♪ host: it is wednesday, august 23. eight gop candidates are said to be on stage tonight for the first debate of the 2024 presidential election. donald trump is taking an interview with tucker carlsen to

air at the same time. will you be watching? our lines are yes and low --no. if you think debate still matter, call (202) 748-8000. if you think they do not matter call (202) 748-8001. you can send us a text at (202) 748-8003. be sure to send your first name and your city and state and we are on social media, facebook.com/c-span and on instagram @cspanwj. i want to remind you of who the eight participants are and they are in apple credible order -- in africa -- in alphabetical order. we are joined by the director of

debate that the university of michigan. welcome to the program. i want to ask you the question that we are asking the audience, do debate still matter? guest: definitely, maybe not as much as they did a few decades ago the last couple elections have been close -- ago. the last couple elections have been close. while they are less undecided these days, they tune in -- these are good opportunities for candidates to make their closing arguments or at least introduce them so severe audience. -- to the audience. host: how much does the debate

focused on policy issues as opposed to candidates attacking each other and getting one-liners in? guest: a used to be more policy-based several decades ago when they started but the recent cycles have gotten more aggressive and zingers are these pre-attack lines and they have gotten more popular because they are viral and create their own media cycle so there is incentive for candidates to use them. we will see more of a policy debates and there are important issues like ukraine, abortion, spending, a lot of things that, given that he is not there, i think you will see that and we saw that in 2016 when former president trump did the -- did not -- attend a debate in iowa and it was substance filled.

host: what has changed historically about debates? guest: the ratings have declined. they used to be like a super low ratings and i think we are expecting less tonight given trop's absent. talk about zingers -- you talked about zingers. these are great opportunities for the overseas to give -- for the candidates to give -- there is a cycle that can go all the way to march of 2024 and the qualification materials will increase so they have become the light of campaigns. candidates that did not qualify this time may totally end their campaigns. we will see them on different networks and platforms. there used to be a few major networks and sometimes -- i

think we will see interesting questions from the audience. the public has become more involved in the debate as technology take -- changed. host: former president trump will not be there, is that an advantage or disadvantage to the eight candidates? guest: it is a mixed bag because they have to run for him to be the republican nominee. he is a major -- he has a major league but his absence gives them an opportunity to shine and gives them time. he often sucks the local oxygen in the room and disproportionately -- if you were to show up, you probably would have gotten 45 minutes of questions to himself alone so without that equation, there will be more time for people to get biographies of themselves. make the case on why they should

be the republican nominee. they have to take advantage of the opportunity. maybe see increase in the polls and get rid of the titans, trump may come back to the debate stage. if others gain momentum and the race narrows, he has to prove himself. host: what do you think the challenges are that faces the moderators tonight? guest: the biggest challenge is what will in the debate trump should play even though he is in the. in 2016, he skipped the debate, the moderators did a job -- a great job of -- on not focusing greatly on trump. the rest of the debate,, his name wasn't brought up. it will be interesting to see

whether things pulled closely because his lead is larger than it was at that time. you have to ask about things like the multiple criminal indictments, if someone else won the election, when they pardon him? the question is, how long does the shadow loom over the debate? in some ways, it makes sense that it is not very much. there has to be a cost of not attending the debate, the others showed up so they should get the vast majority of the questions so it will be interesting to see what the moderators do because there is an incentive for them to involve trump considering he brings more eyeballs to the television. we will see how they handle it. they are prepared.

they had a few day head starts. host: it is overall -- over a year before the next actual election, do you think people are paying attention? how much do you think they are paying attention at this point? guest: it is a great time for the opening debate, same thing in cleveland in 2015, some -- summer is ending and school is starting usually the first debate, there is the most interest. we haven't had a presidential debate in several years and people are returning to work and looking to become involved and a lot of voters are on the fence and don't know much about the candidates there so it is historically probably going to be the most interested and most watched debate. they may give other campaigns a second look but this is of great time as we get to the fall and they were days approaching when

voters tune in -- and labor day is approaching when voters tune in. we do a lot of stuff with academic debates after student -- with the students at the university of michigan and there is a lot of overlap. the same criteria the -- criteria i would use -- do they come in prepared? if they got a question that they were not ready for, how do they answer it off the top of their head with critical thinking? the same criteria in the academic space we use for political ones and the reason why the debates are so popular because they are a great job interview for the president of the united states, commander in chief and people want to see how other candidates prepare. if there is an emergency phone

call, operating in this environment with skilled speakers that are smart will show them what it is like so it is a great test ground on how they would operate with important situations. host: it is always the conversation about who won the debate. what are your thoughts on that and if that is even the right question? guest: that kind of horse race mate -- mentality in posix has become more popular. it has to be asked. since trump chose not to participate, somewhat will have to win and it will increase the mode -- momentum for the campaign. . it is not about who won or lost, it is how they handle the issues and how does it portend for them being a president. it is a microcosm of the overall campaign. it provides momentum and may

increase fundraising. free media and it is part of a package of one -- running for president. it is a great springboard. you want to look behind the winning and losing and to how this will translate into governing. the country is divided. it is a great opportunity for people not just to introduce themselves but also show positive forward-looking vision. something that -- a little bit so this is a great opportunity for that. host: what will you we watching for -- be watching for? guest: i -- it is interesting to see what will trouble plate and looking at the other candidates there. for governor ron desantis, everyone will look at him. every time the front runner is not there, the attention goes to number two and he had a rocky run in the campaign but this is a great opportunity for him to see how he handles several

people attacking him. that will be interesting. some lesser-known candidates, governor burgum, h a hutchison and others --asa hutchinson and others. will they be able to participate in future debates and use this debate as an opportunity to springboard going forward? it will be fascinating and trump not being there at an interesting namic -- and trump not being there creates an interesting dynamic. host: we are taking your calls on the question, do presidential candidate debates matter and our phone lines are yes and no. yes, (202) 748-8000, no (202) 748-8001. and will start with steve in san

jose -- we will start with steve in san jose. caller: i would like to start out the program by boiling it down to the crux of the matter. i am going to suggest something. it is applicable to the debate that we are going to witness in a few hours but it is especially applicable to the presidential debate that we are going to witness maybe in a year or so. this has never been suggested before. generally, we have two moderators in a debate. those that are alternating, asking questions. i would like to see those two moderators comprised of a

liberal moderator from nbc and a conservative moderator from fox news or newsmax. that way, we can get to the heart competitor -- of the matter, we can ask the most pointed questions and bore down through the issues and explodes -- expose the candidates' weaknesses and to me, the weaknesses are at the heart of the matter. i will take your response of fear -- off the air. host: anthony is next, detroit, michigan, you say no, why? caller: i think this won't -- one will especially not matter

because trump will not be there. he is a showstopper. the general election, they exclude third-party and independent candidates ever since ross perot or however long ago. there are large groups of population that wouldn't feel represented in the debates. you have hundreds of millions of people and you want to shoehorn that into two groups? that doesn't make sense and i don't think that matters because based on the question, trying to shoehorn everything into a liberal and conservative framework which is and always applicable. the questions are can't --c anned. they don't seem to represent my interests. host: if you are the moderator, what questions would you want to ask? caller: i would ask about the

ukraine funding and how can you justify so much ukraine funding. i would say, don't you think it is a reckless or policy -- foreign policy? host: we have this from facebook. lawrence rate --writes, debate should matter but with the two candidates we have now, they are so polarizing that they don't but in the future, once we get past trump and president biden, i think you will find debates matter again. it is a good way to see candidates. one person says, yes, if we could find unbiased people to conduct debates rather than corporate owned moderators. let's take a look at rnc chairwoman. she was on fox news and -- who is hosting the debate and she talked on monday but she wants to see. -- what she wants to see most of

[video clip] how much -- what she wants to see. [video clip] >> in my dream world, i would want it to all be about joe biden. i want to keep focused on what the pledge is. cost of living is up and gas prices are up and families are dealing with financial deaths by 1000 cuts and they went as to see us talk about issues that i -- versus the failure of joe biden. >> he is veteran at politico. he said that candidates must take a risk at the debate. one of the things i think people are wondering as they look at

this debate as we know former president trump is in there so he has a commanding lead and you also have the record of the republican party from 2020 and 2022 being a disappointment, what would be anything different this year than those previous ones? >> i think the biggest difference is i think a lot of people haven't been paying attention to politics. this is the first summer post-pandemic that we have been able to be with our families are getting our kids to school so i think the general election is starting now where we get to talk about joe biden and what he has done to this country. you can talk about 100,000 deaths from fentanyl and an open border with record migrants crossing last month, 183,000, you can talk about crime surgery. --surging. you can talk about the deficits kids are facing in the classroom especially in reading and math. when we talk about those things

and you talk about school choice and law and order and closing the border and shutting down fentanyl, we can make a mark and it will be independent voters we will need to win the general election so i don't look at this as a primary. the general election starts tomorrow. host: was the rnc chair -- that was the rnc chair talking about the debate. do you think the debate still matter? -- debates still matter? you say no, why? caller: not only do they not matter, you can tell by the moderators. not only do the debates not matter much but the candidates themselves don't matter much. four things that matter, you have to have voter roles, you have to generate mail-in ballots based on those roles and you have to harvest the ballots and you have to match court cases

that matches the signatures to the envelopes of the butter registration parts -- voter registration part. host: would you be watching tonight? caller: i will not be watching. the arizona governor did not -- now only did not debate, she cannot campaign when she was elected. joe biden didn't campaign last time. he will not campaign this year because they know better. they know the four things that are going to get you elected. host: are you planning to watch the tucker carlsen interview with the former president? caller: probably not. voter roles gender fate -- generate mail-in ballots and harvest them. host: we heard you. you say yes, why? caller: it is an opportunity for

people to get to seal the candidates next to each other but actually, my comment really is that this is not a debate. i debate is a misnomer -- eight debate is a misnomer. the only debate i am old enough to remember, the first television debate. kennedy versus nixon. that was -- even that wasn't technically a debate. i was a debate captain in high school and i coached a college debate team and i think that what we are going to see tonight is not a debate. you cannot have so many people. i debate has to be with two different teams or two different people. i think one debate that i would

be most interested in seeing is ultimately the presidential debates one to two major candidates are settled upon but even that is not a debate. what i would like to see is more one on one debates and with trickster -- trickster -- stricter rules and not as dependent on the moderator. we have to think about wallace, who shot down trump's criticism on biden, the hunter biden laptop. he intervened in a such a way that really changed not only the nature of the debate experience but it changed the outcome of

the election. there's too much emphasis on the moderator -- host: are you going to be watching tonight? caller: god willing, yes. [laughter] host: let's take a look at msnbc, this is a former white house secretary -- press secretary she spoke about the issues. >> there are a number of candidates that seem to be going to the debate on wednesday prepared to some about a range of issues and some of them could be interesting. where do they stand on social security, abortion-rights? that have differences on issues like the war in ukraine. i know you have covered that. that will be happening. the debate moderators have also said this. all of this goes through from -- from --trump.

