a few more calls. catherine, vermont, democrat. caller: hi, good morning, everyone. i have a comment further caller who called in a few calls ago, the self-appointed snap recipient, food czar for massachusetts who said they could not afford the food that snap recipient people were getting. just to comment. one, who are they to say what snap recipients should and should not be able to purchase? two, i stead of being upset with snap recants and what they are able to purchase, be upset with corporations who are responsible for inflation and who charge $10 and $6 for milk and eggs.

redirect that energy to the right people. not low-income people who are snap food recipients. thank you. have a wonderful thursday, america. host: up next in georgia, republican line, go ahead. caller: we have two issues we are voting for. only two. we know food is expensive, gas is expensive, and people can have abortions whenever they want to. that's not important as the two issues that we are voting. we are voting for people -- people are voting for kamala because they don't like trump's rhetoric. they can't stand what he says. host: you's a republican are going to vote for vice president harris. caller: people are voting for trump because they want that border closed. we have brought in a whole state of people, maybe over 10 million people. host: go ahead. caller: we have brought in over 10 million people.

that's another state of people. and those people that voted for trump just concerned about the border. they don't want that to continue. and then there is against the border if we keep it that way we'll have a little bit more peace with each other those are the only two reasons we are voting. i. host: khraeurl lynn out of georgia. georgia judge blocking the controversial ballot hand count rule from going into effect before the november election. writing that the last-minute requirement for thousands of election workers was, quote, too much too late. and with lead to administrative chaos. placing that temporary hold on the rule, the judge invoked the memory of january 6, 2021 attack on the capital, suggesting the new rule was particularly dangerous in its high temperature aftermath. this election season is fraught memories of january 6 have not faded away. regardless of one's view of that date's fame or infamy, anything

that adds uncertainty and disorder to the electoral process disservices the public. go to willie in maryland, democrats line. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i had a comment to the black voters. if you think that d. trump think differently about you than he feel about the haitians in ohio, i would sell you oceanfront property in arizona for $500. that's all i have to say. host: alan up next. in south carolina. independent line. caller: yeah. i was trying to get the guy talking about lies. my question was the immigration. i keep hearing 10 million people. five million people. a million people come across the border. but i'm not really worried about the border. i think it's a political issue. host: ok. caller: my question --

host: go ahead. caller: i wanted to know how many people actually came across and remind people that reagan opened the border because we didn't have enough people to work in america. that's my point. host: ed is next. in pennsylvania, democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. when i first started college back in the 1960's, the government professor said, don't put the politicians, don't put the social security money in the general fund. since then as i journeyed through my life here, i found out that the social security money is going away. we are not -- it's not -- it's

not accumulating funds. it's not getting bigger. are you still there? host: yeah. you are concerned about the fuhr of social security. caller: yes. i think they put it in a general fund. and it disappeared. i'd like to know which politicians put it in the general fund. put social security money in the general fund. host: ed there in pennsylvania. hear from nancy in florida, republican line. caller: yes. good morning. i appreciate taking the call. i really like thomas being on. wanted to let you know that we should not discourage or be afraid of talking about abortion. as far as republicans are concerned. when you have d.n.a., genes and chromosones, the scientific

facts are there. and if you don't understand scientific facts of how the growth of a child unborn is there, then you don't have any right to tell people, let's kill this baby. i understand pro-life has always been for the woman's safety as well as health, as well as an unborn child. if we want to have a human being just as valuable as anyone else, we have to do this. and recognize the importance of human life. otherwise we can discard anybody as they did in hitler's time. host: nancy in florida finishing off the round of calls in this open forum. thank you for all of you participating. as we told you, the international monetary fund sets a forum take ago look at the global economy and i.m.s. role in it. that's going to be on c-span2

