is partnering with community nters make sure families can get access to everything they may need. giving you a front row seat to democracy. >>omg up this morning, the look at threats of voter vience and voter him him a dacian with mary mccord from the institute of election teity. then we talk about georgia 2022 with greg blstein and professor matthew gunning. washington journal starts now. host: welcome to washington

journal for the first of november. college admissions was at the center of two cases in front of the supreme court. the result of the course decision could dramatically change how enrollment policies are used in higher education. in our first hour, when it comes to the use of affirmative action we want to ask you to tell us what you think and as far as it is still needed when admitting people in the college. (202) 748-8000 is for yes, (202) 748-8001 is a number for no if it isn't. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. you can post on facebook at facebook.com/cspan or on twitter

at http://twitter.com/cspanwj. the headline from bloomberg reporting on the actions out of the supreme court. conservatives seek to in affirmative action in college admissions. kimberly robertson who covers the supreme court for bloomberg law joins us now to talk about what happened at the court yesterday. thank you for giving us your time. can you set up the players and all of this. not only when it comes to harvard and the university of north carolina but also the ones bringing the suits against these colleges? guest: this same group that is doing both university is noted as students for fair representation. it is really the brainchild of -- who wants to limit the use of race by government and institution.

host: when it comes to the colleges practices, what did harvard and unc say about their practices and how they check -- value race in them? guest: they say this is one of 40 factors they used to consider a candidate holistically. it is not an automatic plus factor. there is no taking a box that will get you into these universities and they note that they look for ways to create a diverse student body without having to resort to race. they look like -- look like progress outreach, scholarship that are not attached to race but as a last resort they do use race as a last support. -- last resort. host: they asked the question centering around the thought of diversity itself.

can you categorize with the justices said on that point? guest: this came from clarence thomas who was admitted into yell when affirmative action programs were really robust. he asked what that diversity as to the educational process? harvard and unc lawyers tried to say that a diverse student body is more inventive. that is the question that justice thomas had throughout the arguments. you go to school to learn, you don't go to school to feel good. that's a strike at what they were trying to do. host: justice thomas, what where the context of his government's to these various groups? guest: john roberts has been a median in these cases.

he has been very much conservative on that issue. chief justice roberts is really concerned about the discrimination that happens to other discrimination including asian students. they say it is not the case that they tried to discriminate against asian students and their study -- student body is full of students from the asian community. host: can you talk about why we are still talking about it in these cases? guest: there were a lot of cases where the supreme court has said this. universities can use race but in the limited way. not in a way that is automatic but as a part of a holistic process of considering a candidate for higher end

admission. there have been other affirmative action challenges brought to the supreme court but not quite in the same way. we saw less than a decade ago a pair of cases at the university of texas did not ask the supreme court to overturn affirmative action outright. it was the way that university of texas was using rate. now with the conservative majority you see conservatives embolden and asking them to reconsider long-standing precedent and that is what is happening in this case. that's why the arguments are so different than they were just a few years ago. host: we saw ketanji brown jackson question one of these cases. talk about the question she asked? guest: justice jackson who we suspect would be an important vote on this issue who was only involved in the unc challenge

and that's because she has deep ties to harvard. in that you would see argument she did bring up the possibility that refusing to allow or prohibiting schools to considering a person's racial and ethnic background could be discrimination against them and it was an idea that she put forward to say if you allow candidates explain everything about themselves except this one thing, is that discriminating on the theme of race? that was a question she put two a lot of advocates. another line her reasoning was looking at was the people who passed the 14th amendment meant. they've used this and other tactics they've used challenging the 14th amendment. what did the people who passed these laws made and what is it mean for today?

host: what to the justices have to decide what are the implications? guest: the ask is big from the group challenging affirmative-action. they want the supreme court to triple previous president and that they cannot use race in an explicit way and universities. we saw the supreme court talk about what the reverberations beyond education. these student bodies are going to go on to be our business leaders in government leaders so training them is imperative to all of these other elements of our economy. the implications here are big and go beyond the four years the kids are in higher education. host: kimberly robison covers law for bloomberg. thank you for explaining this. guest: thank you host: for having me. host:we want to ask you when it

comes to the affirmative action portion from what the justices heard yesterday. your thoughts on affirmative action when it comes to college admissions is specifically, if it is needed. (202) 748-8000 if you say it is needed, (202) 748-8001 if you say no, it is not needed. if you want to texas you can do that at -- text us you can do that on (202) 748-8003. yesterday, the court provided oral arguments to key cases. you can still hear it on our website c-span.org and you can see it on our c-span now at. we will play will portion of the questions asked by john roberts. [video clip] >> there is noou as the

testimony showed that for applicants who are so strong on multiple dimensions, that they are on the bubble. ey might be a real candidate for admission, being rin-american or being hispanicr in some instances being asian american can provide one of many tips. >> you will have to concede that it provides one of many end in some cases it could be determining? >> raceor some highly qualifd plicants can be the determinate factor just as being in oboe player in which the orchestra needs in oboe player. >> we did not fight a civil war

about oboe players. we did fight when to elimina racial discrimination. i think it is important for y to establish whether or not grti a credit is based on the stereotype when you say this brings a diversity of viewpoint. may not bring a diversity of viewpoint at all. >> while harvard value it and seeks that, it is by far the only reason for wanting a genuinely, diver cows -- class. w were to use the example that has been discussed for every other advocate and asked what about takg ce into account as the student writes abt it. rvd is attempting not to

have among the class that is diverse among many generations, a class that is racially diverse only for whom there racial experice is of such compelling importance that they write about it. your hypothetical about the black student who may have very different views th t stereotypical of what a blac student will have is in fact the subjt at is discussed in the carano report. it gave in this importance of dirsity an actual example that came from richard bites book which had a particular class. it happened to he ree african-american students in it. anfrican-american student gave annsr to discussion which

another african-american student said, that is not my view. my view is quite the opposite. a third one said, i was not going to say anything t i have a different view. that was an crible learning experience not only for the non-african-american students but for them. that is what harvard is trying to get out. host: just a portion of the supreme court arguments from the justices yesterday. you can still find them online as part of the oriole arguments we taken when they make them available. we are asking about affirmative action, should it still be in college admissions? david starts us off on our guest line. caller: i am very much in favor of continuing or expanding affirmative-action. it's as if we are saying, the court is trying to say that we have no responsibility to 400

years of history. perhaps what we should do is have 400 years of affirmative-action as a starting point to begin to repair the damage we did with the horrors of racism. i think that our culture is a long way from dealing with bigotry and bias. we need to heal this fundamental flaw in our culture. if we will ever move forward as a community. host: let's hear from sandra and california on our yes line as well. caller: good morning. host: you're on, go ahead.

caller: i believe affirmative action is needed. i was told by an employee years ago that worked within the college how to change my form and i did. i change the ethnicity of my children and made them caucasian. also, when my son was discovered to be african-american they said to him, you are not caucasian and i told him, they can't prove that. had i put down that they were african-american, i don't think they would've been qualified or excepted to go to the college. host: this is gary of next, he is in atlanta, georgia on the no

line. caller: yes, good morning. i say no because i was in the first resurrection of the consciousness of black america. the reason i say no is because the program never worked. the people the program was designed to work for is the young black males that we have in prison now. they were less qualified to take advantage of it. the affirmative action was designed to redress 300 years of slavery and 100 years of systematic slavery. that is what the program is for. it was designed by republicans. it was richard nixon that came up with this program. they were trying to buy time. they did not have the guns of the cities like they have now in white america saw the rage that black america had and they had

veterans coming back from vietnam, i was one of them. richard nixon came up with affirmative-action. it was supposed to take place right after construction -- reconstruction. host: hold it to the modern day, why do you think it is not needed anymore? caller: the people who are taking advantage of it the most are white women, jewish people and latinos. they never spent a minute and slavery. host: the wall street journal's editorial takes a look at this topic as well this morning. racial discrimination forever. diversity seems to be whatever there school says it is. the lower courts will be obliged to defer to colleges all the time. this will put schools beyond

administration. their doubts are well placed. discrimination by race is pernicious us american history shows. that is the wall street journal there. we are asking u.s. well when it comes to affirmative action programs, is it still needed? on our yes line, this is monica in mississippi. caller: affirmative action is clearly still needed. the arguments before the court, they were frustrating for me to listen to us an attorney. as someone who practices in an area antidiscrimination law. they kept harping on when do we

get race as a factor? i think can don cheadle jackson talked about the 14th amendment and it was enacted because of slavery and to bring black people fully into a status of a first-class, full citizenship. that has not been achieved. the justices seem not to live in the real world. they just ask the wind this end? and i kept thinking to myself, when does discrimination and for black people? they were cognizant of race at the start, the 14th amendment addressed it. people discriminate every day based upon race and this was done for the only group of people who have been marked with the badge of inferiority which is your skin color. are the justices not aware that

our young black men wear white men have gone down people in a grocery store but they still somehow get managed to take alive. host: how does that affect college admission? caller: they argued that this is how we have changed so many things in our society by a being able to produce people who are educated. people who can take leadership positions. people who can advocate for their people. maybe you will have people in police departments who are cognizant of race in a leadership position. people will be able to expose them to the fact that black people are just like you. host: that was there in mississippi. 14th amendment says no one shall make a law to abridge the

liberties of citizens. or deny them the right to due process. let's hear from rod on our no line. rod, in richmond, indiana. caller: good morning pedro. i don't think it makes any difference what schools have, any kind of agenda. there are plenty of schools around. most people like myself are worried about finding a good school that will give them an education they need in finding a good job. host: do you think that minority students have the same advantages when it comes to applying to colleges than any other student? caller: i think yeah, they do.

i don't care what race you are. there are plenty of opportunities out there. like myself, i work, i went to school. for me, it was the right thing to do. i did pretty well in high school and i had grants. but still, i wanted to have money in my pocket. if i was going to college i could have a nice car, go out on dates or whatever. i'm not sure that's as common anymore. the state only gave me $500. host: that was ron in indiana. some of you posted on facebook and at other means. this is dan saying that

inequalities are gone, affirmative action will always be needed. lauren rose saying colleges are begging them to come to them. tammy saying if we want to truly even the playing field for all american students it must begin by funding k-12 schools in low income communities. in mark from facebook saying, until racism gone it is absolutely needed. you can add your questions on facebook. you could call the lines if you think? it still needed (202) 748-8000, if you think know it's not that number is (202) 748-8001 and you can post on social media or texas as well. tom in cincinnati on our yes line. caller: good morning, i

admittedly struggle with this. i don't think it's a simple yes or no question. the reason i agreed yes, two reasons actually. the lingering effects of racism don't get wiped out with one fell swoop. i think we still see those economically. when you look at the economics of the black community or a large percentage of the black community compared to the white community they are still behind. parents don't have the same access to resources to help their kids in qualifying into college. with prep programs like for the act and sat. you can make an economic and a race argument.

