community community -- communities of want police they just don't want them killing people over traffic stop. i think people tend not to know civic so they don't know the relationship. they see everything as the quarterback of everything and not understanding you can do police reform which republicans blocked when it went through congress. the president i worked for proposed the federal government sponsor an additional 100,000 cops on the beat.

you are absolutely right that it's a local function but the federal government can play a role. moving on now to immigration which i believe is the issue that would most electron to an issue that puts them over the top. i noticed the american people are somewhat nuanced on this issue and let me tell you what i think. we have talked about the findings about poisoning the blood of our country and one third of americans still go along with that. immigrants increase crime slightly more foreign 10. almost six in 10.

what does this tell us about where we are as a country on immigration when you away all the hot rhetoric? is there a real issue here? spun i am the child of two immigrants. the thing about springfield per instance the real-world experience of white springfield residents is the haitian immigrants come to town and save their town because they take jobs that were badly needed to be filled in the open businesses they are upstanding people of the community and then how quickly they are demonized when go to city council meeting and that whatever problem you have pointed them and essentially subjecting a death threat. they haven't done anything different so unfortunately immigrants throughout history

are demonized.d. florida tried to root out all these immigrants in these illegal set to go and ron desantis tried it and when all the latinos who are working on farms in agriculture and doing all this construction said okay goodbye, adios. then they are like wait, wait don't go. we need you and they were going to places like hialeah and miami and begging people to stay because it turns out there is not an issue. without new migration we are europe with his aging population they got rid of immigrants when brexit happen and destroy the economy in england and threw them over because you got rid of people who were your nurses and dockers. if you go to paris right now take the out paris won't function, just won't function.

they are doing all the jobs that make pairs function so it's easy to demonize people to get rid of them and the country won't grow we don't have a large enough workforce and the replacement of workers so that immigrants good luck to the united states. >> the ideological shift immigration used to be much more pragmatic. remember the gang of a? we had a bipartisan effort and it didn't work. and it was under a republican president. there is a pragmatism ideology and the other move we've seen in 2024 is the move from the wall to the enemy within.

that's a different move so it's been like that immigrants were up there now bad immigrants are here. it's that fear tactic and vermin and animals as well which is ramped w up. >> it's encouraging that back in your report americans don't believe they have more crime and they aren't as reactive to rhetoric is republicans are. whatne is stunning and in ipsos poll on sunday showed 53% mass deportations of 20 points in eight years, 20 points when donald trump became president. mass deportations in internment

camps and by the way it won't be our local. the interment plan far out to the -- the military. i believe it is an issue and i believe this turned to ride is directly connected to the fact that we are becoming more inflation as and when harris was on last night when a questioner said why are we sending money overseas when we are broke? that's a completely fair perspective. all the things they are saying on "fox news" about facebook feeds into that that we are hurting in this town and maybe it's a town that hasn't done a fitted from immigration coming

in but i don't want any resources going to anyone but the residentss here. it's also heartening is a poll of ohio once last month they didn't believe the that were told about the patients by bands and trump. americans are tolerant and semi- pragmatic. drifting -- not a fear of the other and not that they are criminals but we don't have enoughgh resources and we can't just hand ukraine's sovereignty. we need to keep their money home and needing immigrants to take care of them. the reality of immigrants is not a real harm. >> you make a really great point because there was an issue

where -- went on a on social media about the city of new york, new york city and this program providing ebt cards to venezuelan migrants who were in shelters. ron desantis wanted to texas and grab these venezuelan immigrants and sent them all over the country. they had no green card and they are stuck in the shelters and because they are in the shelters we haven't seen them but they weren't eating the food that was getting thrown awayth and. the city of new york comes up with this program and it was coffee that saved the city money to give people these eb-2 -- ebt cards where they could go tobo local school and local schools and by what they wanted. he goes on to social media and

does what you are talking about. black amenities are struggling and they are taking this money and they are spending it on illegals. this is a way that right-wing media is turning people against each other and even some latinos. thosee immigrants are criminals and my family are not that they are criminal. it turns out the ebt cards were created by a black company that annotated this specific kind of card that's easy for people to get and use. this is a black business that was benefiting from a program that save people money and cut the expense of the taxpayers. when you tease it out it turns out this was helping the community and it turned out the money that was being used for

this is completely separate from anyon money going to african-american communities. >> i have so many more questions and i'm reluctant to encrypt this exchange about the hottest dish and politics. now it's yourte turn. will start with the gentleman on the isle. this may be off-topic. on that topic of the country getting softer -- [inaudible] if you look at young people women are more likely to go to college and are of better questions that we didn't get a chance to talk about.