starting a few minutes from now. as always if you miss it on c-span2 watch it on our free video app and the dot-org as well. that's it for today. "washington journal" continues at 7:00 tomorrow morning. we'll see you then. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy visit ncicap.org] ♪ >> c-span is live at the headquarters of the international monetary fund in washington, d.c. just waiting for remarks from the managing director, kristalina georgieva, on the global economy and the i.m.f.'s priorities. she's expected to speak and have a fireside chat with reuters'

andrea. expecting this to get under way shortly on c-span. andrea: we are expected to announce kristalina georgieva to give a curtain speech. i'm andrea from reuters and delighted to be here today to introduce a woman that needs no introduction. particularly not in her own house. ill deit for the audience out there. masai ujiri began her second year -- kristalina georgieva began her second year term at the i.m.f. month. she's the first woman to head the global herseth sandliner and the second woman to run this institution which is celebrating its 80th anniversary this year. the first of many, we won't go through them all. she was the first bulgarian to ever visit fiji.

she calls herself an unwavering optimist. took months before the covid-19 pandemic and i remember well how she spoke out at a g20 meeting in riyadh, saudi arabia in february, 2020. about the potential devastating consequences of the disease that was just starting. a scourge that ultimately has claimed over something like seven million lives to date. at that time in those very early days, other finance officials were down playing the risks. we know what happened. and the i.m.f. played a crate cal role in shaping the world's response. since the pandemic, the i.m.f. has provided about $1 trillion in liquidity and finance for its 190 members, soon-to-be 191. she brings a different perspective to this job of running the i.m.f. than her predecessors. that reflects her experience. she grew up in pwaoupbist bulgaria behind the iron curtain

and knew what it meant to experience the depravations of that system. she exspao*erpbsed firsthand the impact of str-bg taourl reforms -- of structural reforms. she wanted to study journalism was accepted into -- but that was difficult to get into. but eventually was accepted into bulgaria's institute of economics. and quickly embraced the discipline as a useful way to understand and interpret our complicated world. it was like serendipity. she studied french but went to britain. later -- learning there about market economies. writing the first textbook on microeconomics in bulgaria. then working at the world bank. then at the european commission. returning to the world bank to be its c.e.o. and since 2019, october 1, she's been the managing director here. just across the street. just across the street.

from the world bank. under her leadership, i think many of you in the room were here when she greeted people here, under her leadership the i.m.f. has adopt add first ever climate strategy sustained its first term -- first long-term lending instrument, the resilience and sustainability trust, and last year the i.m.f. increased its quota shares to member countries by 50% on an equitable proportion at basis. it add add third sub-saharan african chair to the i.m.f. board. and as you know, she's raised her voice for gender equality. one of the first events that she did upon taking over was a very large and well attended panel on gender. she's called for greater attention to climate change. despite the responsibility she holds still manages to spend time with her grandchildren, grand taught earn grandson. i'm honored to introduce her now to present a curtain raiser for

next week's annual meeting for i.m.f. and the world bank. please welcome, kristalina. [applause] kristalina: thank you. thank you, andrea. very kind words. good choice to sit down with the audience because when i speak we will have a chance to see visually some of the points i make and you are very well seated to do so. five years ago in this very hall i delivered my first curtain raiser as head of the i.m.f. at that time my main concern was

sin kron niesed -- sin kron nien growth. only months late it paled in comparison with the sudden shock of the pandemic, followed by other dramatic events, the tragic wars in ukraine and the middle east, the cost of living crisis, and further fracturing of the global economy. next week, the world's finance ministers and central bank governors will converge here to reflect on where we are, where we are headed, and what to do about it. i would like to offer you a preview of what this conversation is likely to be. tpeurbgs, we will cherish the

good news. rightly so, because we haven't had much of it lately. the big tkpwhraoebl inflation -- inflation wave -- the big global inflation wave is in retreat. a combination of resolute monetary policy action, easing supply chain constraints, and moderating food and energy prices is guiding us back in the direction of price stability. and this has been done without tipping the global economy into recession and large-scale job losses. something we saw during the pandemic, and after past inflation episodes, and which many feared we would see again. but we didn't. both in u.s. and your area labor markets we see taking these two examples, we see cooling in an