i believe most colleges still factor in legacy status as part of the admissions status. there are fewer black children applying to college that have parents that went to a university. compared to their white counterparts. if you will weigh if your parents went to the school, that puts black students at a disadvantage because fewer blacks have attended college. his racism less of a factor than it has been 50 years ago? certainly. but i still think it exist in the lingering effects of it exist. it does need to be considered as some level.

the person i would have as the expert on how much it does get weighed. host: let's hear from christopher in orange, california on our no line. caller: caller: thank you for taking my call. i am excited to be with our fellow united states of america citizens. i say no to affirmative action. we don't need it. what we need is for white america to face up and pay our reparations. i really don't need your college education if you cut me a half-million dollar check with interest. we worked in this country for free for 400 years and you when they give me affirmative action? they still discriminate.

black people, let's be honest. we are beautiful and spectacular. in this country, until you realize you did these people wrong. host: on our yes line, from port washington, maryland. caller: 400 years, you can't recover from 400 years. we need 400 years. but i have a question, does affirmative action also include agents, females, hispanics what

was it intended for? it should have been intended for black people? host: one of the cases specifically dealt with asian-american students. the case was representing those people in the process? caller: for asians 400 years in slavery? why are we including -- host: so you are saying affirmative action should not include all people but just for black people? caller: we were the only one is slavery. how can we include females, we need a first. you said pull yourself up by your bootstraps, we don't even have the straps on the boots.

let us pull ourselves up first. host: that's gregory in maryland. we talked a little bit about with the decision back in 2003 to give you an idea of how it deals with the context. ey said the use of an applicant's race is just one factor and it do not violate the equal protection clause if the policy is narrowly tailored to promote a diverse student body and has a holistic admissions policy. here are s thessues they brought up. overrule brother versus bullinger so they could not use race as a factor in admission.

ether they can use a race alternative which would cause a dramatic sacrifice and academic quality or the overall student body diversity. you can read some of the historical context, and what was heard yesterday in front of the supreme court. from bronx, new york. on our no line. caller: good morning, i'm a first-time caller. i think there should be no discrimination against nobody. i think what happened with the colored people and the teachers union control everything in the city.

not getting the education k-12 so they are getting discriminated against. host: that is a caller from bronx, new york. one of those arguments with students for fair administration. justice elena kagan assess question. [video clip] a lot of the argume he is about a university has a compelling interes in collecting a diverse css inclinalong racial dimensions and may, especially on racial dimensions given the kinds ofhallenges that our society faces in the exact same way that all others institutions in our society does. i want to ask you questions about that. if youre hospital and y serve a diverse group of

patients, is important to you to ha aiverse set of doctors? >> i don't know that the evidence of the diversity of doctors and patits >> it wouldn't mter, or maybe it would but y don't know. if you are a pice department is it important to you to have a diverse t police officers? >> i believe thaismportant. that has nothing to do with the educational benefits of the university. host: if you are a law firm or a jue and you want to have a diverse set of clerks, do you think a judge tends to think about that when maki crks decisions? >> the courts decision that feeney says the knowledge of race is not a violation is using it as a factor. >> iana diverse set of clerks. i want clerks that are great

on any number of criteria but also a diverse set of clerks. there are asian americans there, spanics there, african-americans as wl whites. can a judge not do that? >> that is an admirable goal. i don't think the judge could ve that goal but they need to treat people equally. racial diversity is important, is a goodetric to make sure our institution are equally open. but the question is using racial qualification as an admission stda. >>veone would rather be able to rch goals through neutral

means. the queson is, when those means don't get you therere you prevented to taking race into account and all those ways that y said? businesses who find it necessary . oer to achieve their ecomic objectives to have racially diverse workforces. i could go on and on. when racial neutral means can't get you there, don't t you there when you have tried and tried and they still don't get you there. can you go race conscious? >> i don't believe s and the court has already said, racial diversity is not a compelling argument. host: the two cases covered five hours of questions from the justices to the various players representing their cases. you could see all about it on our west stand at c-span.org or our c-span now act.

you can listen to other cases before the supreme court. l from los angeles on our yes line. >> i would say that it is definitely still needed. the issue and the promb;e,s that cause us to needed still exist. a person being on medication because they had delusions or because they have paranoid thoughts believing someone is after them or someone is against them. if that person is on the medication and begins to ask, when can i get off the medication. the answer would be, you cannot as long as the problem still exists.

racism is a treatable mental illness of delusion and schizophrenia. and until that problem is finally alleviated, the measures that are put in place must stay in place. host: on our no line in ohio. caller: it seems to me that martin luther king wanted us to evaluate not on the color of our skin. i think a lot of people will back up and say that it's only fair if we do it fairly. when you move away from that, you move into quicksand. i'm supposed to go out and fight for your superior rights? i'm supposed to go to war for someone superior rights? all the things that went to make things fair and all the people

went to one side to the other for fairness. but when you get to fight for superior rights for one you take rights away from me. host: back to you in ohio, affirmative-action is is still needed and if you say yes (202) 748-8000, if you say no (202) 748-8001. the brca 2 and -- the broadcasting station writes this, standing outside the supreme court station, the unc chancellor said today is about the values of diversity that is part of our admission and carolina.

that's why we believe in our holistic admissions process. he was expressing the essence of education at unc. to repair the rising generation for the process democracy. they have to embrace this countries pluralism. we are building better citizens and if race is one of those things we consider, -- there's more that editorial at the w ral website there. we have michael on our yes line. caller: hi, i said yes because of two reasons. i am a vet, i was in the air force. when i was in the air force

there had been guys from all over the country that had never even met a black man. once i got to know me, they realized he is not so much different than i am. same kind of rearing, same kind of background. i raise my kids the best i could. three out of four of them have college degrees. but i moved to a rural area so they would get the advantages that the majority would get. i taught them who they were and where they came from. because of that, i thought it would if them a good chance to get into a four-year school. we tried a lot of things, but they are gifted. they got a good education and good grades.

but i think affirmative-action is definitely needed for the simple fact that people come from different areas and backgrounds in the best way to address that is that people of color and the majority need to spend time around each other. it is an issue in our country as we well know. the best way to get past that is to continue on with affirmative action, it is well needed. host: that was michael there in detroit, michigan. we will hear next from stephanie from maryld. caller: thank you for this particular forum. i say no because of this.

this idea that an fact affirmative-action is rectifying a systemic problem whereby black people have in fact been exploited and abused by the society, the proposed solution is -- affirmative action is in some ways race neutral. it says we need to go for a diverse society and it never rectifies the problem where this country has taken a particular group and have done harm to them. it doesn't resolve those injuries. i say no only because this country needs to come to terms with the reality that it needs to take care of our people and an affirmative way. not in a way that it allows it to be watered down by this idea

of diversity. the only way that could become palpable to america is that we have affirmative action for the purpose of diversity so we don't have to let all black people in, we just have to let some of them in. if you look at affirmative-action, there are only a small number of black people at these institution. most institutions has slaves build the institutions. this solution needs to be very particularly crafted towards the interests of black people and not towards this greater diversity. host: we will continue on with

those calls. you could call those numbers or post on our social media sites. former president obama is heading to las vegas, nevada, to help with the senate race there. you can see his remarks tonight on our main channel of c-span. you can also follow along on ou bed c-span now and our website at c-span.org. president biden is heading to florida to help with some of the races there and according to the hill, this is part of what he has to say. the president is expected to talk about the pledge for republicans to vote down parts of the inflation act. they will sunset programs like medicare and social security. a republican congress would

strip benefits from millions of americans who rely on these programs. 63 million medicare beneficiaries and 89 million medicaid recipients and medicare recipients would have their benefits put at risk. we have rudy on the line. caller: i am a 71-year-old senior citizen from jacksonville, florida. i can remember in 1966, stetson college they accepted two of our students through affirmative action who aced the s.a.t.. they would never gotten into the school if it were not for affirmative action. i work for general motors.

in 1973i went to general motors as a supervisor. i reported to general supervisors who did not have a high school education but because they were white, they were hired as supervisors and promoted. the country is not there yet. affirmative action make sure that we can be inclusive in all aspects of education. it damaged my ego and confidence that i could not get to university of florida if it were not for affirmative action. so i say yes. host: let's hear from john in washington dc on our no line.

caller: i have spoken with students in the high school age in the black community and there is downward pressure to speak grammatically correct english. they are accused of trying to be white. if you look at all successful, upwardly mobile black people like obama and ketanji jackson, they speak english and they speak it well. they have a great control of the english language. host: how does this relate to the affirmative-action program? caller: the black community

continues to speak in colloquial slang and they would rather be cool than smart. host: is that a broad brush approach? caller: they are accused of trying to be white at they speak grammatically correct. host: by who? caller: their fellow classmates. if you study hard in school, you are not accepted. host: let's talk to paul in lexington, kentucky. caller: i am very much in favor of affirmative action. i have seen and worked with all kinds of people and i think regretfully, particularly for blacks and women they have had a hard time and they need the help. they have not had the

opportunities that i have had. i have degrees in architecture, law. i've been to the seminary. i cannot have made it into harvard when i was young. i feel like the only way minorities can benefit is to have some assistance. you have to have a leg up. even in the job market, i am very pro-affirmative-action. you may not have the best schools -- best skills but we will never equalize our nation if we don't help one another. i will say that i think these

two cases are like comparing apples to oranges. i think any public school has to accept africans, all kinds. when we get to harvard, that's a private school. they can be what they want to be and do what they want to do. i am going to say that i went not judge these as the same sort of case. host: that was paul in kentucky. one of the questions from justice gorsuch, he asked about forms of discrimination in the [video clip]ssions process. >> this case says gender would be inadmissible as a way of