part of the gender divide in college is making college less appealing to young men. there is a study saying it's become more mice and men don't want a thing to do with them. in terms of trying to get into the ceo suites and to embark on stem careers would often happens in society women are waiting to have kids and then it's really hard because women are doing a second shift at home. i do think we still have too reckoned with women's full participation in the economy in certain fields. that's feeds into the narrative about all the troubles we have in america and that women's

games have become at the expense ofs men. that's a line if you're all the time. we are seeing it showing up in its troubling because the gains of the women have made have been hard-fought and that confidence in young girls to achieve these sorts of things for their many indicator showing young men ares disaffected and i think we can address those problems at once. these are important conversations about gender. >> way in the back. >> hi. my name is meg and i met journalism student at emerson college. hi my question is for joy. i'm wondering you talked about so many big issues and as a

college student i can speak on the help of other people my age do we want to do something that we feel powerless like it 20 or so what can we do about this what we revise the for young people to get engaged in to make sure our country and the bouquet? >> thank you for that question and congratulations on making it here today because being interested in these conversations shows that you are already a leader. i always say to people even if they aren't old enough to vote you have a voice and your generation are the most connected ande most amplified generations in history. you all have access where you can speak to multitudes whether it's if you hundred of your own followers which can be amplified 2000 people your age speaking to millions of people. if you have the equivalent of a show on "msnbc" allowed at these

people i follow on social media. the most important thing is to keep communicating and especially young women. this is an age in which back when i was in college there was an album came out by public enemy called fear the black planet and now i think there's a fear of a planet in which women virtually equal. and particularly women of color who are already needing to have these conversations. and white women as well because white women are still the one group of women who are undecided undecided -- so having those conversations of being foegele is doing the right thing. >> also vote. i think would be fantastic for

democracy and universal voter registration would be game-changing this country. automatically if people became registered were able to vote. >> i would quickly add because you are globally connected and community minded in your generation than more than any of us before you do have an opportunity to lead on political reform. china makes an important point. talk about these issues and talk about ways whether it's how we can vote more easily to also how we can mitigate the effects of gerrymandering final for voting. it really depends on your generation and that's the way for young women who are politically who are polluting gauge to talk to young men who are politically engaged not

about leaders ideas policies and reforms and a way to converse. >> i would add consider running for office for. their 500,000 elective positions. you really cannot make policies so think about running for local office. >> we need a microphone up front here. >> thank you bill for doing such an awesome job. ii want to direct my question to a bn to robbie the data. we americans know lot about migration though i found found most depressing about these numbers is the collapse of the possibility of bipartisanship on

the half of a pragmatic solution. the wording of our traditional question here closely matches i think it's fair to say george h.w. bush's immigration plan was a plan supported by john mccain. for a wild by marco rubio the rural republicans in congress who supported that kind of position but when you look at our numbers it's an impressive the 36% of republicans still support that. butep the collapse is from 53 to 36 and independents her down but a majority i would suspect his republican and the democrats have gone. my questions about political leadership. how much is this increasing concern about a worry about i immigration versus republican i want to ask a.b. allow that this

is the influence of donald trump's rhetoric and the view of people have chosen to stay in the republican party. what would you see going forward about these numbers and how much do you think these reflect the trump influence in the republican party and what opening is there for pro immigration republicans and conservative of whom there used to be quite a lot. thank you all. i'm hopeful donald trump's done with soon in the party because it's such a attraction that there'll be an opening not for a pragmatic immigration reform path to citizenship but more reasonable perspectives on immigration and solution seeking to find a voice.

they are going to stand at the rally site for four days in advance irts for jd vance. it is not the same thing. i hope there is an opening for different perspectives we cannot see right now if that day is going to come. but generally yes, i remember republicans saying yes or republicans came to the table and wanted to work with democrats but it was still a promise with their base. it's -- this move to the missile -- middle has become an issue if trump wins the election democrats will be very upset about what could've been done what should have been done. that is a problem. i think it's stirred up the base rate he has not changed a lot of minds. the republicans -- i'm eating

marbles today. the republican electoral pretending they agree with trump who definitely would like to go right back on some kind of reform but for now they are completely quiet. >> two different things from the data. from that number. >> it's a majority. i think it's 53. low 50's and gone up. >> we've seen this in our data would you ask separately you get much higher numbers. with three options which is immigrants living illegally in the country, should we allow them to be permanent legal residents or should we deport them. you ask that way deportation is 25%. when they have other options on the table. that goes to the pragmatism, i think the biggest thing is there is this sense for republicans in

particular there is a sense of the kind of chaos versus order dynamic we saw in focus groups and in our data recently you may remember we had several versions of the question. and the more requirements we put in the question, the higher republicans -- you had to learn english, pay back taxes. every time we added a requirement republican support went up and when we took any mention of requirement out and the current question providing certain requirements but we took that out altogether. so there is that pragmatism thing. the bigger question is when you've been painted a picture that immigration is an invasion, chaos at the border, that undermines any sense of pragmatism and problem solving. and you've undermined the ability of government to even administer a solution.

