♪ host: this is washito journal for saturday, october 12. it is estimated that more than 56 million guns were sold in the u.s. between 2019 and 2021 with

a stud finding that 7.5 million americans became newun owners. according to recent "wall street journal" reporting the number women, african-american and those leaning democrat are th buying a firearm for the first time. and we will ask you if you've become a firearm owner in the past few years. if yes, 202-748-8000. no, 202-748-8001. and if you are considering purchasing airearm but have not yet, the line, 202-748-8002. you can text us your comments to 202-748-8003 and be sure to include your name and city and you can also post a question or comment at facebook.com/cspan or x @cspanwj.

thank you for being with us. more from the article reporting talking about the increase in gun ownership. "this american gun culture has been dominated by conservative white men. now a burgundy -- burgeoning number of labels are buying firearms according to surveys and fast-growing gun groups drawing minorities and progressives. historically it was not unusual for democrats to own guns with many of them living in rural areas. hunting was much more popular. starting in the early 90's, gun ownership among democrats drop significantly, increasing divisive battles over the role of firearms in american society lead the democratic party to become an advocate for gun regulations. republicans became the party of gun rights. now, today's democrats are rediscovering guns. the article goes on to talk about the reason for some of

that shift. researchers, god merchants and owners attribute it to the factors including "rising concerns about personal safety any of article -- and a volatile political trip climate. gop presidential candidate and former donald trump warning about potential "death and destruction" if he is charged with crimes. democrats morning of the potential end of democracy and two assassination plots against trump. and among those democrats who are gun owners is vice president kamala harris. an article from "the new york times" says that "she first revealed to the public that she owned a gun in 2019 during her first presidential campaign. it was only this week that the democratic nominee for the president revealed the make of the gun which an aide says is

securely stored in her loss residence -- los angeles residents which is a glock." she revealed that here on 60 minutes. here's a clip of the interview. [video clip] >> you recently surprise people that you said you are a gun owner and if someone came into your house. >> that is not the first time i have talked about it. >> what kind of own do you -- gundy you own and when and why did you get it? >> a glock and i have had it for quite some time. look, my background is in law enforcement. so, there you go. >> have you ever fired it? >> yes, of course i have. at a shooting range. of course i have. [end video clip] host: this morning we are hearing from you. are you -- have you become a firearm owner in the past few years? again the lines if you say yes,

202-748-8000. no, 202-748-8001. and if you are considering purchasing a firearm, but have not yet, the line for you is 202-748-8002. you'll -- we will hear first from marissa who is considering buying a gun. good morning. caller: thank you and a shout out to brian. i am so grateful to c-span. good morning. the only reason i am considering is because i live alone in a rural area and my significant other recently passed away. i hate word for varmints, but anyways. i would like to address america for a moment if you would give me a second. i would like to ask we are putting down immigrants and we are all immigrants. i will ask who will rebuild our

glorious south? who is going to pick up the pieces? host: i'm going to leave it because the topic is the gun and gun ownership. but i appreciate your call. and i wanted to show you some statistics from pew research, a poll that they put out earlier. about four in 10 u.s. adults say that they live in a household with a gun including 32% who personally own one. that is coming out of the survey conducted in june of 2023. and looking at a breakdown of who owns the gun, 45% of republicans and gop leaning independents say that they personally own a gun compared with 20% of democrats and democratic leaners. gender, 40% of men said they own a gun versus 25% of women. community type.

47% of adults living in rural areas like marissa that we just heard from, own a firearm as well of those that smaller shares of those living in suburbs, 30% or urban areas of 20%. when we look at race and ethnicity. 38% of white americans compared with smaller shares of black, 24% and hispanic, 20% and asians, 10%. al in waterton, tennessee says they have purchased a gun recently. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think there are many statistical problems going on with that report. what has happened it is not that democrat had owned guns in a lower percentages than republicans but the democrats that believe in liberty and

freedom and america in general and they are not communist and socialist, they have changed into republicans or independents, and they have done that in the last 20 or 30 they were southern democrats in middle tennessee and they have guns. they still have them but they changed their cart -- their party affiliation. generally speaking that report is not very intuitive and not very accurate. host: when did you become a gun owner? caller: i think i was 10 years old or something like that. probably for 50 years. i am also a range safety officer at a public shooting range. icds people all the time. typically it was covid. those were the first time -- first time gun owners and they were republicans, democrats and independents. everybody who was concerned about their safety. the reason is they came to the

realization just like now in north carolina and florida, you cannot depend on the federal government protection. you protect yourself and that is the way it has always been. they are starting to wise up for that. host: you said that you are a trainer. what are you seeing now after the pandemic on who is coming in? caller: we still see some first time gun owners. unfortunately, the novelty of owning a gun has worn out for those who bought them during covid. they should be coming every two -- every few months for proficiently. they buy the gun and they come to the range they shoot it or maybe a day or two and then you do not see them again. that is an individual decision. but, it is not the best decision. host: al in tennessee. norm in mod road township on the

no line. good morning. caller: good morning. hello? host: hello. caller: i did not know you could hear me. i am very much against anyone owning a gun. i am 98 years old. i was in the second ward -- world war. the only time i had a gun when i was on the shooting range when i was in the navy. and i was a coreman so i did not have to carry a gun. what i want to say that guns do not help people. people have guns and they say they are going to defend themselves. how can they defend themselves? someone is going to come to shoot you has a gun. we have more killings with guns than all of the other countries put together.

why do we need guns? how does this help you with a gun? why do other countries have may be this, one or two killings in some countries. in england and australia there are no guns at all. what benefit is it to have guns? you cannot defend yourself with a gun because you are going to shoot somebody and the chances are he has a gun. that is all i have to say. host: that was norman asking why people would own a gun. according to pew, personal protection tops the list of reasons that gun owners for having a firearm. "about 72% say that protection is a major reason they own a gun. a considerably smaller shares as

a major reason is for hunting, sport shooting, as part of a gun collection or further job." grey in -- greg in illinois on the no not -- line. good morning. caller: i have not purchased a gun and i do not have the intention of doing so. host: why wouldn't you purchase a gun? what factors? caller: because i am a christian. and i am pretty sure that jesus would not own a gun. he did not own a knife or so ward or any wet -- sword or weapon of any kind so he would not own a gun today. host: sharon in sam buck, florida says that she is considering purchasing a firearm. good morning. caller: how are you? i am pretty sure that i would right now, i am considering

buying a gun and taking lessons. host: what are some of the reasons you are considering? caller: for protection. i feel quite safe where i live. i really feel like i need more protection than my little 12 pound dog in my mouth. host: how long have you been thinking about it? caller: six months. host: and you have been seeking -- thinking about it for six months? why haven't you gone to a gun store to buy one yet? caller: the reason i had not made a decision is because i did not know where to go and now i do. i would like to learn how to use a gun before i get one. host: last question. you are in the tampa area, are

you ok after milton? guest: yes. in my area we are ok. we have had some minor damage in my community but nothing earth shattering with -- like the rest of florida. i feel bad with everyone else. host: happy to hear that you are doing ok. carmen in florida is also considering purchasing. good morning. caller: yes. i am considering getting a gun for protection. it is not -- it is part of a political issue. we are hearing so much hate. i am a man with 10 grandchildren and i am getting old. so there is a possibility where i might be in a situation where i cannot protect myself. but i really do not want to get a gun. i think i wod be part of the problem. i woulnot want to be a police officer inhis atmosphere. i beeve that there are so many

people dying from accidental gun use. we are losing the war on regulation. we are losing the waommo sense gun laws. i do not understand why one pay totally against that. it would make it so much safer for people. i should not have to go down to the beach and worry about getting shot at. that is where the problem is. as a democrat i am starting to think that i am on the wrong side by not having a gun. it might behoove me to get something to protect myself which is why am considering it. host: carmen in florida. and as mentioned, women are among those that are buying guns for the first time. this article from fox news last december. "women are considered one of the fastest-growing groups of gun owners in the united states, and a house judiciary subcommittee this week will examine how gun

ownership empowers women across america as crime spirals in many areas of the nation. the house judiciary subcommittee on crime and enteral government surveillance held that hearing and included a trio of female gun experts and instructors advocating for segment -- second amendment rights. one of those who testified during the hearing is beth alcaz ar, who is a u.s. concealed carry association senior training counselor. here she is during the hearing explaining why she is a gun owner. [video clip] >> as a woman and a mother i am honored to be one of the leading instructors in the firearms industry. i have witnessed a rich diversity as scores of american women are purchasing and training with and carrying firearms in the name of female empowerment. for many women this awakening

has resulted in a new source of certainty, security, responsibility, and equality that we might not have otherwise had. for the women who walk across a dark parking lot every night after work, for the realtors who show houses to strangers every week and for any women who have shadows in their past and for moms like me with children in tow, they would all agree. they refused to stand by helpless and refused to become someone's victim. they refuse to allow harm to come to those they love. that is why i view the attempt to limit or criminalize law invite -- abiding citizens as anti-productive or dangerous and potentially carrying grave consequences for our families and communities. the reality is that violent criminals many with evil intent do exist and they are terrorizing us. it should not be this way. but it serves as a clear reminder that law-abiding

citizens should be able to defend themselves danger at all times and any solution to better protect ourselves, children, and communities should start with our god-given right to self-defense. i can honestly say i'm a profoundly different woman and mother from the one i was before i decided to carry a firearm. i am physically change because i how i train and move through life, but i am emotionally changed because of the decisions i have made. situations i have contemplated and obstacles i have overcome. the more i trained the more i realize that i do not have to wait for someone else to care for me or protect me. i am my own protector. and i am my family's first and immediate responder. and being able to keep myself and those that i love safe, there is nothing more important than that. [end video clip] host: our question to you for this first hour, have you become a firearm owner in the past few years?

here a the lines on your scen. yes, 202-748-8000 no, 202-748-8001. and if you are considering purchasing a firearm f the first time but have not yet, the line is 202-748-8002. you can also post on social media on facebook and x or send us a tweet. and a few messages coming in on those social media channels. this text from larry in new jersey says "i have not but i have considere it d have been saying for the last eight years that only one aspect of the political strict owns more guns in the rest ofhe." sandy and leamington, india "i have no intention of owning a gun. my father taught me how to shoot when i was very young he also taught me to have great respect he said do not ever point a g at someone unless you are sure you can use it because he will

make the person desperate and you may end up on the wrong end of the gun." one more from philip in ohio. "i am not a gun owner. i am too o tstart worried about owning a gun at this point myif maybe the liberals feel like they will have to arm themselves against the god loving republicans. just a thought." back to your calls. this is georgia. she says she is considering purchase -- purchasing a firearm. good morning, sue. caller: i have been considering it for the last five years and it is going to be for protection. and now i am by myself and my friends are concerned. there is just too much going on right now in this world. and it is just something that

they have been teaching me and everybody that since i buy myself i need some protection. that is pretty much what it is. host: you said five years you have been thinking about it? caller: yes. the reason why is because of the fact that my family -- well my husband, when he was alive, and then my friend were telling me whatever -- when anything ever happened to them that they wanted me to have a gun, and now -- they took me to a gun range and stuff like that with their guns. and pretty much it is self protection, you know? host: if you were to get one, would it be soon or do you want to think about it? caller: i am thinking about soon. because i have friends that are

telling me that they are just worried because i am out here. i live up in the mountains. so, you know. everyone has guns out here. i -- pretty much it is self protection. host: that was sue, in georgia and this is tom, in hawaii. he is considering. caller: i already own a firearm. but what i would want to make clear is that as a veteran of the marine corps for 10 years, and then being -- host: go ahead. caller: are you there? good. host: listen through your phone, do not listen to the tv. caller: the tv is off.