discrimination >> there was a total exclusion in terms of that case. i don't want to concede that there would never give place to have these considerations. >> how about religion, harvard adopted its holistic approach in part because it was worried about the number of jewish studentsttding and they were looking to reduce jewish students. >> that is the history and is an illustration of putting something in a holistic perspective -- >> i want to ask you about title vind isolation. it says that no person shall be excluded from participation or

be subjected by an institution that accepts government assian. title vi does not permit thusof race. >> it argues that within the educational ntt it does not have much difference between title vi and the 14th amendment. it has not been briefed. i don't think it c b justified as a route to constitutional avoidance because the constitution has been decided and decided incorrectly. host: in the washington post, harvard student wrote an op-ed taking a look at the case

against harvard and he writes in part, i understand why this case is important to the asian american community. it has long been a proxy for people in the asian community. why do i support affirmative action? higher education's mission is to educate the next generation of leaders. this requires a diverse student body. harvard has shown me the kind of learning possible in this community. it taught me more about the black experience and i could've ever learned in the classroom. listening to my friend stories about working at his family's restaurant gave me the appreciation for my own parents. the wave of anti-asian backlash

i felt i got to share my perspective in a country that seems to help us. their interactions teaches us to be more empathetic and how relationships can be embraced. host: let's hear from tony and silver spring, maryland on our no line. caller: good morning, thank you for bringing up an interesting topic. in my opinion, affirmative action or taking race into consideration is probably the most blunt racial discrimination. you can't say to an asian student that you are unkind, unfriendly, while giving black

students high praise in this category. this is been used against one race. those from the asian audience, please wake up. they twist your thoughts at school, don't vote for liberal democrats anymore. they are the ones who discriminate against asians the most. he does not have to go to harvard. why not volunteer at an inner-city school. you can learn all these things rather than i am impoverished so i interact with these other kids. i never realize there was racial

difference all these years until i started preparing for college admissions when i realized i was at a disadvantage. don't feel bad if you don't get into the iv league. they are not good at technology and engineering. all they do is train liberal arts students and lawyers. host: let's go to gym and grand forks, north dakota. caller: yes, how are you. are you there? you had a people call about reparations. my ancestors were dirt poor german farmers and pennsylvania.

if anybody wants to cut a check, cut it to me. i spilled my blood for the freedom of black people. host: and on the thought of college admission? caller: you also people calling saying that asians did not go through what they went through. they came from brutal conditions. poverty and slavery in southeast asia and india. if you go to berkeley, you see so many asians dominating these science departments and everything. host: you are calling in on our line saying you support affirmative action, is that the case or not? caller: it is necessary because you look at the genetic and environmental factors.

they have not been debunked. north asians have the highest iq. host: where you getting these figures from? caller: a professor from canada had a book on that. the left tried to pretend that this race lie that we are all the same and we are not. host: the charging document in the case involving paul pelosi and the person in that case was released yesterday. here is how it reads yesterday. an interview made by police

officers he provided this information. he said he would hold nancy hostage. if she told the truth, he would release her and she by he would breaker in kneecaps. he articulated that nancy is the leader of the pack of lies told by the democratic party. by breaking her knee packs it would show other members of congress there were actions and consequences to their actions. he broke into the house through the glass torch -doors. he told pelosi he was looking for nancy and paul responded that she was not present. if you go to the website there is a charging document available

to read online. we will hear from joe next on our no line. caller: affirmative action has run its course. i believe in order to get into college the best ago. not the ones who are not as talented as smart, they don't have a chance. i graduated from high school in houston which was the only integrated high school in the state. he sent me there to learn about what life is really like is said of going to the rich icicle down the street. affirmative action, how well can they do? did anybody follow up on that?

compare to the smarter once it did not get in? i was blessed with the good brandon got an academic scholarship at the university of texas where he also played football. the football team was 70% black, all on scholarship. host: are you implying that the students coming in from affirmative-action art a smart? caller: i am not saying they are not a smart, i am saying that they got in because they were black or asian or mexican. why do they need to know what race you are when are taking the test or applying for admission? ? host: texas, last call, go ahead. caller: yes, i'm a 71-year-old disabled vietnam veteran.

and i joined the army and volunteered for vietnam because in '65, we have the right to vote. and so i decided that i should go ahead and give my service. all you people that's talking, you've got to remember, we are not like the japanese, we are not like the mexicans. we were stripped of our language. we were not allowed to read books. and if you got caught reading a book, you would either get beaten or killed. host: what does that mean for affirmative-action today? caller: for affirmative-action today, if you are riding on a train and you are going from town to town, no matter how fast

you get there, you are going to still be in last place. and that is the way it has been for our race. host: finishing off this round of calls. up next, we are going to take a look at this week to election day. local officials are protecting residents and the right to vote. that conversation with executive -- with the executive director of advocacy for protection and also a former justice department prosecutor. and we will continue our series focusing on georgia, starting up the conversation with the ledger of constitutions. those conversations coming up.

>> live sunday, author and historian --, president and ceo of the lbj foundation will be our guest, talking about u.s. presential history, the last republicans, and the subject of race. join in the conversation with your phone calls, facebook comment, texts and tweets. >> middle and high school students, it is your time to shine. you are invited to participate in the c-span studentcam documentary competition. pictured sl as a newly elected member of congress. we ask what is your top priority and why?

a video that shows the importance of their issues from opposing and supporting perspectives. it is a $5,000 in prize. figures must be submitted by january 20, 2023. visit our website at studentcam.org for competition rules, tips, and a step-by-step guide. >> listening to c-span radio just got easier. play c-span radio and listen to washington journal at 7:00 a.m. eastern. a fast-paced report on the stories of the day. listen to c-span anytime. tell your smart speaker to play c-span radio.

c-span, powered by cable. washington journal continues. host: our first guest of the morning is mary with georgetown, the constitutional advocacy and protection. she serves as the executive director. thanks for joining us. talk about your institute, particularly what it does in the space of elections and protections during elections. we really are a constitutional impact litigation. we litigate fraud in a variety of areas that we have really moved into a lot of litigation related to protecting processes and protecting against political violence. we've also litigated -- for example, we are currently

litigating in wisconsin against the frederick electors, that scheme for electors to meet and cast their ballots for donald trump even though he was not the winner in send those ballots to washington, d.c. to be counted on january 6. and in the course of doing that, and also based on my own national security experience, we've also gotten involved working with present researchers and republic officials and community members to help really kind of put the word out about the threats of political violence, of intimidation, of harassment, and to level on what the constitution has to say about those things. host: how does that particularly apply next week when people are going to the polls, organizations wanting to do their own watching of polls? >> guest: what we are seeing is a lot of intimidation of not

only voters at the polls, but also intimidation threats against election workers, people running for election, elected officials. particularly with respect to the elections, we've seen people setting up cameras to videotape people as they are depositing their ballots. we see misleading signage about suggesting that drug boxes are under surveillance or if you deposit more than one dollar, you might be committing a crime even in states where it is not illegal to do that and it is also not illegal under federal law. there are many reasons why you might be depositing a ballot for somebody else. this sets up the clash of constitutional rights, because we have the important kaiser to ship -- constitutional right to participate in democratic processes. you also have first amendment rights and people who want to come out, they want to observe what is taking place at ballot

boxes and they sometimes want to convey their own expression. but some things are not protected. threats are not protected, harassment, voter intimidation. the second amendment protects individual rights to bear arms, but it does not protect paramilitary organizations, well armed as their own private army. it's we start seeing some of that kind of activity near valid drug boxes. i think partly because they realize that is not protected activity, these things are not protected by the first and second amendments with substantial interest in protecting everyone's right to get to the polls to vote without intimidation is really paramount here. host: what defines intimidation in this context? guest: under federal law, voter

intimidation is unlawful. but intimidation is not defined. what is clear is it doesn't have to mean direct threats of physical harm. yes, that is definitely intimidation, but threats of legal consequences, economic consequences, these are things also that courts have recognized. for example, in the 2020 election cycle, robo calls went out that falsely said if you voted by mail, your personal information would be supplied to government authorities for them to determine if you had any outstanding warrants. that was all false, misleading, and intended to get voters to think maybe i want to vote because i don't want the government coming after me. that was determined to be voter intimidation and a court order said you can't do that anymore. that is a good illustration that

it is not just physical threats. it is anything that would make a voter feel uncomfortable voting. but certainly following voters to and from their cars, asking them about their qualifications to vote and pushing them with any kind of armed purporting to patrol against voter fraud would be very intimidating. host: a case out of arizona taking a look at groups that would -- people. it was quarter and essay when private citizens formed and attempted to take over the legitimate role in overseeing and policing elections, the risk of intimidation and violating federal law is significant and a statement of interest filed in the case, they talk about the risks but they never went as far as saying it was illegal. is that proper to say? guest: coming into this case, to make clear to the court that the

view is that kind of activity would be voter intimidation, but intimidation is illegal. i think that what is important here is that even though, again, there are first amendment rights for people who are out wanting to observe ballots, the ballot drop boxes and just generally the process of voting, it has also been clear that when someone's conduct has both expressive aspects and non-expressive aspects like with cameras, videotaping, that the government, when the interest is strong enough, and here that would be in protecting the right to vote, the government can regulate that conduct, even if it has some infringement on first amendment rights. what they were trying to do was file that statement of interest and make clear that because that was a private lawsuit, voters suing private individuals and organizations, we are going to make clear to the judge about where the department of justice stands.

host: if you want to talk about potential election threats leading up to this week to the midterm elections, you can do so on the line (202) 748-8000 free democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. how equipped our state and localities to push back against this? guest: they are really getting there. i've been talking to a lot of state and local officials, they have all been talking and specializing in de-escalation. i think it is important here that the threat comes not from federal and state investigating, but a lot of private researchers who spend a lot of time in that online extremist environment where we are able to provide two

state and local officials some real-time monitoring of what they are hearing and seeing and what we know is that there is a very localized, decentralized, strategic effort to intimidate voters and intimidate election officials. and that is coming from the real extreme, far right. this is not a mainstream ideology here. we are hearing election officials talk about how they are prepared. if you haven't done it already, election officials, law enforcement and community groups, and representatives of the parties, talk about what your plan is to make sure everyone can safely vote. that might be having a law enforcement presence somewhere nearby to assure that people can vote without harassment intimidation, and some communities are allowing for the

history in this country of law enforcement, intimidation of voters. that is going to vary community by community. there are things they need to respond to and they are ready to do that. they are definitely seeing the threats at a heightened level because we've seen in the two years since then so many other acts of political violence. just before coming on, i was reading about a person running for election in pennsylvania at their state house who was attacked in the middle of the night, the early morning hours in his own backyard, and that was having -- after having two attacks on his home. it is very much undermining the democratic process. host: before we take calls, the

attack on paul pelosi, what do you make of the information that came out yesterday? guest: you would almost think it was taken from a novel because the charged individual came into the house and really intended to stay there, camp out and wait for nancy pelosi to return so that he could kidnap her and question her and potentially physically harm her. he had all of the tools that were necessary to basically hold nancy pelosi hostage while he waited for her. i am not at all surprised to see that the federal government varies very quickly in terms of federal charges because not only would you attempt to kidnap nancy pelosi, but also an attack on a family member of an elected official with the attempt to intimidate at federal official. ", we still also have the local crimes.

