,> again in his own words recorded by bob woodward, the president knew back in february that this was an extremely dangerous communicable disease. think about it. -- many people across how many empty dinnertable because of his selfishness. >> was the first presidential debate live from cleveland on c-span. stream live or on-demand at c-span.org/debate or listen live on the c-span radio app. coming up in one hour, a chief counsel for the judicial crisis network on the upcoming serene court confirmation battle. more about the supreme court ra.h elizabeth wyd

at 9:00 a.m., headed tonight's debate, university of missouri's mitchell mckinney talks about the history of presidential debates. ♪ host: good morning, it is the washington journal for september 29 and your look -- looking at video at case western reserve theersity, that the site of first presidential debate between president trump and joe biden. c-span's coverage of that event starts at 8:00. we want to hear from you in this first hour on when it comes to presidential debates, do they matter? weathering helping you decide or perhaps hearing about candidates positions on policy issues. here's how to call to let us know. if you support president trump, 202-748-8000, if you support joe

biden, 202-748-8001. if you are undecided or support others, it is 202-748-8002. if you want to text us, do so at 202-748-8003. @cspanwj.itter pollingeet journal to on presidential debates asking the questions on if they matter. some of what they found saying more than 70% of americans say the debates won't matter much to them, including 44% to say it will not matter at all to their choice. most people say they have already made up their minds and even events like the death of ruth bader ginsburg have not sent many to say whether they will change their votes so far. a couple of opinion pieces leading up to the event, one is from mitchell mckinney, who is an expert on presidential debate

and will join us later on this morning on the program. argument thate the debates present no information, if that is true it makes a compelling case for eliminating that. these are not based on what debate viewers believe, but what political pundits think. viewers want debate and the numbers prove it. two of the three clinton trump matchups set all-time debate viewership records with the first drawing about 84 million viewers. the largest viewing audience in the history of the televised debates that began with jfk and richard nixon in 1960. here is another viewpoint from the new york times. charles saying "i'm not looking forward to the president making forward i'm not looking to the hype. we may learn things. and those things are worth learning. when it need a debate comes to policy and character.

what will it tell us that we don't already know? the debate will show us how the candidates converse and clash and how they attack or recover. but none of this at this late stage should be a determinant. you can add your voice to the mix. the lines, 202-748-8000 for presidentsupport trump. if you support joe biden. 202-748-8002 if you are undecided. on the topic of the debates, vicki from new york joins us. how would you answer the question? >> i need to see the debate to be point-blank. i need to see the debate. i think it is necessary, i think they still matter. opportunity for me as a

viewer and a voter to be able to see exactly where their positions are, right out of their mouths. whatever, i, no need to see the debate. i support biden simply because i can take this dog and pony show anymore. our code you learn more by what a candidate says or what both people bring to the stage? >> a class of ideas. and what their solutions are for the many problems that we have nowadays. problems,as those what is top of that list you'd like to see the candidates address? caller: covid-19. , although thece economy matters.

just pick a topic, but there are so many since the gentleman became president. it's really an embarrassment. but right now, we have a pandemic. washington is simply not taking it seriously. is in california, a supporter of president trump. good morning, go ahead. i'm here. happy to see consistency, always being transparent. i am so disgusted that whenever trump is available, interviewed by anybody, town halls, one station airs it. we all know what that one is. when you hear people say you only watch one channel. i say yeah because that's the only one available to us. they twist everything.

debate,excited for this i think it is going to be a breeze and i think it's going to be so smooth for trump. he is an expert. he is grilled every day, challenged with tough questions all the time, he could not be better prepared and biden can even read a cue card. it's just silly. themselves,bates what would you say as far as the debate itself? caller: it definitely matters. you have to be able to respond solidly your ground so that you can either make the executive decision and stick with it or admit you are not sure you are willing to listen to other people. i think there are flexibilities in their, but i also am very supportive of backbone.

i don't want people who are pushovers. host: the new york times reminds us the commission on presidential debates and chris wallace have released the topic, they will be the pandemic, the economy, the supreme court, the integrity of the election, the trump and biden records and the violence and art -- racial violence in cities. led somer has democrats objections for its framing around violence in cities. you can see it on c-span. we will give you a chance to respond to it. in mississippi, supporter of joe biden next. caller: good morning. me,debates matter to

especially this debate. chaos andd so much misinformation and lies. when they are on stage and you will hear them at their own question thathe this country needs to hear. trump will probably lie as he is want to do, but it is up to the moderators told his feet to the fire. the lady performing said biden could complete a sentence. watch moreyou should than one network. host: when it comes to the debate and you talk about the moderator, how much interaction do you want to see from a moderator? caller: i want him to be a fact checker. , i think one of them

he needs to come back and ask the question again. we are fighting in the life of this democracy. we can go under four years with chaos and lies. he owes even know who money to and whether he's already compromised. host: from our facebook page, several of you posting this comes toaying when it the debates, one viewer says they do it for undecided or unmotivated voters. many watch with their mindset already. it is good for those secondary sources. no, theylins saying aren't really debates either. voting has already started.

john from facebook saying not as much when two of the candidates -- two other candidates are intentionally excluded. that's just some of the facebook post things. from dallas, texas, supporter of president trump. hello. caller: yes. good morning. i like the debates. i think it brings out a lot. the topics it doesn't sound like my questions are going to be answered. for instance, i want to know if trump is going to do away with the payroll tax, which would affect social security and i want to know what he's going to do about health care is another thing. trump, ican vote for won't throw for anybody. i can't vote for biden and

harris, i just can't. so the debates are important to me, but i don't think my questions will be answered. thank you. caller: jamaica, new york, a supporter of joe biden. host: good morning. -- caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. ison't think the debate going to make a big difference. i've long made up my mind from the beginning because i could never support someone like a coleader like trump because that's what he is. the people who follow him are cults. , i going to watch the debate don't know what i will learn. i just want this whole election to be over because if trump is , a ind another four years america will be gone. host: if you already made up

your mind, what do you get from the debates? caller: i will watch it to see. i'm going to watch it to see because that is a debate. it,s torn between watching but i think i'm going to watch because i know what trump will do, i saw how he treated hillary on the debate stage. itis a bully, so he's can come out with his bullying thatcs and it is just sad america -- the people in this country are so ignorant that they had the nerve to vote for someone like this crazy man. this man is totally out of his mind. host: when it comes to chris wallace, was the previous caller brought up, this is a quote attributed to him saying mr. wallace wants to be as invisible as possible as a moderator. goes on to say one of these two people will be president and my

job is to be as invisible as possible. i'm trying to get them to engage give them a sense of why i want to vote for one instead of the other. jason inr from virginia, a supporter of president trump. caller: thanks for having me. i fully support the president and i think the media's three or four years of gas lighting has not worked against the american people. his bases all -- has only expanded. if you look across the country for the primary, in most states where there was a primary for a republican, donald trump got more votes than all the democrats combined. for me that was a sign he was ahead. i think the democrats will do everything they can to try and fact-check him, but usually that means distorting the truth and it's really rich coming from a party that has been lying to us

about russian collusion, ukraine and many other things they just did not tell us about currently. i would love to know more about hunter biden when you've asked questions about what we like to know more about. i'd like to hear chris wallace ask the tough questions. the biggest detriment has been the media's complicity. i kinda feel bad for any journalist or person who calls himself a journalist working at any of these networks that goes out and covers joe biden and doesn't ask him a tough question or even a neutrally tough question. when you watch the press gaggle, he's never asked a question, there always kind and gentle and they are always for him. i've never heard him ask the tough questions in the past few weeks. host: that's jason from falls church. talking about the president tonight, the new york times reporting the president has undertaken a less formal debate prep.

bringing up the decks the story adding trump is already engaged in months of real on -- offense on biden's mental acuity that have lowered the bar. carrie is next up from wisconsin. a supporter of joe biden, go ahead. caller: i don't know if i'll watch the debates are not, but i have been following those in the campaigns and there's been so many things trump has said that is not true and he's been caught up on it but io a says fake news . it's proven with the facts and he's been lying all the time. don't -- >> if you express those concerns -- why do you debate over whether you been a watch tonight or not? >> i might just watch a little

bit. did inlays the way he 2016 against hillary clinton, i won't watch them very much. he makes up too many stories. people are getting to where they don't trust anymore because he's been caught up in these lies. he says he's going to do this and that and he's can it do havehing and you can health insurance better, but he's been saying that the whole time, but the republicans were in control when he was first in office about two years and they didn't do nothing about it. host: how do you think mr. biden will perform tonight? well.: i hope he does good.

it's going to be kind of rough against president trump because trump, you know how he treats people. jennifer is up next in california, a supporter of president trump. caller: good morning. i'm not watching them because it's a commercial tv event. if chris wallace wants to be invisible, we would have someone who is not a tv personality and the first place. vice shouldn't be called president he's not the vice president. host: when you say tv production, why does that discount whether you will watch it or not? caller: its commercial tv and entertainment, that's all it is, everybody already knows what these people have to say. it's not for informative value. host: so you don't learn anything or get any value? caller: no, i've seen them

enough times. and biden before that. >> there's nothing new to learn. we will have heard this stuff before every year they gang up on trump anyway. there is nothing new for us to learn here. host: how do you think he is going to perform? caller: trump has a very strong personality and he's great with people. it depends on how biden's before the event and other questions will go. no there's a bias against trump including chris matthews -- chris wallace. so what's the purpose of watching because is a commercial tv entertainment -- she's not a real journalist. host: that is jennifer in california. the matter of those who have not made a decision yet when it comes to debates and whether

they add value. there was an online event sponsored by brookings institution. -- who it featuring spoke about those who might be influenced by debates. who are more susceptible to influence are those who are not tightly anchored to party. they are not as consistently voting for one party. to the extent they feel ambivalent about both candidates, they are not already anchored, the question is are they going to vote at all. can i mobilize or demobilize and then secondly, how do i increase the likelihood they are focused consistenthat matter with what they want a president to do. if i can communicate those two things among the poor that are

susceptible, i will create a likelihood they will vote in my favor. most people are already decided out-of-the-box. you have those in there that are the solidt don't have history of voting a particular way. is whosentially influence. they are more likely to be influenced by what's downstream of the debate. the means and the clips that circulate in their media spheres. host: you can watch more when you go to our website, that's the site to find information about the debates including tonight and how you can view it and all the information leading up to the debate when it comes to campaign 2020. twitter says debates give us the opportunity to see each nominee's demeanor. if they answer or deflect or

become defensive, hopefully will hear actual plant policy. david says they matter and they should matter. we need a president who can think fast and exhibit good reasoning and argumentation skills. a president with a minute -- our standard is rock-bottom. juanita saying this one matters a bunch too many folks. this is why debates matter, adding a plan to stay with joe biden. want, text usou at 202-748-8000. this is diane in michigan, go ahead. caller: i would be interested in hearing the debates become content of fact. isthe way they could do this have a committee of experts, balanced committee and have a

fact-check meter or a line going across the screen. one debate years back, the audience was being monitored and the wave was going up and down whether they agreed. i would like to hear experts do the same thing. so that the debates are just a them to just put out their sayings and rhetoric. wouldy had questions that suss out information, that is where we get the content we are looking for from the undecided folks. if you just throw softballs at them, they will go back and forth. ishink this line of thinking nine -- not informative and it's getting very old. i think they get a bigger audience and they would get

higher marks if they would give the listeners content. this is nothing but a show. ,hey need to have a fact-check a live fact-check as they go. >> do you think most of the analysis of these types of events take place in the next day in the newspaper. do you think there's call for much insight and how that squares if it's true or not? caller: i think it has to happen in real time as the audience hears that. it doesn't necessarily follow all the -- they don't necessarily follow all the channels to get answers to that. i think the people if they are willing to give up their time in the audience to listen, i think it's a good venue to inform the people and i think the focus putting on these debate and the monitor has an obligation to the audience to bring information forward. not just the rhetoric we hear

through the campaign. host: the commission on issidential debate responsible for formulating the event. you can go to their website for more information including the day's of the debates, including tonight starting just after 9:00. on october the seventh, it will be the vice presidential debate at the university of utah in salt lake city. the second presidential debate, a town hall format hosted by our own steve's goal -- steve scully. the final debate will be at belmont university. debates.org is the website. brenda in new jersey, a supporter of president trump, hello. caller: good morning, america. i will be watching the debates tonight and i feel president

trump will get his message across. i really feel that he is good for america and i hope he continues with another four years. he has my vote. i've always been a democrat and i want to see him debate and see what's going to go on. host: when you say he will get his message across, what's different about tonight versus a message at a rally or press conference or something like that. caller: he is debating on stage to get his message, to do things he plans on doing and when it comes to hearing what biden has tosay, it's really going set, i hope, america straight to vote for president trump. that they are so far left. we don't want that in america. we want president trump.