orderly manner, and let's pause and recognize this is a big achievement. where did this resilience come from? answer, from strong policy and institutional foundations built over time and from international policy corporation as countries learn to act fast and act together. we are benefiting from central bank independencecy in advanced economies in many emerging markets, we are benefiting from years of reforms in banking. from progress made in building fiscal institutions. and progress made in capacity development worldwide. but this fight the good -- despite the good news, don't

expect any victory parties next week. for at least three reasons. one, inflation rates may be falling but the higher price level that we all feel in our wallets is here to stay. families are hurting. people are angry. advanced economies saw inflation rates at once in a generation highs. and that memory is not going to be erased rapidly. so did many emerging market economies. look at how bad the situation was for low-income countries. at the country level and at the level of individuals inflation always hits the poor the

hardest. true. even worse, we are in a difficult geopolitical environment. we are all very worried about the expanding contpwhreubgt in the middle east -- conflict in the middle east and potential to destabilize regional economies and global oil and gas markets. alongside the prolonged wars in ukraine and wars elsewhere, it's heartbreaking. and it is harming confidence in the world economy. and on top of it all, this is happening at the time when our forecasts point to an unforgiving combination of low growth and high bet. a difficult future. let's take a closer look.

median term growth is forecast to be lackluster. not sharply lower than prepandemic, but far from good enough. not enough to eradicate world poverty, nor to create the number of jobs we require, nor to generate the tax revenues that governments need to service the heavy debt loads while attending to vast investment needs, including for the green transition. this picture is made more troubling by high and rising public debt. way higher than before the pandemic. even after the brief but significant fall in debt to g.d.p. as inflation lifted

tphoplal g.d.p. -- nominal g.d.p. do please notice the shaded area on this chart. what it shows is that in severe but plausible adverse scenario, that could climb some 20 percentage points of g.d.p. above our baseline. what does it mean for fiscal space? to answer this question let's look at the share of government revenue consumed by interest payments. this is where high debt, high interest rates, and low growth come together. because it is growth that generates the revenue governments need to function and invest. as that increases, fiscal space

contracts. disproportionately more in low-income countries. not all debt burdens are made equal. and fiscal space keeps shrinking. just look at the frightening evolution of the interest to revenue ratio over time. we can immediately see how the tough spending choices have become tougher with with higher debt payments hanging on our heads. schools or climate. digital connectivity or roads and bridges. this is what it comes down to. making this tough choices. and to make matters worse, we

are living deeply troubled times. the peace event from the end of the cold war that andrea talked about, i experienced the colder side of it, is increasingly at risk. in a world of more wars and more insecurity, defense expenditures may well keep rising while egg budgets fall further behind the growing needs of developing countries. not only is development assistance too small, but major players driven by national security concerns are increasingly resorting to industrial policy and protectionism. creating one trade restriction after another. going forward trade will not be the same engine of growth as

before. it is the fracturing i warned of back in 2019, right from this very place. except it is worse. it is like pouring cold water on already luke warm world economy. what is my message today? my message today we can do better as the president of the world bank across the street often says, forecastses are not destiny. there is plenty we can and must do to lift our growth potential, reduce that, and build a more resilient world economy. let me start with actions domestically.

actions at home. governments must work to reduce that and reveal buffers for the next shock, which will surely come and make come sooner than we expect. budgets need to be consolidated. credibly. yet gradually in most countries. this will involve difficult choices on how to raise revenues and make spending more efficient while also making sure that policy actions are well explained to earn the trust of the people. here is the problem, though. fiscal restraints, let me ask you -- have you seen fiscal restraint ever popular? yeah, we are going to have fiscal restrain. it is not popular, as a new paper by i.m.f. staff shows, it is only getting harder.