this person, we also know that he has been connected with some websites that are very extreme, very anti-semitic, very racist, misogynistic, etc. and that is not uncommon, unfortunately, when we see people who go out on a lone wolf attack. they can manifest a lot of times and really extremist content, creating and consuming it. host: california up first. earl, republican line. constitutional advocacy and protection. earl, you are on. caller: i have questions. when i was 19 years old, i volunteered for vietnam in the army. i was considered at that time to be pretty extreme far right.

i just find some of what you're are doing pretty interesting. i was just curious. paul pelosi, he has kind of a checkered past out here in california. the last deal why he got involved in was kind of covered up at first. somebody who left his car quickly. at any rate, just a couple points i could make. i watched for two years antifa and i watched blm riot. i watched them take over a city on the west coast and actually kill a couple people in that city. i watched them board up a police

station with police men in it and set it on fire. so ofor you. how are your investigations doing in that result? guest: to be clear, extremist violence is unlawful, illegal, undemocratic no matter what ideology is perpetuated five. and they certainly have been incidents of extremist violence from people with ideologies on the left, by people who are straight up anarchist. but the threat right now, and this has been made clear by christopher wray, on multiple occasions, multiple testimonies on capitol hill, the most significant threat of violence here in the united states, domestic extremist violence comes from antigovernment extremists and white, racially-motivated extremists. extremist violence, no matter

what ideology motivates it is wrong, and it should not be tolerated. the threat right now is coming primarily from one side. host: from nancy in pennsylvania, democrat line. caller: good morning. i know that we tried to go with which party is causing it, is it the left, is it the right? i'm listening to stations and i have determined it is the example of what has been happening in the parties. we are so party-oriented that we are not focusing on what makes things better in america, and we are forgetting about the basics of life, the things that matter.

and i agree with the democrats that democracy is a priority. to keep democracy, this kind of violence has to stop. and it starts with ethics. it starts with examples. during the trump administration, he did not show the examples of democracy. we've got to get back to knowing the right and wrong is very simple. it is not anything that we have to really ponder on. what is right and what is wrong. that happened with paul pelosi and that kind of thing shows you. i believe the right is extremist and we are following the trump example in pennsylvania.

guest:-with the caller is really talking about is the us v. them mentality and i agree it is unfortunate that things so many times did a left or a right label and i succumb a limit to that myself. what we focus on is protecting the democratic processes that this country was founded upon and making sure there's equal opportunity for everyone to participate in the democratic processes. we know that they work. unfortunately, there's so much disinformation and a lot of that is still about the 2020 election nearly two years after that election. there is still false narratives

about a stolen election thoroughly debunked by the court. is very much a zero-sum mentality. that is not healthy for any of us. i really like to talk about the issues and not do it all from the position of the left or right. host: gave you are off of twitter asks this question, texting us saying that do you find voter intimidation is in certain parts of the country more than others? guest: we definitely have seen more in the swing states, the states where there is more at stake in terms of the house and senate and ultimately in 2024, in terms of the presidency. but it takes place elsewhere. the state of washington is not particularly a swing state but we have seen misleading and false claims there to deter voters from using valid drop boxes.

mind you, washington state has used valid drop boxes for decades, it wasn't a new thing for them. it certainly has been exacerbated in the swing states. host: a caller from bakersfield, california, independent line. caller: hi. it is an honor and a privilege. i have a request, a statement and a question. a request from my congressman, house minority leader karen mccarthy. i need you to go to san francisco right now and tell mr. pelosi how incredibly sorry we are that this man attacked him and that he will no longer invoke his wife's name in any arguments or debates. second, a statement. i anticipate violence a week from today. and then a question.

if i had a ballot and i were going to a drop off box in arizona and i felt intimidated because there were people standing around, may be armed or unarmed, who would be the appropriate law enforcement people to seek immediately? again, i'm not being able to vote -- again, i wish i were a student in your class. i wish everyone a very good day. guest: depending on where you are at and who you feel comfortable reporting to, if the voters do feel intimidated at the polls, they can reach out to local law enforcement whether it is the police, the sheriff's office. what if they are not comfortable doing that, they can report to election officials, the secretary of state, and they can call the election protection hotline as well as a report it

because people will make sure that that complaint is routed to the appropriate authorities in the jurisdiction. but if ever anyone feels in immediate danger, they should call 911. host: the election workers themselves, what are they doing as far as their personal safety? guest: i think some are feeling very concerned and we've seen many of the places where the election workers physically work putting up new security measures. sometimes different types of security guards. i think that is important in some jurisdictions. it is important to know this is not just about between now and election day. back in 2020, we saw some attacks on facilities where workers were calculating both. we have to stay vigilant.

plan with local law enforcement and community members about how to stay safe through this entire process. host: north carolina, republican line. caller: yes. hello? host: go ahead. caller: ok, i was just wondering about the lady professor. she keeps going on about the far right. she seems to forget that justice kavanaugh was attacked. someone tried to assassinate him . she seems to forget that. also, during the 2020 election,

she keeps going on about mileage. how about the case with the water mains where they told everybody to go home and come back? then they started counting and that is when joe biden gained a lead. she is just very biased and she is supposed to be unbiased. host: we respect diversity of views here honor program, we bring them on every single morning, we've invited her to be our guest and talk about these issues. you've asked your question, go ahead. guest: maybe you weren't

listening earlier in the broadcast but i was very clear that ideological violence, no matter what the ideology is wrong. it is unlawful. the person who was plotting to try to attempt to harm justice kavanaugh has been arrested, is being charged with that crime and that is appropriate. new matter what side it comes from, it is wrong. my point earlier with that right now the lethality is greater from one side than the other. we can't tolerate ideological violence no matter what ideology motivated. -- motivates it. caller: i am curious about three things when it comes to voting. the accessibility to vote, the issue of privacy in voting, the

issue of who is eligible to vote and who is trained to do that. the people who do not have the education or training to do that should be people who are involved in monitoring in any way, shape, or form. how they vote, whether it is a dropbox or by a ballot, and how that may go ahead and disrupt. and i will take my answer off the air. guest: in terms of your first couple of points on accessibility, i think accessibility is why we see so many ways to people to cast their vote. state legislatures and state elections, state officials responsible for election administration determine what they can do.

in some cases that is an extended period of early voting, and other places it allows early voting for drop boxes. it is one of the great things about our democracy that we have so many ways to vote so that people working multiple jobs, people who are not going to be available on election day, people who maybe have physical disabilities and are not able to get to the polls can vote across every party and every ideology. the privacy, you are talking about things like the cameras that we been hearing about, people setting up video cameras to videotape people who are depositing their ballots in drop boxes. this does raise some concerns about intimidation and privacy. it is not lawful to actually videotape someone actually marking down their vote and who they are voting for, that is

unlawful. this, of course, is videotaping somebody walking up and positing their valid in a dropbox, but that can still raise concerns about privacy, people taking down license plate numbers, and those all raise concerns about voter intimidation which is why we see the department of justice looking into some of those complaints and in private organizations bringing court cases to try to stop that activity. on eligibility, it requires citizenship and to be of a certain age and then you are entitled to vote regardless of how well-equipped you might be and how well read you might be about the candidates. with respect to who is able to monitor voting, i think you are now talking about poll watchers and observers. that is different from state to state. most states do allow some

partisan poll watchers. the idea there is having some democrats, some republicans to watch the process, to make sure people are able to access the polls, to report anything they see that is of concern about people having an opportunity to vote. there is a very big difference between observing and challenging somebody about their eligibility. in most states, being an observer does not mean you can directly challenge a person'd eligibility to vote. that would be a matter for election officials to do. again, it varies state to state to state. depending on where you are, the rules might differ for what a poll watchers or poll observer is permitted to do. host: a group watching a ballot box from a distance, do accommodations have to be made? guest: if they are on public

space like a sidewalk, they are entitled to be there and what is called a public forum. for constitutional purposes, you have a right to engage in activity that is not criminal in the public forum including watching the ballots. where we start to find concerns is where the activity crosses the line from watching into doing things that might be intimidating. host: jack, independent line. caller: hello, thanks for c-span. my question is that for people who wish to tear down democracy or intimidate or whatever, they just don't seem to like it, i'm trying to figure out what the endgame is. what do they wish to replace it with? i don't really know. back in the 70's, there was a saying that set america, love it or leave it. it seems like if people don't

like democracy, i'm just really confused on what the endgame is, i guess. guest: i share some of your confusion, caller, and i appreciate that comment. i do think we've gotten to a point right now of being very us vs. them and it is very unfortunate we can't come together as americans with core values of constitutional rights and participation in democratic processes and getting things done, whether it is about the economy, whether it is about our national security, whether it is about crime, whatever the issues are that are important to americans. i could go on and on about how important some of the issues are. unfortunately we are at a point in time where many people are dragged into disinformation, largely because they are consuming one viewpoint. whether that is on cable news or social media or online internet

platforms, we see a lot of disinformation, just false information that gets spread around. that leads to this polarization and hopefully we can get back to what really matters. host: but are we savvy about disinformation in this day and age? guest: i don't think we are. those of us studying this and paying attention to the threats, we know how much of it is fueling the polarization in the country, yet we still see day after day people continuing to consume disinformation and spread it, whether it is witting or unwitting. empirical studies, they will feed you more and more content of the type that you have been looking at. it lets you purposefully extricate yourself from that.