this question on how they will move through them, no other candidates have seem to figure it out. >> do you think it is weird we will see republican candidates talk about democracy or election and the rule of law on a foxed -- a foxed hosted debate --fox hosted debate -- >> i think you answered your own question but i think this week is very weird for a range of reasons stop that is interesting and i would believe it when i see it and i know you and others are more skeptical, martha maccalum alluded to the possibility that she could ask the candidates whether they think the 2020 candidates were legitimately won or one -- won by joe biden. it was certainly be a moment on

that stage. host: do you think that presidential candidate debates still matter? you be watching? have a note from richard in kentucky -- we have a note from richard in louisville, kentucky. caller: i will be watching tucker with donald trump. i think donald trump will go round in circles but i know what his actions were as president of the united states stop that is who i will be -- states. that is who i will be voting for but when it comes to the candidates who will be here tonight, every single one of them are war military machine pros. chris christie just got back from ukraine after speaking with zelenskyy and given a big press conference -- and giving a big press conference about how

important they are and how we need to do more. we got, just like that -- hawaii, the big devastation that went on their, fema has sent them $700 per household to take care of that stuff but the main issue, it is not the woke issues, it is not abortion. i want to know if brett bear and martha maccallum will ask the question, will you send our young people to europe to die in a war against russia? that is what i want to know. by the way, the menu had on the cell, you flashed his bio on there and it says is pronouns were key and me --he and me. right off the bat, you show your

total disregard on what the american people really believe and you are trying to push these issues down our throats. we know better now and we are going to stop you. thank you so much. host: mike says no in alexandria, indiana. the morning -- good morning. caller: i don't think these debates matter any. i think we have a listening to the stuff the last two months and no one seems to -- everyone, they talk in circles and no one gets to the real issue about our big problem we have here in the united states. i don't believe anybody is going to change their opinions on how they are going to build. everyone pretty well knows what is going on in this voting process we have going on.

host: what are the issues you would like to hear discussed tonight? caller: i would like to hear about the real issues that we have going on right now. host: like what? caller: for instance, a dozen of eggs three years ago cost $.99 and in some places now, it costs nine dollars. our gas prices here in indiana, we were paying $1.69 a gallon three years ago and now we are up to five dollars a gallon. that is a big issue for people. host: have you decided who you will vote for in the next election? caller: no, i haven't decided. i don't believe there is a

candidate out there that i could vote for right now. rump don't even talk about the real issues. he has only hope we may have, at least under his administration, they had a good crisis among things but i don't think he will win another election. they will play the same role they played the last election. look at how many people go to his debates, to his, and look how many people go to joe bide'' s. host: are you going to watch or -- tonight or are you going to skip it? caller: i will skip it. fiber probably catch highlights on the news -- i will probably catch highlights on the news because when you watch the news,

everyone will have the highlights on it. host: let's go to benny in stockton, california. you say yes. caller: you get a chance to look into the minds of the candidates. i do think that rural --trump's numbers will begin to drop after this debate because he did not show up for the debate and he has a lot of baggage going on now. i don't think trump will win this primary. host: who do you think is going to win? caller: caller: -- caller: i think joe biden is going to win but i am not satisfied with his philosophy. he condoned murdering babies and

he promotes the lgbt and god made man and woman and he didn't make a mistake when he did that. host: let's take a look at facebook. this is from someone who says no , they are a farce. denise says no but they sure are entertaining. rick says the main purpose is to catch candidates -- i would like to see a real debate, not a joint press conference. such a debate happened in illinois during the 60's. but take a look at a louisiana republican bill cassidy, i senator. this is from earlier this week. [video clip] >> who on the debate stage on wednesday night, the other

alternatives, do you think could be a leader on social security? >> one of them are talking about them -- some of them are talking about that. the first thing is to acknowledge there is an issue. the reason i hesitate that -- on that is the program that i put forward that had several democratic republicans and senators supporting was to create a fund separate from social security to invest in the u.s. economy and allowed to grow over time. you can take care of 70% of the shortfall and you can make sure that there is no cut or people currently perceiving social. we put in work incentives and we repealed weapon gpl and put in policy revisions. president biden decided to be political and make this an issue. it should be an issue of it --

fixing it and he has not, with a credible plan. >> one last question sticking with the debate stage. we know that former president donald trump is planning not to be there. was it a mistake and do you think the debates will matter? >> i think the debates matter. governor asa hutchinson pointed out that some legal scholars think he will be this qualify based on the 14 amendment. which means that the people you see on stage, one of them quite likely will be the presidential nominee and i think any of them would be better than joe biden so if you are concerned about the future of a cup -- country, watch the debate and support the candidate. host: that was senator cassidy saying the debates do matter. gary is calling from jacksonville, florida. good morning. caller: he will show up.

chris is the only one that will attack him. maybe asa hutchinson. i think you have a constitutional lawyer -- because of the insurrection. you should have a constitutional -- trump is a coward. he is a convicted rapist. host: the former president will be there tonight. will you still be watching? caller: -- donald trump clearly violated. host: let's take a look at the former governor of arkansas on cnn and he talked about his role in the debate and his strategy concerning the former president. [video clip] >> how much do you think this

debate will matter without donald trump on the stage and what will your approach be to the elephant in the room? >> i expect it to be more important without donald trump on the stage because this is the first time voters are going to be able to contrast the candidates and their positions and i know we want it to be civil but it is going to be a vigorous exchange. it is important because there are difference between the candidates. donald trump will be in the background because every candidate needs to state what their position is on donald trump, whether, in his actions on january 6 and talk about the differences are our future. he has a very isolation list view of the u.s. wanted to give russia victory in ukraine. that is not where i am and that will be made clear on the debate stage. >> is this not just an example

of what we saw in 2016 where all of the candidates went up against donald trump one at a time and tried to take him on and failed? it became a fight for second place and he won. will that be what we see on wednesday? >> i don't see that happening. it is really early. i talk to voters in iowa and new hampshire and they will be late deciding. that is why you will see in iowa where trump's numbers come down first, it will be in iowa. they need time and they will start making decisions later in the fall. this is a reduced number from 2016 with nine on the debate stage. we will see who else qualifies but the voter to be able to lock in and make decisions and they will not be in a hurry to move. everyone needs to be patient including the media so let this

unfold over the next four months. the right alternative to donald trump will surface. host: i will -- want to show you this from a professional poster --pollster. he says primary debates have become about the spectacle, the personalities and the snap comebacks which many believe sealed trump's nomination. indeed, --

caller: they put out boxes that are not watched or regarded. that is too loose and they would not do that with money or gold or anything of value but they do that with our votes. host: you're in the same city as the debate. i am wondering what you are seeing their. are you seeing as from tv from the candidates --ads from tv from the candidates? caller: they have all been around and they are not out-of-the-box new. host: brett in texas, you say no, why? caller: they are all funded by

soros and they are a bunch of r inos. host: will you be watching his interview tonight? caller: on carlsen? wouldn't miss it. host: alright and this is dave in orlando, florida. he said i will watch the debates but why at 9:00? many people work and viewing from 9:00 to 11:00 is shortening the time yours will watch. same old shtick. this is from john on facebook. joe biden won't debate robert kennedy so what this essay -- does that say? take a look at this from a text from philip and -- in case kansas --in chase, kansas.

i hope he skips them all. i have gotten an overdose of him lately and it would be nice to learn something of these new and younger candidates. let's talk about -- i want to show you this from the brookings institution. here's a portion of what they said in a report that came out last year. this is from october. they say debates help to level the political playing field. the debate stage strips away the laurels of candidates that they rest on an their non-campaign lives. a field organizer or a small business owner is off against a former governor or billionaire -- millionaire reified the bedrock democratic ideal that any citizen can have the privilege of revisiting their fellow american. debates humanize candidates and making it more difficult for campaigns to carry picture -- to care secure -- to caricature

their rivals -- wonder what you think about that, if you think the debate humanizes the candidates and gives them a chance to talk about who they really are and jack is in upper marlboro, maryland. good morning. caller: the morning. -- good morning. i will be watching the debate. it will be -- give us more insight into where the republican party and where it is going. it has been taken over trump. [indiscernible] they are pulling at 2%. i will be interesting to see the questions the moderators will ask and put them on the spot in terms of where their future is, is it this isolation list -- i

should nation a list -- is it a isolation list v. -- viewpoint? --a isolationlist viewpoint? no one is going to risk their freedom to cheat an election. people are not casting multiple ballots. it is illegal and it is not a thing so i would like to hear from the republican candidates push on -- back on this nonsense and reinforce democracy and reinforce our system of voting and put some more confidence back into it and pushed back on the nonsense that trump has put into the atmosphere.