host: go ahead. caller: sure. i am a veteran of 10 years from the united states marine corps. and i am a retired police officer from hawaii. and my first experience with firearms was while i was in the marine corps. and my job in the marine corps was as a rifleman for 9.5 years. i became interested in these weapons not only as a form of self-defense or offense, in my case. but, when i am not working, they are fascinating pieces of machines that you can become very proficient with in a target sense. and there are numerous target competitions all over the country. and even worldwide these days. so i am not saying anyone who is going to buy a firearm will do

that. that is something they can do to sharpen their skills and become more proficient with this weapon while they are around very experienced people to give them advice. host: tom from hawaii. iris in michigan says that she is considering buying a weapon. good morning. caller: good morning. i am just considering because i am trying to get the license. i do not know, my mind does not work and thinking of going out somewhere and then why would i have to defend myself to go somewhere? i would rather go somewhere rather than considering whether i should keep my mind on putting my hands on a gun to protect myself to get somewhere. because i do not feel like going somewhere, and i do not understand when i saw that lady testifying why you would want to bring turtle driven -- children

into a world where you would have to go around killing people to protect a child. you want to live in a world with people. i think the world has just gone insane. you cannot think of everything at one time. i think if i go out, i want to enjoy life. i cannot do it with my hand on a trigger. i have to have my hands ready to do what it is when i went out to do. i cannot be 10 places at one time. i think the whole world has gone bonkers for even considering on whether you should have a gun in your hand when you go anywhere. rake the leaves, cut the grass, take the kids to the school bus, go to have your hair done, go shopping, go grocery shopping. how do you think about grocery shopping and, is your hand on the trigger? when you go out to eat?

it is just insanity that is going on in this country. i do not think it is going on in the rest of the world, we are being told that we must defend ourselves against the others. but that is where we want to be, with the others. so i would not want to live a close up life and be ready to shoot. do you know what is on somebody else's mind. get your head together. host: iris in athens, georgia. the varus -- he is on the mind are considering. caller: before i answer the question i want to say something on my heart. you know brian lamb retired and we did not give him a proper sendoff. and i just want to make that public statement because he has done a wonderful service to this nation. host: i will tell you. he has the most humble individual you will ever meet.

and he definitely did not want a sendoff. i am sure he appreciates your thoughts. caller: i could imagine that because i have heard so much. to answer your question, i am considering firing a gun, why? because the civil unrest and civil chaos that is being foisted upon the american people, you need to protect yourself. the wonderful farseeing founding thers had a very deep understanding of history. they know that the firs amendment, the freedom of speech and the second amt th right to bear arms, these would all be protectthe future due to the rights of the citizens to defend themselves against tyranny. for those who do not see that as a value. then as mr. ben franklin said, thoswho would trade liberty

d freedom for security deserve neither and shall have neither. thank you so much. host: can i ask you a question? caller: of course you can. host: you said you are considering buying another firearm. how long have you been a gun owner and why would you purchase another one? caller: truthfully, i have been handling guns since i was a small boy. i was shot at 15 years old in 1993 when the first rendition of programming was out. black men and black america where the first victims of the programming which was turned against the american people. they divided us and have us hating one another. they definitely got the people hating donald trump who did nothing but to try to prevent globalism and internationalists from destroying this country.

thank you so much. i look forward to talking to you next time. host: kentucky on the no line. did i say that correctly? caller: yes. i am in lexington, kentucky. host: go ahead. you are on with me. caller: ok. the reason i do not like guns is that i think a lot of other countries do not have guns and there is so much less violence. i think i would definitely think that there would be something done. for instance, the very powerful

guns, the ones that should be illegal, you see. i think they should be controlled. and i agree with kamala harris on gun control. i do believe that. there is less violence and other places without guns. i thank you. host: jeff in fayetteville, north carolina on the no line. good morning. caller: no, i do not own a gun and i will use my hands. they are lethal. but i think that democrats should be prohibited from owning guns. you give them guns and they will try to assassinate president trump you have the young black

democrats in chicago, detroit slaughtering other jan -- young black democrats so they should be prohibited from owning guns. that is all i have. thank you. host: jack and tennessee is considering. good morning. caller: hello and good morning. a lovely topic, timely. iona a lot of got -- i own a lot of guns personally that i am considering buying them for each of my daughters-in-law. along with the purchase, i am volunteering for that also to have them have instructions from basic beginning to more sophisticated instruction. so, they will be able to properly use the gun and hopefully never. but should the need arise, they will be competent and skilled

enough to properly use the weapon. host: you said for your daughters-in-law? how many is that and how many do you have. have they expressed an interest? caller: two of them have expressed the opposite of an interest years ago. i have three total. but, look at societal -- societal trends and they do too, and they are concerned for themselves and their family. that is the basements of the police. the police cannot recruit enough good people to serve anymore. and they have lost a number that were serving. the police protection is over time going to become less and less. what are you going to do when it takes 20 to 25 minutes to

respond to an emergency for the police? you are at the mercy of whoever is seating you. and that happens. my girlfriend at the time, my wife and i were saved one time on a picnic by the existence of a gun. some people were creeping up on us in the woods. there were two couples and my friends happen to have a shotgun in the back of his car. he racked the gun when he saw that these people had stopped and were creeping up. and he told them with a few expletives to move on down the road. all of a sudden, two people popped up out of a bush very near where we were picnicking. absent a gun, we were at their mercy. i do not want my daughters-in-law's, or our

grandchildren to be in that position ever. host: jack in tennessee. more from the recent polling on gun ownership. or guns in america. "non-gun owners are split on whether they would see them selves owning a firearm in the future. looking at the breakdown by party. 61% of republicans who say they do not own a gun could see themselves only one in the future compared with 40% of democrats. gender, 50% of men who do not own a gun said that they could see themselves owning one and 40% of women not owners pay the same. and looking at race and ethnicity. 56% of black nonowners say they could see themselves owning a gun compared to a smaller share of white at 88%. hispanic, 40% and asian, 38% for

nonowners. we have about 25 minutes left in this first hour, asking you how do you become -- have you become a firearm owner in the past few years. we are taking your calls and hearing from you on social media. this is from paul in columbus, ohio. "american cities have become whole -- so dangerous guns for personal protection have become a necessity. you cannot wait for the police to save you, a firearm will solve the problem in less than onsecond." jeff in michigan says " considering crime has gone down in the u.s. i do not see the need. is this because republican and trump keephrtening violence? i do not hear democrats making threats, but both trump shooters were registered republicans." back to your calls. charles in illinois is considering purchasing a firearm. the morning. caller: hello and thank you for

my call. i have been considering for the last three or four years but, i was a vietnam veteran. i spent two years in vietnam as a better -- as a medic and i have seen what guns can do. and all these people buying these guns and so-called christians i will say is one of the 10 commandments is thou shalt not kill. i have seen what guns can do. i have seen guys in body bags and picked up body parts. let me tell you want -- why you want to buy a gun. you want to try and overthrow the government, that is all that is. you need to get out of here with all of that because no. host: you said that you have been considering purchase a firearm for a few years. what are some of the factors going into the potential purchase? caller: well my granddaughter and her fiance two years ago

came into my daughter's house and got in. a guy pulled up in another car pulled up and opened up on them. he left behind five in the back. one of the bullets went to him and hit my granddaughter. they were trying to get into my daughter's door. the man was not drug dealing or gangbanging. i live in chicago. and i just go everywhere and i do not care. and those people who are just trying to own guns, just get out of here. they are dog -- they are talking about civil war and that is not what they used to be. all you people trying to rise up against the government, all of the january 6 and all of you people better think about what you are doing because there is no coming back.

you live the life one time and you need to enjoy it because i've seen what the ar-15 and m-16s can do. please, i tell you, make that decision wisely. that is all i have to say. thank you. host: steve in massachusetts on the no line. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i would like to segue with i did 21.5 years in the u.s. army. 20 active. i have nothing against guns personally. i enjoy going to the range and shooting them. i would like to throw out a number to you if i may. there are approximately 40,000 gun deaths in the united states annually and it might be 39 or 38 but let us rounded up. of these 3/5 are suicides or approximately 24,000. 16 thousands -- 16,000 are

homicides. let's compare this with traffic fatalities, which is also 40,000. i will wrap this up really quick. 40,000 people die annually going to work, driving to sporting events and etc. there is no intent to kill. it just happens. but where is the outrage for that. we have to worry about 16,000 homicides, which is too much. i really think that people need to step back and take a look at the situation holistically. driving in massachusetts with all of the road rage around here, it is as if the standard for driving is 75 or 80 miles an hour on interstates. you drive through towns and people are tailgating. we need to get our priorities straight. and have a good day and weekend. host: jack in pennsylvania on

the yes line. good morning. caller: good morning and how are you today? i have been a gun owner since i was 12. when i was 12 we kept them in my father's gun cabinet. but when i was 12 i bought my own 22 and inherited -- i am not hearing you. host: i am not talking. we do hear you. caller: ok. when i was 12 i inherited a deer rifle, shotgun and bought my own 22 which i got handed to me when i was 18 so i could go hunting on my own. i am also a hand owner. i have about six. when i get up in the morning and get dressed i put my hand got on my side and carry it everywhere that i am allowed. if i go to the grocery store it is with me.

if you go to any government office, you are not allowed to have it. you have to leave it in my car. my car locks up with an alarm. i cannot understand anybody who does not have at least one. host: that was jack in pennsylvania. and a headline from "the minnesota star tribune" saying that the lieutenant governor, peggy flanagan is a new gun owner. "minnesota's democratic lieutenant governor revealed this week that she purchased a small game hunting license, doesn't stamp and a 20 gauge benelli shotgun in preparation for the annual governor's pheasant template duckhunting opener held in sleepy i minnesota on friday and saturday. flanagan said this would be her fifth time attending a pheasant opener but a first time with her own firearm."

the governor of minnesota, tim walz also a gun owner. he spoke at the dnc over the summer. here is some of his remarks about guns. [video clip] >> when republicans use the word freedom they mean that the government should be free to invade your doctor's office. corporations, free to pollute your air and water. and banks free to take advantage of customers. but, when we democrats talk about freedom, we need the freedom to make a better life for yourself and the people that you love. freedom to make your own health care decisions. and yes, your kids' freedom to go to school without worried about being shot dead in the hall. look, i know guns.

i am a veteran. i am a hunter. and i was a better shot than most republicans in congress and i have the trophies to prove it. but, i am also a dad. i believe in the second amendment, but i also believe that our first responsibility is to keep our kids safe. [end video clip] host: william in ohio, considering purchasing a weapon. good morning. caller: good morning, i carry a sidearm as a law enforcement officer and i had weapons and i was in the military service for 7.5 years. i believe in the nra and i personally do not own a firearm at this time but i am considering purchasing one. i do agree with red flag laws. i also agree that people should have at least a 12 gauge or 10

gauge or a pistol for home protection. and, personal protection. but i do not believe in assault weapons as a home protection item. and, i also feel that people should extend the background check. i agree with the red flag laws. aside from that, that is how i feel. i feel that americans have the right to defend themselves in their home. and i have had experience where i should have, if i would have had a firearm there would have been a problem and i did need assistance. and the suspect who tried to get in on my home got tired of waiting on the police. and then when they showed up i presented them with the suspect's identification after they had left. and then the police alleged that

maybe they should arrest me for aggravated robbery. all i did was demand identification. the man tried to break in my home and then he busted down my fence trying to steal my lawnmower. host: how long have you been thinking about purchasing a gun? caller: only over the last 2.5 years. of actually purchasing and owning one myself. but i agree are people should have beginning training up to qualifying and i think that should be a legislated course of study. and that it should be required testing to pass the same examination every three years, minimum. thank you. host: that is william. jack in oregon says yes, they have become a gun owner in the past few years.