you just keep getting more and more content. the attack on paul pelosi, in very short order, crazy, wild, theory started appearing in social media and those have now been spread wittingly or unwittingly. and they are utterly baseless, there is nothing at all to support any of these theories, but that is the way this happened and then that causes more and more polarization, more and more confusion, i think, in the public. host: part of your work at georgetown deals with paramilitary. what is that? guest: we see the real rise of paramilitary organizations engaging with the public, and what we are talking about here are dangerous groups that will frequently come out in public, often times in military gear,

usually carrying long rifles, often times helmets, combat boots, multiple rounds of ammunition, sidearms as well as the long rifles, and we see them doing various things. we see them physically assaulting governmental institutions. we've seen them in the january 6 attack and of course right now, members of one of those groups is on trial right here on charges of seditious conspiracy. but we also saw them in 2020 attacking statehouses in michigan and elsewhere. other demonstrations are going to be protecting private property. these are private individuals not protected under federal or state law, not protected by the second amendment to offensively

interfere with government processes. all 50 states prohibit this. military in all states must report to the governor. well-regulated means regulated by the government. they did that by creating the national guard system. there is no authority these private groups to arm themselves and go out and interfere with other peoples'constitutional rights. last point on that, many think that that protects them, but it does not at all. an anti-militia law still exists in the books of 29 states today against the town saying that they must be able to prevent

private, paramilitary activity. justice scalia writing to the court, that case with the first time the supreme court recognized an individual right to bear arms. that was contrasted with paramilitary organizations saying that no one is even arguing that that is protected and nothing about the second amendment text states from regulating that. host: north carolina, republican line. caller: good morning, i've got a couple points. remember back when maxine waters from california, they said to get in people's faces, not let them go to a petrol station, as she calls them, go to restaurants and harass

conservatives? the paul pelosi attack? you don't hear nothing about that. the rand paul attack, the guy who tried to assassinate justice kavanaugh. and after all the years when trump was running for president, how many fans or people that he had or rallies were physically attacked outside? you don't hear nothing about that. only when you hear about intimidation is when it happens to a democrat. i know you are always talking about the doj and fbi. did you see the intercept where they got papers that the fbi and the doj colluded with facebook, twitter about "disinformation." it is the silencing of what they don't want to hear and it is a two-tiered justice system and there was only one person killed

on january 6, and she was murdered by capitol police officers. host: ok. guest: i don't know where to start because they was not just one person killed in the u.s. capitol attack, there was also a police officer killed and more than 140 injured. but i think the point reportedly on the show this morning is that it is not acceptable regardless of which side it comes from. i think we have to be clear about that. it is not valid or acceptable means of addressing grievances. host: robin is in new york, democrat, go ahead. caller: i think it was last weekend, they had two people on video entering a station representing themselves as dod officials. obviously they are imposters but

they actually got to go in, and stick these all over the place. i'm just wondering, is there a disconnect between having security measures between the federal government and the state? because it seems like it is fairly lacking. thank you. guest: they are very, very shocking. the department of defense has no jurisdiction over elections in the states, and the united states. i'm wondering if some of that would have been miss reporting. so often officials are the ones responsible for election equipment and they do work with the federal government and the department of homeland security and cyprus yearly and infrastructure security on election security measures. host: we will go to patty in

atlantic city, independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call, very knowledgeable. a lot of the questions actually piggybacking on the previous collar, i guess, about the security of polling places in the security of poll workers as a big concern. it took place at an elementary school playground, suspended from school. obviously we are dealing with this. i was wondering why the intimidation is allowed to take place and there is some kind of executive order for the protection of volunteer government workers, for pulling

workers, and for citizens like me who might be afraid to go to a polling place because of the intimidation. thank you. guest: there are federal and state laws that prohibit voter intimidation in all 50 states. there are also federal and state laws that prohibit -- any individual, including civilian. in many cases, enhance for threats against election workers and pulling workers. it is just the enforcement of those tools and the ability to get to the place where they need to be, or the investigation needs to be done and decisions about it. our criminal justice system is a blunt tool. i think there are a lot of things that can be done to address voter intimidation short of criminal charges. election workers and law enforcement can ask those who might be engaged in activities intimidating to others, they can

always ask them to move back, to cease that conduct. if someone has come into an open carry state with a firearm on their wristband and it is not illegal in that state, they could still say this could be intimidating to voters. they can try different de-escalation tactics. they can help to ensure voters that they will be available to help them or just to be present if they are feeling intimidated going to the polls. we have a combination of criminal tools which are available in certain circumstances, but also the possibility of litigation, court orders to enjoy -- stop the activity. host: our guest is the former acting assistant attorney general for national security during 2016 and 2017. she's the -- of the executive director for constitutional

advocacy. thanks for your time guest: today. guest:thank you for having me. host: coming up, taking a look at battleground states leading up to election day next week. we focus on georgia. joining us to set up the discussion, and then later on in the program we will hear from a political science professor. that focus on georgia coming up next. ♪ >> this election day, the control of power and congress is at stake. from now until election night, follow c-span coverage with our coverage of the day and candidate events. events on tv anmobile app, on our website, and campaign

2022. >> if you are enjoying book tv, sign up for a newsletter to see the schedule of upcoming programs, author discussions, festivals and more. every sunday on c-span2 or anytime online at tipi.org. television -- book tv.org. television for serious readers. >> middle and high school students, it is your time to shine. you are invited to participate in the studentcam docuntary competition. in light of the upcoming midterm election, picture yourself as a newly elected member of congress. what is your top priority, and why? make a video that shows the importance of your issue from opposing perspectives. don't be afraid to take risks

with your documentary. be bold. $100,000 in cash prizes and a $5,000 grand prize. videos must be submitted by january 20, 2023. visit our website at studentcam.org for competition rules, tips, resources, and a step-by-step guide. announcer: washington journal continues. host: again, we are set to consider the state of georgia when it comes to the upcoming midterm elections in just a week. in a little bit, little have discussions with two guests to talk about not only the specific races at play, but some of the political dynamics as well. up until then, we would do open for them. if you want to call in, you're welcome to do that. (202) 748-8000 free democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents.

if you want to text us this morning, (202) 748-8003. twitter is available as well as facebook if you want to post. taking a look at georgia, a couple of things the wall street journal take a look at. president biden visiting those states. this piece from the wall street journal saying that if biden expects to visit or make additional trips to wisconsin and michigan, democrats hold close to the white house know that he has been in oregon and new york where democrats are in competitors governors races appointed to his fundraising efforts in those races. so we'll talk more about that as the week goes on. starting this week, about this time every day, we focus on

battleground states, taking a look at those states as we lead up to election day. president biden at the white house yesterday. one of the things he had to talk about was gas prices, specifically their profits. here's some of those comments from the white house yesterday. biden: rather than increasing investments in america were giving americans a break, they're going back to shareholders so the executive pay is going to skyrocket. give me a break. enough is enough. i'm a capitalist, i have no problem with corporations trying to get a fair profit, getting a return on their investment and innovation, but this is not remotely what is happening. oil companies, record profits today are not because they are doing something new or innovative. the profits are a windfall of war. the windfall from real conflict that is happening in ukraine and hurting tens of millions of people around the globe. and in a time of war, income

receiving historic profits like this has a responsibility to act beyond the narrow self-interest of the executives and shareholders. i get that is their responsibility to act in the interest of consumers, and their country. host: that is at the white house yesterday. you can see more of that on c-span.org or c-span now mobile app we will try to get to georgia and connecticut. democrat, hi. caller: good morning, how are you? host: well, go ahead. caller: actually, i really wanted to speak to your guest but i will ask you these questions. she was talking about disinformation, right? there was a caller talking i january 6. he said that the only person that got killed was --. and she said that a police officer got killed. a police officer did not get killed there, ok.

and you knew that, pedro, and you let her talk. people are not allowed to protect statues because they will go to jail, but people are allowed to knock them down and get away with it. i'm just wondering what you think about that. host: thanks for calling in. again, at this time, we are going to focus on georgia as a valid ground state and the week leading up to election day. greg at the atlanta journal-constitution joining us now from atlanta. he serves as a senior political reporter. thanks for joining us. guest: thanks for having me. host: the contrast between the governors races, senate race, talk about that, the contrast we are seeing in both of those races. guest: there's four different top candidates in georgia running different campaigns. governor kemp feels he can

appeal to african-american voters who he largely bypassed in 2018. herschel walker, polls show him with a serious deficit among conservative voters. when you go to a herschel walker campaign event, you are going to talk about transgender sports, issues like that that are meant to energize the republican base rather than appealing more to the middle because he is still falling behind were governor kemp is. there is the significant ticket trend in georgia, that came at just yesterday. five or 6% of supporters with rafael warnock and five or six also backing --. georgia, like so many other states, voters usually vote down the party line, but in this contest there's still a significant number of republicans withholding their support from herschel walker. host: you can find that online.

as far as herschel walker and rafael warnock are concerned, how close is this race? guest: it is a dead heat. we've heard that phrase over and over again but really, we've seen both herschel walker and senator warnock in the mid0's fluting this latest ajc poll where they are divided by a fraction of a percentage point. a very close race. right now, all signs are pointing toward a runoff. things can still happen, the vote can break one way or another, but i will tell you this. democrats and republicans in georgia, they are bracing for a full recall which is required if no candidate gets the majority of the vote. both candidates should have under the 50% mark because of the third-party candidate, we are heading toward a runoff. host: when it comes to herschel walker, you talk about what

you're doing specifically to change that. any harsh strategies to make things happen for him? >> this millions of dollars being spent across georgia. his audience is here in georgia with his messaging which has been a lot about joe biden. biden, biden, inflation, biden, the economy. these time -- trying to tie senator joe biden -- senator warnock to joe biden. joe biden's approval rating in georgia is at 37%. just like we see other important competitive states, republicans are slamming democrats with joe biden. and on the democratic side it is interesting. she has welcomed the white house support. senator warnock, he won't say whether he wants joe biden to run for reelection.

he talks more about working with republicans across the aisle than working with joe biden. they highlight how he has opposed joe biden's plan in southeast georgia. he was keeping joe biden at arms length. host: and we are seeing president obama in the state helping with the campaign. guest: the former president is one of the few national democrats on both campaigns. he is still popular in georgia, very popular among democrats. seen as someone who can really help energize the african-american voter base, the most important in georgia. and someone who both rafael warnock and stacey abrams can be seen with without getting that same effect. herschel walker for the third day in a row was on the campaign trail yesterday bashing senator

warnock for showing up. but democrats feel it is not the same as showing up for joe biden. host: a senior political reporter talking about georgia, a battleground state leading up to election day few if you want to ask a question about this race, democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 748-8001 guest: caller:202) 748-8003 if you want to text us, you can do so at (202) 748-8003. joyce are residence, that is the number that you can call in a specifically to ask questions. we saw a lot of news coming out about changes to election law in georgia. what a potentially might do for voters. can you kind of square those things for us?