host: we are taking your calls for about another 15 minutes. this morning on the question, do presidential candidate debates matter do presidential debates matter -- on the question, do presidential candidate debates matter? this is former prep -- vice president mike pence and he was on abc sunday. [video clip] i have had >> -- >> i have had a little experience with nationally televised debates. i am just going to be me. i feel like i have been preparing for this first presidential republican debate my whole life and as karen and i have traveled across the country, wonder the things we have come to realize is that i am well known but not known

well. most people know me as the loyal vice president who fought alongside donald trump until the day came that i need to stand apart. you knew me and i was our house conservative leader fighting big spenders and you knew beat when i was a conservative governor showing you could balance budgets and cut taxes and expand educational choice and achieve record employment at one of my goals in the debate is for the american people, republican primary voters to get to know me in a broader context and, straight the leader we bring to this which i think is what the moment calls for. this country is in a lot of trouble and joe biden has weakened america at home and abroad and there is no time for on the job training. i want to project all that we came with the experience of serving as vice president as --

and as a governor and as a member of congress and my determination to bring that experience and conservative record to bear on the challenges facing this country. host: that was former rights -- vice president mike pence and he will appear on the stage tonight and 9:00 p.m. eastern time on the fox news debate. this is another portion from that brookings report that i mentioned. it says debates re-center policy in campaigns. they forced candidates to -- away from teleprompters and figuration of -- and the generation -- curation of aides. voters see the people and ideas competing to represent them. maisie is calling from washington dc. caller: morning -- good morning.

maybe my mind is failing me but i remember during the last campaign, the debates helped propel trump to the front of the g -- of the gop so the idea that debate so matter is a strange question. i understand this question because so many people have made up their mind before the debate but the idea that debates don't matter anymore is strange because they had a drastic impact on the candidacy of donald trump last go around. afterwords will you be watching -- host: will you be watching tonight? caller: i plan to mostly because , like some of the other colors that suggested this is an opportunity to hear what the future of the republican party is because if these candidates represent the best ideas from

the party, to know what is the future of this party beyond conspiracies and concerns about things that have been disproven over and over again. host: doug, in woodbridge, virginia, you say yes, they matter. why do you say that? caller: the media gives candidates a platform to express themselves so everyone gets introduced to new people and new ideas and whoever tunes in order people that report on the debate a chance to hear about their ideas. everyone wants to know what people are thinking. and will be a good opportunity for them -- it will be a good opportunity for them. i think there is a fresh crop of people here. some much younger than the current politicians who have

done the washington, d.c. and that is a good thing for the country. we are getting older and we need younger people to represent the population. host: what are you going to be watching for specifically? caller: as far as politics go, i think everyone has a narrative and it is all rhetoric to motivate people, trying to appeal to a certain psychology. what is most important from the representative -- when a person speaks, it is good to get to know that personality but i think the media, because it is entertainment mainly, is focused on the personality of someone like trump or joe biden. what is important to the country and future is the representative

of the people so what do they believe? what are the true convictions and principles? what do they stand for? those are things that matter and carry weight over time. [indiscernible] what are people willing to make sacrifices for? what are they willing to give up time with their families for an time doing other things are making money or whatever it is they would do otherwise, their hobbies. serve the people of america and trying to help this country have a good future. i am interested in their ideas and beliefs. host: good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call and good morning. i don't believe it is worth anything especially this far ahead of the election. you have a people on the stage -- you have eight people on the

stage. it will probably be a minute or two. i don't think it is worth it, especially when you have a party that has been lying three or four week years, they are fighting about rb going to pardon trump -- about rb going to pardon trump -- about our we going to pardon trump. are these are public into don't want to investigate january 6 and now they are going to jail and they are worried about it. are we going to discuss that? that is all i have to say today and thank you for taking my call and i will be watching reruns of friends. i cannot waste my time on the republican party. host: here is a text from

someone in florida who says not this one, is president trump or nothing -- it is president trump on nothing -- or nothing. we have someone from -- who says they should. this is also from x who said, i said no but for this particular debate. the stage will be filled with sycophants afraid to anchor the previous president -- to anger the previous president. they are only auditioning to be vice president, well maybe not pence. caller: i think this will be a group of people going on stage to badge trump. i think they are on their two bash trump. trump was the best president we.

. ever had. you. -- host: do you think that trump can be joe biden? caller: i think trump beat joe biden the last time, hunting --h oney. host: ok. caller: how are you? thank you for taking my call. i just want to say that. we have the technology and power to have a leaderless, direct democracy in this country where we can all vote on the laws ourselves without the need to have representative politics. i think that would be a great solution, that we direct our own lives using technology. thank you.

host: all right and here is a text that we got from richard in florida. i plan to listen tonight to hear if any candidates will commit to a balanced budget and leaving our grandchildren's credit cards alone. governing is what the united states needs, leadership and governance, intellectual fencing is a great thing in universities. debates don't equal leadership and governance. this from vincent. not when they all right in the same car and when one presidential candidate has more than half of the interest. patty is coming from north plainfield, connecticut -- north brandfield, connecticut. >> i think everyone should be -- think for themselves.

are you better off today than you were three years ago? joe biden ruined our country and i think trump is only one who can put it together again. host: do you plan on watching tonight? caller: i will watch. it means something. i know who i am voting for and i do believe, i believe you won. trump won. does that mean they will indict me? host: what would you listen for if you are watching tonight? what do you want to hear? caller: i want to see some of them make. themselves -- make fools of themselves like the toebbe --tub by one from new jersey. i hope when trump gets in, we

can get rid of some of these rinos and the republicans. host: christina is in florida. you say no. caller: the only debate i am caring about is which bills to pay and i will be voting for trump. host: will you be watching tonight? caller: no, i will be watching tucker. host: all right and trina. you say yes, what? --why? ? caller: i say yes because at this point i am still planning to vote for former president trump. i do not trust that something will happen if things are going to wait where the current administration is weaponizing the department of justice and getting him off the platform, i would like to know who is running now who -- would pardon

president trump if he were to be convicted. that is important to me because, not just because of former president trump but because it is saying that you are perfectly ok with the swamp using our branches of government and our departments to weaponize against people you disagree with so that part is what is important to me. i need to know how they feel about how these departments are being used. i would like to see the swamp cleared out and that is why i am thinking about the -- funding for trump. -- voting for trump. host: what governor desantis keep saying on the campaign trail is, afterwords --trump at four years to drain the swamp and he did not. what do you think of that? caller: it will take more than four years because there were people involved in his own party

who are part of the swamp. we are letting it get worse and worse. the people we sent to washington are supposed to be there for us and we know what is going on, we see what is going on and i think that if nothing else, joe biden has exposed all of the things they are doing between trump's administration and joe biden demonstration, like the bible says, everything is coming to light and we all know what is going on and if the use your own brain, it doesn't matter what the television programs are saying. you have to do your own research and everything will know. who do i want to fix it and we already know trump had a great start with it. host: antonio in massachusetts. caller: this presidential debate is a matter. i will not watch tonight. i will watch tucker carlsen live

president trump on rumble. they are all neocons. they are all the reason why we elected trump in 16 because this country. change and we need is someone who did not agree with the establishment on trade with china. host: antonio, i think rumble will be the debate. if you want to what --watch the tucker carlsen interview, that will be on x. i will get more information. let's go to rudy, and a ductless, -- in douglas georgia. caller: i think the debates are important and especially tonight, because i want to see if any of those candidates will speak up for the issue of character counts.

one person was talking about the moral majority. no one is above the law. it is amazing to me, and i used to work at a prison, and there are people who are serving crime for going into -- serving time for going into a store and picking up something that did not belong to them. if we have a political candidate who has -- is facing four indictments and is trying to put off as long as possible the time before he comes to trial and you have eight candidates who are seeking that office. if they don't say why this person is unfit for office and they are, it tells me something about the character. host: all right.

that is the time we got for today's sacrament and coming up later, we will have cliff young, the president of public affairs for the polling firm itself --ip sos. and now, a look at the highest court in the land, all this week, see the cash c-span will be airing oral arguments from the big supreme court cases this tonight, you can hear the oral argument from 303 creative v. elenis, in which the court ruled in favor of a website designer who refused to create content for gay and lesbian couples. we will unpack that decision and its impacts after the break with william eskridge, professor of public law at the law school.

during the break, take a listen to the oral arguments from that case. >> 303 creative v. elenis, ms. wegner? >> mr. chief justice and me it please the court, lorie smith blends art with technology to create custom messages. she decides what to create based on the message, not to request it, but colorado declares her speech public accommodation and insists that she create and speak messages that violate her conscience. this court request -- request -- rejects government compelled speech. two questions -- is there speech? is the message affected? colorado agrees that ms. smith creates speech and that the law affects her message.

she is not asking this court to create to apply it resident. colorado says this case is about a sale. it is not about a sale. the state forces ms. smith to create speech, not simply sell it. ms. smith believes that opposite sex message honors in and same-sex marriage contradicts it. if the governor -- government can label this speech equivalent, it can do so for any speech, religious or political. you could require a democratic publicist to request -- to write a republican speech. if the government may not force motorists to display motto, schoolchildren to stay employed,

or parades to include banners, colorado may not force ms. smith to create and speak messages on pain of investigation, fine, and the education. >> counsel, would you spend a few minutes on whether or not your cases rate. >> sure. this court has considered enforcement challenges before and has looked at facts. parties have stipulated every message that ms. smith would create has a unique, customized message. it celebrates a wedding and a marriage. it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which there is more aggressive enforcement history. ms. smith's speech has been chilled for six years. but she is ready to post your

website statement today. >> are you through? >> klamath river. host: this week, c-span is looking back at the supreme court's most recent term and airing oral arguments from some of the most controversial statements. tonight you can hear oral arguments from 303 creative v. elenis, in which the court ruled in favor of a colorado website designer who refused to create content for gay and lesbian couples. joining us now is william eskridge, professor of public law at el law school. -- at yale law school. the supreme court ruled 6-3 in favor of lorie smith, who wanted

to refuse service to same-sex couples. can your spending hundreds of that case and her argument? guest: smith is the creator of 3 03, established website design company. she wanted to expand into customized wedding website hurt stipulation before she opened it -- and she never did before the supreme court decision -- was that she would only do websites for marriages that met with her approval. that did not exist -- king -- include same-sex marriages. she stipulated that this would be her position. she feared she would be prosecuted. so she brought a preemptive lawsuit in federal court to get an injunction against the application of colorado's antidiscrimination law. indeed, her business would be

considered a public accommodation. colorado statute says that public accommodation has to give full service regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, etc. she brought the lawsuit and claimed that even though the halloween statute, she felt, would be applied to her, it would be unconstitutional, a violation of the first amendment. the argument was that colorado would compel her to engage in expression in violation of her moral and ethical beliefs. host: let's look at a portion of that decision from neil gsuch, writing for the majority. he says, "in this case, colorado forces an individual to speak in ways that align with its views.