so this is what we learned. across a wide sample of countries political discourse increasingly favors fiscal expansion. even the traditionally fiscally conservative political parties are developing a taste for borrow to spend. fiscal reforms are not easy, but they are necessary. and they can enhance opportunity and inclusion. and we know from experiencing countries they actually can be done with political will they can be done. when we look at the medium term where is the key? the key's growth to deliver jobs, tax revenues, fiscal space, and that sustainability. very simple. the solution to low growth, high bet is high growth. soy when i go any place tkpweu

what i hear is this aspiration, can we get our growth potential up? can we create more opportunities? the question is how. answer, we know it. focus on reforms. and we recognize there is no time to waste. first area of reforms, make job markets work for people. we confront a world of deeply uneven demography. surging young populations in someplaces. aging societies elsewhere. economic migration can help. but only up to a point. given the anxieties in many countries. so, too, could supportive steps to help get more women into the workforce. but the most critical task is

reforms to enhance skill sets and match the right people with the right jobs. second area, mobilized capital. there is abundance of it globally. plenty of money, but oven not in the right places or right types of investments. just think of all the money from all corners of the globe poured into liquid but less productive assets in a few measured financial centers. putting savings to work for maximum economic benefit requires policymakers to focus on eliminating barriers such as weak investment environments, shallow capital markets, and financial sector oversight must not only ensure stability and resilience, but also encourage

phraoudent -- prudent risk taking and value creation. by the way a message also for us at the front. third area, enhanced productivity. this is what yields more output per unit of input, and there are many ways to raise it from improving governments and institutions to cutting red tape, to harnessing the power of artificial intelligence. more and better spending on education and r&d. among advanced economies, those that lead on innovation show what works. venture capital industries, ecosystems that bring not only financing but knowledge, advice, and professional networks, screening new ideas, identifying winners, feeding them from birth to graduation. and these lessons can be learned by everyone.

what we have seen over the last eight years, tragically, is that the pace of reform has been slowing since the global financial crisis as this content has risen -- as discontent has risen. progress is possible. we have a new study that shows that resistance to reforms is oven driven by beliefs and misperceptions about the reforms thisselves, as well as the -- themselves, as well as the distributional effects of these reforms. how can we best develop them? well, two way dialogue with the public. with measures to mitigate the impact of those who risk losing out. we have learn how much this matters over the last years. and as policymakers pursue reforms at home, they also need to look outward. there is so much countries can

do together as members of the integrated economic community. each benefiting from its own comparative advantage. each benefiting from the forces of technology, trade, and capital mobility that have delivered an incredible degree of interconnectedness. yet we still live in a mistpr*uls fragmented world where national security has reason to the top of the list of concerns for many countries, has risen for many understandable and good reasons. this has happened before. but it never happened at the time of such economic co-dependency. my argument is that we must not allow this reality to become an excuse to do nothing to prevent further fracturing of the global economy. quite the opposite. my appeal during this annual

meetings will be, let's work together in an enlightened way to lift our collective prospects. let us not take the global tensions as given, but rather resolve to work to lower the geopolitical temperature and attend to the task that can only be tackled together. trade, which has lowered price, improved quality, created jobs. and is still showing remarkable resilience in the face of new barriers often flowing around them via third countries. but we need to recognize redirection can only take us that far and we cannot assume it will continue indefinitely. so we have to get on the page of protecting what works well in

our trade system. second, and this one is truly existential, climate. countries that contribute the least are the most negatively impacted. unexpected global warming moving actually faster than we thought. you read every book and it says, oops, we were wrong, it is worse. glaciers melting, icecap crumbling, average weather events have telegraphed a frightening message from the future. we know what we must do. create fiscal space for the green transition, eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, get capital to where it is most needed. and three, artificial intelligence. our single best shot at higher