i want president trump and i'm really looking forward to watching tonight on c-span and i thank you for listening. 8:00 is when our coverage starts. we will show you the debate on interrupted from start to finish. we will also give you a chance to respond on our phone lines. look for that to happen tonight. go to our website for more information. as the sun comes over there and arises. in texas, a supporter of joe biden. two presidential debates matter? presidential debates matter? caller: yes they do. we don't need president trump. i believe it can happen tonight's hopefully america will see on the stage and see the contrast. trump is not come out attacking like he always does, he never stays on point with the debate

subject will be. is it's good to be joe biden. joe biden just needs to stay calm and show the contrast between the two. trump. doesn't need it is a hotbed of racism and hate and i think tonight is going to show the contrast with joe biden. . good calm leader host: that is ronnie. go to janet in indiana, a supporter of president trump. iller: i just wanted to say think everybody else finally will be able to see the contrast

between president trump and biden because biden has not been out there answering questions. how do these people know what they are really going to do if say for instance they would get elected. nobody really knows because biden says one thing and he says another. he's been in office all my life. i'm 62 years old. he's been in there since i was a kid. he has not really ever done anything that he says he was going to do. curious of how these like president trump is such a divider. i don't really see that.

he is just honest and he doesn't speak like these other people do. host: janice in indiana. dan in california, also a supporter of president trump. caller: my take on it is it sounds like every election of this caliber is like a pseudo-war. it's like a war but we are trying to win the war. all is fair and every things on the table. doinggitimate for whatever it takes. host: to the idea of debates matter, what do you think? absolutely because that is part of the strategy. that is part of a war strategy.

you must go in there and present your points. host: it's a war of ideas so to speak. caller: you have to go in there and present your ideas. it is like a battle. these gentlemen have to go in there and battle. -- that's all i'm saying. host: ok, giving us a call like many of you have in this first half-hour, you're welcome to do so in the next half-hour, when we will keep on with the topic, do presidential debates matter. here is how you can let us know. again, heaps of support joe biden, my kit -- joe biden, (202) 748-8000. president trump, (202) 748-8001. perhaps you are undecided or you support other candidates, call in at (202) 748-8002. or text us at (202) 748-8003.

as we are getting closer to election day, we are seeing more ads coming from the candidates in question. we will show you the latest, starting with joe biden and then following up with an ad by the trump campaign. [video clip] ♪ >> has joe biden ever used a teleprompter to answer a q&a? a >> what will your administration do to help give him that chance? >> going up here.

you know, there used to be a basic bargain. >> joe biden, possibly reading his responses from a teleprompter. >> social distancing and wearing masks. not one day, on day one. >> has day 1 -- has joe biden ever used a teleprompter during local interviews? can you say yes or no? you can't answer the question. risingknow, the rapidly and with, i don't know. audience,ogies, radio that first one didn't have any words, but you can find it online if you wish. rob, northeastern north carolina.

supporter of joe biden, talking about presidential debates and if they matter. good morning. thank you for taking my call. i'm in east north carolina, primarily democrats, you call them blue dog, yellow dog, whatever. we have learned to work across the aisle since we were here with the first 13 colonies. the recent revelations about taxes and finances has finally pushed me over the line to who i'm going to support. i'd like to say that i come from a long line of business people who have always used accountants to be minimizer's of taxes. anybody who can get $1.5 billion from china and $13 million from the mayor of moscow and lie about it and said i never in new anything and didn't pay any taxes, he's a crook of the highest order. host: all of that said, how is

that relevant to tonight's debate? he hung up. david, watertown, south dakota, supporter of president trump. morning --h, good hello, thank you, i've been a union member for years and i have never voted for a democrat for my life and joe biden in the people in the democratic party are the reason why. i think trump has done a good job without any help from the other side of the aisle. joe biden, when he's not on a teleprompter, he can't tell the difference between his wife and his sister and he doesn't even know what state he's in. regarding tonight's debate, what does that mean? caller: they always talk about trump being a liar and joe biden lies every time he opens his mouth. when he went to eastern europe and got all that money for his son who is a junkie with a

dishonorable discharge. host: again, to tonight's debate, what does all that mean specific to tonight's debate? caller: i support president trump and i think he's done a good job and i support the debate because if joe biden isn't on a teleprompter, he won't even be able to tell you his name. host: c-span's coverage starts at 8:00. biden,rter of joe barbara, you are next. caller: thank you. host: you are on, go ahead. i think of this whole campaign, the hatred that each side of this political , it's been so, like

hate, hate like never before. who is on, who speaks in tonight's debate, that person, the one that hates the other person for president, it isn't going to make a difference. they will think the same thing and the whole debate is over. host: including your candidate, joe biden? caller: yes, sir. most certainly. and such ach a liar little slippery type of person, i don't know how anyone could trust that man. that you said me both people involved you said would project hate in some form? maybe i'm misreading what you are saying. caller: can you repeat that? host: you just said that both

candidates will project hate in the debate. correct me if i'm wrong, i wanted to ask if that included your candidate, joe biden. caller: yes, definitely for joe biden. host: ok, let's go to mark. debates overall, do they matter. caller: i have been voting in presidential elections since 1986, when i turned 18. i have voted for democrat and republican. i have voted for myself. i've got to say i'm supporting trump this time, he's done everything he said he would do. nominated nobel peace prize is, which is nowhere on the news for some reason. these debates are going to prove that he should be president again. host: how so? caller: unfortunately, he's went

after crush biden. going to have to show -- one of the main reasons i'm supporting , i don't think biden is capable of being president. an undecided voter. new york, sean, hello. caller: i wanted to see if they were going to submit a blood test. it would be interesting to see if one of these candidates could , you know, step up to the challenge, so to speak. if joe biden doesn't do well in his debate, i don't think that he will have the other two debates because of his .ackluster performance going forward it's imperative that he does well tonight.

if he doesn't, it's not going to go well for him. host: ok. go ahead, caller. caller: i do think that trump will, you know, somehow, you know, make it entertaining nonetheless. i'm intrigued. entertainingled it , but you also said you wanted to see a good debate. what makes a good debate? caller: i do want to see some policies being talked about. you mentioned earlier that the presidential debate counsel or whatever, they are the ones who dictate how this form is going to be conducted. the commission on presidential debates, yeah. -- caller: i do want to see some long form where the

american public can see some substance in the debate. where it's not a commercial break, where people have time to literally digest everything. form, i wouldng think it would be better for the american public to decide who is more fit for the job. i do think it's going to be pretty good. host: what policy topic would you like to see most discussed? the economy. everybody want to talk about the account -- the coronavirus. i saw that there is a list of debate subjects that they will be talking about. they always say it's the economy, stupid? i want to see the economy. that's sean, new york.

speaking of ohio, "the wall street journal" takes a look at the recent polling there. a quinnipiac university poll showing statistical ties among likely voters, while the fox showseleased the same day joe biden leading mr. trump along likely voters, adding that he is leading in national polls and in several other battleground states. "the new york times" and other news that could come up tonight in the debate, they follow up with a look at the presidents taxes, adding in a front-page story that the times was able to place the value on his celebrity with a return showing 100 and 70 not -- $197 million earned from the apprentice, they revealed an additional 200 and $30 million associated from the fame associated with it. it goes on from there. it could well come up tonight in the debate. "the washington times"

highlights from yesterday, talking about covid-19 with the release of rapid tests, saying that states will receive six point 5 million rapid coronavirus tests this week, the president dubbed the move a game changer. all while governors protect first responders and reopen schools -- that you can find more on story in "the washington times code endorsements, they began to make there is this morning in the paper for joe biden. mark is in seattle, washington. a supporter of joe biden. hello, go ahead. thank you for c-span, pedro, good morning. hopefully it will be entertaining. that young man made a good point for that. you know? we don't want to fall asleep and i don't think we will.

i think they will come with fire in their belly. just like, you know, the first ali frazier fight or something like that. host: what are you hope to gain from the debate tonight? more knowledge on how quickly the president should get out of office. i was urging that he resign and see a psychiatrist. lie.n't help but it's his nature to lie. how does that relate to the debate? caller: 60% of what he has to say will be lies. and you know maybe biden, it might be 15%, but he won't intend to lie. i really don't think the president means to lie. that's why i have been praying for him.

i think he has done quite well in the last year and a half and it took a lot of courage for him to meet with the head of north korea. that takes courage. he walked right across the war line there to talk to the head of north korea. but you can't make up for what you didn't do earlier. i look forward to it. thank you. south cleveland, they talk about the preparations going to tonight and it comes to security, taking the cities work for the last month and a half, the ohio national guard and police with the cleveland clinic at the western reserve university organized security around the event. secret service is the lead agency around the sampson pavilion. the vote came in on the health education campus, jointly owned by the clinic and located on the main campus outside the perimeter.

host: california, supporter of president trump, hello. thank you for, you know, believe that president trump will win the debate. host: why is that? in,er: because he is good you know, speaking. host: ok. are you planning on watching all three debates? i will, i will. i will of course watch the debate the whole night.

host: ok. the rebroadcast is and plans for c-span coverage for those of you on the west coast to want to watch. given the time differences, you get a chance to respond to questions or at least call in if you want, to give your impressions of the events of tonight. ohio, supporter of joe biden. go ahead. caller: high, i support joe biden. i came to this country from india in 1965. i voted in every election and primary. i have followed the career of trump.

in the beginning i thought he was good. you know? when he started writing early? doesn't event he remember what he has said. host: what do you hope to gain tonight as you watch these men go back and forth on their ideas? i don't think -- people have already made up their minds, believe me. i watch c-span every day, the washington journal. look at the way they say. host: we appreciate you watching. do you think that the people who have made up their minds should

watch anyway or should they not watch tonight? caller: i might not watch it. or i might. most likely i would fall asleep. old, you know?rs so. host: well, i will invite you to watch it on our network tonight. not only for the chance of seeing it uninterrupted, but also for the chance of hearing how people think about the performance tonight between the mending crush -- the mending question. all of you as well can do that, find out more information at our website. a couple of events on capitol hill, reporting about the effort to pass the coronavirus relief package, saying that the pared down heroes act is $1.2 trillion less then the original bill passed by the house last spring.

host: this is expected to be voted on by thursday. the president's choice to replace justice ruth bader ,insburg on the supreme court amy coney barrett, is expected to appear on capitol hill to talk with senators leading up to the confirmation process happening early in october. some have already said they won't meet with her. "the wall street journal" highlights those, including chuck schumer and two members of the judiciary committee. other committee members are on the sky did -- are undecided, including cory booker and chris coons.