but, as this court has lg held, the opportunity to speak for oursels and express thoughts freely is among our most churched liberties and part of what keeps our republic strong. tolerance, not coercion is the answer. all persons are free you think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. because colorado seeks to deny that promise, the judgment is reversed." your comments? guest: one of the interesting things about the 6-3 decision is that colorado had not done anything to coerce lorie smith. there was never a prosecution or a complaint against her. there were stipulation about what he was doing, but there was never an opportunity for the colorado civil-rights commission to apply the statute to her.

if she was correct, which was her claim that gorsuch accepted, that i am not discriminating because of sexual orientation. i discriminating based on message when i express a wedding website in the event that i want to. that does not violate the colorado statute. the colorado statute only prohibits the denial of equal rights because of sexual orientation, not because of message. one problem with the case from the beginning is that the six justice majority and the three justice descent work -- idsse - dissent were talking about entirely different things. the dissent was saying that lorie smith was discriminating against all gay and lesbian

couples. she was saying, and gorsuch accepted, that she was only discriminating based upon message. host: i want to ask about the concept of standing. there were no complaints brought against her. apparently, the person named, who was called stuart this has been to be, might, stuart says that never happened. he has been raped to a woman for 15 years. that did not come up in this case. does lorie smith have standing to bring the case? guest: the majority and lower court ruled that she had a legitimate fear of being prosecuted and that gave her standing. that is a plausible argument,

but the case was not really judicial. it was not really clear anybody was going to bring a complaint against her. more importantly, it was unclear what the colorado civil rights commission would have ordered. she is correct, and neil gorsuch is correct, she did not violate the statute. if she did, it is not clear that the commission would have required her to give any particular message on her website. instead, it could have ordered her to talk to gay and lesbian couples, see what kind of generic website you can create for them, and we will look at it again if a complaint is brought based on that. host: i will remind our viewers that you can give us a call if you would like to ask a question or make a comment.

republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. we also have a line for those who identify as lgbtq. that number is (202) 748-8003. you can also use that line to send us a text. i want to show you a section of the dissent from sonia sotomayor. she says, "the unattractive lesson of the majority opinion is what is mine is mine and what is yours is yours. the lesson of public accommodations laws is altogeer different. it is that in a free and democratic society, there can be no social task. and that must be true the public market. the promise of freedom is empty if the government's powerless to

ensure that a dollar in the hands of one person will purchase the same thing in the dollar of the hands of another." guest: justice sotomayor is taking us to the issue of tolerance. the battle between the majority and the dissent is the meeting of tolerance. sotomayor position is that a tolerant society is one that allows euro -- or home, church, synagogue to enter into speech, but if you offer a business, a restaurant, hotel, you have got to abide by the rules of the road that includes access to all members of society on an equal basis. those are two different understandings of tolerance. gorsuch says tolerance means you have got to allow business

people to discriminate based on sexual orientation. why not based on religion? does lorie smith refused to do weddings for catholics? jews? interracial couples? if she has a moral objection to interracial marriage -- with maybe -- which maybe millions of americans do --, supreme court opinion would seem to protect them. is that a tolerant society, one that allows racism in a public forum, as well as homophobia, anti-semitism and public websites? justice sotomayor is saying the opinion opens the door to that possibility. lorie smith is a black box. we have no idea what she believes about anything. there is no proceeding. there was no formal taking of

evidence for the colorado civil rights commission. there were stipulations between the state and lorie smith, but no testimony under oath by her about these other issues. host: justice sotomayor says the lesson of the history of public accommodation loss is different. where is that history? host: public accommodation laws come from common law originally, where hotels, restaurants, other things that were essential in common had to be open to everybody, like taxicabs. if you try to hail a taxi cap, it cannot refused to carry you based upon religion, sex, etc. the states have expanded the definition of common carriers to include most public businesses. this is why websites are

apparently included in the colorado accommodations statute and probably many others. host: let's talk to some of our viewers. jessica is in tombstone, arizona. good morning. caller: this is jessica. my name used to be jesse. do you remember me? guest: i can barely hear you. caller: hi, william. this is jessica. my name used to be jesse. do you remember me? guest: i have met many jesse's. caller: anyway, let me refresh your memory. we met when i was -- host: looks like we lost her. try to call back, jessica. mary is in auburn, new york.

democrat, good morning. caller: i had an experience when i was pregnant. found out i had cervical cancer. my doctor was catholic. he could do the biopsies, but he said because of his religion, he could not do my hysterectomy. i respected his religious beliefs. he found me another doctor that would do the surgery. i think that lack of respect for people's religious feelings, beliefs is outrageous. because there is more options and i am sure you find plenty of people to do what you need done. i thank you for letting me tell

you this. have a nice day. bye. guest: i appreciate your account. i think you are right. this goes to the tolerance debate between gorsuch and sotomayor. consider this -- say your operation were an emergency and this doctor was the only one available and refused to treat you because of your sex or your religion or marital status. what then? that is one reason why the court did this country a disservice not requiring the state to bring a complaint and take evidence and see what remedy the colorado civil rights commission would enter against lorie smith. i think every case is distinctive. the track whether you are a commission or judge is to figure out a way for mutually different

points of view to reach some kind of accommodation. host: lorie smith. en newsmax, along with her lawyer, the day of the decision. >> the court's ruling today affirms that the government cannot force anyone to say something it does not believe. this protects lgbtq graphic designers, jewish calligrapher is, democrat speech writers. everybody should be free to create in line with what they believe. free speech is for everyone. the last seven years, i have been censored and silenced by the state of colorado. i am grateful that the supreme court is protecting everyone's speech. i just want to create something that is consistent with my beliefs. it is that the governments rule or job to force a citizen to speak messages that go ahead --

against their beliefs. after seven long years, i am excited for the next chapter of this journey and grateful for the decision today. host: i know you disagree. she says she has felt censored. what do you think? guest: you feel censored, even though colorado never brought a complaint against her. it was self-censorship. if a gay and lesbian couple had tried to use her website or services, which they did not, then they would feel censored. the question is -- and this is why the court was unwise to take the case -- is that with the court should be requiring is some sort of process of mutual accommodation where for example the colorado civil rights commission, if it'd found a violation, which it might not have -- if i were on the

colorado civil rights commission, i would not think your creative expression to be a violation of the statute. host: but had she had a gay couple come to her and say, we want you to do our wedding website and she said no, i do not believe in that. i am not going to do a web safeway gay couple. then she would have had a complaint filed against her. and you believe she would've had standing and could have taken this to the supreme court? guest: no. i am not sure the colorado civil rights commission would have ruled against her. here is an important distinction between a right and a remedy. the colorado civil rights commission could have found that if you deny all services to gay and lesbian couples that that would violate the statute, but if you provide basic services that do not include any

endorsement of same-sex marriages, then that would not violate the statute. if you refuse to do the customization that you do for other couples, that would not violate the statute either. we do not know what they would've ruled. the supreme court short-circuited that process. that is a key point. and here is another key disagreement between sotomayor and gorsuch. there are two propositions they both agree with -- that discriminating based on status can be regulated. discriminating based upon pure message cannot be regulated, at least not the. the problem is the interracial couple, the catholic couple, the lesbian or gay couple that comes before a wedding vendor and says will you do something for our wedding, that vendor is discriminating both on status

and on message. and so you can talk about any of these cases as either status or message. that means that the way gorsuch brought his opinion is that either argument can be used by either side. the supreme court can dance around this dichotomy in any way that it wants, usually on the site of religious vendors. -- side over the just vendors. but that is submerging the deep issue. host: the case has drawn comparisons to the colorado case involving a baker in 2018 wanted to refuse making wedding cakes for same-sex couples trip how is this different? how is this similar? guest: the main differences there was a colorado civil rights commission proceeding.

the supreme court properly chastised the commission for not behaving neutrally with regard to religion and other complaints brought by a religious purchaser against bakeries who would not bake anti-gay cakes. the supreme court went off on a very narrow ground in the masterpiece cake shop case. this case is different because it is substantially more abstract. it does not have the baggage of a discriminatory proceeding. i would give the colorado commission the benefit of the doubt that there is a learning curve. they want to follow the law, i would assume. they would want to take this issue more seriously and come up with a more judicious resolution than in the earlier case. give colorado a chance.

let them explore the nuances and complexities of the rights and possible remedies. host: looks like we've got just got back from tombstone, arizona. by head. caller: this is jessica again. i am transgender. my name used to be jesse. do you remember me? host: go ahead, jessica. we not put him on the spot. caller: we met when i was 12 and a state where the age of consent is 18. do you remember me now? host: let's move on to cory in the villages, florida, independent line. caller: that is a tough act to follow. i am in florida but from colorado, suburb of denver. these cases were happening while i was there.