productivity. if it is managed well, it has the potential to lift world growth by up to 0.8 percentage points. with that alone we are likely to not only reach our prepandemic higher average growth, but even potentially exceed it. yet what we need is, we need regulatory and ethical kouls that are global. why global? a.i. is borderless. it's already on smart phones everywhere. i have a question for you, how many of you have chatgpt on your phones? raise your hand. how many of you don't have it? ok. there is some way to go. but it is not going away. this technology is not going away. those of you who have not raised your hands. go ahead, catch up. bottom line is that there are

areas where we need to work together. sometimes we need to relearn to work together. and we at the i.m.f., we are born from this basic idea, pull resources, everybody's better off. we have a role to play. andrea has already mentioned in my first term it was anything but boring. it was a really hard time. and we had done a lot. we have injected historically high liquidity, you mentioned this number, more important than the money, we kept our membership together so they can synchronize policy action at the time of very high uncertainty. and now we are in the first days of my second term we deliver, again. our executive board in full

consensus, not a single abstention, approved important reforms that reinforce our strong financial position and directly benefit the membership. reducing charges and surcharges on our regular lending, putting in place a comprehensive package to secure our concessional lending capacity to support low-income countries. i see quite a number of people who have worked on that. bernard, jayla. it was a very heavy lift, but it got done. andrea mentioned we are going to have a third board member for sub-saharan africa. i can disclose that this new chair will be held by ko coat desroeur -- by cote d' ivorie. what they do is give us strength to continue to deliver high

value added to a membership that engages not out of charity but self-interest. and it is this value that brought our membership to grow. now we are welcoming very warmly the principality of liechtenstein as our could 191st member. as our 191st member. so when i go back to the founding in the dark days of 1944 to today, what we have established is is a tradition of adapting to the changing world around us. and today you have my word this will continue. we will stand with our members, always looking for the most impactful way to serve.

by the time i complete my second term at the hellp of the i.m.f., will i have led it for almost the whole of this decade. if i'm granted one wish, it would simply be this, let this decade be remembered not as one where we allowed conflicts to get in the way of existential tasks, storing up vast costs and misery for those who would follow. let it be remembered as a time when we rose above our differences for the good of all. for our mutual prosperity. and ultimately for our survival. i say, we can do better.

let there be peace on earth, and let corporation flourish. we can do better. thank you. [applause] andrea: thank you so much. now we get a chance to ask questions which is my favorite part. thank you so much for the overview i did want to sort of go into the big picture here. clearly the global economy is facing tremendous uncertainty. you mentioned rising tensions in the middle east where we have seen just dreadful, horrific

pictures in recent days and over the past year. there's russia's ongoing war in ukraine. rising protectionism. the chart was -- seeing the trade restrictions was shocking i have to say. seeing it visualized like that. we are also seeing major devastating weather events. and with increasing frequency. of course, we are here in the united states, we are in an election, many things in just a few week. s. as you prepared for the meeting next week, how worried are you about the global economy and the head winds we face? it seems the challenges are daunting and the risks on the downside. kristalina: this is a very interesting situation we find ourselves to be. because it combines better than expected performance of the world economy and risks to the

downside. so when we are assess ising the situation -- assessing the situation what i want to emphasize is that incredible resilience we have demonstrated, andrea, over the last years and especially in this last year when we were fighting inflation, it does come from years and years and years of investing in strong institutions and also investing in the world having charges of communication, ability to engage. and this investment i don't think is gone. it actually -- we'll see it next week continuing. my expectation is that we will see governors and ministers coming here leaving outside

their differences. the line i would use is leave your trade war out. leave your cold war out. if god forbid you have a hot war, leave it out. and if you have a proxy war, leave it out. and engage on the important policy choices that i just outlined that are very pressing for us. it's a mixed picture when you look at the world just in the couple days we'll come with the growth projections. what we see is -- compared to historical performance, china slowing down, india is accelerating. some other parts of asia are accelerating. u.s. is doing quite well. europe can do better. so in that picture i think the issue with that would dominate