in morning. caller: yes. of course i buy guns. i have the liberty having to own a few of these. but as everybody knows the liberals do not like guns around here. but, that is fine. host: go ahead. caller: sorry. i just want to say that guns do not matter. you can have as many guns as you want. host: that is jack in oregon. carol in st. louis, missouri on the no line. good morning. caller: i was wondering if you could look up and see when it says democrats and republicans buying guns, who is buying the assault weapons, what majority

is buying more assault weapons. the other thing is why not use a stun gun or the spray? why do you have to kill somebody? i do not understand. it is just too confusing to me. host: patty in louisville, kentucky on the no line. caller: good morning, how are you? hello. host: doing well. go ahead. caller: i do not have a gun. and i do not have any intention of getting one. i am 70 years old and raising -- can you hear me? host: yes. caller: i am 70 years old and i am raising a 16-year-old grandson. and i told him that guns are never an answer. i do not want him having a gun. i was married to a law enforcement officer for 17 years. and so, i have been a rounded a

gun. but every night when he came in from work he locked his guns in the trunk of the car because i did not want them in the house. and he did that. and i think that, with the situation going on in this country right now, with people being killed -- filled with fear and hatred, i think putting guns in the hands of people who are already scared and who are already hating. i mean, the hate is just astronomically unreal in this country. i do not think putting guns in people's hands like that is any kind of answer at all. and as far as his officers, the lady on the call said that police do not respond anymore and they are not getting on the

force anymore. what comes to my mind is uvalde when 19 officers went into the school and they were afraid to confront. -- afraid to confront an ar-15 gun. police officers know that they take an oath to serve and protect. they are human beings. most of them have families. they do not want to join the force and go on a call and be looking down the barrel of an ar-15. i think that is the reason we are not recruiting police officers is the guns. they are outnumbered when it comes to guns. and i think that guns are not the answer. i think getting rid of some of the guns would be an answer. host: that was patty in

kentucky. over the summer in august with the increase in new gun owners, the brady united against gun violence and the ad council released a new public service announcement aimed at storage of guns. here is the ad. [video clip] ♪ >> i am a different kind of threat. i cannot be scared away. or negotiated with. you cannot call the cops on me. >> do you still want to hang out after? >> i do not want your money, or your tv. ♪ >> i do not even have to break in. i am invited.

♪ [end video clip] host: just under 10 minutes left in this first hour, hearing your calls and asking have you become a firearm owner in the past few years. can give us a call if you say yes. the line is 202-748-8000. no, 202-748-8001. if you are considering purchasing a firearm for the first time but have not yet, 202-748-8002. you can also text us or send us a message on social media. this text coming in from bob rhode island saying "i am not a gun owner or considering becoming one for run -- for one

reason. i have kids nine and seven and the thought of one having -- the thought of having one in the house seem selfish and unreasonable. they are much more likely to get hurt from the gun in the house already." david in indianapolis, indiana is considering it. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, i am considering buying a firearm simply for protection. and, you know i need to learn how to use one, so i think there ought to be someplace you can go and get training on how to use one so you can be safe and everything. but yes. i am considering buying a firearm for protection.

host: how long have you been thinking about it? caller: probably about six months. host: you said you would want to get training. have you looked into training that is around you or near you? caller: i have not. host: that was david. ellie in maryland says yes. good morning. caller: good morning. so, i say yes because i actually recently became a firearm owner. i am a female. i am not really a threat if i have no firearm on me. and i have been carjacked. i have been jumped and do. so, after that i just had enough. and i think it is just important that me, guns do not kill

people. people actually kill people. i do not know who the older lady was said that -- for i think it was a gentleman who said that there should be some type of insanity test for some people. i know for maryland the laws that you can purchase a rifle and shotgun out of the shop with no license or anything. i think that is also a problem. of why there has been settlement more shootings in areas especially such as schools. for me, i think it just needs to be in the hands of people who are safe and know how to handle the gun. i became an armed officer so i think the training helped me get comfortable with the gun and different types of guns. that training and getting rid of that awful lot of people just

being able to buy shotguns and rifles. host: when did you purchase your first gun? caller: last year around summertime. host: and the reason you got it was just for protection. how long had you been thinking about it before you bought it? caller: i was not thinking about it. i was scared of guns and i did not like them. i have seen what they have done to people. and i have seen how accidental mistakes in the wrong hands happen. i was afraid of them. but i guess as i got older and mature and i started taking classes and started watching more videos mainly on youtube, i just decided that it is time to get one and nowadays there are a lot of people who are not even willing to allow you to live to rob you. they actually wants to kill you. so, when they do see, versus when i was carjacked versus me having my hands, they beat me up

but i did not fall. if i had my firearm, they would have been a lot more willing to leave me alone versus me just having my car and everything taken away. plus going to the hospital for my injuries. host: that was ellie and marilyn. one of the many women who have become gun owners recent years. gun manufacturers adds appeal to women as serious students of firearms to boost sales. the article says "they are shifting the strategy over the last two decades that may be contributing -- contributing to the increase gun sales among women. from 2007 to 2022, women's gun ownership rose from 16% to 22% while the rate for men stayed steady at 43%. more than half of gunowners in

the united states between 2019 and 2021 where women." that is just one of the studies that was done about new gun owners and the shifting demographics. rita in jackson heights, new york. she says no. caller: good morning. i watch the program almost every day as long as i can until i get so disgusted that i hang up. today that young man called and said that 40,000 people are killed in cars, i am so happy because that is what i say to everyone. when i get in the car this is a killer. but he forgot one thing, how many people are maimed for life. that is double the amount. double. and i wish i knew who he was and i would call him up and i would give him an embrace because this

nonsense of women or men owning guns, it does not matter. what are you supposed to do if it does attack you. excuse me i have to get my god. it does not happen that way. what do you do at night? do you sit with your rifle at the window to make sure that nobody comes in. my husband was a hunter and he had rifles locked up. he had the key, he did not belong to the nra. and when women would say i want to get a gun and he said you are afraid of a mouse. you scream and yell at a mouse. but all of these women are going to do when did you get the opportunity do you say excuse me, i want to get my gun. it is the same with men. i want to thank him and if he is listening, god bless a person with sense, formation, knowledge, and facts. hard facts. host: time for one last call.

raul in texas says yes. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? i wanted to say that i own two. i own a full-size and i decided to buy a concealed carry. i was vetted with the department of public safety and i go to practice about every two weeks. so practice makes you proficient. the scenarios back in the day are this -- are not the same as today. and people are there to hurt you. you are not going to have your shot on in your house, but you are prepared just in case. so training is a factor. the fact that in uvalde the police officers did not want to go. they are trained to go and protect children.

so that is another issue why they did not pursue. but yes, i own a firearm. i am licensed and practicing different scenarios will take care of you. host: that was our last call for the first hour. next on washington journal, the legal reporter alex swoyer will join us and discuss the new supreme court term and key cases ahead. later in the program, "the washington monthly" paul glass chris will talk about the overlooked demographic of state college voters. we will be right back. ♪ ♪

>> american history tv, exploring people and events that tell the american story. neil gorsuch and his former law clerk talk about america's fin -- america's founding ideals, and a congressional gold medal ceremony honoring the african-american men and women for their contributions to space exploration in its early days for calculating the 1969 apollo mission sending men to the moon. watch historic presidential elections, exploring what made these elections historic, issues of different eras, and the lasting impact on the nation. this week, the election of 1948. in what was considered a major upset, harry truman defeated republican new york governor thomas dewey in 1948 to win a full term in the white house. lectures in history, the university of north carolina at

pembroke history professor on southeast native american tribes during the 18th century and the impacts of colonialism, the american revolution, and emergence of the united states. on the presidency, looking at how eleanor roosevelt used film from the early 1930's to 1960's to promote her political and social causes. exploring the american story. watch american history tv every weekend and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org /history. >> book tv, every sunday on c-span2, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction book. at 7:30 p.m. eastern, we speak with kirk cameron where he talks about hisatest book "born to be brave" on american culture and faith. he discusses his children's book

s and story hours at public libraries. at 9 p.m. eastern, a fox news contributor, the author of "fear itself", argues liberals use fear as a political and social weapon and suggests ways for conservatives to respond. on afterwords, the future of work and how to better align workplace culture with the needs of american workers in her book "over work." connie chung shares her memoir about her life and career in journalism, serving as the first woman to cohost the cbs evening news. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2, and find a full schedu on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: now to discuss the new supreme court term and cases ahead, alex swoyer, a legal affairs reporter for "the washington times." we will jump into the new term for the supreme court. they begin on monday. it comes at a time when there has been continued calls for ethics reform. what has been the mood at the court going into the new term? guest: you wouldn't know that there were at ethics concerns. i think there was a leak of a confidential memo. you wouldn't know in the courtroom that any of that was going on. the justices seem very friendly. i often say that i think courtrooms should have a camera so you can see them interact. you can see justice kagan and justice kavanaugh often whisper and laugh together. it shows a little bit of stability on the bench.

-- civility on the bench. the cases were quite interesting this first week. there was an interesting death penalty case where the state actually is on the side of the defendant, which you don't see all the time. host: we will talk about that ghost gun case. they heard the oral arguments on tuesday. explain what they are looking at. guest: with the ghost gun case, it is 2022 regulation that the biden administration put out. it's the so-called ghost gun kits. to put a gun together yourself, they don't have serial numbers. that was the concern, that these were used in crimes. requiring these kits to comply with serial numbers, background checks, that kind of thing. it was challenged by the manufacturer of these kits. they say the 1968 gun control

act to try to regulate them is running afoul of the ata, statutory rulemaking. it is not necessarily a second amendment case likely think of, but more of an interpretation. the justices seem to be willing to leave this rule intact. they left it in forced. the majority of justices seem to think that the biden administration biden administration has the leeway to do this. if you know what you are getting, it is still a gun, it is still a firearm. host: your reporting on this case, the supreme court has skeptical eyes towards unregulated ghost guns. what were you hearing from the justices during those arguments? guest: what i mentioned was there was a back-and-forth. if you're ordering a kit that has these pieces, and all you have to do for example is drill a few holes to assemble and remove plastic, aren't you in

fact knowing that you're getting a firearm? it isn't that these pieces could be regulated on their own. one analo between -- one analogy that justice alito brought up is what if i have peppers and eggs, does that mean it's a western omelette? what if you are ordering an omelette kit on hello fresh? it is that kind of notion. host: c-span aired the oral arguments on our website. you can find them and watch them in their entirety. you can go to c-span.org /supremecourt. they have other cases coming up ahead of them including a case on gender affirming care for transgender teens. what is at stake? guest: this might be our biggest case so far that has been granted. it is out of tennessee. the law bans medical treatment

for transgender minors including puberty blockers, that sort of thing. it was challenged by transgender children and their parents. although there was a tennessee law, i think 26 states have similar legislation. this could impact other laws as well. it is an interesting you will protection case that children and their parents say that we have a right to access our own medical choices and control that parental control. the state on the others says we have an interest in protecting children and we see that they are not old enough to make these types of decisions yet. it is an interesting juxtaposition looking at what is best for the children. host: we are talking with alex swoyer, the legal affairs reporter for the washington times. if you have a question or comment for her you can call in now. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000.