>> we've seen a record turnout in georgia. it is hard to tell if it is going to have democrats or republicans right now. but you are right, there has been a tremendous amount of attention and in particular, they were written to affect mail-in ballots, not as much early ballots. the timeline, there's other restrictions as well. signature requirements, those are among the changes. there's other changes as well. extensive changes throughout. and experts say we won't really know the full impact of these changes until a few weeks from now, until the full scale of the electorate comes into view.

right now, we will be hearing from a lot of voters about problems of the ballot box? no. there are isolated cases here and there. there are always a number of issues in general with a state as large as georgia and so many moving parts, but generally, things are moving very smoothly. party officials from both sides of the line are urging georgians to cast ballots early because there is a three week early in person voting period and of course, the candidates want as many winning votes as they can early and that is what everyone kind of wants. wherefore are kind of bringing lunch shares and coolers because they are going to be in line for five or six hours. we are all hoping that doesn't happen this tuesday. host: potential turnout next

tuesday, how do you think it will compare to other midterm election cycles in georgia? >> is not going to top of the presidential cycle, of course, but i look and see it as topping that the 2018 midterm election, there has been so much interest, so much attention, so much money being spent on these races. $300 million on the governor race. my kids have now heard all the different advertisements for all of the different candidates, especially the negative ones. why is so-and-so saying this? you turn on the car radio, you're getting the ads. it is hard to avoid to avoid the selection. let us give our viewers some of those ads playing out here.

[video clip] >> i am raphael warnock and i approve this message. >> herschel walker wants to ban abortion. >> there is not a national ban on abortion right now and that is a problem. >> herschel walker played for an abortion for his then girlfriend. she had a $500 receipt from the abortion clinic. even his own son is saying herschel walker is lying. >> [crying] and he just starts backing the car up. i cannot believe he would run me over. i have tried to keep the way that he ask underlying -- that he acts down. he is phenomenal at putting on a really good show. [voices overlapping] --[end of

video clip] guest: what you heard there was not policy driven arguments as much as personality driven arguments. these have been written over extensively and covered extensively the last couple years. on senator warnock's side, there is the allegation he ran over his wife's foot in an allocation. in a dispute in march 2020, around the time he qualified to run for senate, he says nothing happened and he did not run over his wife's foot. paramedics and police officers at the scene did not find any visual sign of injury and charges were ever put against senator warnock. herschel walker, there is extensive reporting and documentation of violence against women, including his

ex-wife who you can hear talking very emotionally about the threats that he leveled against her. she has set essentially that she suffered from identity disorders and that the treatment to help him deal with that disorder that he has been redeemed and written a book about it. we chose him over the campaign trail about his past altercations with women, he generally either dodges the question or says he has addressed it in his book. although he did not address it in detail at all. he wrote tomorrow paleo of challenges with his wife. these are continuing to surface on the campaign trail. the second major issue you heard about is two x girlfriends of herschel walker have accused them of pressuring him to have abortions despite his opposition

, him saying he wants to ban abortions outright even in the case of rape or incest. he has denied these allegations. they are all over the airwaves in georgia. host: let us hear from robin in missouri. you are first up. go ahead. caller: i just want to say that this whole argument of there being two sides is tired and old. we should move past that. there are no two sides in this debate. senator warnock ran over his wife's foot, probably trying to remove himself from the situation. there is no comparison to the things that herschel walker has been accused of. besides that, we are looking at whether he has the intellect to do the job that he is trying to be elected for. i do not think he does. i just want to say, vote blue

and save your country. host: that was robin in missouri. guest: part of this debate in georgia has been as a senator warnock campaign has put out for months now, basically questioning whether herschel walker is fit for this office. saying that he lacks the credibility and the policy graphs to handle such an important job as being u.s. senator. of course, herschel walker refutes that and has his own counter attack. this is something showing up at polls. the really interesting about the polls that came out on monday was that basically half of georgia voters question whether herschel walker is trustworthy. at least a significant portion of those voters are still signaling they might support him and there is a main reason or that. republicans control the u.s. senate. i have talked to many voters on the campaign trail who there are

many who love herschel walker but there and many others who say they do not like him as a candidate as i tie -- candidates and it's sad that he emerged as the candidate but that him the republican trumps everything. we have seen that trend plan -- play out in many campaigns and in georgia. host: tina in pennsylvania, independent line. caller: hello. good morning. how are you? it has been a wild. i want to point out a couple things. i left the democrat party a wild back and went republican. then i got tired of that and said i will stay independent. 54 years of age. i live in a battleground state. there is one thing that keeps getting repeated about senator warner. -- senator warnock.

it bothers me. everybody wants to say what he did. his records are sealed so i do not know where this information is coming from because all of law enforcement records are sealed. i have tried to get them myself. another point i would like to make is we need to get away from being democrat and republican. we need to come together and be americans. start voting for policy and not personality. this is not a personality contest. this is not mr. america or miss america. this is our lives. i am going to tell you that my savings account has taken a hit in the past few years and so has my 401 k. i am tired of paying $4000 -- four dollars a gallon per gas. i am sick of all the arguing. people need to come together and

do what is right for the country. put the past in the past and let us move forward. host: matters of the economy. how does this rage when it comes to the top of voters minds? guest: tina hit the nail on the head when it comes to the economic struggles across the country and in georgia. poll after poll reinforces this. we need to tell voters that inflation is a significant issue. all of the campaign runners notice that as well. as far as issues like abortion and guns, they all acknowledge that inflation is a top issue. decades high inflation is taking a significant toll on voters and they are highlighting their plans to deal with that. that is one reason that governor kemp feels like he is in the front of the polls because he can point to efforts he has done to refund taxpayers a billion dollars, to reopen the georgia

economy early during the pandemic. other issues that have helped benefit george's. at this point, stacey abrams has her own plan to refund taxes. in the senate race, you hear the word inflation over and over from herschel walker and senator warnock. you hear about his vote for what democrats call the inflation reduction act. the climate, health care, and tax legislation that passed a few weeks ago. democrats in georgia are saying that will help bring down rising prices in the long run. host: this is the second time that stacey abrams has run for office. why are voters not coercing around her? guest: it is interesting. i am -- on the one hand, she is not a new candidate. for the last five years, republicans have made her the

top candidate to target. or voters have a negative view of her that a positive view at this point. which for governor kemp it is reversed. but there is also the fact that 40 years ago it was an open sea. both candidates said here is what i would do. in governor kemp's case, he can point to this record. in certain when it comes to antiabortion restrictions and gun laws, there are a significant number of democrats and independents who do not like where he stood. but he also points to other issues that he has championed other it be raises for teachers, education policies or his economic agenda. that is what he is going to focus his campaign on. he is speaking a lot more about his first term that his second term. when it comes to his first term, basically 80% of his campaign

speech is about what he has done in his first term. stacey abrams has dozens of policies, probably more than a hundred policies about what she would do if she was elected governor. but because she does not have a record as an executive to run on, that might be one of the main reasons she is lagging behind. of course, some of the main reasons we are seeing democrats lagged behind in other states as well. it is the economy and joe biden. you are running with a president who has a 37% popularity rate in polls, you have to outrun him. guest: our guest is greg bluestein of the atlanta journal-constitution. caller: i understand what you are saying about herschel walker and that he is another guy just like donald trump. that they do not want him because they do not want an outsider. and everything about the

capitol. and term limits. we have a person like joe biden who has been in there for 53 years and has done nothing. where is his son hunter? -- china. everything goes to the red wave. in michigan, vote for turner dixon. host: bruce in new york, democrat line. hello. caller: hello. i am an anthropologist and i spent about 15 years working with psychology populations. i want to point out that herschel walker represents a similar thing that happens with domestic abuse and domestic violence. the excuse of the apologists and the false equivalence fallacies are acquainted with all the

attempts to redirect away from this. these are things we have witnessed very consistently patterned among people who want to excuse their own abuses. it is an analogy but it seems to be that the republicans have a tendency to do this, in this attempt to distract from nancy pelosi's event. walker was a personal and -- a perfect example. it does not get more simple than this. i would like to get his opinion on this. it is not domestic terrorism but domestic abuse and violence is the model we should be looking at here to try to explain how the victim is responsible for all of this. guest: herschel walker has just basically issued flat denials for some of these allegations. others he does not really

address at all other than saying he is a redeemed figure. there are a number of supporters who agree with that. just as i said earlier, there are also a significant number who don't. there is a significant number of republicans, hard to quantify, but in anecdotal interviews that i have done at rallies who say they are worried about his personal character. but they are also confident he would vote with mitch mcconnell. again, that is one of the prevailing themes of this election which are republicans who do not think this is the best candidates from the party in georgia who have serious misgivings, which might be an understatement, but serious concerns with him as a candidate and as a person with his ability to do the job. but they still see a vote for a republican said as the most important factor in the selection. then there are many who do not believe these allegations.

some who see him as a vindicated figure because he speaks on the trail as being a warrior for god and of writing his book that has helped, in his view, illuminate past issues of his mental health. it is a very difficult argument and one that has been really hard for him to elaborate on the campaign trail because he does not like speaking about the past that much. there has been a few commercials and interviews but when you go to his campaign events, talks more about himself as a redeemed figure then he does delve into his past. host: for his time in office, what is senator warren not running on this time around as far as accomplishments? guest: he is running as both a liberal and a maverick. he embraces his stances on voting rights and voting for president biden's agenda when it comes to the inflation reduction act. these issues that would not have

passed had jon ossoff and senator warnock not won those january 21 suites in georgia. he is also talking about how he is aiming for other issues that are broader based. he talks about curbing prescription drug prices and his close to cap the price of insulin at $35. if there is one policy issue he speaks the most of, it is that. trying to cap the price of insulin. there was a provision in the inflation reduction act that did that with public government plans but failed to pass when it came to private insurers. he will continue to push for that. he also speaks about areas where he has spoken with president biden, including the potential plan to close a military training installation on george's coast. and talked about how he is pushing president biden to take more assertive action when it

comes to debt relief. often when he talks about joe biden, it is where the two disagree or when he is trying to pressure him it is on thing. i mentioned earlier that he likes talking about working across party lines with ted cruz. it often shocks people when one of the people he brings up his ted cruz. he says, hey i am shocked as well. when they talked about building a highway from texas to georgia, they both signed onto it. he uses that as an example where he is working with whoever he can. host: greg bluestein. a political reporter from atlanta journal-constitution. we will hear from -- caller: can you hear me clearly or do i need to adjust the phone? host: no, you are perfect. caller: i appreciate your coverage greg bluestein and i read you daily. i appreciate the fact that i

think you do know your state. i want to stay -- to say that i am a supporter of stacey abrams. i am a african-american woman, i am a suburban educated woman and i see her as a reflection of what the actual new georgia is. she started her campaign in 2017. this is a woman who this not have a title, you stated her legislative record, but she was the minority leader of the house for 11 years. i wanted you to talk with the country about how georgia represents -- is more than just atlanta. here in the southwest part of the state, we have four regions of the state. north, south, west, middle georgia and southeast.