is are we going to right on the opportunities we are presented with by technology and by the instruments of collaboration we have built or we will retreat to a worse position. you heard me, i think, each and every one of us in whatever we do, institution, individually, we have a very important responsibility. i hope the media would take it as well. to work for doing better. and in that sense i'm not super pessimistic because if you look at the trajectory of the world economy, yeah, we can do better, but we can also do much worse. so we will see how the

conversation goes. my expectation is people will leave from here somewhat uplifted, somewhat more scared, hopefully scared to get them into high gear to act. we will do our part to bring get more scared but, hey, there are things you can do. go back home, do them. andrea: that brings me to another question which is you outlined ways policy makers can bolster lackluster growth forecast by improving their situation whether that's through raising taxes, reducing and boosting revenues, reducing debt, enhancing productivity. as your paper shows doing that is hard, really hard to get through. what's your advise when you meet with the -- advice when you meet with the ministers from countries that need to implement those very often painful reforms?

kristalina: two words, buckle up. i lifted a country that has gone through tremendous structural transformation. it is painful but then you reap the benefits from it. when you look around the world, there are shining examples. look at brazil. brazil started in 2017 reforms of the labor market, then they went into tax reforms. value-added tax reforms. what we see from the data is that growth in brazil is boosted by somewhere between 0.3, 0.5%. that is significant. or you look at the performance of india over the years. remarkable. india was a country in the 90's where you can cannot make a step forward because of red tape. everything needs to be permitted. permits require -- they breed

corruption. the country doesn't move. look at india today. it is a bright spot on the world. so the question really is how to generate that determination. then go to work. i would not -- do i not want anybody to -- i do not want anybody to walk oust here thinking it is doom and gloom. it is difficult. but there are actions that have been taken by others, you can do it as well. andrea: ok. i have to say that it's difficult not to be pessimistic or fatalistic about the low growth, high debt conundrum. it seems like it's getting worse. given the high levels of uncertainty, all the risks and geopolitical environment, where do you see opportunities for hope? you mentioned a.i.

how significant of a factor can that be? can we shift the momentum there on this debt issue? kristalina: there are three things that need to be done. in countries that are in situation that is not sustainable, we know what needs to be done. that needs to be restructured. i am encouraged to see speeding up the restructural process, the global sovereign at round table is helping to get consensus on some of the policy issues. ethiopia, if you look at the speed with which ethiopia moved to restructuring vis-a-vis the first country, chad, it is night and day. the second is thing that needs to be done on that is to get governments to think about their fiscal consolidation over time. we worry of too fast tightening

because you have to find this balance between -- are you still supporting growth in the economy but you are getting fiscal consolidation in place. we actually very actively and loudly tell countries, yes, consolidate credibly, but do it over time so you don't suffocate your growth potential. and three, there are *r there are things that can help -- there are things that can help economies to grow. look at the enormous impact of the green transition and digital transformation. it is cutting up parts of the world in way that is just amazing -- powering up parts of the world in a way that's aphaeugz. when i think about the -- my concern around what is going on, the distance between those who

do well and those who don't, unfortunately, is growing. what we used to be in a world of convergence, now we are in a world of divergence. pay attention not only to yourself, pay attention to others. this is where this whole conversation about trade restrictions, industrial policy can play. you throw cold water on the economies of others, guess what? other economies shrinking the pie of which would get smaller. a bit more rational design of policies. this is where the fun comes what we can do is show what are the costs, what are the benefits. in the most transparent way for policymakers to make their mind. again, andrea, we can say, o

god, it's horrible. let's go home and lie in bed and cover our heads and go to sleep. or we can say, this is a tremendous challenge. let's figure it out. andrea: when you -- during your first term you pioneered some work that was important in terms of addressing the needs. you mentioned the r.s.t. and also a global -- helped set up the global round table to sort of help particularly china as the largest creditor, but others. also work through the issues involved with debt restructuring. what's your next initiative? where do you see opportunities, or do you -- kristalina: luckily focus at the fronts right now are three things. number one, make sure that this