independents, (202) 748-8002. the supreme court added more than a dozen cases just before the new term started, including one one the use of deadly force shooting. there is one death penalty case, there is actually two? guest: they do -- it's interesting. you often saw justice breyer in the past heavily writing on the death penalty cases, but jackson is on the court. it will be interesting if she jumps on that with justice sotomayor. host: what are you watching out of the cases that we know so far they've granted? guest: we talked about the transgender minor one. not that there is a theme for each term, but there are cases that look at the protection of minors. one has to do with a law out of

texas with giving your identification to porn websites, a first amendment challenge. should someone enter their personal information to access those websites are the intent is to keep minors say from accessing those websites. there is an interesting one about the marketing of flavored vapes. they shut that down because of the appeal to youth. that is another one they've granted. host: when we look at these cases, you said sometimes it can seem like they are thematic. what we know about previous cases that may be similar in terms of what we may know about how justices ultimately decide these cases? guest: i would say that a few things that stick out this term, the court has been heavily involved with the religious liberty challenges. each term i've covered since 2017 has had a major religious liberty case. this term, one has not been

granted yet, but several are pending. one of them is a catholic charter school. it would be the nation's first religious charter school. it hasn't opened yet out of oklahoma. that is on pending review. we will see if they take that. another one that has to do with montgomery county and the idea of parents being able to opt elementary kids out of certain story times related to lgbtq issues is also pending. host: we will bring our audience into the conversation. first is milton in philadelphia, pennsylvania, on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i would like to bring up three points if you will allow me. ethics reform. i think that the federal judges should be barred from accepting any kind of gift, especially when it comes to clarence thomas and alito.

the vacations and this from right-wing billionaires. second, in the case of clarence thomas you have his wife who works for a conservative organizations. a lot of people come before the courts and clarence thomas will not recuse himself. third, it seems like this court, especially the right-wing part, seems to be going out of their way to support trump because of the fact in the case of his immunity. they allow the president to do whatever the hell he wants to and not be charged. i have serious problems with it. i used to have a lot of respect for the court. i don't anymore. guest: those concerns are something that i hear a lot from readers. on the ethics, your hearing more from the liberal wing on the court when they make public statements, especially justice kagan. she called for an enforceable ethics code.

the problem that a lot of people have said that the supreme court issued one for itself but there is not necessarily an enforcement mechanism about themselves. basically policing your own conduct. that was a concern. one issue brought up with rick -- with recusal as you have nine justices. the idea is, if one has to recuse you are left with eight. if you're left with a tie that means that the lower court's ruling withstand. there is no one to fill that vo id. that is why you don't see a lot of refusals. beyond that we will have to wait and see what happens. we talk about transparency. i brought up when i first joined, i think cameras in the courtroom would be really good and would help people see the justices interact with each other and of the way that they question the lawyers. there seems to be more unity on the bench than what is perceived in major rulings like the trump immunity ruling, the

presidential immunity ruling that we saw. i think it's possible that the justices will have to narrow down that ruling on key charges that might actually come back up to them from the pending election fraud case, now brought before the d.c. district court. host: the color brought up the ethics reform question. senator ron wyden out of oregon presented a bill to overhaul the supreme court that would add six justices among other things. what we know about those proposals? guest: since i cover the court, there has been a number since president biden took office and we have reports. what happened with justice thomas and disclosures. you have seen a lot of legislation proposing term limits were ways to elevate

judges in the lower court that could sit in. different mechanisms on how to keep tabs on what's going on. i don't think there's enough energy on capitol hill to pass something like that, especially with the gop-controlled house right now. we could see what happens after the november election. host: lincoln, nebraska on the independent line. good morning, eric. caller: thank you for taking my call. this is probably a supreme court one-on-one question. i thought that i had heard once that the supreme court justices were not supposed to consider the consequences of their decisions, they were just supposed to interpret the law. the recordings that i've heard of the supreme court recently, especially recently, they are always asking questions about, well, if we make this decision this will happen or that decision that will happen. i thought they weren't supposed

to do that? guest: i will jump in and say that it's interesting and a good observation. oneof the things that you hear from the justices that are strictly looking at texts is that i might not like the outcome of the way that i'm going to rule, but that is pointing to the lawmakers to fix. that is one of the things that when i interview justice gorsuch in 2019 he said in his chambers, when i'm looking at something, if i don't think that it passes muster, i am paraphrasing, then it is up to the people across the street fix, the capitol. you will see some of the court doing that, but there have been questions about if we were to rule in your favor, what could be next?what would that mean ? host: daniel in wilmington, delaware on the line for democrats. good morning. guest: thank you for take -- caller: thank you for taking my

call. i want to know the dobbs decision and how come the american people don't know, it has been almost two years plus. if you could answer my question, i would like it. guest: that is a wonderful question. i actually have a story coming out later this week about the leaks out of the court. you had the 2022 dobbs decision. you had some talking to cnn giving some inside deliberations surrounding the idaho abortion case from last term. in september you had the leaking of the confidential memo from inside the court, a high of memo that only a few people would have access to, leaked to the new york times. the only leak i know of and any court watchers that i've spoken to that have any investigation was the dobbs leak and no one has been identified. does the court now and won't tell us? it's possible.

all of us want to know will there be accountability? otherwise leaks will continue to happen. host: you can find alex's reporting on washingtontimes.org. you can find her on x. the new term, they have four cases they will be hearing. one is talking about veterans medical benefits and another the ability to recover civil damages for economic harm, immigration, visa review, and using federal restrictions on sewage pollution. anything that sticks out to you? guest: i will be covering the epa case, san francisco versus the epa. it is an interesting case because you have san francisco basically challenging its water pollution limits, a federal rule. california is siding with the epa. you have one city challenging this rule and even the state is

on the side of the feds. the day before tuesday, it is about a trucker who was fired from his job after using thc products for inflammation. he was subject to a surprise drug test and tested positive and lost his job. the justices will be reviewing that as well. host: c-span will have coverage of all four of those oral arguments next week and you can find them on our c-span life app and our website. let's hear from dorothy in dayton, ohio, the line for independents. good morning. guest: it kind of -- caller: it kinda breaks my heart a little bit. i appreciate that you are doing the segment on the supreme court, the u.s. supreme court, implying that whatever the term is, the right-wing activist court. even the case, yet you leave out

so many details. i have a question, you know. i can use the example you just gave. the epa against somebody, and california agrees with the epa. it's against pollution. that was very misleading. that is not against pollution. that is against the epa trying to seize someone's property or prevent them from doing something on their property, because the epa has determined it's pollution. please -- also, while i am on that, why did we never, ever hear anything regarding the supreme court of the weeks of harassment? that's illegal. that's against the law.

where was merrick garland? where was the dhs? where was the doj? host: any response to dorothy? guest: on the epa case, it is a challenge to the rule that regulates limits for pollution in water. it is a little wonky, so there is not necessarily that many people who follow that -- that my nisha in federal rulemaking. i will be covering it. in terms of the harassment and threats, i think that that's an important issue that she brought up. we saw protests outside of the justices' homes for months without much repercussion. i know that i talked to neighbors and they went out to some of these homes. they were very upset with what they were seeing. some of the justices had to leave. it was a major concern. i do think that it would have been a positive had there been more accountability from the justice department. one part that we will see at the

end of the term, we usually get our opinions in june, we will see the attempted kavanaugh assassin go to trial. he pled not guilty. that was someone who showed up outside of justices homes in the wake of the dobbs leak. host: matthew in north carolina on the republican line. good morning, matthew. caller: thank you so much for taking my call. i had a question. i realize we don't have a current judge being sworn in, but what is -- i don't understand how someone can get away with not answering the simple questions from the senators in the other party. for example, what is a woman? her answer is, i'm not a biologist. the senator wasn't trying to be cute. she was worried about children may be in the future consenting to surgery as a minor and what

does it mean to be -- i wonder in the future, we we see justices that the senators are going to demand answers or they are not going to swear them in and they are going to say enough of this? thank you so much. guest: i have been covering the court since 2017. i covered several now. four new justices coming onto the bench. some people cover it for a decade and no real movement. that was interesting. what i've noticed throughout all of the confirmation hearings is there is a need from the justice or a feeling of needing to be evasive about their views to win votes and support. as i cover the court, the confirmation votes have been so divided republicans to democrats i think that it's one reason we saw the 60-vote threshold to

confirm a supreme court justice done away with i think in 20 to confirm justice gorsuch. i'm not surprised that there was a way not to answer that question directly. one of the reasons is because we have transgender rights cases moving through the courts. we talked about the transgender minor surgery one. there are two petitions pending before the justices out of idaho and west virginia dealing with women's sports laws to basically ban transgender athletes from participating. you have to be a biological female under the law. that is something that the supreme court could have to review this term. host: the supreme court has several cases on their docket. they have also declined dear several cases. supreme court rejects elon musk lawsuit against special counsel jack smith over trump's messages.

another headline, u.s. supreme court won't hear full protest case that includes mother. remind us how the court decides which cases they are going to take up. guest: it takes four justices to vote in favor of hearing a case or oral argument to be granted. we don't know which four justices think that the lower court may have gotten it wrong or there is the need for them to take up a case to set a national standard. the way that we know if there is a potential that the justices will take a case is, is there a circuit split? did the ninth circuit come out differently than the fifth circuit? that may encourage them to an. something called realist. a case scheduled for this conference and we don't know what goes on in the conference, but we don't find out if it will be rejected or granted and it can be relisted for the justices to get that. when a case is relisted it suggests that there is interest from the justices in taking it.