i found following on the fringes , there was not a lot of media coverage about the fact that it was brought up in court that the cake man in lakeridge was set up by a gay organization to get there slip in the door and get free press. deskjet t -- get their foot in the door. and jack at the bakery, his life and business were roomed as a result. time to file a civil suit or anything against the state or his commission to bring back portably his livelihood as a cake maker. thank you. guest: i think one lesson from the cake shop case is that litigation often produces no winners. remember, the cake shop operator

won the supreme court battle and yet still perhaps lost the war. in my opinion, and traveled the nation, been on the lot of talk shows, most fundamentalist americans do not want to discriminate against lgbtq persons. most lgbt persons do not want to put religious vendors and individuals on the spot by demanding things that they are not willing to give. to some extent, these cases are not microcosms but distortions. justice gorsuch did an even deeper disservice to america by taking a case that was not really a case, blowing it up, and creating this dichotomy between status and message, which is an unstable one and

sure to be divisive, as the debate between gorsuch and sotomayor was. it was a depressive debate -- divisive debate were bitter words were exchanged. host: colorado's attorney general reacted to the ruling, saying it paves the way for all sorts of businesses to turn away lgbtq customers. >> as we continue to see promises to destabilize the public marketplace, enabling and encouraging all types of businesses, not just those who make websites, to have a first amendment right to refuse customers because of who they are. that means a business could refuse to serve an interracial couple, claiming that interracial marriage is wrong. it means a payroll company or

photographer could say, "i do not want to do business with woman-owned businesses. i do not believe women should work outside the home." it means a bookseller could say, "i will not sell books to members of the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints. i do not believe that is a legitimate religion." and so on. this case will undermine the principal that once you open the doors to the public as a business, you have to serve everybody. host: do you agree? do you think this will open the door for other types of cases like this? guest: it will certainly open the door to other kinds of lawsuits. i am not sure it will have a huge effect on american society.

most religious people do not want to discriminate. most lgbtq people do not want to disturb religious autonomy. but it will encourage litigating groups, warriors to bring lawsuits on both sides. on the side of religious individuals, organizations, lobbying groups and on the side of lgbtq troops, bringing courts into the debate on what does tolerance mean? what is discrimination? what is message? how does that relate to status? i have not found that the supreme court has made a positive contribution to that debate. it did make a positive contribution a generation ago when they shut down these same claims against civil-rights lawsuits, where vendors, restaurant owners, educational institutions set we are

excluding -- said, "we are excluding people of color because of our faith." the supreme court usually unanimously, rejected those claims. but here in the has opened the door to continued, divisive rhetoric on this issue. that is wrong. host: stuart in pennsylvania. good morning. caller: this is my first time calling. very close to me. i can also hear you in the background so i hope you can hear me ok. i have my tv turned off. in any event, i am a 70-year-old gay man and i have been gay since the age of 18 when i came out back in the early 70's when being gay still -- you are

so-called horrible names and including the word prayer, which to me still is a vile epithet and i'm sure it is most of my generation. -- clear -- queer. the idea of christianity and being gay, i have always been and continue to be a devout christian. a gate presbyterian thank you. the majority of men in my generation, who lost him to the hiv epidemic. but i feel like at this point, gay christians are part of this argument and discourse that does not seem to be addressed.

christianity is not some monolithic religion that everyone in that religion is anti-gay. i can vouch for the fact that there are millions of gay men and women who are christian, jewish. i former partner who died, -- my number partner who died, we went to his temple every week for services. where do we fit into this picture is what i'm trying to say and what i like to address. host: ok. guest: stuart, i am a gay presbyterian, older than you are. i think those voices need to be heard. my recent book marriage equality, from outlaws to in-laws, which tells the story of the marriage issue has a chapter on how religion has involved in the complex way you described. and how religion has voices on both sides of this issue, including the early cases like

marriage recognition, one of which was in minnesota. the chapter in the book is called the golden rule. this ought to be common ground between lgbtq people and religious fundamentalists who do not accept a matter -- as a matter of faith marriage equality. that is the golden rule, jesus christ said do onto others as you would have them do unto you. i was affair is a procedural -- i would say there is a procedural feature, or obligation as a christian to put yourself in the shoes of someone who disagrees with you and empathize with that person, to try to reach some common ground. that is what the supreme court torpedoed in this acrimonious debate in the lorie smith case. host: linda, a democrat in

connecticut. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for the guest, he is very interesting. you post the question earlier to the guest and suggesting that this was a preemptive strike and to avoid future litigation, and it is a good question. but based on that question, i wanted to ask you if maybe -- i don't drink alcohol. maybe you do. don't think i'm going to issue a drivers license, because you may partake too much at an office christmas party and hit me on the way home when you are driving under the influence. we just can't do those things. the supreme court is basically a preemptive strike with a fictitious case.

that promotes conservative religious agenda, not necessarily the people in this land. i think it is a dangerous precedent and we should all take note of it. guest: i agree with linda's observations. i would say the case was very real for lorie smith and i appreciate that. but i do think she and the groups backing her should have given the colorado civil rights commission an opportunity to do this golden rule idea that i have posed in the book that i published on marriage equality. host: jim is next, in portland maine. republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i do believe gay marriage is an

important thing. but i also believe that -- host: we need to watch the anguish there. the idea of this being a first amendment issue and a free speech issue, this does support -- define what counts as creative speech under the first amendment? host: the court does not go into great detail about what is great of speech and this is another difficulty. almost every act of dissemination involves speech. take jim. he was probably thinking he was being polite to call me a weirdo. i have been called must -- much worse including by professors in 1980. so that is speech. but it also could be discrimination if it has been

accompanied by a will not do business with you even though i am required to and so forth. so that is the dichotomy. i think your action and cutting off jim is an impulse that the supreme court has not encouraged. that is that there needs to be guardrails for civil discourse in our society. that is what the supreme court was saying in the case earlier. on the part of progressives, there need to be guardrails against anti-religious discourse. i agree with that. justice kennedy wrote a fine opinion. on the other psych, there is a long history, and this is stewart's point as well, a long history of ugly, prejudiced, bigoted terminology used to denigrate openly gay people and to silence them. for the last generation or so, gay people have not been

silenced. and one of the features of this debate is that a lot of religious americans fear they are going to be silenced by politically correct antidiscrimination laws. your viewers and i should take that idea seriously. but i think jim was out of line in the name-calling. host: this from someone on x who posted this was never even asked to design a website for a same-sex wedding. this is not how scotus is supposed to work. guest: i agree. she is making a non-shoddy point. host: another one from a jersey girl, who said it still seems insane this case was even heard. where was the injury to the plaintiff? along those same lines. guest: i think it was

injudicious and unwise. host: asking this, can my restaurant turn away scotus judges because they are all either catholic or jewish? i have a moral objection to both religions. guest: under the gorsuch opinion, possibly so. host: but a restaurant owner is not engaging in creative speech. guest: the court back in the 1960's, when civil rights had a public accommodations provision, a number of restaurant owners said no, we need to turn away any person, person of color who would integrate our restaurant. because the word of the lord is opposed to racial integration. and if you are such a religious person that you think serving a catholic or a jew would be contrary to the teachings of christ in your heart, the gorsuch opinion theoretically would seem to lend some protection to that. the supreme court justices, most

of whom are catholic, when they dared to issue an opinion? of course they wouldn't. this is one of the other things deeply wrong about the opinion. it is unprincipled. host: here is lonnie, sturgis, south dakota. republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm a veteran and i fought for this country. i think everybody should be able to live the way they want to live. religion should not have anything to do with -- i commend this gentleman for standing up for his rights and that is about all i have to say. god bless america. host: all right. guest: all i have to say is i deeply appreciate your service to our country. host: a question from marcus on

x. should 501(c) three and 501(c) four or any nonprofit or tax-free organizations be held to the same standards that is being argued? i don't believe political views, science views are protected the same as religious and gender views. guest: there is a huge overlap. religious views overlap with ideological messages and status determination. what is a religion? it is often a discriminatory institution. you don't believe their tenants, they exclude you. and through a lot of the 19th and 20 century, other religions excluded you based upon your race. that is the difficulty. the question about tax exemptions for charitable religious and educational institutions under section 501

is a problem. the supreme court held that institutions that open leaders terminate because of race do not get the tax exemption. but that has been largely unenforced and certainly never enforced against churches. it has never been extended to sex. so many denominations do discriminate against their pastors and religious officials have never been challenged. that is a kettle of fish that no one wants to open. host: let's get one more call from cal in southern california. independent. good morning. caller: can you hear me? host go ahead. -- host: go ahead. caller: i was going to ask how this applies to other protected groups. i wanted to know his opinion about how this -- the faces of

consent applies to jessica. guest: it does not apply to antidiscrimination laws generally in the gorsuch opinion. i suggest it is an unprincipled opinion because i don't think this report would reach the same issue to the termination if it had been an anti-catholic or anti-semitic website. they would have said this is not just this, we vista the lower courts. theoretically, this is the point of the sotomayor descent. theoretically, we don't know what lorie smith's views are for different race couples or interfaith couples. before i came on the show, i pulled up her general website and i could not find the wedding stuff. i don't know from looking at her

current website exactly what her views are on marriages generally , and does she discriminate based upon race, creed or other protected classifications of? host: i think we can fit in one more call from chesapeake, virginia. democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i wanted to say i feel it is not fair to let religious people run nonreligious people's lives. i've never been raised in the dogma of any religion. i believe in spiritual god and i believe in being the best human to everyone else and every living creature on earth. but i don't like the religious orders because they are too cruel. the catholic religion always

choose shining and that is why they are doing this. they want to shun the gay people. it is terribly cruel. they want people to shun anyone of any color. that is not god. that is of satan. host: last comment. guest: i am presbyterian, and early endorser of equality. and around the corner from the c-span offices on capitol hill. i must say my own personal experience with roman catholic institutions and individuals has been a positive one. the roman catholic church i should say was the leading denomination in this country that refused to support interracial marriage bands. the catholic church, the just

weights or the catholic church -- the just what's -- those who run georgetown, they knew i was gay when i was a tenured professor and i wrote a gay marriage book and represented a gay couple while i was a professor at georgetown university law center. i found the priest nothing but warm, engaging and supportive of my enterprises. where is at the university of virginia, a public institution, i was called a faggot by the charity appointment committee. so i would not make broad generalizations about the roman catholic church. my own experience has been a more positive one. host: we will leave it there, william eskridge, a yellow law school professor of public law, thank you for joining us. guest: thank you for being here. host: in 30 minutes will be joined by the president of public affairs to talk about

book opinion heading into 2024 and tonight's first republican presidential debate. but first, more of your phone calls after the break. for open forum, the number is on the screen, you concert calling in now. ♪ >> sunday night on q&a. in her book "generations come psychology professor talks about the generations living in the united states, the silence, baby boomers, gen-x, millennials, ny and more. she argues technological advances shape generations more than anything else and explores what impacts it will have in the future. >> we can see division showing up with more people identifying as the extremes of ideology.