soft that this soft landing we talk about actually happens. a fleet of soon-to-be are forgiven. that work with helping countries with monetary policy understanding what needs to be done. but then move the attention to the fiscal side. and help countries in this fiscal consolidation that many of them have to do, do it wisely. do it pro-growth, not growth suffocating. the second one is if you come to the fund almost every day, there is a discussion around growth. structure reforms or growth. how do you lift up productivity? what we can learn from one country to the other? for us yes we are about monetary policy, stability, but let's

remember our articles say for growth and employment. and we are very keen to see that ability of countries to grow enhanced by the support of the fund. and three, we are in a world where the changes technologically are so rapid that we risk new shocks to come for which we have a blind spot. just think about technology affecting financial systems. cross border payments, the way investments are managed. and that area of risk that is financial stability risk for us, for b.i.s., central manx, hugely important. when you ask me what's next for us, i'll tell you, i want the

fund to be financially very strong to anchor our members and lean forward on issues that matter to them. one thing i'm extremely proud we are financially strong, andrea. the fund for years and years and years and years and years had a target for precautionary balances. this is what buffers us against risk in our portfolio. we couldn't reach this target until april this year. for the first time i can say we walk our own talk. we tell countries build buffers, here we are our buffer is really strong. that's how -- i'm not thinking of big initiatives, i'm thinking about doing the police -- business of our membership with agility, speed, and of course quality of the work we do.

andrea: terrific. in advance of this event we asked for some questions. we have got four people that are going to ask questions that were selected. let's start with you, fred. get the microphones to you. >> madam manageling director, thank you for that really remarkable presentation. i want to fred from the atlantic council. i would like to grill down on global trade. your global trade alert, your quote trade will not be the same engine of growth as before. you said that in 2019. you are saying it's worse. my question is is, how much worse is it getting? and you talk about we can do better. wonder if you can get more specific? a lot of countries see it in their self-interest whether it's chinese over capacity exports, whether it's tariffs of the e.u.

or u.s., self-interest sometimes overcomes what you are arguing for which is global trade coming together. where do we start? what changes this trajectory? kristalina: first observation i would like to make, fred, is that trade has slowed down, but has not gone into reverse. when you look at the reason for it, it is primarily this very deep interdependence that has been built over decades. what is important to recognize is that it is now mostly advanced economies that are leading the way on restrictions. in the last 18 months there have been 4,000 industrial policy

measures that impact the free flow of trade. 4,000. 60% of them come from advanced economies. can can we work -- can we work rationally to determine where this is genuinely grounded in national security concerns, or in market failures? yes. the person sitting right next to you, her team just published a guidance on industrial policy. the job for us -- it defines when it is justified, when it is not, how do we measure costs and benefits, and how we build this in our regular surveillance work so we can help countries make decisions in the future that

they are grounded in sound analysis. this is our job. and then comes the reform of the w.t.o. it is not going very fast, but it is also not dead. how can we more momentum be built practically to make the w.h.o. more acceptable for members? and three, i put actually a lot of hope on that. what we see as regional corporation. you have the world cooling off a little bit on global cooperation. but at the same time we see gulf corporation council, countries that are linked by interests, for example some of the commodity producers, we have

seen africa more interest in building africa wide free trade arrangements. how can can we use different pathways to build better prospects for growth on the basis of trade continuing to function although it's not going to be the same engine of growth as it used to be. you the atlantic council, you have also role to play, because you do a lot of this analysis of comparative performance. i think we have to be -- one thing i would advise against is don't take it for granted that oh, well, this is how it is. make the analysis show the arguments, better days will come. but these are the three things. one is make sure people understand the implications of