those lead up meetings are expected to start today. julie is in rhode island, supporter of president trump. go ahead. there. hi good morning. i think that president trump is not only going to win the debate to win, but he's going the next two. he has made promises, he's kept them. i've never heard one thing joe biden has said that he hasn't contradicted. confused as to why people would believe anything he says. i haven't heard any plan from him. or from,. to me it's just a no-brainer. president trump loves this country. he's not a racist. he's not any of the things they claim he is. host: specifically, when it

comes to tonight, what constitutes a win for the president in your mind? as far as winning tonight's debate. well, it depends on how mr. chris wallace asks the questions. the media folks, they seem to be handling joe biden with kid gloves. president trump, they come out swinging. and then they say he's a liar and he's this and he's that. he's not. they haven't given him a chance. nobody could take the kind of crap these people have thrown at him and continue to do the right things he does for this country. host: let's hear from carrie in illinois.

supporter of joe biden. hello, go ahead. to callyeah, i wanted in. i'm rooting for biden and kamala. any remaining trump supporters right now are, they are 100% fans. that silly thing it could be. this president has just come you know, trash -- drag to the presidency through the mud. everything he says tonight, it won't have any substance. it's just going to be pure entertainment, high-level vega positions on things. i hear some of these trump supporters saying that he has fulfilled his promises. ever since his campaign started, he mentioned plenty of things he was going to do like building the wall. he said he was going to release his tax returns.

this is the end of his first term and you know, it had to be leaked. host: when it comes to joe biden, what does he have to accomplish tonight? do you think. caller: showing leadership, showing professionalism. showing that he has the ability to empathize with americans who when they go through, just show human decency. honor, integrity. through the's been administration before. he's been in politics for a long time. people, they say he's been there hasn't done nothing, he's done plenty of things, otherwise he wouldn't have been there as long . he knows how to get things done. whatt would you -- host: would you call chief accomplishment of joe biden? which: health care,

trump's tried to take away during the pandemic with nothing to replace it. which is going to affect mostly low income and people of color throughout the nation. it's a no-brainer. biden stands on the side of .ervicing the complete nation as much of the nation as possible. not just democrats. let's hear from michelle in tallahassee, florida. you are next. areer: my husband and i very much in support of the debates tonight and believe that this is the opportunity for the president to shine. we have heard nothing of the policies that biden is going to elected.he were to be it will be a chance for president trump to push for him

to say what his agenda is if you were to be elected. host: mr. biden has had several events on things he would like to do. we have recorded those and put them on c-span if you want to watch it there. well, i truly believe that there is nothing that biden could do that could help this -- caller: well, i truly believe that there is nothing that biden could do that could help this country. the caller before saying that the president made all these promises and hasn't kept them and that's absolutely not true. i don't know what news channel he's watching. we try to watch its all different sources for news and form our opinion from that. and just yeah. host: as far as mr. president trump, what constitutes a win

for him tonight, do you think? caller: a win for him -- host: no, where's the other person i was talking to? caller: this is michelle. a win for trump would mean for him to speak his continued economy growth. his continued support for pro-life. his continued support for law enforcement and the military. the economy. he's a brilliant man and he has proven that. that's michelle in tallahassee. let's go to anthony, good morning. good morning, good morning, thank you for taking my call. everyone has been waiting for this. when it comes to joe biden, he can't hold on any longer. tonight he's playing with the big boys. host: you identify yourself as a

supporter of joe biden, is that the case? caller: i was, but not anymore. host: i'm going to stop you there. we want people to respect the lines that they are calling it on. supporter of president trump, you are on. caller: yes, yes, i support trump. he's done an excellent job and i believe that tonight for the debate we will see that biden has been definitely practicing, but i believe he has probably been, just like what happened with hillary, given the questions so that he can study what he's going to answer to. just like they did for hillary with donna brazile. i don't think that trump gets treated fairly by the media and he's correct, the russians that will be asked and said to him will be different than the ones said for biden. you insinuating that

chris wallace is going to feed him the questions directly, since he's the moderator? caller: he's already been practicing. host: that's not uncommon, but why do you specifically think they have been fed to the vice president? caller: because they already did it with hillary for years ago when they were debating and it was brought to the attention of the american people that donna brazil fed hillary the questions. they already knew what to answer. so, he has been preparing for the last few weeks. it's, it's so obvious. it's almost that i do believe trump will do an excellent job. i do believe that he has helped this country more than anybody else during this entire pandemic thing. he haslieve that definitely been a good president. is susan in waller,

texas. this is the first of the planned presidential debates, tonight. steve's -- c-span's coverage starts tonight at 8:00. you can find out all the information on our website. tomorrow morning on "the journal," we will get your responses to tonight's debate. for the next hour we will talk about the president bought choice to go to the supreme court. the judge is expected to visit capitol hill today to meet with senators and we have two guests joining us. first we hear from carrie severino of the judicial crisis network. later on in the program, another perspective, elizabeth wydra of the constitutional accountability center. those conversations, coming up on "washington journal." ♪

ongoing global pandemic and many schools theting to online learning, c-span studentcam competition continues to provide a platform for national conversation, we are asking middle and high school students to produce a documentary exploring the issues they want the president and the new congress to address. >> reboot? the constitution invested in american justice, including the times shown in the fifth and eighth amendments, presenting us the debate issues of equality. >> when you are given the opportunity and the skill to become an informed voter and an engaged citizen, they vote. democracy is what they learned. >> in inequity, it's a tent mulch was pathway for citizenship for children who

were born here but parents who illegally migrated here. >> this year we are awarding 100,000 dollars in total cash prizes, including a cash prize of $5,000 for the grand prize. for competition rules and more information on how to get started, go to our website, studentcam.org. >> you are watching c-span, created by america's cable asevision come -- companies a public service. "washington journal" continues. oft: this is carrie severino the judicial crisis network. she's here to talk about the upcoming supreme court confirmation involving judge amy coney barrett. thanks for being with us. guest: good morning.

host: remind our viewers about the organization and where you stand politically. guest: we are looking to get judges confirmed to our committed to interpreting the constitution and the laws as they are written. you have any active role in the president's choice for supreme court? guest: that's the president's call and it is done through the white house counsel office but i'm thrilled, i felt like everyone he was looking at closely was really well-qualified. i felt like i couldn't be in a better position. i would have been happy if it was amy coney barrett or barbara lagoa, he had some great choices. host: i suppose the question you are asked a lot these days is about the overall impact on the court and how it changes when it comes to the justices themselves. how would you answer that? guest: it's a shift in

perspective and how we look at the law versus ruth bader ginsburg. in herey barrett follows footsteps as a woman, a woman with children, accomplishing what she has as a scholar and a judge. but she also has a different perspective in terms of how to interpret the constitution, much like ginsberg's judge -- good friend, justice scalia. she talked about looking at the text of the law and really interpreting the text as written and leaving changes to the text to the legislature. we have seen and heard her role now is a federal judge, she's been very articulate about that and careful to look at what the constitution says. we don't interpret them as we wish they were or feel like they should be updated. we look at the words as they were understood when they were passed. either parts of the initial constitution or later amendments

. you have to look at them as they were meant to the people that passed them and if you want to make changes, that's what the amendment process is for. host: it's been reported that your agency is spending quite a bit of money in this effort. how much? spent demanded justice $10 million on the fight to oppose barrett so we said match you, we will spend the same amount to defend her. 4 -- host: so, $10 million? guest: that's our budget for the first month of the process. host: one of the ads that you will have supporting the candidate, we will show the viewers the ad and then we will come back to ask about it. guest: sure. [video clip] >> you will hear a lot about amy coney barrett. here it from her. decideare not there to cases as you may prefer. you are there to do your duty and follow the law where it may take you.

themy coney barrett follows law and ignores politics. incholar and judge grounded faith and family, she's the perfect choice to follow justice ginsburg. host: can i ask you about the final line, the perfect choice to follow justice ginsberg, what do you mean by that? guest: i think she's going to be an excellent judge, as i said before. you heard it in her own statement, and her nomination, she embodies so many of the that people admire about justice ginsburg. she's a mother. she's a person of faith. she has a wonderful partnership with her husband, down to the fact that it seems like marty ginsburg, justice ginsburg's husband and jesse barrett are known as the best cook in the family, something the supreme court helped to kick off, that supreme court cookbook in his honor.

there's a lot of ways in which these women are similar. also in their commitment to being friendly and cordial with people they disagree with. that is why you have people, there's that famous ginsberg scalia relationship, such good friends in the court, even though they differed. barrett, same thing, colleagues that span the spectrum, the people she clerked with saying that she is someone who ought to be in the art, she's super brilliant. people like noah feldman said that he disagrees with her on so many things but that she should be confirmed to the court. this is the kind of role model that ginsberg was in forging those kinds of relationships and barrett has a similar path herself. host: here is how you can ask our questions -- our guest questions. the line for democrats, (202) 748-8000. the line for republicans, (202) 748-8001.

independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text or tweet us, if you wish. there has been a lot said about the writing of the judge when it comes to a couple of different areas. much was made about what she said about the affordable care act. this was a book review in 2017 chiefthe act, saying that justice roberts pushed the affordable care act beyond its plausibility in the statute. "deference to a democratic majority should not supersede the duty of a judge to provide clear text is there still concern over the aca your mind? bit ofsome of this is a scaremongering about the aca. what bear say is that first of all, this article has been out there since before she was confirmed to the court. there wasn't a lot of questioning about it before. this is something democrats are going back to try to find anything they can, even articles

she's written, not cases she has decided. the bottom line here is she is committed to looking at the law as it is written and the interpretation the chief justice put on it, from the perspective of a lot of people, it was driven more about his concern over policy outcome. she's not telegraphing how she would rule on a future case or a later case that had different approaches in terms of legal philosophy. but i think she's really clear that looking at those outsized concerns is not the correct thing. it's looking at the text of the law. and that resulted on the bench with her coming up with conservative and what people might politically call conservative or liberal decisions. they are ultimately driven by the law rather than politics and that's what she's getting at. host: a lot of people pointing to what she wrote on roe v. wade , "public rejection of the

proposition of starry decisive's rather than a desire to precedent it remaining unchanged host: i'm not a lawyer, many of our viewers are not lawyers, but what does it mean when it comes to the topic? starry guest: -- guest: , following a case because you followed it before, not because you agree. there is no justice who has ever said that every single case we have to follow. all of them, justice ginsburg, kagan, sotomayor, breyer included have said that in certain cases we need to overrule this case because it is so wrong. there is a set of balancing attempts that the judges will apply in terms of how wrong.

i don't think that what she said is particularly surprising. it's different from what any justice would do. what differs is how those balancing tests get applied and which cases the justices would feel like are the ones that are wrongly decided. joiningrrie severino us. from maine, joe, biddeford, you are on with our guest. good morning. good morning, pedro. i guess my question is in two parts. the president said that judge ginsburg did not say on her deathbed that we should wait. that we should not make it political and we should wait until after the election. do you agree with that? yes or no. my second question is this. if she's such a perfect replacement for judge ginsberg. , why isn't she honoring her deathbed request? i'm -- i will keep talking if

you want, but i'm sure pedro will cut me off. host: you asked the question, let her respond. guest: her granddaughter said she said that. she said don't wait until the election, she said wait until the next president is installed. theoretically of trump is installed, i could before years of him. i understand that is her deathbed wish, but that doesn't determine the way the future vacancy is necessarily handled. to wait for example for four more years to fill the vacancy, everyone agrees would be extreme. although you can understand, a lot of justices have felt this way. they would like their successor to be chosen by someone, president of their same party. nonetheless they all recognize that practically speaking that's generally not your choice to have and that's the precedent we

will be following as well. host: i suppose when you say things like that the two words the pop to mind are merrick garland. guest: well, no, if justice had had a deathbed wish, i can guarantee you it would not have been followed by obama. he would have been happy with gorsuch. but that's not the reason that we hold a seat open. the question of merrick garland i think is one of looking at, even just the historical precedent of how the election-year vacancies are handled. thathing that we know is every election year vacancy and history of the country, when there is a vacancy, the president nominates someone to fill it. we are in line with precedent there. when the senate and the white house are held by two different parties, the precedent historically is the person doesn't get confirmed. it's not surprising. we have a constitutional check on the appointment process that

says the senate has to be able to ratify this and if the senate doesn't want the person, because they disagree with the president, they won't get confirmed. the vast majority of the time, like in 2016 when they were in different parties, the nominee doesn't get confirmed. we were in line with historical precedent there. 2020, the opposite occurred. the president in the white house holding the same party. if you look historically almost every single time they were confirmed under situations like that. and it's not surprising why. the political check and balance tilts into the cot to touche in a process here works by saying ok, the american people gained control of the senate, the same party as the white house, meaning we are moving forward on things like that and that's what we will see in 2020. host: here is san diego, california, democratic line, cynthia, go ahead.