you have the military in the augusta and albany. albany -- 75 years was putting $22 million into the economy. you had a plant that no longer has -- they have got to contract labor. this is not just about atlanta but the one georgia that stacey abrams speaks about. the effect that certain parts of georgia which have been left out -- you talk about the construct of the federal dollars that raphael warnock spoke about in the infrastructure bill that is going to run from the military bases that will go across from texas to georgia. you talk about the fact that the federal dollars will in fact help to incentivize the new industries with the factory and

the keel plants down there. i am very aware of my whole one georgia and stacy has been running on that. host: ok, we will leave it there. with her point, stacey abrams view of georgia and the caller's view of georgia. guest: she makes a great point. when stacey abrams lost her campaign for governor, waited to go to launch it? southwest reject, albini. -- southwest georgia, albini. governor kemp spent more time outside of metro atlanta and in the city of atlanta. he was often on small towns like mozilla that only have a few thousand folks. strategies were both to drive up and generate interest and mobilization outside of metro. the metro accounts for roughly half the state's population but as they call her mentioned, it

is not the entire state. none of the campaign runners have acted like that. they have all focus outside of metro atlanta. even as a speak, there are campaigns plans for the home of a majority african-american college in the middle georgia area. there are campaign events in a gusto which is one of the midsize cities -- in a gusto -- augusta which is one of the midsize cities in the midwest. they are competing in the small cities because they feel like if they can save the margins in enough of these counties, they can string the vote together that can cushion them because they will win the city of atlanta and the suburbs. then, governor kemp in particular has an event today

and he is focusing on the suburbs in atlanta in a way we did not see him do in 2018. it used to be republican strongholds but now they flipped blue since 2016. you are seeing republicans trying to do a better job keeping them. host: in the week that we have until election day, what are you watching? guest: a lot trade anymore october surprises/november surprises. but also, the voter mobilization. polls write national a steady lead for governor kemp and a very tight race for -- polls show a very steady lead for governor kemp and a very tight race for senate. we are seeing get out the vote machines trying to prove their mettle and get out the vote. in this final stretch, democrats and republicans are working hard. republicans have tried to match

the democratic ground game. guest: greg bluestein of the atlanta journal-constitution. he is their senior political reporter. thank you for your time. we will continue on in our lives with georgia as a background state with the school scientist from georgia gwinnett college matthew gunning. we will focus on what is happening in the state as this leads to election day. our coverage will continue on washington journal. ♪ >> c-span now is a free mobile out the trigger unfiltered view of what is happening in washington live and on-demand. keep up with four proceedings and hearings from u.s. congress, white house events, campaigns and more through the worlds of politics all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of

washington journal and find scheduling information for c-span's tv network and c-span radio. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. download it free today. c-span now, your front row seat to washington, anytime, any where. >> there are a lot of places to get political information but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happened here or here or here, or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. restaurant our latest collection of c-span products, apparel,

books and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation. shop now or any time at c-spanshop.org. >> washington journal continues. host: our next guest is matthew gunning with georgia gwinnett college, a political science professor. thank you for your time. we saw president biden won the state of georgia in 2020. what has changed in a state in the two years since that and what does that mean for the candidates involved? guest: a couple things. there are long-running demographic shifts going on so that precedes the pace. there is also the perception of candidates in particular. the governor's election, mr. kemp's not denying or contesting

that joe biden won the state probably shaped his image in a way that is probably more favorable to swing voters. in democrats, there is probably some confidence because the state had not voted democratic going back to bill clinton. for the first time in two decades, georgia democrats are feeling optimistic about their potential that georgia has become a swing state after being republican for many years. host: would you describe it as a pure blue state, a purple state, or a transition? guest: i would describe it still is being slightly republican. if we look in the vote in 2020, joe biden won the popular vote by about four points and a little more into carry georgia by the slimmest of margins. if we think of a neutral

national vote, i would still say it is probably a couple percentage points. host: if you were to look at a map of the state of georgia, where does it help republicans and where does it help democrats? guest: georgia is very spatially distinct. the atlanta metro area which is roughly half of the population, the inner part of the metro and the inner and middle suburbs are now successfully competing for area democrats. democrats also do well in some smaller metros like macon and columbus and richmond county. the historic lack belt which had a high percentage of black residents is also an area where democrats do well. republicans tend to win much of the role counties and win overwhelming marches of the melting counties in the north and the outer suburban fringe.

it is generally speaking the metro areas where democrats tend to perform better against the rural and outer suburbs. host: you talked about the state being slightly red. how would you describe then the separation between the governor kemp and his challenger, stacey abrams? and the closest of the race in the senate. guest: i think this speaks to the candidates in the race. both mr. kemp and mr. warnock are incumbents. that gives you time to shape your image. i think brian kemp's reaction to the closeness of georgia and not contesting the results, it's happened in other states with republicans in office, this helped to shape his image in a way that made him more attractive to swing voters and moderate voters. mr. warnock has also been very careful. if you look at the issues the u.s. senate has featured him on,

they are issues that are not particular left-leaning. there are centrist issues like things to do with the economy. i think this is obviously a conscious decision on the behalf of the senate majority leader, knowing mr. warnock is from a very vulnerable state. he wanted to help bolster the image of mr. warnock as someone who can be attractive to swing and moderate voters. we could easily see a split outcome where both of the incumbents of the republican governor and the democratic senator might win reelection. both of these individuals have had the opportunity to shape their perception in a way to make them more attractive to swing voters. host: matthew gunning joining us. if you want to ask him questions about things occurring in georgia, a battleground state. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans.

(202) 748-8002 for independents. if you are a resident of georgia, call (202) 748-8003. you are talking about shaping perspectives. this is a national ad about raphael warnock's ties to the president and inflation. [video clip] >> it did not take long for raphael warnock to become a part of -- politician and now he claims he is bipartisan. not exactly. he voted with joe biden two/medicare spending and pull u.s. oil production and force huge spending feeling inflation. look closely and you will see that raphael

-- guest: with abortion, georgia in the past elected someone who was pro-life or had a mixed record with abortion. in this position, mr. warnock is not trying to obscure his position but advocating to it.

this is an excuse -- a situation where georgia is divided between the big metro areas and we are seeing both candidates lean into these kinds of positions as a way to draw attention to these differences in a way we would not have seen five or 10 years ago. host: our first call is from linda. caller: the morning. can you hear me? i actually wanted to ask about the libertarian candidate. i know the focus of these is between herschel walker and rafael were not but we also have a -- rafael warnock but we do have a libertarian candidate. i do not feel like they will win but i want to know how much of an affect the libertarian committed will have four the

senate and the gubernatorial offices and what would happen if someone was actually elected? guest: libertarians in georgia are very active. in some states, libertarians may not contest for office but libertarians in georgia are active and they regularly feels candidates for statewide offices and often even for offices lower down the valley. as third parties go they are one of the more active third parties in the u.s. but specifically in georgia. i have a collie who is active in the libertarian party. i give them full marks for trying to develop as a third party. unfortunately, the way the system is set up, it is biased in favor of two large parties and it is difficult for the parties to gain a threshold. perhaps with proportional voting like alaska and maine.

in the case of georgia, the libertarian party usually matters in the sense that does in win enough votes to prevent either party from 14? georgia, unlike many other state requires a candidate when a majority -- win a majority or 50% plus one. if we have a runoff between mr. walker and mr. warnock and libertarian takes 2% of the vote, it will not be sufficient for them to take office but will force a runoff several weeks later between the top two finishers. as to your part about what effect a libertarian candidate will have if elected, i think it

will have a positive effect. if you compare the u.s. to other countries, voters may be happier if they have within two choices in an election. having more than two parties in the u.s. senate would probably increase voter satisfaction or belief that there is a party that speaks to their concerns. i am a fan personally of having more choices and perhaps voting systems that make more than two parties an option for holding power in the country. host: buddy in jesup, georgia. caller: yes. what i wanted to say is the mudslinging and stuff like that -- into the thing about voters out here and say do not know if it is true or not. if they would practice the truth a little bit than it would probably be a better bank.

i would think it would. guest: that is a great question. we ask voters how they feel, with individual scandals were questions about their fitness or care there, which bc is voters overwhelmingly say how much they hate negative ads. one of the questions is why did campaigns run negative as if voters claim they hate them? the answer many consultants will give is while voters say they hate these ads, they do shape voters evaluation of the candidates. if you find a candidate to be unacceptable because there is some scandal or issue, you may find it impossible to cast a ballot for that candidate. it is one of these paradoxes of u.s. politics that people hate negative ads but enough people listen to them that the

candidates using them. i would like to see some candidates who would try to break from this mold and stick with running were positive ads. we actually saw mr. warnock, two years ago, he spends a lot of his budget on positive ads. ads were he was walking a dog or talking to the camera. it would be interesting if we would see more candidates stick with positive messages all the way through the end of the campaign. we tend to see candidates become very negative in the last couple weeks and we are certainly seeing that in georgia. when i watch the television, every ad break is a political ad and they are almost all negative. i agree that it may actually be useful for a candidate to try a different strategy that a strategy everyone is using. guest: we are told 1.6 million georges have already voted -- georgians have already voted.