more polarization between democrats and republicans on various issues, especially around race. i think it is good to know, what does this look like overtime? not just at a poll of what is he is, what is generation and what has changed. to look across decades. >> her and her book "generations ." you can listen to our podcasts on your free c-span now app. ♪ >> live on sunday, september 3 on in-depth, father -- author and essayist mary joins book tv to take your calls on religious freedom and the sexual revolution in america. she is an expert on christian culture and the author of many books, including it is dangerous to believe, how they really lost

god and adam and eve. an update to her 2012 book about the social change brought about by the sexual revolution of the 1960's. joining the conversation with your phone calls, facebook comments and texts. in-depth with mary eberstadt, live on sunday at noon eastern on book tv on c-span2. ♪ >> the c-span podcast makes it easy for you to listen to all of c sans pocked outs -- c-span podcast that feature nonfiction books in one place so you can discover new authors and ideas. you can listen to multiple episodes with critically acclaimed authors discussing history, biography, current events and probe -- culture. afterward, book notes plus and q&a, listen to the podcast feed today. you can find the c-span bookshelf podcast feed and all

of our podcasts on the free c-span out mobile video app or wherever you get your podcasts. and on our website, c-span.org/podcasts. >> washington journal continues. >> welcome back. it is open forum. whatever is on your mind, public policy, politics, things happening in washington, the debate in milwaukee tonight, interested to know if you will be watching, what you think, what you're going to be watching for if you are watching the debate. the numbers for republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. we will start with joe in virginia, republican. >> i am calling with regards to the issue of baking cakes for same-sex couples.

i want to play the devils advocate. opinions about what is acceptable and what is not changes over time. for the gentleman -- the make it so that people make -- must bake cakes for same-sex couples, would he be in favor of a palestinian beggar making a cake for an israeli event, or whites premises couples, which we all a poor -- a poor -- abhor, should we deny making them a cake? now we know that white supremacy is bad and people followed it at another time. now, people think gay marriage is not correct. what is your take? host: william, st. paul, minnesota. democrat.

caller: good morning. i'm not sure if c-span vetted william eskridge, but he is anti-age of consent, if you read his review from october 1995, he had a 22 page excerpt where he is pro-spousal sexual abuse. i can't see the actual word. his antiaging consent and does not believe in any of this stuff. host: robert in randolph, massachusetts. independent. caller: i am calling about the debate tonight, it will be interesting. we are in a time in this country right now to have a president, a former president that is indicted and to see that the

republican party would support that, representing the world of the country. i think the reason the republican party would support someone like that, i don't know if trump compromised them by giving them money and feeling it is going to go against him, that he will spill the beans. because that is the only way i can see it. it is sad to see that, to see where we are. that is all i wanted to say. host: some news from nbc news.com, headline trump's codefendants start surrendering for arrest in georgia. the fulton county sheriff's office released mugshots of the first two defendants to surrender, john eastman and scott hall.

former president trump said he will turn himself into authorities and fulton county for arrest. tomorrow, on charges stemming from the district attorney's probe into efforts to overturn the 2020 election. the lawyer john eastman, who is charged with orchestrating the so-called fake electors scheme designed to keep trump in office, surrendered to authorities today. and a bail bondsman facing charges over a voting system breach in a georgia county in early 2021 was the first of the 19 defendants to surrender. it is open forum. we taking your calls. in philadelphia, a democrat. good morning. caller: peace be with you. this is my message. if anyone affiliates with, holds hands with, in any way supports

gay, homosexual, all of those letters, you yourself are a homosexual. and if you say you don't indulge in such practices, what we call that in the past, you are still in the closet. and if you have a family member who is homosexual, you are very close to being a homosexual yourself. host: bernie in glendale, california. publican. dust republican. -- republican. caller: with all of those states in the supreme court, we are able to get away with the legal more in iraq.

trump is way better than bush when it comes to government. second, gay is gay. in the bible, it is punishable by -- like sodom and gomorrah. they were gay in the community. there should be an investigation of the bush regime. where he is still alive. because the inspector general, durham, should be activated and investigated for his crimes. thank you. host: a couple of programming notes and want to make sure

you're aware of of some programs coming up today, the permit officials discuss most bio defense strategy, during the one -- watch live at 10:30 eastern on c-span, or online at c-span.org. at 1:00 p.m., we have an event marking the 60 year anniversary of the march on washington. it marks the 60th anniversary of the march on washington and later today, former u.s. ambassador and civil rights leader andrew young sits down with the chair of the equal employment opportunity commission to discuss the historic event and its impact. he worked with martin luther king jr. and had a role in passage of the civil rights 1964. watch that live today at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, our free mobile video app,

and online at c-span.org. at 3 p.m. this afternoon, a virtual conversation about former president trump indictments and the impacts in federal and state courts, hosted by the brennan center for justice at the new york university school of law. live coverage of that discussion begins at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. you can watch that on our mobile video app, c-span now, and online at c-span.org. it is open forum and we are taking your calls for the next 10 to 12 minutes. darrell is next in idaho. independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i just lost my cap from 12 years. last year i spent $3300 on the little guy and for that kind of money, you would think i should have a leopard or small tiger. but the thing we don't understand seems to me is that

religion, it does not matter what denomination you belong with, one is all of this going to take place? the first thing many people are going to come say that jesus is christ, but millions of people are going to be deceived. if you go to revelation 12 -- nine, it says satan has deceived the whole world. here we are now, forking out billions of dollars to ukraine, apparently because biden's son was allowed to do that. on top of the fact that all this investment, they are always talking about social security is going to run out of money. but we've got billions for the arms industry. host: are you watching the debate tonight? caller: certainly. i am looking at the fact you have to watch. you seem very event going.

hundreds of thousands of ukrainians dead and there is no consequence on biden's mind. host: who will you? caller: the scriptures orient to everything in this world. when they are watching these programs with various candidates , they will be telling you, if you vote for them, life will be better. human nature has to be controlled, and we all have it. anybody that gets elected or selected, i just know it will be exciting because that seems to be the way that we think. thank you.

caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to apologize to you for that crew that gentleman had. most of this country needs to wake up because what they do not understand, when people go against people who are different , if you happen to be one way or the other, it'd that children can be born as a male and have more estrogen in their body. a child can be born a female and have more projects during in their body. these people complaining about lgbtq community, all i have to say is that you are not knowledgeable enough. you are not educated enough in

the medical field to understand what is going on. and you believe in god? don't you understand that god gave these children to these parents and they want their children to be happy in their lifetime, so for all of you out there, why don't you mind your own business, go to school, get educated, take a science class so that you can understand exactly what is going on in this country. you believe that trump is god and he is not, so go to church, apologize to this lady. you do not have a leg to stand on. this is her life, not yours. i hope you have a great day and get educated. host: richard is an caller: independent in chicago. caller:-- richard is a caller in

chicago. caller: the only country in the world -- i think we should let them serve to the american market. also, bolivia. i think congress should allow -- they should be able to report it. that is my comment. host: carol, democrat caller:. good morning. caller:--carol, democrat. caller: i think the debate is

too late. that is awful. i will watch as much as i can but i think it is important to watch the debates because you know where these people stand. host: on the timing of the debate, because it is live on the west coast, you are looking at 6:00 p.m. on east coast, it is 9:00 p.m., i agree with you, but what about the people on the west coast? caller: maybe then. they be that as a compromise for everybody. the second thing i want to mention is i hear all these republican and that trump loss -- did not lose the election. he did say on tv, i wish the media would please find this

clip right after the 2020, i heard him say, it is over, but i do not want to say that. please find that clip and broadcast it. have a good day and thank you for taking my call. host: rhonda and massachusetts. hello. caller: when we, in the natural law, our whole universe is dependent on male and female, whether humans, whether it is the plants, whether it is the animals in the sea, the oceans in the sky or vegetation, everything is dependent on the natural law, not the law of man. we are going against the natural law of the universe, and our

creator will show us that they want to destroy the natural balance of life. thank you. host: in lawrenceville, georgia. good morning. caller: i would like to choose -- i like to talk about the african-american women who choose more abortions than life birth. host: you said that african-american women have more abortions than live birth? where did you get that statistic? caller: i got it from the government. you can look it up. host: we will look that up. wisconsin, democrat. good morning. caller: i have a question. i am a democrat. i know -- all these charges and

the way he disgraced himself on january 6, i do not see how he could be allowed to run for president again after embarrassing the country. i do not -- this should not happen again. who knows what he would do. thank you for your show. it is wonderful. i'm glad i finally got through. thank you very much for having me on. host: this is on the front page of the washington times this

morning. looking for opportunities to close the gap in the polls. republican heavyweights will clobber one another on a debate stage. donor dollars and an anonymous prize. former president donald trump must report to georgia for criminal booking on thursday. he decided it was too risky to debate rivals that he views as second rate on fox news. he has had an on-again off-again relationship with the network. a slate of candidates will compete. a u.s. senator and five current and former governors will debate that starts at 9:00 eastern.