she pretty much answer the question. i wanted to find out why merrick garland wasn't confirmed during the presidential, when the president obama was in office. and now we have trump. do the right thing. it's all about integrity. with this president we don't have that and i just think it's very unfair. host: cynthia, thinks for the call. you can answer to that if you wish. guest: i recognize that there are people who disagree with this president. nonetheless, he has president has the authority to fill that seat. this is exactly where we are with historical precedent. i will point out that the democrats in 20 were making arguments going to the extent that it's unconstitutional not to hold hearings and vote for the nominee. those arguments were false at

the time and they knew that they were false because the same people who said it was unconstitutional suddenly and 2020 are saying no, you have to have -- you have to wait for the election. that's, you know, i think that's the real double standard here. the fact that there is a political check and unfortunately, the democrats don't like the results of the check, i'm sorry, that may mean that you are frustrated with the system and the solution to that is in order to have nominees move through, you need to have control of both the senate and the white house and that it has historically always been the case, because the constitution created that political system for getting supreme court nominees confirmed. host: from james on the republican line, brooklyn, new york, you are on with carrie severino. my question is, how do you feel that the confirmation

hearings are going to turn out? guest: in hawaii? you are up early, i'm impressed. ,e are going to see it here hopefully a little different from the kavanaugh hearing. that was really marked by a lot of chaos and intentional disruption by people in the audience, over 200 people arrested for disrupting the hearing, they had to be taken out of the room. this year because of covid-19, hearings don't have the public seats. i think on a positive note, that means that distraction and that level of delay of the process is going to be taken out of the picture. it will be senators on both sides questioning the nominee. what can we expect? some of the things that were hallmarks of previous hearings. her record. you will have some people on both sides of the aisle who are going to want her to commit to

how she would vote in certain cases. but that's something that many people get frustrated by but it's simply a fact of the process here, were not going to get her to say well, i would vote this way or other. the reason for that comes right from justice ginsburg, she wasn't the first person to have this approach but she was clear, no hints, nor forecast, no previews. she pointed to the ethical obligations of a judge under the federal rules saying that you can't guarantee that you would vote in a certain way. if she had she would have had to recuse herself later from those cases. ginsbergduring the confirmation process she said she can't answer the question, can't talk about these things. every time it's frustrating for people but i want to always say you know it's the case, we have been talking about this for years. you cannot ask for commitments on cases. one other area that we are looking forward to seeing how it

plays out is whether the senators will attack her on her faith. we have even seen some people, some democratic strategists on twitter suggesting they should attack her adoption, two children adopted from haiti, attacker either because there is something illegitimate there or because it's inherently illegitimate to adopt a child of another race. those are be mistakes on the parts of the democrats. we did see in her confirmation process to the appellate court senator dianne feinstein, who really did attacker on her faith, asked her if she was orthodox catholic, said that the dogma -- people scratched her head, wondering where she was going. there is no religious test for office. they make -- there may be people going that way with moderate democrat saying that would be a horrible mistake but some people on the left saying nothing south the table. you know i think that will be the big mystery.

will we see personal attacks like that? again, we obviously saw some of that going on against kavanaugh. so that, instead of having people arrested, that might be the drama for the hearings this time. host: do you think that there will be questions about the association with the group people of praise as a part of the process? guest: that's what we are already seeing, my goodness, this group -- many of these things are shared by large numbers of christians but also other religions in the country. i think it's a bad look and i think again, there's a constitutional standard here that we cannot ignore. there cannot be religious tests for office. you may not agree with her religion, but you have to respect it. justice ginsburg herself said that her religion informed her public service and it's why she went into the law. because of her commitment to justice and her jewish faith that taught her the importance of seeking justice.

that is something we should celebrate, having a strong faith life isn't something that we should be suspicious of or questioning. it certainly not something that fits into the ginsberg legacy. this from twitter, janet makes the comment that she's been a judge for less than three years and adds that her lack of courtroom experience is glaring. she has more experience than three of the sitting members of the supreme court. justice kagan had zero experience as a judge. justice thomas and justice roberts, they had less experience as a judge when they came onto the court. i think that's something where there's a lot of debate as to whether -- president obama said maybe we should have more politicians like chief justice earl warren, who had no experience as a judge before coming on the court. there are many illustrious judges in the history of this country who had that.

there's a lot of people who say -- look at her record. she actually has a much longer judicial record than many of these people. you can see her approach. and you can see it in her scholarship as she wrote clearly about the way judges should behave, she has clearly thought through these things deeply. if you look at her record, it's going to be that she has a lot of these amazing -- i mean her brilliance is one just shine through. -- is going to shine through. california, democrats line, you are next up. go ahead. good morning, c-span. our system of checks and balances has been broken for a long time and i do believe that the next president should be the one that chooses the next appointment or makes the next appointment on the supreme court. i also want to rely -- remind allowat mcconnell did not

obama's picks for the court to go through and the system was broken. that's why harry reid invoke the nuclear option. that was a mistake, because now we are paying the price for. let's be clear, it does matter who sits on the supreme court and it should be chosen by the american people and the american people put the next president office. i want to ask you, are you part of the federalist group? thank you. guest: yeah, i am a member of the federalist society. most conservative libertarian lawyers in the country would say the same thing. it's a great debate group and an opportunity to speak. i have spoken at their events and had interesting exchanges with the people i have debated their. going back to the question of the confirmation process and how that works with the checks and balances, here's how i would

kind of illustrate it. when president obama took office, right? he had two supreme court nominations before the scalia vacancy and merrick garland. those nominations went through, right? in part because part of that time he actually controlled, his party controlled the senate. in 2014 the american people instead of reelecting democrats in the senate, they elected republican senators and shifted the balance of power. when the american people do that, it's tapping the brakes on the country. it's not saying for steam ahead, we like what's going on. it's a step back, let's have a pause. that's how the checks and balance works. elections absolutely have consequences and that includes elections to the senate. that's why the constitution set it up that way, they thought the senators had a real role in the process. when you had all the ties between the senate and the white

house, this is what happened overwhelmingly, historically in these cases, the american people are the deciding vote and they get the tiebreaker and in that case they cast it for donald trump. in this case what we saw in 2018, same kind of midterm elections for the republicans, they didn't lose seats, they gain seats in the senate and many people, democrats as well, pointed to the cavanaugh confirmation is the reason they did that. when americans saw what was going on in that process they were horrified and frustrated and it shifted the election toward the republicans. i would say that the 2018 election was the another -- was another opportunity where the american people said to be like this direction and my goodness, the republicans won more seats because people were frustrated with the way the democratic party was handling judges in particular. that's an indication of moving forward in the same direction. that's what we are going to see

in 2020. as anin her first year appeals court judge, the federalist -- federalist society paid for her to travel to colleges. is that a common practice? how would you respond? guest: when i had to travel to go to an event, they reimbursed me for my travel costs. i have had that experience with liberal groups i have spoken at. the idea of paying someone's airfare to get to an event they are speaking at is pretty .ypical supreme court justices regularly go to speak at events. even in europe. their expenses are paid by the organizations that bring them there. pensacola, florida. independent line, hello.

guest: are they trying to do with abortion only but also the reproduction rights for the women? -- caller: are they trying to do with abortion rights only or also reproductive rights for women? guest: this is an example of scaremongering. barrett hasn't expressed her opinion on the validity of roe v. wade itself as precedent and i don't know that we see that going anywhere anytime soon, in my personal opinion. however i think the big commitment that she has is to read the constitution and the text of the law as written. this isn't about your personal views on these different hot button issues and it shouldn't be. we shouldn't want to know or the personal views of these justices. we should be concerned about whether they are following the law, whether it goes in the direction they agree with or a direction they disagree with.

she's been very clear that that is her approach on the bench. you can see it in some of the cases she has heard. she has heard cases where if you look at the politics of the way that a thing comes out, she comes out for example against the trump administration in their interpretation of something and you go gosh, politically why would you do that. because it isn't a political question. it's because it's a legal question. if it is consistent with the law, she will follow it. if it's inconsistent with the law, she will follow it there as well. robert, good morning. caller: how you doing, thank you for it call. but i have to say is plain and simple. president trump is a republican and he made a nominee for the supreme court. there's not a democrat alive who becausee for her democrats don't vote for what republicans do end republicans

don't do vote for what democrats want to do. that's the problem we have. host: ok. that shewill point out was confirmed by a bipartisan majority. several of those democrats voted her to the second circuit. i'm optimistic that we will see people like joe mansion, who also voted for justice kavanaugh , voting for her. honestly, i think, and this is why i'm looking forward to the hearings, i think that once people get to see her and understand her perspective, seeing what a poised articulate woman she is, i think it will be hard for democrats not to acknowledge that this is someone who is incredibly qualified for the seat, who clearly knows her stuff. you have got her colleagues saying gosh she was ready for the supreme court 20 years ago. she's whip smart. but she's also understanding, she won't come at it like

scalia, where he's acerbic and sarcastic. i think she will be someone who once they get to know her, it will be hard for these democrats to vote against her. i think we will see a bipartisan confirmation process. that's what justice ginsburg would have wanted. you heard her say it during the cavanaugh confirmation. she said that the way it is is not good. the way it was was better, referring to her own confirmation process when she was confirmed despite being a clear liberal. having worked for the aclu, she was nearly unanimously confirmed in a very swift confirmation process. she thought the process should be that way again. i do think we will see some barrett'srecognizing outstanding qualifications and will go and vote for her, though i think you are right, they will probably get really attacked by the groups on the left to feel

like take host: thanks for your time this morning. guest: thank you. host: another perspective coming up on this topic, elizabeth joining us from the constitutional accountability center to give her perspective on this process and then later debate,the presidential the history of the event and the impact they've made with mitchell mckinney of the university of missouri. that is coming up on washington journal. ♪ announcer: with the ongoing global pandemic and many shifting to online learning, c-span's studentcam competition continues to provide students with a platform to engage in a askingl conversation,

middle school and high school students to produce a documentary exploring the issues they most want the president and new congress to address in 2021. the framers of the --stitution were invested issues of equality. it needs reform. >> when youth are given the opportunity and the tools to become informed voters and results.itizens, because democracy must be learned. >> a tumultuous pathway to citizenship for children who were born here but his parents illegally migrated here, the immigration system fails many people. year, we areis awarding $100,000 in total cash prizes including a grand prize of $5,000.