and one last point on this thing about the focus group in north carolina we did in 2016 on this issue and was among republicans and i'll never forget the response. i'm a small government conservative and we try to deport 11 million people that would be the largest federal program the country's ever seen parade i'm not up for that. >> i don't know how much you dug into because isn't it the identity of the immigrant sprayed if you ask the question would you like to deport european immigrants, would you like to deport german immigrants, would you like to deport -- isn't it because the immigrants because trump is being very specific pray he is saying venezuela, congo and haiti. he's identifying the immigrants as black and brown. >> absolutely. he's not talking about danish immigrants.

>> donald trump's mom and his family, a two out of three wives were immigrants. they are saying she could stay. >> no doubt. >> ok folks. [laughter] got to blow the whistle here. i have one more question, an online question before i will call up -- to pronounce the benediction. [laughter] we are running out of time i am sorry. so here is the online question which i think is an appropriate question. it reads as follows. given that in every election someone has to lose, how can those on the losing side be encouraged to channel their disappointment or constructively. is there a role in civil society. please some brief answers and

then ej will end the session. any good ideas? [laughter] >> being willing to lose is a democratic patriotic view. that is the essence of democracy. that we are willing to do our best, to persuade everybody weekend and turn out everybody weekend. at the end of the day if we lose we are willing to live with the result. that's what democracy means. i think a recommitment to that and thinking about what do we do , well we live to organize and persuade another day. that's what we do in a democracy. it's really hard but if i am concentrating to thing about the democratic values we reinforce and support this election it is commit yourself to the results of the election without any kind of waffling on whether i myself

think it was a free and fair election. if it's determined to be free and fair i will abide by the results even if i lose. >> we have one answer stand on democratic principles. any other reactions. >> i think about times in recent history when al gore decided to essentially concede the loss in 2020 when i think arguably his case was stronger in some ways of winning. i do think there some thing patriotic about an important and vital to democracy to really concede when you lose. i am not at all hopeful donald trump if he loses, that that will happen. i think what we need is we need other actors, whether it is civic leaders, religious leaders, political leaders to acknowledge the results of the election. especially if donald trump were to lose we need leadership to say look the election has been

had, we know the results were fair and free, we need to move on. i don't necessarily think it will happen. i suspect if harris were to use she would do if hillary clinton did. >> onecl quick thing i want to recommend john mccain's concession of one example of this as well. the answer differently think we are seeing both parties dug in in the last couple ofug years. i'm impressed by how shrewd harris has been as the candidate and she is has ditched her 2019 positions and open to questions and interviews about what the proper response which she has been vice president for almost four years and she values consensus. and she sees where the country is and it's not where she was on medicare for all and it's not where she was on transmitters

for prisoners which are a big oak of trump's ads making -- aimed at making men and saying she's aan radical. whatre i hope is the democratic party will move toward where the country is in an attempt to build a bigger coalition to win the next election and they have on immigration. i'll bet they will continue to do that in response to the election should they lose. if republicans lose we will not see them moving down their pace and trying to move to where the middle of the electorate is. what you're supposed to do after the election when he loses the he loses a party to say how can we convince more people next time. but they tend to do again is to intertwine more people that they can agree with that they can register to vote and not trying to come to the middle to solve problems. i have my doubts about the republicans and i hope the

democratic party would contain defined away with what she's doing to come to the center of the electorate and to appeal to more people next time. if we have another free and fair election in another four years. keeping up my tradition of being the most ironic member of the panel given that my name is joe aye-aye will point out that only once in the last 20 years have republicans won the popular vote in a presidential election. and yet they have exceeded to the presidency twice in that time. 80% of nonwhite people vote democratic and around 50% of white americans vote republican on average in every election and his robbie pointed out and it's a survey pointed out their public party overwhelmingly is a

white christian party. so the odds are kamala harris will win the popular vote. we have a system in this country based on a period in which the american people don't elect a president. the electoral college lx and the president so you can lose an election in which hillary clinton got 3 million more votes and the only way for kamala harris to win the election is to get 4 million or more additional votes over donald trump regarding nope and i don't make predictions but i can make to kamala harris will win the popular vote and will be the second highest percentage of voters for kamala harris. it won't. be them and i just wat to throw that out there. so the question is framed in a way that only has one side be