more often than not we see that getting granted. host: they had a conference where they decided on some of the realists. they have another one coming up. any of those re-list cases that will get the approval of at least four justices? guest: i learned a long time ago to not make predictions because i'm always surprised. one of the interesting things -- i'm surprised, i mentioned that there isn't a religious liberty case. having covered this court, there seems to be an appetite for that. that's one area i'm looking at. there are not that many cases compared to the -- the docket feels light. there's a feeling among court watchers that the justices are waiting to see if there is an election to see if they have to take up quickly. when you talk to election law experts i don't see anything on the timeline that would get to the court. i guess a side from a bush v. go

re-type of situation. host: tyler, good morning. caller: this is atrocious. i have written the supreme court indiana all the way to the supreme court of the united states of america, the insight and professional help that -- without probable cause. in segregation for 245 days. the charges were dismissed. i suffered from a fungal infection in my eyes, liver, lungs. i nearly died and they provided no medical attention. when i was there i witnessed people come in and license the inmates to come out as a second optional way to get out of jail. these people would come out of the jail and participate in slavery to people. the criminal conspiracy to commit fraud is real, and i

haven't had anyone from the professional standpoint assist me with this. they always reject me. host: what is your question for alex? caller: alex. i have written the supreme court i have written the professionals and i have filed disputes with the department of justice. if no one is going to answer me, who do i have to talk to about having the assistance and restitution and review of this case? even with filing the appeals and the appeals court? guest: i had a difficult time hearing everything. i heard the last part. it sounded like there might have been some medical issues and he is looking for someone to go to for damages? personally, if you're not getting answers through filing lawsuits, i think it is always important to enlist a lawyer. they know how to navigate the system. also, local elected officials i think are the ones who react

sooner. they are able to go to their doorsteps and meet with them rather than send a letter to your senator who has a local state of constituents to respond to. host: john in pennsylvania on the line for democrats. caller: i have a question. during the hearings for gorsuch, actually gorsuch, barrett, and cavanaugh, all three of them said that they were going to honor stasis -- what is it? starry on roe v. wade. they turned around and they voted in favor of getting rid of it. isn't it perjury when they say one thing and go the other way? i thought there was some kind of

law or rule against that? i wondered if that was ever brought up the way that they answer their questions to a senate hearing? i thought that you weren't allowed to lie in a senate hearing? guest: that is something that has come up since i've covered the court, the question about if a justice says one thing during confirmation hearings but rules differently if that is some way to prosecute them for perjury. in my recollection in recent history that hasn't happened, but it is something that the justices are aware of. there was an interesting back and forth between justice alito and justice sotomayor. he said something about when he was on a lower court that he would salute the victim and justice sotomayor said not anymore. there was a little bit of

laughter between the two of them on that. when you are a justice on the court you might find reason to believe that was fraud so you see your view as righting that wrong. a lot of what you hear from court watchers is about why you saw the court do what it did with dobbs. host: elliott from south carolina on the one for republicans. caller: good morning. someone stole the transcripts to the dobbs case. why did the supreme court use their head of security, the investigator. why didn't they use the fbi or the doj? i think it was really bad. only a couple of hundred people and we should have found out who stole it. thank you. guest: i believe it was about

the leak. and why we don't know who is conducting the leaks, is that correct? host: yes, the dobbs leak. guest: the courts-martial service did this investigation. i'm not sure why there was not more reach out to the feds, the fbi. one reason i got when i was asking former clerks what they thought about that was it could be that the chief justice did not want another branch of government intruding into the judiciary or their building. that could be one reason you did not see more fbi involvement. host: as of now, there are no blockbuster cases on the court's docket. is there anything that you see other than potentially an election-related case coming up between now and the end of --?

guest: we did not have some of the trump cases. we did not have the immunity case last term. we did not have the ballot case out of colorado. it really ended up being what a lot of people pay attention to. as time goes i think we will see more of those high-profile cases. i think it's possible that we see them revisit the immunity decision. that could be related to now at the lower court with special counsel jack smith arguing about trump's communication with mike pence surrounding january 6 and the election results. there are arguments back-and-forth and the supreme court was not clear on whether those would be immune or not. that is a topic that could return to the court that i'm watching. when you look at polls out of swing states, pennsylvania looks tight. during 2020 there were a lot of

questions over ballot laws that came to the court on emergency requests. pennsylvania is one that i'm watching to see if they get anything out of there for the election. host: bernard on the line for independents. good morning. caller: hi. i'm calling about the supreme court justices, when we saw on television people beating drums outside their houses, why there was no police protection to get those people away from the supreme court justices. also in china you are not allowed to own a firearm and they lock you up in your apartment and what you start to death. i saw that on a special about owning firearms. the used to have, you would have to abort a child if it was female. i wonder how all democrats think

about that. assault weapons are made to protect the citizens against their government. not protect them hunting. do i have a comment from the lady? guest: two things. first about the protest, the drums, the blow horns, all of that you saw outside of the justices homes. i went to justice brett kavanaugh's home in maryland and i saw neighbors, moms who were visibly upset and shaking because they said it was a nightly thing. it happened around bedtime for the little ones every night and it would not stop. they were very upset. what you saw was mostly the federal police, the marshals were standing in the yard of the house to protect anyone from intruding. you did not see local police doing anything and the question would be whether or not there could be a nuisance violation due to the noise. we did not see any accountability there.

that is something that needs to be pursued and followed up on. the firearms question. something we have not talked about yet that is worth mentioning is one of the cases the justices just said they will hear is an interesting case where mexico is actually suing a firearm manufacturer. they claim about 90% of the guns they recover from the cartel that are trafficked into mexico are from these dealers. they are basically trying to sue and hold these u.s. manufacturers accountable for aiding and abetting the cartel in mexico. it is a very interesting case. we don't have a date for oral arguments yet but the justices will decide that this term. host: ray in syracuse, new york on the republican line. good morning. caller: i can see alex is covering a lot of ground with so much detail.

i would like to add my two cents to one of the answers and that is the issue of whether or not you can ask specific questions related to in process cases that will go in front of the supreme court. the gentleman who called did not seem to understand. they have to be vague and the questions are not supposed to be directed pointed to an actual case that will come before them because if they actually give any indication of how they will vote on that particular case, they will not become supreme court justices. it is an obvious thing but people don't realize that. they are giving general conversational, i will tell you how i do my job as a judge. i will not give you specifics so that you can vote me on or off. it would be unethical. guest: i think that is why you

saw justice jackson not answer the what is aoman question in detail given that we have the transgender cases moving through the lower courts and into the supreme court. i noticed with the court, they do not -- when they take an lgbtq case, you don't necessarily get another big one. when we talk about the tendency transgender minor surgery ban, medical treatment ban, i am wondering if they will take the sports bill, the issue about women's sports because it also deals with transgender rights. it is one i am definitely watching. i am eager to see if they take it. since they have already taken one transgender rights case, i am not sure if they will get another one on the docket this term. host: i want to ask you about a hearing that was not in the spring court this week -- in the supreme court this week. it was in the appeals court. this article, "appeals court to

end dreams for dreamers where the fifth circuit heard arguments on thursday before three judges about whether to uphold sweeping ruling by a trial court judge that would end daca altogether, the program created by former president obama by executive action until congress passed legislation to address the state of the dreamers, as the group is known. former president trump moved to kill the program in 2017, one of a number of measures his administration took to reduce the number of undocumented immigrants in the country. the program has been suspended, reinstated and partly rolled by court rulings ever since. conservatives in texas and other states filed the challenge now being heard in 2018." what do we know about that case and if there is any precedent?

guest: i am not up to speed on all of that. i know daca has been in and out of the courts for several years and as a legal affairs reporter, when i look at something that is been politicized and i look at the court it is in, the fifth circuit is known as the most conservative court out there. i would not be surprised if they were to rule against what was president obama's program or at least curtail it even further. we shall see if that were to happen, i suspect there would be an appeal to the supreme court. they could put that on hold while they review the case. we saw that with the ghost guns and litigation. there was a ruling in the lower courts in favor of the challengers looking to keep ghost guns unregulated. the supreme court said we will let the feds implement the rule

while we review the case. that could be what happens or something similar. host: james in pennsylvania on the independents line. good morning. caller: how are you guys doing? host: we are good. go ahead. caller: i am all for the supreme court being four four. the reason why is we don't want to do a 5-4 because that gives us a marginal vote. let's go with 4-4 so you have to go with a 5-3 swing. you have to have the information, facts and truth. this will get rid of the frivolous cases, frivolous lawsuits and daca has been going on for a long time, since bush. these people are fine. most of them are 99.9% no

criminals. regular americans are above that. host: you will get a response from alex. guest: i think it could be that the supreme court takes a case like daca for one of these appeals coming out of the fifth circuit simply to have a final say. so that is a possibility. in terms of the numbers, it depends. even the late justice ginsburg said she likes the number nine and that the court operated well for much of the period since the founding with nine justices and that suited them just found -- just fine. we will see if they have to reduce for certain reasons. it has also been ok. we don't like to see ties because it means lower courts affirmed. i am on the side of wanting an odd number. host: our guest alex swoyer, the legal affairs reporter for the washington times. find a report online at

washington times.com and on x. thank you so much for being with us. guest: thanks for having me. host: still ahead, the washington monthly's paul glastris will discuss his recent reporting on what he refers to as the overlooked demographic of state college voters. first we will hear from more of you during open forum. start calling now. the lines republicans (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independent, (202) 748-8002. we will be right back. >> attention middle and high school students across america. it is time to make your voice heard. c-span's documentary contest

2025 is here, your chance to create a documentary to inspire change, raise awareness and make an impact. your documentary should answer this year's question, your message to the president. what issue is most important to you or your community? whether you are passionate about politics, the environment or community stories. use your platform to share your message with the world. with $100,000 in prizes including a grand prize of $5,000, this is your opportunity to not only make an impact but also be rewarded for your creativity and hard work. enter your submissioay. scanned the code or visit on how to enter.or the details the deadline is january 20, 2025. as the 2024 presidential campaign continues, american history tv presents a series of

historic presidential elections. learn about pivotal issues of different eras, uncover what made them historic and explore their lasting impact on the nation. today the election of 1948. >> we must entrust our destiny to those who will safeguard our rights, our freedoms and our national honor. >> you will enter a new era. on january 20 they will begin in washington the biggest unraveling, untangling operation in our nation's history. [applause] >> in what was considered a major upset, democratic president harry truman defeated thomas dewey, keeping the white house for four more years. watch historic presidential elections saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span 2.

>> the house will be in order. >> this year c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979 we have been your source for capitol hill, providing unfiltered coverage of government, taking you to where the policies are decided with the support of america's cable company. c-span, 45 years and counting, powered by cable. announcer: washington journal continues. host: welcome back. for the next 30 minutes we are an open forum. give us a call and discuss any public policy issue that is important to you. we will get to those calls in a moment. first, wanted to show you this headline from the wall street journal. front page, "swing state battle is tied. a new poll says the survey of most contested states finds

harris with a slim lead in arizona, michigan, wisconsin and georgia on ballots including independence and third-party candidates that will be offered as options. trump has a narrow edge in nevada, north carolina and pennsylvania but no lead is greater than two percentage points except for trump's five point advantage in nevada which puts others in the margin of error. across other swing state voters, trump has 46% support and harris draws 45%. the presidential election is too close to call. if harris wins the states where she leads in the polls, she will win with a narrow majority in the electoral college." another headline from the washington post, "dnc releases ads attacking green party's joel

stein. it says advisors to vice president kamala harris still say the final outcome in swing states could hinge on the remaining independent and third-party contenders who are collectively drawing about 5% of the vote in public polls. in response to democratic national committee on friday, launched its first television ad targeting the candidacy of joel stein, the green party candidate who has been registering at about 1% of the vote in the northern swing states. the ad will run on television in wisconsin, michigan and pennsylvania along with national broadcasts on cable news. the dnc did not announce how much money would be put behind this spot. here is that ad just released by the dnc." ♪ >> joel stein green party

candidate for president. but wire trump's allies -- why are trump's allies helping her? she is not sorry she helped trump win. a vote for stein is really a vote for trump. >> i like her very much. she takes 100% from them. >> i am kamala harris and i approve this message. host: we will start hearing from our callers, frankie on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well. caller: as a college-educated graduate and a citizen of this country, i wish someone would explain to me how that in 1973 an amendment was added to the constitution of this country, roe v. wade in 1973, when that

amendment was unconstitutional when it was added. you cannot amend the constitution of this country that pertains to only one segment of united states citizens. and that one segment was women. and that excludes all male citizens. and yet, it was added unconstitutional whenever it was added to the constitution. host: tony in asheville, north carolina on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: how are you this morning? thank you for c-span. i wanted to bring up the topic of our recent disaster that has fallen off of the front page. it is something we will be dealing with for years to come.