for competition rules and more information on how to get started, go to our website, studentcam.org. ♪ announcer: you're watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government. by america's cable television company as a public service and brought to you today by your television provider. the first presidential debate between president donald trump and former vice president joe biden is tonight at 9:00 eastern from cleveland. watch live on c-span. trump: biden is recklessly campaigning against this vaccine, truly reckless. all it is is for political reasons. isen, his whole deal catastrophic shutdowns. >> again, in his own words, recorded by bob woodward, the president knew back in february

that this was an extremely dangerous communicable disease. think about it. across theople states, how many anti-chairs around the dinner table because of his negligence, his selfishness? >> watch the first presidential debate live from cleveland tonight on c-span. stream live or on-demand at c-span.org/debate or listen on the radio app. announcer: washington journal continues. host: another perspective from elizabeth of the constitutional account ability center, she serves as the president, good morning to you. guest: good morning. host: a little bit about your organization, please. guest: we are a public interest law firm that works in the courts, with congress, and talks to the public about the promises

of the constitution, and you can check us out at our website. host: from the perspective you take, when you consider someone like amy coney barrett constantly -- possibly going to the supreme court, what are the concerns from the stands she takes on interpreting the constitution? >> first of all, i think that it's improper to even be considering a nominee right now when we are in the middle of an election. not just an election year, the election is happening right now with half a million ballots already cast in early voting states. not to mention that we are in the middle of the pandemic and the senate is taking away an important time that should be devoted to dealing with those virgin, crucial issues in these next five weeks. aside, i thinkt there's a real legitimacy question when you have the public voting right now for the president and the senate, the folks thatof the

deal with nomination and confirmation of a supreme court justice, and if there is a lack of public space in the way that process works, there is going to be a crisis of legitimacy for ae supreme court it relies on really public believe in its legitimacy in order for its ruling to be voluntarily and sometimes for grudgingly, but still happily followed. guest: it gives me great concern ,ow she would be on the court these judges and justices on the bench will follow the including the majestic promises of equality and justice put into the constitution particularly in the amendments after the civil war. a justice who would follow those regardless of her political preferences and we have seen rulings has questioned from the supreme court, repeatedly upholding the of portable care act, which is more

important to americans than ever with so many getting sick. also on the question of quality and reproductive freedom, she has called roe v. wade an erroneous decision and that is incredibly concerning to the millions of us who need to make sure that we have control over the destinies of our lives and over our own bodies. adding to that all the other concerning aspects of record regarding life for immigrants, lgbtq plus americans, putting the interests of big business over those of everyday americans, i'm extremely concerned about her record, not to mention being extraordinarily concerned as a citizen, as a constitutional lawyer about the legitimacy of putting her on the bench right now. host: her record has usually come from her writings in law school and an educator. as a judge, has she done anything that would suggest she would indeed up and these things -- upend these things? guest: so she has been on the

court for about three years, i think that is why you see a look to her public statements and writing from before she was on the bench. hastime on the bench, she been mostly defense or issues sesated to hearings of ca signaled a willingness to let abortion restrictions going to place. issues related to notification of parents even after a court has determined that a minor is sufficiently able to make those decisions for themselves. and there are also issues immigrants, the idea that you would send someone back to a country where they are going to face clear persecution, issues related to what is known as the public charge rule, the idea that we shouldn't grant relief to immigrants who are here trying to find a better life, trying to find safety for

themselves and their families if there is a chance he might need public assistance. there are definitely things that are concerning about her rulings in addition to the statements she has made and i would just say that one thing that i think applies incredibly strongly here is the concern for president trump's litmus test recent he would only nominate some of the supreme court if they would be willing to come in his words, "automatically overturn roe v. wade," someone who would be willing to strike down the portable care act, and he would only vote for someone who would only strike down roe v. wade, and he said that he will support judge amy coney barrett. so putting all those things together, people who care about the affordable care act and the protections for those of us with pre-existing conditions, people who care about ensuring that roe v. wade remains law, that people are able to make decisions for themselves and their bodies

along with their families, their god, their doctor, and not have them decide that for them, in addition to a whole host of other concerns about the constitutional guarantees for equality and justice, absolutely there is cause to be concerned both based on her record on the before, andshe said what trump has made absolutely clear that he would do when it comes to nominating someone to the supreme court. host: you can talk to our guest and ask her questions by calling the line (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, and (202) 748-8002 for independents. to that last point, before we go to calls, do you think there is an appetite for the court to actually engage in cases that would consider those previous cases undecided? guest: absolutely. are beginning to look at the president's campaign rhetoric on these issues. he has repeatedly talked about the need to -- also, i didn't even mention the gun issue.

the supreme court even with justice scalia have, while recognizing that there is an individual right to have a gun in the home for self-defense, have made clear that there is not necessarily a constitutional right to have a gun anywhere you want at any time you want and have that gun be obtained by anyone who wants one. and yet, we've seen the president say over and over about how even that sensible gun rights regulation is something that he does not want to see upheld by the supreme court, in fact, he would expand the second amendment rights from where they are even now with justice scalia. certainly, over and over again, as i said that test on roe v. wade, and so i think trump is saying to his voters, he must certainly think there is an appetite. i must say that the majority of americans support maintaining roe v. wade, they certainly support and embrace the important protections of the affordable care act that we use so much right now during these

troubling and uncertain times. host: we will start with chuck in georgia, republican line, you are on with our guest, go ahead. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. if the roles were reversed, and don't lie, if the roles were reversed, if democrats had the presidency and the senate, they would put a judge on the court in two days. and another thing, if biden wasn't so scared about who he would nominate, he would tell us who he would nominate to put on the court. why is he afraid to do that? guest: yes, thank you for those questions. i'll start with your last question first. former vice president biden before he was vice president, was on the senate judiciary committee and i think kind of an bodies, in some ways, --

antibodies in some ways -- embodies, in some ways, the old days of senate supreme court nominations. there is some hesitancy by some folks and i can see both sides of this, that putting out a list improperly politicizes the supreme court and a lot of people believe that politicizing the supreme court is a very bad thing for the legitimacy of the supreme court which is supposed to be a nonpartisan institution of our government, something that is not just a group of republicans and democrats, but folks who are, we hope, impartial jurists. is whyrstanding is that biden might be reluctant to put out a list, because it is seen in this election time as unduly politicizing the court. of course, on the other side, that was a boon to president trump to put out that list by putting itg it,

before the voters for something useful to him. but i think that is why biden has been reluctant to put out a list. reversed, i amre not a political strategist, on a constitutional lawyer. i think certainly what we've a concerndemocrats is about the legitimacy of the supreme court, there is voting going on right now. while the roles were not currently reversed in 2016 when president obama nominated merrick garland after the passing of justice scalia in february of an election year, for several months, many months before the beginning of the election as opposed to now where we are in the middle of the election early voting, just a few weeks away from the culmination of that election, mitch mcconnell, who ran the senate then and runs the senate now certainly did not even give merrick garland a hearing, much less a vote, much less confirm him to the supreme court.

one thing that we do want regardless of party is to see that consistent standards are applied when it comes to the supreme court, even in an admittedly political aspect of the supreme court, which is the confirmation. the nomination and confirmation of a supreme court justice are done by political actors under the constitution, but the court itself and justices themselves are supposed to be above politics. and so when you have something like the difference in 2016 with merrick garland compared to now, i really feel that we risk the public seeing the court as subject to political power grabs in a way that i think does undermine the legitimacy of the court. pine bluff arkansas, independent line, dorothy, up next. caller: yes, i will be voting for joe biden but i'm disappointed that they did not wait till after the election to

choose a nominee for the court because it is only fair that they follow the same president they followed last time. my concern is the affordable care act and how the voting be on this court? wondering, since this judge is just coming on, she should recuse herself from the voting, because she is just coming on the bench. those are interesting questions. one thing that i think not enough of the public knows is that while there are rules about recusal, explicit rules that apply to lower court judges, there actually are not rules that bind supreme court justices. we kind of rely on them to self-police. matt is one reform of many that has been talked about, that is one that i don't think it's enough attention. i actually think if she were to be confirmed, i think it would

be highly unlikely that she would recuse herself based on statements she has made about the affordable care act. usually, justices only recuse if they have been explicitly involved in a case or have a financial interest or a strong personal interest in the case. but you're absolutely right to be concerned about that. the repeatedioned rulings by the supreme court that have upheld the constitutionality of the affordable care act, and statedpresident trump's desires to have the affordable seeking toerturned, have the law invalidated, i think you're actually right to be concerned. host: pennsylvania, republican line, hi. sorry about that, go ahead with your question or comment. caller: ok. i question is, as far as the

justice, itthe seems that, would you want somebody who goes by the constitution, or just party politics? what they want? >> i absolutely want someone to follow the constitution. what i want is someone followed before constitution. not just the way it was as it existed in 1789 when we still had a wonderful constitutional democracy established by our constitution, but still a constitution that was deeply flawed because it allowed the original senate slavery to continue in this country, it allowed for women and people of color and so many more to be excluded from our democratic society and excluded from equal citizenship. i really want a justice who will follow the whole constitution, the constitution as it has been amended over time.

to make it more equal, to make it more inclusive, to make our society truly freer. the thing that i can concerned about with so-called conservative originalists is that they often overlook these amended guarantees of the quality and justice that came through -- i say amended because they came through in the amendments to the constitution, the 14th, the 13th, the 19th which we celebrated the centennial of which gave women more meaningful equal citizenship in this country. the poll tax amendment which ensure that no one will be denied the right to vote because they can't pay a fee or a fine before going to the ballot box. what i am concerned about with cody barrett becoming justice is that i'm not sure that she embraces that constitution regardless of where it leads, even when it might support

outcomes that are different from her policy agenda. we certainly have not seen president trump, who has nominated her, respect those guarantees of equality and justice for all, and perhaps most on my mind right now, in the election season, does not willing to respect the constitutional guarantees of free and open democratic society and rule of law. given all of that, i am deeply concerned that she would not theythe constitution when lead to outcomes that for making sure that the interest of everyday americans are respected over those of the powerful, that when it comes to equality and truly having meaningful equality, they can make decisions about their own bodies. i am deeply concerned about that. host: max is in california, democrat line. morning, longtime

listener, 67-year-old democrat, been voting for years. what this is is high-stakes politics. if my democratic party was in power, even though mitch blocked s would garland, the dem do exactly the same thing. we were banking probably on hillary winning last time, so they weren't worried about it, and trump won. i wasn't happy, but he won, i think he is bully in chief. on this issue, the dems rolled the dice and they lost. ruth, may she rest in peace, tried to make it to the finish got her before the next president was elected. dems took a gamble, they could have replaced her. i think she was getting sick, probably did not know how sick

when obama was in. circumstances were different, but we rolled the dice for the party, we would do the same thing and i would love to have coffee with that republican n who called first on this issue because the supreme court -- and about the list, i agree with that gentleman. about the list, it is great to see a list as a dem, we want to see who they are going to elect. god bless america and get out and vote. host: ok, thanks. guest: amen on the getting out and voting for everybody. i think that a lot of people do share your sentiments about wanting to see a list. is some legitimate concern about politicizing the court but at the same time, i do think there are people who would like to see a potential list of biden andcandidate there have been many organizations that have been, or

i should say, there have been some organizations that have put out lists for vice president biden to consider and he has said that he would name an african-american woman to the supreme court. some of the list that has put out by organizations show there is an extraordinary wealth of talent coming up through the pipeline of both academia, the judiciary civil rights work of those who work in the criminal justice, trying to make sure that criminal justice is more just. you might want to look at some if therelists and see is anyone you would like your candidate to support. i think that justice ruth bader ginsburg was so wise on the wishesnd one of her last was told by her granddaughter that she not be replaced on the supreme court until the conclusion of the election and

that a replacement be named by whoever is elected, whether it is president trump or vice president biden. she served that court so long and so well that she knew, and i agree with her, that putting someone on the bench right now, as the people are having their say about who should be in the white house and who should serve in the senate, would undermine the credibility and legitimacy of the court and make it seem like it is just another political power grab and i totally hear you that it seems like you are saying it is a political power grab. maybe because i'm a supreme court lawyer and someone who cares deeply about the constitution here i'm not quite willing to give up the legitimacy of the supreme court and the idea that it should be something that once you are on that bench and you put on that your fidelity

is to the constitution and it is not just another partisan institution. host: the idea of a polymerization -- politicalization, is that something you would like to see, or not? guest: i don't like the idea when it is put forth, that kind of political vengeance. but i do think it is something that perhaps should be considered if it would enhance the legitimacy of the supreme court. we are not just talking about seat, but i-- this think a lot of people were deeply bothered by the way president obama's nominee merrick garland was treated. they considered just as gorsuch who replaced him as perhaps sitting in an illegitimate see. of course, a lot of people were concerned by the process of justice kavanaugh's nomination. i think when you put that