what you think about that figure? guest: i love it. i would expect we are going to shatter the turnout for midterm elections. we went back to 2018, we saw a roughly -- mowing people vote. in the presidential election which is usually significant leading higher, we had 5 million cast in 2020. we have already had 330,000 new voters, who did not vote four years ago, votes. if we assume that most voters who didn't vote four years ago still turnout, i will not be surprised if he gets in between the 4 million we had in 2018 and the 5 million in 2020. this will be a significant increase. the level of excitement or voter mobilization is very high. we have seen people turning out at record levels at the turnout piece is well ahead of the peace we saw years ago.

i am seeing evidence that republican voters who in the past 10 to wait until election day are beginning to embrace early voting. we are starting to see people shipped to voting earlier in the cycle. historically in georgia and other states, early voters are more likely to be democratic leaning. i am curious to see if this will continue and if we start to see both parties begin to embrace early voting as a regular practice. right now that is happening. host: you saw in your state the passage of the election integrity act. has there been any significant impact on this cycle? guest: i would say that generally speaking, the concerns of the ability of people to both work probably overstated with large numbers of turnout. there are specific niche is a voters where it has had a negative impact. particular if we are talking

about a voter who is handicapped or cannot drive and they have requested an absentee ballot. it is more difficult to return than if you are close to election day. it used to be you can hand that ballot to another person or the candidates or a family member and they could return it to the dropbox. you can no longer do that. there is no longer the ability to hand off and absentee ballot to a third party for transport. you must put that -- you must present it to the clerk's office within a certain number of hours. if we have a candidate who is mobility impaired, that may make it more difficult for them to participate. but broadly speaking, most of our voters are participating into voting early. they have made it harder to vote by mail which is a dominant way of voting in seaside oregon --

in states like oregon and colorado and now nevada. but early voting is open for three weeks in georgia and we are seeing many people participate that way. host: carolina from virginia, independent line. caller: good morning. i voted independent, democrat and republican. c-span.org -- c-span.org you have herschel walker who is talking about bringing air from china's here. that is not have anything to do with his personal life. this will be a man on the senate floor making personal decision.

by the way, record-breaking numbers. the oil people have made record-breaking numbers in profit. joe biden is trying to get them to say that you have made all this money profiting so bring the price of gasoline down. but yet republicans will say it is our fault, including herschel walker, that gas prices are up. nobody is sitting at the details. so i go back to the mental capacity of a person who is talking about transporting air from one country to another. host: ok, we will let our guests respond. guest: voters have different metrics by which they evaluate candidates. some voters to care about whether a candidate is polished or articulate or well spoken. for many voters, that is an important criteria when they go to evaluate a candidate rated

you do sometimes often find voters who distrust people who are particularly polished and they may view them as potentially deceptive. there is an interesting strain where when you talk to some voters, they will actually show a fondness for people who are not -- some people care about the level of professionalism and others less so. as to the issues of economics, economics is one of those issues that presently republicans are talking a lot about. things like inflation and the experience people are having to go to purchase items that cost more. there are of course many dimensions to economics. the caller mentioned for example profit margins and oil companies. there are different reads on this. for example, the comment she made is one you might see from somebody like mr. sanders who

would talk about corporate abuse or corporate profit-taking that is excessive. you have both sort of a critique of economics that comes from the right to may focus on inflation but you also have a critique of economic policies that focus on corporate excess that the caller mentioned. host: from arizona, republican line, ron. caller: i am a little concerned. social media gets fact checked all of the time. why are tv ads stopping fact check? i am all for the first amendment but when lies are blatant and being spread and told on the television, it is very concerning. nobody has fact checked these. and this comes from both sides. guest: this is a great question. it seems on the surface that this is a bad idea and we should

not allow people to share objectively false or provably false statements. the challenge with fact checking is who would do the fact checking? if we had a standard where this went to a court system, it would take too much time. courts are not rapid moving as they evaluate evidence of truth or untruthfulness. one of the difficulties of trying to come up with a fact checking system is who would do the deciding? is that person trusted by both the people on the conservative or liberal size? how quickly could that system work? our present system of law does not allow for any kind of third-party referee to prevent things from being aired. honestly the only referee here are the fact checkers or journalists who might comment on as an say this is not consistent with the known facts or the known data. i think the reason that in the u.s., we allow candidates to run

untruthful ads because there is no mechanism that can work quickly. it would not necessarily have the trust of all voters and could sort through the allegations quickly in enough time in any election season where we are now only about a week out from the election. this is the reason our system operates the way it does. maybe it is not the best but that is why it works the way it does. host: that was ron in arizona. let us hear from darlene. caller: i am calling about the fact that the most important thing in this election is donald trump is a traitor to his country. donald trump is supported by the republican party. they would like to see him president again. we have to do all we can to keep that from happening. just think about it.

a traitor became president of the u.s. to a pig like him. we have to make sure it never happens again. host: is former president trump a factor in this race? guest: i believe he is. this is a feature that exists in our politics. historically we talk about the difference between the two parties, we would have a republican issue and a democratic issue. but for a certain number of voters, the question on the ballot is not the tax rate for the size of the budget but democracy itself. for a number of voters who have significant concerns about whether democracy will be allowed to function in particular in light of the allegations of the election of 2020 not being counted accurately in the right that took place on january 8, those voters see this not as a question between left and right but as a choice between

democracy and something else. in particular, i know some of these voters. i know a couple republican voters who historically would never vote for a democrat but they also have some concerns and discomfort about the sort of antidemocratic tendencies of the former president trump. host: matthew gunning of georgia gwinnett college. here talking to us about george's elections coming up in a week and the midterms. we have 10 more minutes in this segment if you want to call or text or tweet us a question or comment. dolores is next. the loris is from georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to thank mr. gunning for coming on and not being swayed to color this country by red, blue, and purple because that is discriminatory.

i would also like to say that stacey abrams has a good platform. brian kemp is swaying to the old good old boys mentality. i think what people have not seen in georgia is to be have so many roads that need to paved. we need kids that need to have free lunch. also, children are not covered at school for insurance. they have no seatbelts on the bus. there are a lot of things georgia needs. thank you for letting me speak. host: that was dolores from georgia. guest: i would like to think dolores for reading of these issues. one of the issues she is hinting at is one of the big issues -- differences between georgia and other states is the choices that george's edges later and governance have chosen not to adopt the medicare expansion

that was available. this is an issue between mr. kemp and ms. abrams where there is a sizable difference. they do not see it on this issue. this factor contributes to more jordans lacking health insurance, particularly georgians who have less income. there are sizable issues and she raises a good point which is it is easy to become focus on questions of individual scandal or maybe the polish of individual candidates but there are substantive issues that divide the two parties. if stacey abrams were to win, i knew she would -- she said she would push for medicaid expansion. if mr. kemp wins, he has his own issue agenda. in particular, taxes and spendings are issues that republicans have emphasized. while it is easy to sometimes

think as politics as a game, the call mentioned i have tried to avoid using words like red and blue and purple. politics is about serious things and they do affect people's lives. while i often find politics interesting and iave followed it my whole life, it is important to step back sometimes and remember it is not just a game. the decisions and the policies that are made to change people's lives or can have a positive or negative impacts on people's daily lives. host: the copper used the term good old boys and that came up during a debate between stacey abrams and brian kemp, when it came to support for law enforcement. can you tell what happened there? guest: you term good old boys club those back to the older type of georgian politics when it used to be exclusively male.

that entity 1960's, there were no female members which it was a club of boys. it also tended to be people who were the elite in the state county and they would come to the capitol and network and favors for it to another. they would steer contracts or legislation that somebody wanted to somebody out. this is a long tradition of networking within this old boys network that goes back 100 years in georgia politics. the phrase "the old boys network " this reference an older way of distributing favors and goods that existed in georgia politics for a long period of time. one of the things that is happening in georgia estes rate becomes more metropolitan and more people increasingly live in metropolitan areas like atlanta network savanna where richmond and columbus, there is a shift towards professionalization.

white-collar professionals have certain expectations about convicting contracts and other types of business in a professional manner, not necessarily skewing favors to friends or associate. when we see this brought up in a debate, we are seeing this touch into a longer running question of how should politics operate? should politics be a system in which people form alliances and do favors for their allies and friends or should politics be more professional with a standard or some kind of principle that guides public policy? i think you are seeing this shift happen in georgia as torture went from a state that was historically world -- as georgia went from a state that was historically rural to being a state where people live in larger cities and do not necessarily know their friends and neighbors well.

but they are imbued in a culture where everyone is supposed to follow a set of rules or standard. i think this speaks to a larger question of how georgia and other states operating. is it a network of interpersonal relationships or of rules and principles? host: from nebraska, republican line, this is mike. caller: hello. battleground georgia. all of the seats this year our battleground. i want to say that yes, i want herschel walker to win. he is a republican and i am a republican. i am not racist or an anti-semitic or all of that trap and i am not a nazi. just to get that cleared right now. but i want herschel walker to win. it seems like to be that stacey abrams in georgia, a

battleground state, here we go again. they want -- they are more involved in wanting to kill babies than to go hungry and starving to death this winter. it's freezing to death because we cannot pay our damn bills. i am tired of the back and forth with republicans and democrats it needed it and she did it. that man in the white house slobbers all over himself and every. host: ok, we will leave it there. guest: is with the call her earlier who brought up -- as with the caller earlier who brought up the economy, there are profound issues at stake in every election. in georgia, after the decision which removed the president of roe v. wade, individual states now have a choice. one of the things we are seeing

play out across the 50 states is every state now has the capacity to determine their own abortion policy. here in georgia, before the dobbs decision and the state legislature adopted a bill to greatly restrict access to abortion and since then, this has become a very hot button issue. it is not a choice of voters and this is one of the big choices of the supreme court who has tossed this back to electorates and state legislators and governors. this is a meaningful and important ways that affects a lot of people. people have very strong feelings about this particular topic. one of the things that i like about politics is it is a place where we talk about the things that we value are the things we care about. both sides of the abortion question so that people have varies -- have very strong feelings that touch their

values. you have people who are pro-choice to see this as a case of women's autonomy. on the pro-life side, you have people who see this as an unborn or potential human being. these values are significant and i do not think we should downplay the fact that in politics, as the caller did note , there could be silly things or surface things. at a deep and fundamental level, host: you going with georgia when at college. he is their professor. gd.edu if you want to check out his work. that is it for the program today. another additional washingn journal comes at 7:00 tomorrow morning. we will see you then.