i am fortunate that i own two homes. one in asheville and one in black mountain, both of which were spared. my home in black mountain, the river runs less than a mile away and five people were drowned less than a mile from my home. i consider myself extremely lucky. i wanted to address a lot of the stories will the rumors and conspiracy theories going around about this disaster in north carolina. it is amazing to me that people will grab onto something like this and spin the most outlandish tales for some political advantage. i think part of it is the fact that when a crisis came under former president trump in the form of the covid-19 crisis, it was an abysmal failure. he failed to address so many natural disasters and so many things affecting the common people in this country, i cannot believe people would want to go

back to that. i would like to say thanks so much to all of the fema people come in the national guard, the local state volunteers that have been here moving food and water and ice into the area. i was without electricity for 10 days. i just got it back yesterday. i still have no running water and no estimate as to when it will be restored. we are perhaps weeks away as the water plant was destroyed. they have been bringing drinking water, food, bags of ice, essential supplies ever since the second day after the storm as soon as they got the interstate open in the area. i hope people will remember the history of the republican party when it comes to appropriating funds for natural disasters in this country. please pray for the people in asheville and black mountain whose lives have been lost, whose properties have been lost

and who will have to rebuild. they will need help around here for a long time. i do not believe that a republican administration will provide. remember that when you go to vote. thank you. host: glad to hear you are doing ok, tony. this headline in this morning's washington post, "disaster funds on fumes. the small business business demonstration which provides low-interest loans for millions is set to run out of funds for hurricane victims within days. the sba administrator isabel guzman told congress late thursday as officials tally the extent of hurricane milton's damage on the heels of hurricane helene. without urgent action from congress, the agency would be forced to stop offering new disaster assistance. isabel guzman wrote in a letter obtained by the washington post, the sba issues loans worth as

much as $100,000 for renters, $500,000 for homeowners and $2 million for business owners. the agency has roughly $50 million left in disaster loan authority but officials expect to run out in the next several days due to escalating demand." it goes on to say if the agency runs out of funding, is guzman says it will continue processing loan applications up to the point of payment so that they can quickly distribute funds when congress provides additional funding. the federal emergency management agency also provides disaster relief and its budget is unrelated to the sba's potential shortfall. cm in new mexico on the independent line. good morning. caller: i would like to say a few words.

i read in the bible where it talks about the law and it describes lucifer and it describes donald trump completely. it is completely inaccurate to see how all of these christians are voting for the devil. that's all i want to say. host: paul in kingston, new york on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for having me on. i would like to say something about ukraine. you have to hear the actual story about what has happened in the ukraine on american news. there was a democratically elected member in the ukraine. we overthrew it several years ago. those we put in power in the ukraine were photographed and

filmed running through the streets carrying american confederate flags and nazi flags. those pictures were published over the world. there is another myth out there about that time, the nasty russian sent tanks into crimea. actually that never happened. what happened in crimea was devoted to join russia in a referendum because they were afraid of us. they were watching what we were doing in ukraine and they were afraid that they were going to be next. the road that was taken there with the referendum was covered by international poll watchers and observers from 12 different nations and they all agreed that it was a fair, free, honest vote. still waiting to see that. that was all covered at the time it happened. but since then the fairytale has been out there and everybody is hunkering down, meeting for the -- waiting for the mean russians to do their thing.

we learned nothing from vietnam, believe me. thank you for having me on. host: van from el paso, texas on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i wanted to bring it back to the guns. when i was young i used to hunt deer. but now i am older. my eyesight is terrible and my hands shake. i am not the person you want to have a gun. i foster dogs. a lot of my dogs look like coyotes or foxes. when i take my dogs off the leash in the desert, people in the desert like to go target shooting. i don't mind that. i don't have a problem with that. but i do worry when the sun comes up and they start firing the guns, i am worried that i might get hit or my dog might

get hit accidentally or maybe on purpose. i think there has to be a way that people can have their guns but leave open spaces open to people like me who just want to go out and enjoy the desert without having to hear gunfire or worry about a stray bullet. that is what i wanted to say. thank you so much. host: john in california on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to first say that the guy from new mexico, you should have cut him off. while you would call trump satan, that is wrong. you should cut these guys off. i have been a businessman all my life. i do the numbers. i like to talk about kamala harris's numbers. she talks about raising corporate taxes by 7%.

she talks about raising capital gains 40%. we talked about trickle-down economics. there is something called trickle-down taxation. when you raise a corporation's cost by 8%, they will pass that down to the consumer. what you are going to get with kamala is that we are going to go after the corporations, but those corporations make a profit and they will pass the expense down to the consumer. so you are really not accomplishing anything except increasing inflation. i challenge kamala's economic plan and i want to get it out to the public that the democrats have high inflation and we have it down to a little bit better. if you let kamala and she enacts

these corporate taxes and capital gains taxes, it will trickle down to the consumer and it especially hurts the low income consumer. that is my point. i hope you vote for trump. he is not satan. have a good day. host: matt in massachusetts on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. i am glad i went after that guy. i don't know what planet this guy is on where he has an issue of people calling trump satan. that isi do not understand. this trump goes around playing nazi book one 01, the most basic play of calling people -- saying that people eat dogs and the dehumanization. he has more than satan, he has a vile human being.

and then the reason i called and was hearing the first callers or one of the first talking about his problem with roe v. wade. i do not know what planet these guys are on. it is like we are living in the medieval era where we have conservatives talking about bible stuff like it is 1602. i do not care about your religion. i do not respect it or think about it. it is irrelevant and embarrassing that i live with people who are just in a cold in every way -- cult in every way and walk of life. trump is a vile persian -- person and you should be essay -- ashamed as a man and a human for supporting that guy. what i will always remember as a 40-year-old is walking around with people like these guys who are just clueless. clueless. this is literally how hitler got

into power and dehumanize people and how he turn people against each other. i do not get it. really i think about it and it has to be the misinformation bubble. we started with conservatives her -- hooked on fox news and radio crab like a drug in their iv going into the brain rot center and then we turned it into social media where it was catalyzed and every form of disinformation has been catalyzed. i have been listening to c-span for literally 20 years and it is just dumbed down and i cannot listen to it anymore because we have crazy old people calling in from another planet and culture that just cannot grasp. host: that was matt. former president trump was at a rally in aurora, colorado. here he is talking about his proposed nationwide effort to

target suspected members of immigrant criminal gangs. [video clip] >> upon taking office we will have an operation aurora at a federal level. [cheering] to expedite the removal of these savage gangs, and i will invoke the alien enemies act of 1798. 1798. this was put there. this is a long time ago, right? to target and dismantle every megan -- every migrant criminal network. who would've ever thought that a president or future president would have to stand here and say such things. who would think that is even possible to do. so many things are changing in the last four years. that is the state of our country after kamala harris and joe

biden destroyed our country. we are a country and tremendous distress. we are a failing country and we are left out all over the world. we will send elite squads to hunt down arrest or deport any last illegal alien gang member until there is not a single one left. and if they come back, into our country they will be told it is an automatic 10 year sentence in jail with no possibility of parole. [cheering] and i am hereby calling for the death penalty for any migrant that kills an american citizen or a law enforcement officer. [cheering] [end video clip] host: a couple of programming notes. former president trump will be

speaking with latino voters in a roundtable in las ves, nevada today. live for cerage at 4:00 p.m. stn on c-span, c-span now and the free video app or li at c-span.org. he is also goingo making an appearance in coachella, california. you can follow c-span for coverage of that event as well. also i wanted to let you know at 1:00 p.m. this afternoon, the 2024 republican vice esential nominee jd vance will be at a raleigh -- a rally in johnstown, pennsylvania and you ca watch that on c-span, our app or c-span.org. josephine in new jersey on the independent line. that morning. caller: good morning. i want to talk frontline on

public television. frontline has been on almost 50 years, longer than c-span. and suddenly they had two programs on. one was on the vice presidency, he choice. and the other one was on the president. i wish everybody would take the time to look at it because warts and all, they present to you each individual, where they came from and what they stood for. it is sad that we are at a point of misinformation and nobody wants to acknowledge it. simply there was a news report that finland of all places does not have this problem and i thought they do not have this problem? and they said no, we teach in school not to go to social networks because social networks lie. they are all propaganda and

these children when they are taught they do not have a problem with misinformation. no wonder they are that happy country in the world. i am beginning to think that finland has an answer that we do not adhere to. the other thing, when we removed -- when both parties were about to present the issue, we removed the truthfulness to an issue. i had a cousin who said to me you know, who knows about project when he 25 -- project 2025. and i said the organization behind it was the heritage that everybody who wrote it came from trump's cabinet. i mean, every single one who wrote it came from trump's cabinet. if you do not understand what is going on i am saying you are

going to repeat and it will go on. "mein kampf" was written by hilter and he told you what you would do. and when trump went in 2022 and it is on c-span. he thanked the heritage for writing it for him and would use it for his bible when he went into office. as usual he lied. just now recently when he indicated that he gave covid testing kits to putin, and he said i never did that. guess who said that he did, putin? what else is new? host: i wanted to give you a heads up because you brought up "frontline" and we do have a guest scheduled to join us next week to discuss the new documentary "year of war: israelis and palestinians." you can follow our coverage for more of that. john in california on the

republican line. good morning. caller: how are you? i wanted to call about the supreme court. you know the decisions that the decedent -- that the supreme court makes dealing with the law and constitutional review. i have about 40 years of experience in the community college environment. i was teaching government full-time. i do have background in this. the relationship of the supreme court to the constitution is one of support. and that is spelled out in article six of the constitution. the mechanism where the president vetos things, people need to understand that the world veto does not exist in the constitution. what the president does is review legislation. and what drives the legislation is the first sentence in the

constitution, article one, section one. in that it begins that all legislative power will exist in congress. that is the first sentence. legislative power is the power to write law to revise laws, or to get rid of laws. again, the word all, it means everything. you cannot alter legislation, only congress can do this. how does the supreme court get involved? there is no basis for the supreme court to have that kind of power because in article six they can support the constitution but not interpret it. the person who interprets the constitution's article two. the president or the person who will be president takes an oath, and on completing it

they are the president. in that statement the president says that they will protect, conserve, and defend the constitution. the world defend -- the word defend does not exist anywhere else in the constitution. the way to deal with the supreme court, i think on the part of the president, is to use the same mechanism that he uses on the congress which is if they want to make a statement, they need to have the president review it. and the president does not send a message back to the supreme court, he sends the message to congress and shows his -- and says this position is unconstitutional. and congress can override the president by a two thirds vote. that would bring this whole process of checks and balances to the way it is supposed to operate. that is my $0.02 on it.

host: mike on the line for democrats. good morning. mandy: hello and -- caller: hello and good morning on the segments. i live on the border of new york city. i have never seen a gun in my life, never heard one shot or had one pulled on me. i leave my doors open half the time at light -- at night because i forget to lock one of them. i am not afraid of anything. people drive like idiots. that is the worst thing here. so i would just like to put out a word. we just hit another stockmarket record on friday which is not bad for a bunch of communists. in march joe biden added more jobs than the jobs we lost during covid plus another 8 million. the economy is phenomenal. inflation is down to two

something now which is where it was before covid. the c.h.i.p.s. act and i bring this up to trump people. republicans are going to be taking credit for this for the next 20 years. it is one of the most important pieces of legislation in my lifetime and i am in my 60's. you know, i also have a family member who has dealt with trump since he was 15 years old. and he really has not changed much. he tried to do something to a woman when he was 15 years old. i will not go into it. so, you know, for everybody out there who wants to vote. i am curious. i want to see trump win, to see how bad he destroys the country and the constitution and fda and noaa and everyone else. they get what they deserve.