together, if there is this crisis of confidence in the supreme court, perhaps expanding it to enhance the legitimacy in the public's eyes is something to think about. the constitution does not specify a certain number of justices so if it would enhance the public, that is something i've look at. a lotd just caution that of people don't know which party they are going to help in the long run, maybe in the immediate nomineesight put more supported by the left on the court, but we don't know. i think these reforms should really be done when they are in the public interest and not just as a political football. host: new york, democrats line, khalid, hello. caller: hello, thank you for taking my call. something that has not been addressed is the term limit for the justices. is thereon is, something that can be supported

like a constitutional amendment, or can congress make a statute to make the terms of the justices? guest: thank you, sir. guest:thank you. that is another reform that has been talked about in addition to expanding the core and while expanding the court through congressional action is something that clearly is constitutional, there has been debate about term limits. list astitution does not term limit specifically but it does talk about justices serving up on good behavior. the idea that they have their and could remove them for not good behavior. some people talk about getting around that without needing to amend the constitution by having service,go into senior something that we see on the lower courts. andes will become senior

they don't sit as regularly as full members of the court, but they are still judges in an important way. way to get possible around the potential need to amend the constitution. host: this is our guest, and our next call for her, out in texas, independent line. caller: hello, how are you? two issues i would like to, i would appreciate from ms. wydra. momentarily, if you might define for us or for in the viewing audience right now, if you might define conservative versus liberal in the sense of politics versus in the sense of the judiciary. in a moment, i would like to get thatnd i would like to say

with a little bit of honesty a president that just put a supreme court nominee at the behest and request of winning the 2016 election to , who also tookt over the senate, and that wasn't good enough for the electors. we added a couple more people to the roles for the conservative side. host: we will let our guest respond to that. we are in the middle of an election right now and there are a lot of people, particularly after the way that the pandemic has been handled by the white house and senate, who might feel very differently about the occupants of those bodies right now.

i think that is really the problem. not that there was an election in 2016 that had certain results, it is that people are voting right now, people are having their say right now, the election will culminate in just a few weeks. that is really the problem with that argument, i think, in this moment right now. host: one more call from diana. diana in connecticut, republican line. just about time for the next segment, but go ahead. caller: i just have two things. the president did do a good job on. number one, i want to know why it is that whenever there is a vote, republicans are the only party to switch with the democrats that the democrats have never switched with republicans and also, ginsburg two years ago said i do not vote my political beliefs, i do not vote by the constitution, i put my political beliefs. again, i vote by my political beliefs. two years ago at the end of the session.

she said that along with sotomayor when they were asked why they did not vote like everyone else did. again, she said i put my political beliefs, i do not vote the constitution. i cannot imagine justice ruth bader ginsburg or justice sotomayor your ever saying those anytime come in the privacy of their own home, in the public, i cannot imagine them saying that, i have never heard that before. they are people who follow the constitution. to protect the equality and justice that it guarantees. i would strongly disagree with you on that particular point and certainly there have been instances over time where democrats and republicans have switched to vote for nominees, so i think i disagree with you on pretty much all of the fact that you just put out in your call and i would encourage people to really pay attention to the actual fax of what is going on right now with this nomination, because the stakes could not be higher when it

comes to things that americans care deeply about like health care, like making decisions, like having a court that works for everyone including those of us who are working hard and struggling everyday to make ends the. -- to make ends meet. please do watch what was happening with the court in the senate, because it is incredibly important for the future of our country, and honestly, to all of us everyday. ,org: the u.s.constitution is the website for the constitutional account ability center, elizabeth serves as its president, and we thank you for your time today. it is the first of three presidential debates and you can see it tonight on c-span. coming up, the history of the debates and the impact they make with mitchell the kennedy -- mitchell mckinney of the university of missouri. we have that conversation, coming up. ♪

announcer: sunday at noon livern on "in-depth," our two-hour conversation with ,arvard university professor other titles include the secret history of wonder woman, these truths: a history of the united states, and the book of ages. join in the conversation with your phone calls, facebook, text and tweets. the first presidential debate between president donald trump and former vice president joe biden is tonight at 9:00 eastern from cleveland. watch live on c-span. trump: biden is recklessly campaigning against this vaccine. it is really reckless. all it is is for political reasons. isen, his whole deal

catastrophic shutdowns. words,n, in his own recorded by bob woodward, the president you back in february -- knew back in february that this was an extremely dangerous, communicable disease. think about it. across the land, how many empty chairs around those dinner tables because of his negligence and selfishness? >> watch the first presidential debate live from cleveland tonight on c-span. stream live or on-demand at c-span.org/debates or listen live on the c-span radio app . washington journal continues. host: on this day of the first presidential debate, a discussion about the history of debates and the impact a make with mitchell mckinney, the director of the political

communications institute of university of missouri. good morning, thanks for joining us. guest: good morning, good to be with you. host: what does history tell us about the impacts that debates make overall? well, what we've learned over time is that the vast majority of those tuning in tonight, and we expect a large assume those debates even increase in their viewership where a lot of the political campaigning conventions, other forms of political communication, has waned over the past several years. not so with debates. we actually set a record four years ago. brought theey largest crowd, but that first debate was almost 82 million viewers. the all-time record. most of those viewers tuning in, what we have learned, as high as 90 plus percent of those are

there to cheer on their candidate and to root for the candidate that they already are committed to. typically a small slice of viewers and voters who have not been following the race very closely, who are uncommitted, and what we found that small slice, they use the debates to make a candidate choice, a voting commitment. that number, typically in our studies, has been anywhere from 2% to 4%, never more than 5%. and yet, in terms of a race where the dynamic is affected, particularly bad around states, that slice of debate viewership can make a difference. certainly important first debate. and itct high viewership can be consequential, i think, in the outcome of the election. host: so you have probably heard critics of debates overall.

one of them is the new york times yesterday, in part he wrote "indeed, we don't need a debate, what will they tell us that we don't already know? the debate will show us how candidates clash and how they respond when its hat in how they were couple were not when bruised, but none of this should be a determinant of how one votes." well, certainly, and i think it is true, for many of those folks, pundits and media campaign operatives, even a callers aref your following politics very closely. again, when we see that 80 million plus, they have the potential, and they do reach those individuals that haven't been following politics, haven't been following the campaign so closely. for those individuals, unlike many others, we will be hearing a lot of the same issues, a lot

of the same arguments, we expect that in debates. but for some voters, this is the time for them to size up the candidates. campaigntime in the that we see them together, face-to-face, and in terms of what voters to go away from the debates, our research shows that this is the moment that they point to a source of information, whatever at the most useful. that is attributed to the fact that we see the debate and it is the case that this is the form of campaign communication that is least controlled by the candidates. unlike ads, unlike rallies, speeches, party conventions that are produced by the parties, the candidates are there without notes, without teleprompters, again, not knowing the specific questions that will be put to them, and because of that, i

think that is the reason that voters point to the debate message and when they see the candidates meet at the debates, as a reliable form of communication, where do they feel they are getting the truth, if you will, of what we hear from the authentic candidates? for all of those reasons, again, we will be hearing, and throughout the three debates, we will likely hear some of the same arguments, some of the same lines we have heard from the candidates, particularly those following politics very closely. this is new information, and this is information that we have found that they claim is very useful to them. host: mitchell mckinney joining us for this conversation. ask them questions, for those of you who support joe biden and kamala harris, (202) 748-8000. if you support president trump and mike pence, (202) 748-8001. if you're undecided at this point or you support other parties, (202) 748-8002. do debateskinney,

end up being a make or break typically for the candidates involved? guest: you know, we certainly point back to some of those memorable moments in debates that are played over and over again that can have, i think, a very powerful impact on our perception of the candidates. in terms of the make or break, we have had debate series from the very beginning, for example, 1960, a very close election. certainly richard nixon claims that his performance in those first kennedy-nixon debates just didn't match up to the performance of john kennedy. fact, that was one of the main reasons why debates went on hiatus for a bit. richard nixon was a candidate in 68 and refused to debate. we finally had debates resume

again in 1976. there's another debate series where some blunders by gerald i thinkthe 1976 debate influenced the perception of his knowledge and performance as president. we can look at other moments and make some assessments. if the dynamics of the race are set, and that it will needs of the race close enough going into the debate series, are there enough undecided voters, if we look at some of those battleground states, where we know the race is won or lost, are there enough undecided voters that it may be influenced by the debate to have an outcome? there are a number of those historic moments that we point to and claim that they were influential in the eventual outcome of the race. host: we can go back to 1960 if you want, but you said, richard

nixon and john kennedy. the topic, the issue of civil rights. you can see that on our website at c-span.org. we will show you a bit of it. what we will show you, apologies for that, let's take effect back to 1992, richmond, virginia. george h.w. bush facing off against president clinton, the topic of the economy coming up. a question addressed to bush about how the economy has impacted. >> everybody is affected by the debt because of the tremendous interest that goes into paying on that debt, everything is more expensive. everything comes out of your pocket in my pocket. i think in terms of the recession, of course you feel it when you're president of united it's, that's why i'm trying to do something about it. investing more, that are indicate -- better education system.

>> you know people who lost their jobs and lost their homes. well, i've been governor of a small state for 12 years. i'll tell you how that has affected me. every year, congress and the president signed laws that make us do more things and give us less money to do it with. i've seen people in my state, middle-class people, their taxes have gone up and their services have gone down while the wealthy have gotten tax cuts. i have seen what has happened in the last four years of my state when people lose their jobs. there is a good chance i will know them by their names. when a factory closes, i know the people who ran it. and i've been out here for 13 months meeting and meeting just like this ever since october. with people like you all over america, people that have lost their jobs, lost their livelihoods, lost their health insurance. what i want you to understand is the national debt is not the sovereign, is because we

have not grown -- not the only problem. it is because we have had 12 years of trickle-down economics. we have gone from first to 12th in the world and wages. most people are working harder for less money than they were making 10 years ago. it is because we are in the grip of a failing economic series and this decision you are about to make, that will be about what kind of economic series you want. host: professor, two approaches from the two candidates, expand on that. guest: you know, a very good clip to illustrate, one, one of the innovations i would point you in terms of the structure of our presidential debates, the institution of the town hall debate that began in 1992. has debate commission continued, i was fortunate to be a part of the research team developing that town hall debate, the structure of the town hall debate. actually, that was run about as

a way to more directly engaged citizens in the debate process. 1960 as we continue for quite a long time for decades, the panel of journalists who were in charge of the debate, quite often we would see the sparring between the candidates and the journalists who were asking questions of the candidates. now, we've gone to the single moderator, we may talk about that structure as perhaps an improvement in terms of a more focused discussion of issues. but the goal of the town hall debate is to more directly engaged citizens in that debate, and certainly points to the fact ,hat we now see citizens viewers of debates pointing to that debate as one of the most beneficial forms of debate, presidential debate for them. in some ways, telling us that they are able to get a better

sense of the candidate's ability to understand the concerns of the american voter. whether or not a candidate is able to relate to citizens. they see that enacted on the debate stage. i think what that change is really, what that requires is a different dynamic in our candidates. certainly, those more formal ofates, we expect sparring the candidates back-and-forth, attacks, aggression, conflict. not so, necessarily, in the town hall debate. the dynamic there is understanding the concern of the voters, addressing the concerns that the voters raised in the town hall debate, and to demonstrate that ability. we've seen some of our , thedential candidates clip you play, george h.w. bush. famously in that debate, checking his watch a few times throughout the debate. other candidates throughout this