selma is calling from indiana. can morning. caller: they are talking about the debates. it is about the u.s. and what is going on here. trump does not need to debate. it is already a proven fact what he did for the country and what biden has done for the country and is still doing to the country. when are people going to wake up and try to get trump back in there? biden is going to destroy the country because he does not have any interest in doing the right thing. host: are you going to be watching tonight? caller: yes, i am. host: what are you looking for? caller: i will be looking at the

people voting against israel. israel is god's chosen country. it cannot be taken by anyone. that belongs to god and his chosen people. i think a lot of them have forgotten who is the boss upstairs. it is not biden or trump, it is god almighty. look at what is happening in our country. look where he has us. they need help. what is he doing with the money? when are people going to wake up ? get him out of there. host: independent line. caller: i was calling to ask if the public was aware that donald trump announced his presidency

exactly 666 days from his last day in office. did you know that the coronavirus -- host: say that again? 666 days from what date? caller: his last day in office. the pandemic exercise was exactly 666 days before march 11, 2020. the people better meet revelations. 66 six is the number of the beast. host: are you saying that donald trump is the antichrist? caller: no. i'm saying he is working for the antichrist. the guys know that he is. host: janet in illinois, go ahead. caller: it is about time that people realize that there is no

life after death. the bible is a piece of crab. we all live and we all die. it would be nice if there was a heaven or hell, but there is not. quit dreaming about the bible and get it out of your mind. host: here is an article about the debate. six things to watch for in the republican primary debate. here are some of the things to watch for with the front runner donald trump skipping the pattern -- presidential debate. rivals in their first showdown in milwaukee. the 200 debate is set to start at 9:00 p.m. eastern.

cnn will cover the debate at cnn.com, including live updates and fact-checks. eight candidates will be on stage. ron desantis, ramaswamy, former vice president mike pence. former new jersey governor, chris christie, tim scott, asa hutchinson and north dakota governor. here are some things to watch in tonight's debate. can desantis withstand the bright light? and another question that cnn.com is saying to watch for. we will be watching that as

well. that will be tonight. we want to thank everybody who called for open forum. that is all the time that we had today for open forum. coming up next, and 30 minutes, -- sorry. coming up next, the president of public affairs to talk about public opinions heading into campaign 2024 and tonight's break. right after the break, we will give you a preview of the presidential debate. we will be right back. ♪ >> book tv every sunday on c-span2, discussing the latest nonfiction books.

a former aclu president shares her book, fate, arguing that we should -- at 8:25 p.m., investigative journalist and the impact on democracy with his book, the age of insurrection. watch tv every sunday on c-span2. i the schedule or watch online at any time on book tv.org. >> book tv marks 25 years of shining a spotlight. from author talks, interviews and festivals, book tv has

provided viewers with a front row seat to the latest literary discussions on politics and so much more. you can watch on c-span2 or online at book tv.org. 25 years of television for serious readers. >> c-span, campaign 2024 coverage is your frontmost the. watch our coverage of the candidate on the campaign trail with meet and greets, speeches and events, to make up your own mind. campaign 2024 on the c-span network. our free mobile video app or any time online at c-span.org. your unfiltered view of politics.

>> if you miss any coverage, you can find it online span.org. videos feature markers when you hit play on select videos. this timeline makes it easy to get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. ♪ >> this fall, watch the new series, books that shaped america. in partnership with the library of congress to explore key works of literature from american history. it has won awards and are still talked about today.

virtual journeys to significant locations across the country with celebrated authors and unforgettable books. free to choose. watch our 10 part series. books that shaped america starting at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now or online at c-span.org. >> washington journal continues. host: first, let's get a preview of tonight's gop presidential debate with tom. national political reporter for

the messenger. >> good to be here. host: lay out some of the logistics. it will be a two hour debate. talk a little bit about the format of the debate and something i have always been interested in is the placement of the stage. guest: it would have been trump center stage, had he showed up, but instead it will be ron desantis and ramaswamy in the center of the stage. they will be flanked by vice president mike pence and nikki haley. we have tim scott, asa hutchinson, and one of these campaigns is going to kill me because i cannot remember right now, but we will have eight people on stage and it will be

short answers, no opening statements. i think the thing to watch is, watch the actions, not the words . i will give you a good example of this. of course trump is dominating everything. we see stories already about people who are at or above 50% polling support. this, in spite of historic criminal cases against him. and the business stagecraft. we saw with ron desantis strategy plan that leaked out. look at what ramaswamy has been

doing. he has been talking up 9/11 stuff. i have to laugh a little bit because if you go to suburban washington, you go to takoma park fourth of july parade and it used to be a lefty conspiracy theory and the hard left. does he actually believe it? maybe, maybe not, but the debate is about creating tension for the candidates, trying to create a breakout moment, anything that would get them more support at this stage in the race. it is all about getting eyeballs and attention. host: can you talk about the criteria for participation that they have set? there are a couple candidates who are absent that they have been excluded.

guest: it is funny about that. a couple sources were talking about this last night. initially, at the beginning of the campaign, with these rules for analysis, you had to have individual small donors and hit at least 1 -- that or approved by the republican national committee. the metric for that is likely republican voters. we have plenty of poles out there, but not all of them are republican voters. you had a couple people in the bubble. the miami mayor incorrectly claimed and made the stage but they had not.

same for johnson out of detroit. and the talkshow host, larry elder. ironically enough, they are doing the same thing that trump is doing except they do not have as many resources as trump. tom has his almost his entire campaign, the largest operation on the ground. i just want to get back to something really quick. in this campaign, watch the actions. always watch the actions of the campaign. the actions tell the story. host: what are you talking about the actions? are you talking about how the candidates act onstage, their facial expressions? guest: the way they allocate resources. i'm thinking of this trump dynamic because trump says he

does not want to do it, yet he sends his major campaign players here, his top advisers, you know they wine and dine top reporters on the ground. the democratic party, the extension of the incumbent president, joe biden, does the same thing. and the stagecraft is important to the extent that it can draw eyeballs, but these are decisions being made by the people with the most resources in the campaign. if you were to have a hypothetical general election right now, it would be donald trump versus joe biden. they are acting that way or behaving that way. former president donald trump is -- the guy who used to be the

biggest name in cable news and is now trying to be the biggest name in digital news. running during the campaign when all of his opponents were on stage. we could have that right now, if they wanted to give it to us, but they are deciding not to because this is the tactical maneuvering here. tomorrow he will turn himself into jail and georgia. it stems from january 6 with the 2020 election. tactical maneuvering. it is designed to take away attention from anyone who -- ramaswamy has been an insurgent and has been rising in the polls. you could make an argument that ramaswamy might be the bigger threat to donald trump than ron desantis, but desantis is

sliding down in support. host: what do you think will be the big issues talked about tonight aside from legal problems? guest: chris christie told us we will be hitting pretty much everybody. one thing that is a unifier, a general belief that trump cannot win a general election. if you are ramaswamy, you're coming at this from the populist right. haley watched her campaign and was the second major player. it is all about winning an election. it is a continuance of losing big and the 2022 midterms.

a lot of the candidates ended up losing races. that will be the unifying thing. you cannot have two primaries going on right here. you have trump in one lane all to himself and then you have a fighting of the republican voter base. they will be fighting each other over lanes. mike versus tim scott for evangelical support. that will be a big one. chris christie, mike pence. and what you are going to see is , they will try to time their punches against each other, to make plays at different better bases. it is not as big of a deal as they used to be.

but you are going to have some national security up there. chris christie talking about support for ukraine, nikki haley . talking about communist china will be a one on the stage. look for ramaswamy to get challenged a lot. he stumbled a good bit of her to handle china. his most recent answer was getting semi-conductor manufacturers back. it is not a new to be. there is new spin on the messaging, but in terms of onshore manufacturing, that is a long debate that has been going on. look for people like chris christie in particular to say, howdy get past that?

mike pence is in a tough spot. he has to talk about anyway sixth ring it he could potentially be a witness on the stand against trump, depending on when that goes to trial and trump is not onstage, but when you talk with people about the republicans, as much running for president as he is for the history books. i wanted to ask you about -- host: i wanted to ask you about this article. can you tell us a little bit about that and what is happening with that current situation? guest: we are watching the actions. the campaigns, everybody has a loyalty pledge and the loyalty

pledge, trump will not signed the pledge. everybody signs the pledge and says they are playing by the rules. they will have campaign surrogates, usually campaign managers and top advisors, who meet with us after the debate. it is a room off the side of the convention hall where they tried to shape the media narrative. trump tied to send out matt gaetz, marjorie taylor greene -- a number of campaigns went to fox and said, this is unfair. we follow the rules and we signed loyalty page. fox news was like, yeah, you are right.

technically, they are banned, but again, it is hard to ban somebody from showing up to the city of milwaukee. it is very fluid and again, this is the style. very tactical and very clever, understanding where the limits are. host: tom, thank you so much for joining us. we will turn to our guest in studio. talking about public opinion and the campaign. welcome. nice to have you.

how would you characterize the current state of the gop field? guest: we have to understand why, going into it. he captures the zeitgeist. it is based on a sense of anti-system sentiment that the system is rigged against people like me. that is what really bolsters him in the polls today. we have to understand what debates are formed. they expose new candidates to the scene. that is what we should expect to get -- today. trying to look at the economy, climate and immigration, all

important, but especially. -- the first crack. i still do not think we know what it is. based on our polling, he has imploded a bit. significant strength over the last month to month and a half. i think these debates will be very important for candidates to put their imprint on the republican base. host: given historical reference, do debates matter when it comes to swaying opinion? do they move the needle on support for candidates? guest: yes in. people know you are.

they heavily candidates are not known. the first debate can be really important for a candidate. we will see. host: for our viewers, if you would like to call in and ask a question of our guest, you can do so. you can also interact with us on social media. so, the national unemployment rate is 3.5%, which is very low, but first sections of the economy, people are still saying that they do not like the way the economy is going.

how do you explain that sentiments, especially among republican voters? guest: it is public opinion when it comes to the economy. it takes time for things to work out, but at this point in time, the american public is very surly when it comes to the economy. they are pessimistic and having trouble making ends meet. they have gone into their piggy bank and taken some out to pay for things. it will take time to work out. i am not an economist and i do not purport to be one, but we do not know about the economy going forward. will it be enough to improve sentiment when it comes to the economy? we do not know. we are in this state where people are surly and it does not help the incumbent host:, joe

biden. -- incumbent joe biden. host: did they feel that there are alternatives or ideas for the economy? guest: it would be trump because he is the best known, but they still do not know. it is important to define different agendas. but yes, once again, the big issue is the economy. host: has your polling that voters are looking for specific character traits, as far as leadership, empathy, the age of the different candidates, how important that is? guest: it is irreverent sort of behavior that has resonated -- resonated. tom represents that sort of tendency. host: how do you and ramaswamy

going up in the polls? guest: ramaswamy -- the fact is that he was in line with this more anti-system base, the messages put forward. he was going more right than trump. he was that he had credibility issues. taking that whole left by desantis. host: here is your pull with this headline. does little to change public opinion. can you talk about where public opinion is on those trump indictment and if there is any difference?