so, any trump supporter i ever speak to, they have no idea what is going on. they do not know how to pass a bill. they think that the president should be able to snap his fingers and do what they want. host: i will leave it there because i want to get in a couple more calls. melissa in california on the line for independents. caller: i was calling in regards for some of the programs they are running in california. this is to reduce your energy. it has been such a fraud. i have two households, different households and different properties. and this program that they funded to bring down the energy is being run by all of these people who are undocumented. and my bills had gone up. and i tested it and they have

told me to call them and have them turn it back around. so all of these programs that are being run, people need to be aware that it is all of a -- it is all a scam. i wanted to let people know. host: peewee in virginia, line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: yes. i wanted to say that my issue with trump is morality. jd vance told people to go to hell. i am not to go -- i am not going to vote for a man who tells you to go to hell. on the morality part. the morality part is, and the insurrection.

did he think it was the democrats or republicans who had these people actually going to the hill. whether we are white or black. i am the cofounder of a group in northern virginia. it is interracial from high school and it is called the brotherhood. what kind of brotherhood has mr. trump shown in anything. women are the morals foundation. and from -- and saying we are the party of

abraham lincoln. come on. host: we got your point and we have to leave it there because we are out of time. next we are going to be joined by paul glastris who is going to discuss his recent reporting on what he refers to as the overlooked demographic of state college voters. we will be right back. ♪ >> american history tv, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. near gorsuch and a former law clerk talk about the founding ideals of democracy, liberty and equality and a congressional gold medal ceremony honoring the african-american women who

worked at nasa's computer pools. one of their achievements was helping calculate the apollo 11 mission that sent men to the moon. watch historic presidential elections, exploring what made them historic, the pivotal issues of different eras and a lasting impact on the nation. next the election of 1948 when harry truman defeated thomas dewey in 1948 to win a full term for the white house. and on lectures in history, jamie myers on southeast native american tribes during the 18th century and the impacts of colonialism, american resolution -- revolution and the emergency of the united states. and then angela beauchamp looks at how eleanor roosevelt used television to promote her social causes. watch american history tv every weekend and find a full schedule

on your program guider tch online any time at c-span.org/history. >> booktv, every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 7:30 p.m. eastern speak with kirk cameron for our about books, -- broadcast when he talks about "born to be brave" on american culture and faith and he discusses a series of children's books and his experience hosting story hours. at 9:00 p.m., tammy bruce the author of "fear itself" argues that liberals sphere her as a political and social weapon and suggests ways for conservatives to respond. at 10:00 p.m. eastern, rigid schulte examinethe future of work and how to better align

workplace culture with the needs of american workers in her book "overwork." and connie chung shares her memoir about her life and rear as journalism serving as the first woman to cohost the cbs evening news. watch booktv every sunday on c-span2, and find a full schedule on your program line or watch anytime online at booktv.org. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us now is paul glasis, the editor and chief of "washington monthly" and we will discuss his story on state college voters and how it could impact campaign 2024. welcome to the program. i want to show you that headline from your article, the overlooked demographic that is a huge opportunity for democrats

and you look at what you call state college voters. explain who you are talking about. guest: so, your viewers probably know that the big demographic shift happening politically in the country is called the diploma divide between voters who do not have a college degree and those that do. that is an important trend. but 60% of americans have a college degree or -- a community college degree or spent some time in college. that is a big chunk of people who are college-educated to some extent. and there are big differences in that group and that is what this article is about. the most -- the biggest percentage of bachelors degrees come from what they call regional public universities. these are colleges that typically have state in their name. or the location of the college.

say, northern illinois university. or you know washington state. and they are, 45% of degrees come from there. they tend to be open access. do not need the highest sats to get in and they tend to be reasonably priced. only 5% of voters come from the elite colleges, harvard and yale and so forth. but the press and political consulting class tends to group them together. and politically and culturally, graphically there are big differences between the colleges that most people go to and the colleges that national media and political step -- political class and thanks that people went to because they went there. either party really can take advantage of this class of voters that i coined the state college voters but i think that

the democrats are better positioned. host: when you say that they are overlooked, all of these college-educated voters are lumped in, but why in particular is this demographic, that specific demographic overlooked. guest: partly for the reason i said, that we tend to thanks that all colleges are the same. me give you an example. the gaza protest that happened and are still happening a little bit but happened big-time in the spring and summer, overwhelmingly they happened at the 5% of elite colleges. very rarely did any of those happen at the community colleges or the regional public universities. and yet if you were to read the media you might think that they are everywhere. i will give you another example. five points -- at columbia university there are six liberal students for every one conservative student.

at the university of texas el paso it is to-one. these colleges still lean liberal but less so. for the most part, people who go to regional public universities are from the area and get their degrees and more or less stay within a commuting distance of where they grew up and build their lives there. at the elite colleges people come from elsewhere and they go to basically big cities. so the demographics are different. the attitudes that people have are different. and yet, there is not data out there to help reporters and others understand those differences. host: why don't pollsters focus on that specific demographic? guest: that is a good question and i asked them about it and they say you are probably right. one told me people do not think they are members of this group.

if you said -- if i said to you you went to a regional public university, even though you went to one you might not know the term. so, it is hard to poll someone that does not know they are a member of the group. but i think that mostly they have a look and a thought that this is a distinct group but there is a tendency to lump everyone who went to college in the same group and everyone who did not go to college in the same group and there is a big difference. host: when we look at typically the republicans might say liberal college-educated, when we hear that, is there a -- do we know and is that something that they would like to look at for who that specific demographic is actually supporting when it comes to voting? guest: look. there are plenty of republicans with college degrees and plenty of democrats do not -- who do

not have college degrees. the trend is for the former to move to the democrats and the latter to remove the republicans but there is still room for both parties. tim walz when he introduced himself at the democratic convention of chicago, the first thing he said was i grew up in a small town with 24 members of my house school class and none of them went to yale. that was a clear day get jd vance. he was trying to portray vance as the elite and he, tim, as the regular guy. and he has done it a couple of times instead. that is kind of what i am talking about. that is an ear for the differences. what we have in this particular race is on the democratic side both walz and kamala harris, and their spouses attended regional public universities or the equivalent and on the republican

side you have jd vance with a yale degree and donald trump with a university of pennsylvania degree. so we have the first all ivy league republican ticket in history. that is a kind of thing that could be played on, and whether they do or not or recognize it i do not know. host: we are talking with paul about his article, looking at state college voters. if you have a question or comment you can start calling in now. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. paul, i want to share some data with you looking at the u.s. population by education level. this is from 2003. the highest level of education for the population age 25 and older as of 22,% had less

an a high school diploma or equivalent. 28% had a high school as the highest level completed. 15 had completedomcollege but not a degree. 10% had an associates degree. 23% had a bachor's degree as their highest and 14% had completed advanced education such as a masters degree, professional degree or doctorate. when we look at those last two numbers, 23 and 14, it is still only about one third of people who have a college degree. is there a misunderstanding about who college-educated voters are we here and the word elite? guest: i think there is. it is that you went to a very selective university and you are

making $400,000 a year and you live in a penthouse apartment in new york. that is different than if you went to southwest missouri state and you make $75,000 or $80,000 a year and you live where i grew up in baldwin, missouri. that is a different voter, different politics and worldview and sense of themselves. they are both college-educated. and you appeal to those folks with different messages. they have different interests and identity is. and i think it is not going to happen in this election. the data is not there and people do not know how to play with it. but the percentage of the country that is college-educated is growing. the percentage of the country that is not is shrinking. over time this is going to be

where the votes are. and you know, political professionals love to slice and dice us into different categories and this will be a category i think at some point, and this is a guess at my point. host: we will start with michael in florida on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i wonder if he would talk a little bit about what he does and why he got interested in this. i have a statement. perhaps you are unaware. i had called earlier and spoken about the issue of textbooks being altered nationwide by our governor, desantis, where he bragged on a video clip i came across of basically bullying all of the textbook publishers into removing what he thought of his woke material.

governor newsom announced that he was investigating that. last week i noticed he had done a tweet with bill nighy the science guy saying the u.s. constitution saying kids have a right to be taught the truth. i'm wondering what those kids are being taught, especially in state colleges, where desantis has put a big effort to ban d.e.i. and all kinds of things. this affects how we view the world and may explain some of the differences between the republicans and democrats at a most basic level. their view of the world is different because children are being taught natural law as being about purely competition. that's factually and scientifically untrue. the constitution says we are supposed to teach the truth. the truth is, cooperation rules in every cell of every living

creature. there is another creature that used to be free living and it formed a symbiotic relationship, our mitochondria, the energy and every one of our cells every living creature comes from. cooperation is the ruler. host: all right, michael. we will get a response from paul. guest: it is not a new story that large states that buy textbooks often have a politics that they demand things that they want in and out of the textbook and all of the rest of the states lined up using most textbooks because the publishers don't want to be writing an individual textbook for vermont or montana or whatever. on how i got interested in this, since 2005 the washington monthly produced an alternative college ranking and we do investigative work on colleges, college finance, policy. this year's issue was devoted to

regional public universities. we think they are the engines of upward mobility in this country in higher education. unfortunately, very much underfunded and underfocused on. that led me to write the article. host: how did your team decide to focus on this regional university and also explain how this year's ranking is different from other rankings that people may see u.s. news college report? guest: u.s. news & world report, the dominant ranking, typically has ranked colleges based on three main criteria. wealth, literally how much a college spends per student. exclusivity, how few students they allow in. and prestige, they do a survey

of college leaders and if those leaders think that you are in an important, great school you are said to be a great school in their metrics. we do a very different set of rankings based on different criteria. instead of wealth, exclusivity, and privilege, we measure upward mobility, the record of a college recruiting and graduating students of modest means with degrees that don't cost too much or lead to too much debt and lead to good incomes. upward mobility research, whether a university is creating the scholars and scholarship that drive economic growth in technology and so forth. and service, whether students are encouraged to vote, serve their country, are they in americorps? a very different set of criteria. there is overlap with the u.s.

news at the top, but to give you a sense of how different we are, only three regional public universities are in the top 100 national universities on the u.s. news ranking. 16 are in the top 100 of hours. our attempt to highlight more the colleges that most people go to, and u.s. news highlights the elite colleges. host: if you would like to look at the ranking that washington monthly did, you can find it at washingtonmonthly.com. it is a different kind of college drinking. next, cheryl in south carolina on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a 40-your educator, in particular a historian, and i listen to c-span every morning to hear the perspectives in america.

i am a little concerned. the pew research on various groups and how they tend to lean, one of them was obviously the educated tend to lean democratic, as paul said, but i'm interested in knowing, how are the educated evangelicals polling or leaning? what poles are they leaning towards? democratic, republican? that is an interesting question. guest: i don't have a good answer, but i suspect it leans very strongly republican, because evangelicals in general lead that way -- lean that way. host: i wanted ask another question of this headline, harris overtakes tom among suburban voters. poll showing what does the overlap of state college voters and suburban voters look like? guest: is very much the same group.