debate's performances not illustrating that ability with citizens. that is an interesting innovation or change in the ways in which we structure our presidential debates today. host: you mentioned the moderator. what is the ideal role of a moderator? certainly, you get a lot of criticism, and a lot of pushback from the candidates, from the campaign, from other journalists in terms of suggesting how the moderator should handle the role from the debate commission's standpoint. they select moderators who are that in charge of these debates. now, in the structure of debate, the 90 minute debate, we will have six segments. , the sixators identify topics that each 15 minute segment will focus on, and then the moderator is in complete

charge, is the only one who knows the specific questions that will be asked of the candidates relating to each of those six topics. the candidates don't know the questions, the commission, they don't know the questions. and then i think it comes to another sticking point, another point of debate for the moderators who have been in charge of the presidential debates. back, toity to push question, to follow up. now we refer to it as fact checking the claims, the statements made by the candidates. agree or haveould come to the conclusion that the moderators, these journalists are there to do more than just timekeeping. again, they are in control of setting the agenda for that debate discussion to the extent that the candidates will address questions and topics raised by

the moderator. but i think also, to follow up. we have had a number of moments in presidential debate history where it is in the follow-up by a journalist, we can go back to and it wasd ford, clear in terms of his understanding of communist control of east european countries, it was in the follow-up or a journalist said wait a minute, mr. president, i want to make sure i hear what you're saying. and there are other moments, too, where it is clear that the role inst's active pressing the candidates have led to revealing moments that tell us something about her candidates and their president's knowledge and abilities. that topic where we see a lot of criticism and assessment of the role of our journalists. are the fair to both candidates in terms of the questions put to

them, within that fairness question, did a fact check, did a follow-up? again, most of this vast 80 million viewers are partisans, rooting for their candidate. they are going to be looking very carefully at the conduct of the moderator. host: mary in fort walton beach, florida, a supporter of joe biden. thank you for rating. you are on. caller: mr. mckinney has answered a great many of my questions about moderators, i would go a little bit further. onward, hem 1960 would see the moderator actually sitting on the stage with the candidate. now, he barely see them unless the cameras shipped. but also, another question which

is pertinent to me and very important, the behavior of those two candidates. justn, i watch mr. trump stomp around the stage and try to distract from the other candidate who is taking seriously. is that anything that the moderator could intervene with or comment about? thank you. you know, this question of the journalist, the moderators, who should be in charge, it really has been an issue throughout the history of presidential debates. led to thes, it creation of the commission on presidential debates up until it was after the 1984 case, the league of women voters with the national organization that planned and executed our presidential debates. thats during that period

candidates would go back and forth with the league and particularly on the question of which journalist would be selected to question the candidates and finally, the lead came to a point where they said we are just getting this up, we no longer want to be part of this. we can't work with the candidates. year,he commission, each they announced the moderators, and we've seen where the candidates have accepted. someinly, there is often sparring, a bit of back and forth. i believe the trunk campaign released a list of journalists that they would like to see in charge, none of those were selected to be moderators. that question is perennial throughout our debate history in terms of who would be in charge of the debate. to the question of the

candidates behavior on the debate stage, i would add to the caller's observations in terms of, i think she was referring to the town hall debate and some of the behavior of walking or stage, oneound the of the things that we know, again, it was history breaking viewership in the 2016 clintonite entropic debate. another record that was broken is our analysis of all presidential debates from their forward, those were the most conflicting debates in the history of presidential debates in terms of the amount of tax, the type of attacks. we often will analyze the attack , it is an issue attack, is a personal character attack, we even interestingly added a new category with name-calling and opponent, ofne's the drafting and name-calling.

much of that was directed from donald trump to hillary clinton, although there was the tax going back and forth. and then as the caller mentioned, we saw in the town hall debate, that was another difference in 2016. there were several differences in that debate series. typically, the town hall debate is the least conflictual of all of the presidential debates, and i've argued before, i think one of the advantages, that is where we see the candidates focus less on attacking one another, on that town hall debate stage, and focusing their attention more on the questions for the citizens. we are watching to see, do they address those questions? we expect them to spar with the journalists, but quite often with the citizens, we are watching to see, are they addressing the questions, are they respecting the citizens? in 2016, there was a great deal of candidates a candidate back

and forth and attacks. even with the citizens. that was a bit of an outlier as a debate, something of an outlier for a presidential debate. host: patrick am a supporter of president trump, good morning. caller: yes. the one thing that i hope that this moderator does is keep both of these candidates on track as far as talking about the records and their achievements and the facts. if the democratic party is the party of feelings, not facts. they like narratives, and they tend to use inflammatory words in situations like a debate, instead of talking about facts and achievements. that has to be curbed. , i try too people have the same kinds of debates in my life. somebody will go oh, i hate trunk.

let's talk about it, what is it that you don't like? he is a liar. give me an example. i don't know, i don't have any of those. he is just a liar. ,hat is because the narratives they deal in emotions, they don't deal in facts. host: ok, thank you. mr. mckinney? again,well, certainly, in the series that will begin tonight, for a lot about the need for fact checking. and who will do the fact checking? ,he journalists, the moderators will the moderators step in and attempt to correct claims made that are not supported with facts or reality? often, i point to the back and forth between the candidates. one of the first lines of fact checking of claims that cannot are that when a

candidate makes a claim, when one makes a claim that can't be supported, does the opponent call that out? now, certainly, we've also seen that if one spend their entire time cleaning up this fact theking, it really takes opponent off message in terms of what they are trying to achieve in addressing the issues. ability to fact check, who will fact check, we might also talk about social media in debates, this sort of instant fact checking. to ability of social media influence our understanding of the debates because that has become an important part of the debate message, the debate dialogue. one lasting note that comes to mind, i found this interesting, wetudy several years ago,

think about the type of fact that candidates use in debates. an analysis of several years, several series of presidential debates shows that the candidate who spends the 90 minutes spewing the greatest number of fact and statistics is typically seen as the loser of the debate, that is not the way case entirely or necessarily as opposed to the use of narratives, the use of personal anecdotes. clip,ard in the earlier bill clinton talking about people he knew in his home state who lost their jobs to illustrate a point about jobs and the economy. quite oftenates entirely briefed with full briefing books of all the facts and figures, they may not be the most effective message strategy

for a candidate in a debate. host: let's take you back to october of 2012, obama debating mitt romney. the topic was paid equity for women when the series took place. have got to enforce the laws which is what we are doing and we've also got to make , we that every walk of life do not tolerate discrimination. that has been one of the hallmarks of my administration. i'm going to continue to push on this issue for the next four years. >> senator romney, capacity for women? >> important topic and one which i learned a great deal about, particularly as i was serving as governor of my state because i had a chance to pull together a cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men. and i went to my staff and i said how come all the people men?these jobs are all and they said these are all the people of qualifications. and i said, can we find some women that are also qualified?

and so we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds they could be to become members of our cabinet. i went to a number of women's groups and said can you help us find folks? hole binders full of women. host: you mentioned social media, what happened after this event? interestingis an moment, i think, in the history of the presidential debates. not just because we remember that statement that then became a gaff. continue,ill try to we are having connection issues slightly with the university of missouri. we are talking with mitchell mckinney on the topic of presidential debates and getting a sense of history and the impact. you can continue on with your calls and we will take them as far as our guest is concerned. we'll send them to him when he comes back. let's go to new york, undecided voter, michael, you're not on

directly with the guest, but talk about the impacts and your interest in them. caller: impacts of debates. caller: i traditionally identify moderate a monitor -- republican. i think the basis are established. as a moderate, i don't find myself in that base. i tend to look at these town halls and debates as the opportunity for the candidates to make me take my side and am i going to stay with my party or do i break ranks and it is something i have done before. the two candidates, are they going to continue to hammer the same points or are they finally going to reach out to the large percentage of independents and moderate who do not -- the two

candidates do not represent either of us. are they going to bring us in will they continue leaving us outside? i am wondering are we picking the lesser of two evils or do we make a vote for an independent candidate. i was wondering if the guest was able to come back and answer this, if he expects that to happen. thank you very much and thank you c-span. host: we will put that to the side and when the guest comes back, we will address that question directly. we will hear from miles in paterson, new jersey. a supporter of joe biden. go ahead. caller: i am a democrat but i will vote republican if they prove they are the better person. it does not matter to me, but if you can prove you are the best person for the job, you have my vote. , the guy the debate

throwing the questions -- host: you mean chris wallace? caller: right. fair one. would be a i believe the guy who will be asking the questions should have all the answers to the questions by fact checking. if you say something to the president, he says, we have the best economy but you do not fact-check it, everybody believes what he says instead of putting the proof out there. they talk about joe biden being old. if that is the case, everybody on the supreme court should be kicked off because if we keep talking about how old people cannot do this and that, we have senior citizens voting all day so i hope it turns out to be a fair one. host: that is miles in paterson, new jersey. professor mckinney the previous caller talked about being undecided and the ability of the candidates to address his needs. what does history tell us about that?

again, i would go back and remind us of the reach of the debates and a large audience for these debates. it is one of the few campaign together,at brings us that unites us. i'm specifically referring to , theartisan, the dems republicans, the liberals, the conservatives. that ability to reach beyond with this large audience. certainly a candidate's message may be designed for their base but also for expanding that and as your to the concerns caller mentioned in terms of still being undecided, independent, and wanting to hear a message that is not just a party message that he has heard over and over. debates bring that audience together and the candidate's

ability to do that. illinois, plainfield, a supporter of president trump. hello. caller: hi, there. host: go ahead. caller: i have been voting for 40 years. except for ronald reagan, republican or democrat, they all promised they had a good game but they were not so good on follow-through so i will vote for trump you regardless of the debate. this i can say. i have family members who are strong democrats. i know which way they are going to vote. i tried to get this across, but they feel the way that they do so they are going to vote for biden no matter what. i can say this, the problem with many is, and this is why i don't care about what he says, i care about what they do. obama had a silver tongue.

oh he was so persuasive. but the follow-through was not what people had expected. black the pit -- community here in chicago, when he went to washington, he forgot about them. when you talk to them in the downtown and inner-city. host: that is janet in plainville, illinois. mr. mckinney, talk about president obama. firstd he do on the debate and what happened after that? i will use that concept of the follow-through and take it to the debate stage. particularly for an incumbent president seeking reelection, the overarching question in those debates, again, despite the specific issues that a moderator they ask or the question, the overarching issue

is typically framed around the performance of the president in office. do they deserve four more years and an examination of their performance in office. we have seen a number of incumbent presidents take the debate stage. we mentioned barack obama in his 2012 debate. particularly in that first debate. it has become what i call the curse of the incumbent president 's first debate. barack obama's first debate against mitt romney was widely panned as barack obama was off his game, was not prepared, did not show up ready to debate. we could go back to ronald reagan's reelection in 1984 and his first debate with walter mondale which led to, in the second debate, and i think one of your callers also raised the age issue. certainly ronald reagan in that

second debate in 1984 was asked explicitly was he too old to continue being president and much of that was prompted by reagan's first debate performance. there is something and there are other incumbent presidents taking the debate stage in their initial debates where there performance with scenics -- was seen as lackluster. there was something to whether or not an incumbent president is out of practice. they do not go to the long primary as their opponents do. joe biden had 12 primary debates. perhaps they are out of practice of being challenged, of being questioned as they are on the debate stage with their opponents. it will be interesting to see them in tonight's debate. this incumbent president takes the debate stage and his performance. host: let's take you back to 1984, president ronald reagan debating walter mondale. [video clip] >> want to raise an issue that

has been working out there in national security turned -- terms. you are already the oldest president in history and some of your staff say you are tired after your most recent encounter with mr. mondale. i recall that president kennedy had to go for days on end with very little sleep during the cuban missile crisis. is there any doubt in your mind that you would be able to function in such circumstances? >> not at all. i want you to know that also i will not make age an issue of this campaign. i am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponents youth and inexperience. even mitchell mckinney, walter mondale laughed at it. guest: i think that he laughed. we saw that. it really defused the moment and gave the win in that moment to ronald reagan in addressing that issue. as i said, that question really

was brought about and necessitated a stock ronald on ronald- based reagan's performance. one of your callers raised the issue, will the age question be put to joe biden. it is interesting, we can go back through the history of presidential debates. in they first question very first kennedy-nixon debate was an age question. it was framed and put to john kennedy that his opponent had john kennedy was too young and inexperienced to be our president. we saw the ronald reagan age question. there are other moments i can think of for example, in the vice president to debate, that question was framed around his poor academic record. the question of candidates' fitness for office.