guest: things have gotten more serious. but really, it is about public opinion and public opinion is divided on the issue. really getting his just desserts. on the republican saying, we are in a holding pattern when it comes to trump's legal saga. it changes things qualitatively, so when we ask whether they would vote for a convicted felon, a vast majority said no, but for now, what we see is what we get. host: i want to ask you about president biden's approval rating.

what has been the general trend and what has been happening lately in the last one to two months? guest: he has been at a holding point as well. better than 50-50 chance of winning the election. he has been at this tipping point over the last year or so, just based on that and nothing else, you would say he is a week incumbent. not much better than that. it has been the economy that has been the damper on his approval ratings. host: i want to show you two campaign and. and then i want to get your reaction to both of them. >> it was the worst pandemic and 100 years, the worst economic

crisis since the great depression, but america fought back. unemployment is at record those and our economy leading the world. he knows it is the american people who are the heroes of the story. >> small towns and big cities, we are coming back stronger than ever. manufacturing jobs are coming back home. america is leading the world in clean energy. some say america is failing. he believes the best days are ahead. president biden: those who vote against america are learning how wrong they are. i am joe biden and i approve this message. host: take a look at president

trump. and add released earlier this month when he attacked prosecutors. >> how far will he go? need to cast of unscrupulous accomplices he has assembled. the medical prosecutor who refuses to prosecute violent criminals. letitia james, the socialist who ran on the promise, i will go after trump, and biden's newest lackey. so tainted. thrown off one case for trying to prosecute a political opponent. so corrupt, she was caught up in a relationship with a gang member she was prosecuting.

welcome to the fraud squad. host: what do you make of that? guest: they are both trying to align the public opinion. it starts off talking about covid. why did he do that? because he served the covid ways for a long time. but he's not very credible when it comes to the economy. he is not rated high. he is in the high 20 and low 30's. he is trying to link covid with the weaker one. but that is not connecting with public opinion today. he was very surly when it came to the economy. they do not get positive points, obviously, but he was trying to

counter that and it is a fascinating when it comes to the trump, he is going after his critics. i remember a data probe that we had saying many believe that they are politically motivated. he is reinforcing that belief and doubling down on it. host: i want to ask you about hunter biden and those. adults are very or somewhat confident that the justice is handling it in a nonpartisan manner. that is only one in three. can you gauge how that might impact the campaign? guest: that is the flipside of the trump add.

believe among republicans that the administration is not political. i think these numbers are already baked in. if you are of a publican, you think biden is already corrupt. it will not change much when it comes to the campaign. it is much more of a base issue than it is a general public opinion issue. host: divina? use the term baked in, so i'm sure there are some people who will just never change their mind, no matter what you tell them. what do you think about the people in the middle? guest: if you are edward. maybe 15 to 20%. trump has lost support among

individuals on the margins. it will not help him -- hurt him in the primaries but would have an effect in the general. 15 to 20% trump's issues are attending toys the democrats at this point. host: tony florida. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that i do not understand how desantis has fallen so much. i think it is because the media really do not want to get any coverage for his positives. the state of florida, he won it more than anybody else as governor. 55% of the hispanic vote in florida.

and his educational background, yale, his military background, the navy. there are so many people i speak to that do not know any of this about desantis. the only negative that i have when i watch him is that he is not that great of a speaker. he is not charismatic in that way, but i think when you compare his background, he is not even a city councilmember. look at these other guys, failed politicians, most of them. i do not. understand. guest: in my opinion, he has done everything right.

he aligned with the base. remember him sending migrants to martha's vineyard as a proof point that he was serious on immigration. he does not get credit for it. i think we have to look at his inherent credibility, his believability, so when you look at believability scores, he is weaker than he should be. that has shaved off some numbers on him. ultimately, that is how -- he has done many things right and aligned with the base, but ultimately, he is not believable. host: ron is next, a democrat in oldsmar.

caller: i listen to you all the time. it is a disgrace what the expose did. i'm going to say it loud and clear. nobody talking about it. he is mad because the american people elected pete did all of this and i think -- nobody is saying anything. you are not talking about that. it is disgraceful. people i being naive.

--are being naive. host: is there anything you want to add about former president obama? guest: i do not think he is really a player today. obviously, race is an important variable to understand, but i do not -- he is putting much old news. host: good morning. caller: good morning. host: what do you think? we are here. caller: i was watching the ads of biotin and trump, and it is sad. trump does not -- setting it on

the debates, he is such a liar, really, he is a liar and people vote for him. it is sad that this country is going to get worse and worse. i think biden is doing the best that he can. the world is suffering, so people have to look at that. he is doing the best he could to get people back to work. prices are sky high. guest: bia hyper polarized society. we live in our separate bubbles, and that is how we see the world. he is right. we are seeing it in our own polling around the world that this sort of hyperbolic politics

is everywhere. host: ron is in greensboro. go ahead caller: ok. is he on? host: everybody is on. caller: i would like to comment that i support desantis and i am amazed at the great job he has done. nobody ever comments about this, but we have disasters all over the place. things do not get fixed and we have desantis we building a bridge after a hurricane within a week. that is my main comment. host: anything to add on? guest: immigration is a very

important issue, perhaps the most important issue when it comes to debate. desantis is aligned with that, but he has not been credible so far. host: i want to show a graph from a pole that he did about what americans say is the current greatest threat to public health. at the top and 26%, followed by obesity, guns and firearms. talk about the trends and what is happening with those numbers. guest: it is interesting. sentinel is a new thing, well, as an issue, it is. it is, in my mind, that and gun deaths are the thriving factors for public health today. we can sort of fee at every

level of government, policymakers are trying to align with that, but it is one of the key issues of the day. host: joe is calling on the independent line. caller: i would like to see some credibility brought back to the office of president. i think they should hold themselves to a higher standard than the average person. that has been messed -- that has been missing for the last several decades. we see scandal investigation after investigation and it does not appear -- we keep buying into these candidates. you can look at biden or trump, or any of the hopefuls, and bad behavior, lack of morals and ethics, just countless things

that these people do and this is all that we have, so i like to see somebody who holds themselves at a higher standard. guest: i do not think -- i do not know of evidence that we are more corrupt than we were before , but approval ratings are lower than what they have been. that is just frustrated expectation. citizens not getting what they believe they should. host: let's go to missouri, democrat. caller: good morning. i'm calling about the -- he was a good governor, i will say that for him. on the democrat side, there is

congressman goldman. we need somebody -- we better have somebody who is going to stand by, right click. that is all i have to say. guest: it is definitely an issue with public opinion. they are worried about his vitality. maybe you choose an older individual if you think they are better than someone else, but age is definitely an issue that americans say as a problem. host: this is a reuters poll that says about half of u.s. republicans could spurn trump, if he is convicted. what did you find? guest: conviction is

qualitatively different. but i would take it with a grain of salt. if he were to be convicted and have problems with independence, maybe not at that level because people are declaring things today, but tomorrow, they actually have to vote between two choices, but it is definitely a problem for trump. it will have an impact on his numbers. host: in oregon, republican. caller: i wanted about trump. everybody has been bashing him since he came down the escalator . when he was president, everything was better for us. groceries were affordable, housing, biotin came in and he got rid of the pipelines and made everything worse. biden has been in there for what

, 50 years? a plagiarist and he lives every day. people hate because policies were his best. i'm tired of everyone bashing him. the democrats came at him about everything. it is disgusting to me. guest: based on the attacks on something politically motivated -- americans in general believe that biden has not done enough when it comes to the economy. trump, in a direct sort of matchup is typically stronger in the polling when it comes to the economy. a republican is typically stronger in the economy when it comes to the polls. host: good morning.

caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would like to ask, whatever happened to the credibility and honesty in our system? they say republicans or democrats do not have to be truthful with the american people and cannot be held accountable for the things that they say, no matter what it is. that blows my mind. attacking trump, everybody said he was a great president and i was into him at first, but what happened in the last year of his presidency? it seems like he does not have to bear any responsibility for his lack of whatever he did not do. joe biden is being held

accountable for everything he inherited from that. everybody wants one dollar gas again, but the reason it was that way is because you could not buy anything. companies were practically giving it away to get rid of it. we have to dig further into it. there is a widespread belief that the system is broken in the u.s. and that the party does not care about people like them and that the system is rigged. trust has declined over time. notions of corruption. very much a place where there is a lot of anti-system sentiment, especially on the republican side, but pretty much across the board.

host: thank you so much for joining us. and that is our chauffeur today. thank you, everybody for joining us, whether watching or calling income or participating on social media. we will be back tomorrow on c-span. until then, had a great day. -- has a great day -- have a great day. ♪ >> here is what is live on c-span today, the defense department officials discuss u.s. diet -- biodefense strategy during an event hosted by the center for strategic and international studies.

andrew young sits down with the chair of the equal employment opportunity commission charlotte burroughs to discuss the historic event. later this afternoon, a conversation about the indictments against the former president trump and the impact on federal and state courts. watch live at 3:00 eastern and also as, c-span now, are free motl -- mobile video app and on c-span.org. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including cox. >> hi. >> friends don't have to be. when you are connected, you are not alone. >> cox support c-span as a public service along with these

other television providers giving you a from will see democracy -- front row seat to democracy. >> during their 2022-2023 u.s. supreme court term, the justices ruled on some of the most controversial topics. this week, c-span looks at some of the occasions that involves voting rights, affirmative action, executive power and election laws. tonight, 303 creative v. elenis -- she argued it violated her first amendment rights. watch the supreme court arguments this week or 9:00 p.m. eastern. joining us now is william eskridge