that's who probably disproportionately lives in the suburbs. a little less than half of everyone who is college educated comes from these regional public universities. another 20% or 30% come from either colleges that are not super elite and those are the people who, for the most part, inhabit suburbs. host: mark in little river, south carolina on the republican line. caller: good morning. what i want to say is, we need a college of common sense. there is no college of common sense these days. if you look at the professors, they are very liberally taught in the universities. if you actually look at the vice president that's running, her father was teaching marxism economics in stanford university.

this is what these kids are learning. i don't even know if they go to school anymore because they are too busy protesting. i'm just making that statement and i hope people learn the college of common sense. i went to a college. i went to a good parochial college. so, thank you and have a good day. host: any response from mark? guest: i don't have much to say. host: when we look at other data on college-educated voters, like gender and race, these graphics are from the census. 36.2% of men completed a bachelors degree or higher. race, this is by population. 48.1% of white, 28.6% of black,

58.9 percent of asians, 29% of hispanics had college degrees in 2020. to those demographics play into who the state college voter is? guest: part of the battle between the harris and trump campaigns are for the white vote. it's closer than you think. people tend to think, the republicans have won the white vote. they do edge them out, but it's not like all college-educated people vote for democrats. there are plenty of republicans in that camp who are college-educated. i think one of the questions is, does college-educated swing

voters, my understanding is, don't take easily to conspiracy theories and bashing of the educated. that is getting to their identity. that's uncomfortable for them. what i think is happening is donald trump and his campaign are going all in for the high school vote, may be missing some of these college voters. i think that the harris campaign is understanding that the college vote, the numbers are shifting wildly in their direction. whether they understand the class elements, i don't know. host: something that you mentioned earlier is the fact that the current gop ticket is the first all ivy league educated ticket. when you look at who the gop traditionally had gone after, voters, the working class, is that a turnoff when they pushed

aside these elites? guest: again, everything is potential here. i don't think either party has understood that in the broad middle of the country are college-educated voters who do not consider themselves elites. it is kind of a working-class college-educated group. people who grew up working-class. who didn't have a lot of money growing up, who went to the least expensive college nearest where they live, probably had to work during college to help cover the tuition, stuck around where they grew up, very proud of their communities. they hear people with fancy degrees talking about how smart they are and cool the places are where they live, and these folks from the regional public

universities think that their snobs -- they are snobs. there is that. i'm painting with a broad brush, but i have family like this. there is nothing more potent in politics than a group that has both reasons to be proud and aggrieved at the way they are being treated and someone sees them for the first time. think of reagan democrats in the 1980's or unmarried women in the 2000 or the double negatives today. once those groups existed and no one thought of them. they think that this is a coherent group even though they don't think of themselves as a group, and you can begin messaging and doing policies for their consumption. i think the regional public university group is such a group . in five or 10 years there will be politics around it. host: virginia, the line for

democrats, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well, go ahead. caller: i am in woodbridge, virginia. i have a comment for college education people, public, in america. i don't think 60% of americans are well educated, i think 1% or 2%. they never -- they never asked the right question. for example taxes. if someone gets $10 per hour, if they pay taxes, through tax, sales tax, gas tax, they have two dollars left. 40% tax, every time you buy something he pays tax. the money goes back to the

government. the people in america, food, shelter, anything, college-educated people know as the right question so i think only 1% or 2% of the public are educated, not 60%. are you sure 60% of americans are college-educated? that is the question for you. guest: 60% have some college or a degree. given how educated they are, this gentleman has a different opinion. host: mary in washington on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning tammy and paul i think it is glastris? did you say that you went to washington university? host: i did. go cougs. caller: i have three and my

family. did you have to drive over the mountain pass? host: i sure did. caller: we paid off our student loans, my husband and i. my point is, i'm concerned about all of the studies and interest in young voters. our daughters, they go by what we told them. they signed their ballots and filled them out with us standing there. i don't understand how we can let people who support hamas vote in our country. it really disturbs me, and i think that if you are under 24 you shouldn't have to vote. i don't want you deciding who is running our country at all. that is my comment. guest: the constitution disagrees with her, but yeah. host: mark in fort lauderdale,

florida on the line for democrats, good morning, mark. caller: hello, good morning. thank you very much for washington journal. i am a product of state colleges. i grew up in cincinnati, ohio, which originally the university of cincinnati was a city college. the year that i entered it and became a state college. -- it became a state college. i'm enthusiastic and supportive of state colleges. laura -- florida i think has the second-most state colleges in the state. i mean, in the country. you had a caller earlier complaining about desantis and what he done to some of the textbooks and such, but the fact of the matter is florida's state colleges have been under assault by republicans for years and years and years. among other things, going back a while, florida state, a lot of

money was donated for buildings or a college of certain things. in return, they wanted control over who worked in those things. who the professors were. also, along the way, florida somehow seems to have colleges like a retirement system for politicians. every time that a politician retires he somehow ends up with the job in a four to state college, running it as the president or whatever the top guy's name is nowadays in those things. even more recently, the university of florida, which is our number one state college, at one time, ben sasse, they appointed him the head of that college. a politician from nebraska somehow becomes a florida college president. he had to resign recently over

some problems and that sort of thing. also, not too long ago, one of our other colleges, a republican lawmakers who was arrested for imitating a law-enforcement officer somehow became the president of that college under desantis. the comments that you have gotten about colleges are liberal, the professors are all liberal, i've never accepted that argument. students may become liberal because they are being taught that you can be open-minded. someone called you earlier complaining about the vice president's father worked teaching communism in stamford. stanford is not a state college. it is a private college. in fact, it is notoriously conservative. a lot of the stuff doesn't make sense. it has been a long-term project

of republicans and conservatives to attack the college system and that is basically it. i would like to hear what your guest has to say about it. guest: there is no question that under ron desantis, the governor of florida, he has had an agenda to shift the colleges from the left to the right. he took over new college, which was -- washington actually did a story on this. it did fine on our rankings, but in his opinion it was too liberal. it is interesting. florida public colleges, the flagship and the regionals, do well on the washington monthly rankings. states that put money into their higher education system lower the cost of the people can afford to go and run them well

, they tend to do well on our rankings. ford is one of the more successful ones. one other point. public universities, 45% of all bachelors degrees come from there, they get 10% less per student than flagship universities. they don't get as much federal research dollars, they don't have big endowments. compared to the elite private schools, they get a fraction. these are the colleges that are educating the most americans, doing the most good in that sense, and getting the least amount of money. kind of crazy. host: it is something that you talk about in the article. you could potentially see an impact of harris and walz were to win? guest: absolutely. your viewers may recognize that community colleges have kind of become a subject of debate in washington. there have been big pieces of legislation to try to put more emphasis and money on them.

that started under the obama-biden administration. joe biden's wife, jill, teaches at a community college. i think if we ca harris-walz -- see a harris-walz administration we will see focus which hasn't been talked about much at all. host: david in new jersey. good morning, david. guest: thank you. a quick complement and then a criticism. the eastern state universities can't come close to the excellence of the midwestern state universities. i will not belabor all of the names, but the wisconsins, indianas, illinois, the university of columbia, the oldest journalism school in the nation. my other comment is that estimates are about one third of

everybody who goes to the ivy league schools, harvard, princeton, yale and the wannabes like colgate university, they frequently end up in the state department or in their parents' corporations. they are enormously rich. they are from the original new england group. they joined fraternities, they drink, they party, they have nothing to worry about. they are legacy students. thank you for taking my comment. guest: i don't think that that is quite fair. i went to the university of missouri and drank and partied in a fraternity. there is a lot of that out there . it essentially is the case that more selective a school the higher percentage of students from wealthy families. that's just a fact. host: karen in lexington, virginia on the line for democrats. caller: good morning.

i have one simple question. when did the university of pennsylvania become an ivy league school? guest: good question. founded by ben franklin, and it has been a private university from the beginning. so, it has been as long as the ivy league has been around it has been part of it. host: charlie from texas on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, charlie, you are on. caller: i would like to ask, do they have any studies where smaller state colleges, how effective they are in the state teacher college systems that you have in some states. how effective they are? guest: you can go to washington monthly, washingtonmonthly.com,

and look at colleges with state in their name by zach marcus, and it has fascinating data that says -- most state colleges are not 20,000 or 30,000 students. most are smaller. because of what i was saying before, regional public universities draw their students from about a 100 mile radius of the campus. 80% or 90%, 70%, of the students settle in that area. they have a better return on investment for state taxpayers than the flagship universities. the universities of michigan s are not as good of a deal for taxpayers as grand valley state in grand rapids.

you are educating people, they are making more money, they are staying in the area, and they are contributing their time and efforts cynically. -- efforts civiclly. i hope that answers the question. host: there were a lot of different breakdowns of different types of degrees, the best and worst schools for that particular degree. what kind of response have you gotten from that polling? guest: overwhelmingly people love our rankings. they especially love our best bang for the buck rankings where we are only looking at the part about upward mobility. we say, the family at median income and below, how do the colleges treat them? what kinds of incomes are they making later? what debt are they carrying?

we break that down by region. a lot of great colleges that probably a lot of people haven't heard of dominate the top 20% or 30% of the list. i would say if you are a parent or a student, any of those colleges in our washington monthly's best bang for the buck list will be a good place for your tuition dollars. host: looking at the 2024 rankings for the northeast, to your point of some of them may not be known, the number one is the massachusetts institute of technology. most people would be familiar with that. but charter oak state college in connecticut came in next. guest: the state university of new york colleges, the city university of new york colleges, they are doing a better job, under our measures, then a lot of the fanciest schools. you can get into the schools for

certainly under $10,000, sometimes $5,000 a year. that is still a lot of money for people, but if you look at the worst on the lists, you would be shocked to see what they are charging and how little you make when you get out of college. host: michael in texas on the line for republicans, good morning. caller: hello. host: go ahead, michael. you are on. caller: you can hear me, ok. i only need about 30 seconds. my wife and i were going to galveston, but i only need 30 seconds. if someone out there can really help us. first of all -- this has been going on for years. the university of phoenix has demolished my life. -- my wife. they never really told her the

price -- sorry if i get emotional about this, but goodness. this has ability to -- oblivia ted us. my wife, heidi, a lot of you already saw -- anyways, i put her through college. she wanted to stay with the library system. i helped her through college. they billed us for $78,000 and they also went after the military too with us./ anyways, after she got done, they gave her the wrong degree. when she went back to the library after covid. anyways, her kids, as some of you already know -- host: can you summarize your

comment, we are running out of time. caller: anyways, they added a $200,000. this is what they are doing to us. anyways, i just wanted to make that comment. it went from $78,000 to over $200,000. host: i got your point, michael. guest: yes, there are very bad universities out there. my guess is if you look at the bottom of our ranking some of the university of phoenix campuses fall in there. we have a best and worst graduate programs, colleges for grad degrees. the first time we've done that using data that has never been used before.

again, the pattern is the same. a lot of the for-profits do not do well. a lot of the most prestigious colleges do not do well. our alma mater, you and i both graduated from northwestern, grad degrees, it does terribly in certain -- they have a counseling degree that leaves people with 178,000 dollars in debt for jobs that pay $55,000. 55 miles away in aurora where president trump just spoke, you can get more or less the same degree for 1/6 the amount of debt and make more money. the same with yale. a yale nursing degree costs more than $150,000 a year and pays less than a degree from a regional public university like the university of texas el