are they too young, too old, are they capable of handling the office, that has been one of the most common types of questions put to our presidential candidates in debate. are they qualified to hold this office? as your caller raise, if the age issue resurrects itself in the debate in this series. host: let's hear from dallas, texas. sherry is a supporter of joe biden. caller: yes. can you hear me? host: you are on, go ahead. caller: i am definitely going for biden and harris because i trust them. trump, i do not trust at all. he lied about the coronavirus. in cahootsut being with russia. he lied about his taxes. we still don't know all the information behind his taxes. trump is not care about anybody

but himself. -- does not care about anybody but himself. he has but the whole world in danger with the coronavirus and he refused to tell us at the time that he knew and he is still denying it now as well as he is asking us to send our kids son to school when his own is not going to school. host: how does that relate to tonight's debate? when iti think that comes to being honest, we need someone honest, we need someone we can trust. if trump is going to live to us that if somebody we cannot trust. host: that is sherry from dallas, texas. mr. mckinney, if you wanted to take anything from that? guest: what i heard in the caller's comments reflect as i said earlier the large number of

those tuning in to really be confirmed in their vote choice. we have talked about, do debates matter, they change minds, do the affect the outcomes of elections. another outcomes of debates -- the outcome is the reinforcement effect of debates. that largeo know is numbers of viewers become more energized in terms of supporting their candidate and also a mobilization effect. debate viewers are more likely to vote. this energizing and motivation affect really in terms of engaging more citizens in the political process. so that notion that debates really play to partisans and reinforce, i think there are benefits in terms of the energizing and mobilization

effect as many folks will be tuning in to hear and to be reinforced in their decision. host: one vice president of debate this cycle. this debate be different from other vice president to debates? guest: the vice presidential debates have been interesting. we started vice presidential debates in 1976. we did not have a vice presidential debate in 1980 where we had only one debate that included the incumbent president and the challenger, ronald reagan, jimmy carter and ronald reagan. whenhen we started the -- we restarted the vice presidential debate in 1984, it had a great interest. we might use that as an example. joe biden holds the record for participating in the highest watched vice presidential debate

in history. that was his debate with sarah palin. another interesting sort of historical moment that occurred that cycle, that is the only time that a vice presidential debate drew more viewers than the top of the ticket presidential debate. there was great interest in that -biden debate. much of it was prompted by folks tuning and wanting to see sarah palin. we can talk about the effect of entertainment media and other influences on the debate moment. there was a lot of that going on that year as it drew interest to sarah palin's debate performance. viceect that the presidential debate in this series with particularly the theusion of kamala harris, first woman of color on a major bety ticket, there will great interest in this vice presidential debate. we also fine-tune in terms of ial the vice president

debates matter, much of them focused on those candidates defending their running mate and attacking the top of the ticket. as opposed to the two vice presidents examining their own issue, positions or records. that tends to be the hallmark of vice presidential debates. we tend to have fewer viewers. i think this upcoming vice presidential debates might be one of the exceptions. host: from pennsylvania, a supporter of president trump, richard, you are on with mitchell mckinney. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have one question and a comment. , earlier in your discussion, you mentioned that president trump submit a list of journalists that he would like to have as a moderator, but you did not mention anything about biden. did joe biden submit a list of

people and was chris wallace one of those people? my comment is that democrats like to talk about cheating and lying a lot. but we know that in trump's debate with hillary clinton, they cheated. advance a question and was fed that question. nothing was said of that. democrats do not like to have the spotlight held on them and they are quick to turn it the other way. thank you. certainly i am not aware and i do not think that it happened and i believe it would be reported. the list was released publicly and chris wallace was not on the was, by the way, he selected from fox news to be the moderator for tonight. and so i do not believe that the biden campaign generated such a

list of desired or approved journalists for these debates. host: let's go to texas. ron, supporter of joe biden, you are next up. good morning. caller: hello, good morning. host: go ahead. caller: rules and coram of the of a debate --um why was donald trump allowed to walk around and stop hillary in the last debate? how come nobody stop that behavior? will covid help? will there be a big yellow circle around him where he cannot move? host: ron from texas. that debate, again, a reference to the town hall debate, where the candidates have typically had greater leeway, they are not tied to a

the image actually that we recall of trump standing behind hillary clinton, the stalking image, that got replayed in terms of saturday night live spoofs and replaying of that moment looking negative standing behind his democratic opponent. those moments occurred where hillary clinton would take advantage of when she was being asked a question by a citizen to walk off the stage -- walk across the stage and to address that citizen nonverbally and verbally, to listen to the question. those are the moments where we saw the president frequently falling or standing behind -- following or standing behind. as i said earlier, that debate requires a different dynamic.

from that differently debate in terms of the candidate's demeanor, how they respond to the citizens, how they respond to each other. some covide are rules that have been put in place for these debates. candidates, the enter the stage and they shake hands. they greet one another. that will not be happening in this debate due to social distancing and covid rules. in the town hall debates, citizens will be socially distanced. whether or not there will be put in place stricter rules to keep the candidates from each other, that may be the case. i think that that would be driven more by the necessities of the pandemic rather than we are trying to keep the candidates from stalking one another. that impression emerged, much of

it from social media and entertainment media spoofing that town hall debate four years ago. from 2016,er moment candidate donald trump and hillary clinton this time at the podium. the topic was debating on issues when this took place. [video clip] >> secretary clinton, same question because at this point social security and medicare are going to run out in the trust fund or want to run out of money. consider a president grand bargain that includes both tax increases and benefit cuts to try to save both programs? record as saying that we need to put more money into social security trust fund. that is part of my commitment to raise taxes on the wealthy. my social security payroll contribution will go up as will donald's assuming he gets out of it -- can't figure out how to

get out of it. >> such a nasty woman. host: professor, was the reaction to that -- what was the reaction to that? guest: the outliers that we found in that 20 debate series, most conflictual. -- 2016 debate series. there we had the attack going on issues of social security and compare the two candidate positions. we also saw interruptions and name-calling. of tauntinglevel and name-calling and interrupting of opponents. frequently the issues raised of how can we better control -- actually, there are some folks that critique these as somehow not true debates and if somehow we would only remove everyone and just let the candidates debate one another. i am not sure that would be the best approach. we might end up in this

free-for-all brawl where candidates are speaking over one another, trying to hold a filibuster. another issue, suggestion that has been made, should the producers, should the commission turn off the mics of the candidates when they are not speaking. that idea has been floated as a way to somehow limit interruptions, the kind of behavior we just saw in that clip. florida, ajudy in supporter of president trump. go ahead. i want torst of all, say that i did work as a journalist for a number of years and when i started out, i applied to the university of missouri graduate school of journalism among other schools and when i found out -- what i found out was that your school had a mission statement that you were involved in social activism instead of journalism.

i already had a degree in psychology and i ended up with a journalism.ee in i went to work as a journalist for a number of years. the point is it is so incestuous house 98% of journalists are working for the democrats. in fact, they seem to be the propaganda arm for the democrat party. embarrassing that you are no longer journalists anymore. they throw softball questions for mr. biden. he gets away with everything. that he hasows severe dementia. host: do you have a question about the debate specifically?

caller: yes. going to allowe president trump to question his dementia? host: that is judy in florida. if you want to take anything from that. guest: we are very proud of our journalism and students here who are very engaged. in terms of chris wallace allowing the president to question joe biden, if we look back four years ago, the president on a number of andsions questioned attacked hillary clinton. i am sure if the president wishes to raise the issue of joe biden's age, he has done it before the debate. he may well do it during the debate. we will see if that occurs. host: here is, from nebraska, a supporter of joe biden, danny, hello. caller: good morning.

c-span fort to thank this wonderful and unique program. i am a 74-year-old veteran with a graduate degree in clinical psychology and 20 years of practice. litigate for or against anybody, i would simply like to comment that the idea of even calling these street fights debates is laughable. it is a word that is now construed with meaning more like a cop trying to deal with a domestic violence situation where both parties are present at the same time. i really appreciate your on a couple of callers ago talking about something that occurred to me a couple of years ago. why don't they put some

21-year-old kid in charge of the microphones and make him handle the switch on and switch off nicely? i would love to see a return to of debates.n even a 10 minute psa on what a to beroper debate conducted rather than the street fights that we will probably see tonight. and i will watch it. i will probably even recorded for posterity. if you can address that. should we try to return to something more proper and traditional or are we just going to see this expand to where it becomes a ninja strong-arm contest. host: and you so much for the question. we will let our guest respond -- thank you so much for the

question. guest: with this matter of the best format, what are the techniques that can be used. the folks criticized presidential debates as not true debates, it is typically from the perspective that there is not sufficient clash or direct interaction between the candidates. , asn we see the criticism your callers have raised, and i think rightly so in several instances of the interruptions, the growing, the talking back-and-forth where really that type of direct interaction between the candidates is not .ery conducive are turnednot mics off, i think it comes down to we cannot force the candidates to behave in a certain way. debate.ave a lot of

those moments when they are not, we have seen some of those in clips and your callers have raised, these are very telling moments where individuals learn something about the demeanor, the character of the president or of the presidential candidate. debates aredouglas both in a great deal in terms of that standard or model. -- those debates were three hours. the first speaker spoke for an hour and a half. the opponent had in our rebuttal and there was a 30 minute reply. could sustainwe interest in that type of debate. i think there is a continued effort to try to think of ways we might improve and enhance the debate dialogue. host: before we let you go, what are you watching for tonight?

know, i think in terms of as we size up both of these candidates and what they bring to the debate stage, expect -- the expectations i think are very important in terms of how we interpret and view the debates. there has been a lot of work by president trump in terms of attempting or setting the expectation for joe biden. much of that has been in some ways calling into question his abilities and will he be able to sustain a 90 minute debate. we have heard most recently, if he does turn in an aggressive irformance, is that somehow, think we have heard, a performance-enhancing drug. there has been a lot of work on that front. we are now looking to see what joe biden will show up. i believe we think we know what the president will do.

his rather typical, again, aggressive, and then how will joe biden respond. havely, your callers raised this issue of the moderator and the questions put to these candidates and then the , to followpush back up. will there be fact checking of claims made by the candidates? that feature of the debate i think is important in terms of what to look for. directs thekinney political committee case and institute at the university of missouri joining us to talk about the history of the impact of presidential debates. we thank you for your time. guest: very good. good being with you. thank you. host: that is it for our program today. 8:00 tonight is when c-span's coverage of the first presidential debate starts. you can join us and watch the debate also on c-span and have a chance to respond to it through our website at c-span.org.

for more information, we will take your comments about the debate. that is it for today. we will see you tomorrow. thanks for joining us. ♪ >> who will control congress in january? stay informed on the races leading up to election day with c-span's campaign 2020 coverage. watch the debate and election results on c-span. orch online at c-span.org listen on the free c-span radio app.

c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. you are looking at a live shot from case western reserve in cleveland. the location for the debate between donald trump and former vice president joe biden. the debate gets underway and 90 5 p.m. eastern. our coverage begins live at 8:00 eastern. president trump's nominee is on capitol hill today for the supreme court. judge amy coney barrett is meeting with mitch mcconnell this morning. she will meet with senator chuck grassley, ted cruz, and lindsey graham. of thearrie severino judicial crisis network. she is here to talk about the upcoming supreme court confirmation issue involving judge amy coney barrett. thanks for joining us. guest: good morning. host: remind our viewers about yo