measures they take. especially industrial policy measures. we can help. make sure that obstacles to the functioning of the global tradecies is tell related to w.t.o. are removed. and look at the other drivers of collaboration and trade especially in regional settings. andrea: let me follow-up on fred's question. we'll go to a few more questions. it occurs to me that when you talk about inflation coming down and prices staying up, it's one of the big drivers of the discontent. isn't the same thing sort of true with trade restrictions that once they are implemented they are really hard to dismantle? going back is always harder. kristalina: one of the main messages of this industrial policy piece i mentioned it says, make it temporary, build

an exit door. don't make it so can you not leave it. you're right, occasionally this is the case. since you mentioned inflation, why are we concerned about trade restrictions and protectionism? actually who pays for it? who pays for tariffs? the businesses and the consumers. mostly in the country that will has created the tariffs. and also what we see is that there is three out of four -- if this is to happen, in three out of four cases there will be retaliation. somebody's going to get hurt because of this. i think our job is to show that you make benefits here but they may be costs there that outweigh this benefits. and help policymakers think through this. andrea: it's not a panacea.

kristalina: no. it is not. there is no silver bullet in very short supply. andrea: terrific. let's take a question from homey from brookings. >> great to see you. >> thank you so much for the overview. you talked about countries worrying about getting growth going again. many countries worry about the impact of comply mat on their growth -- comply mat on their growth and -- climate on their growth. they are worried about build up of debt. i just wanted to ask how do you view how do you balancing -- view

balancing those kind of risks? kristalina: we did a fairly thorough analysis of how to finance mitigation and one obvious conclusion was who cannot borrow your way through this problem. you have to think about and this is why i'm so much emphasizing the purpose of growth. and unless you do that, unless you do that you are in a catch 22. you do not have physical space. and climate shocks are more damaging to you.

what agitates me honestly is that there is so much we know about the way to lift up productivity and growth. do it. our staff said that countries, 15% of the structural measures that are in place here delivering higher productivity for the united states, they can generate just about a percentage point stronger growth in the economy. in a way i would have said, the

answer to your question is engage with the public, create more appetite to guarantee our survival. >> let's go next to rajkumar. >> thank you so much, great to see you. i appreciate the optimistic message. the fragile second state strategy of the imf. you talked about where the low income countries are. half of them are at or near the debt crisis. what does that mean for bilateral going down, that the

debt situation is worse. i know we talk about a soft landing, what is the model for them? kristalina: we are working on a three-pronged approach as we engage with countries that face great difficulties. one is to help them own of the government another policy front, so they advance, they get better. the second one is to mobilize more assistance from others. we take our role to use problems so we can catalyze more funding for these countries and we

recognize that the ultimate difficulty comes from conflicts. what we do is we work with regional structures, we work with other organizations to bring forward solutions to solve these problems. we are not the peace building organizations. we are zeroing in on sudan and countries that need more attention. i must say it is very troubling that you would have a conflict like the one in sudan and it is not one of the top list of stories.

we do what we can to stabilize countries and in some cases there is progress. like in somalia. somalia was seen as difficult, somalia is doing better. but unfortunately the fragile country situation has not gotten in totality better. we give people bonus points because we want to work with those that need our help the most. we work with the bank, we work with regional development banks to support these countries. you are right, they do require all the attention the world can spare. >> let me follow up on that and

then we will take one more question and wrap it up. when you are talking about preparing for the next shock, is it conceivable that the next shock is coming from an area of fragility? generally, the conventional wisdom is that these countries are very relatively small economies that don't impact the global economy, but how do you assess that? kristalina: first, let me say this. i did not quite answer your question, my thinking is to teach us and help our members to think because the unthinkable is going to happen. we are building this muscle so

we anticipate and then we respond quickly and we lean forward to target the most vulnerable. could that be the unthinkable that comes from a small country? of course this is possible. a small country developing terrorist capabilities in a world where drones can go anywhere, yes, a small country can cause big trouble, yes. so, how do you counter that? you make it so countries have opportunities. as many of you know, i was the crisis commissioner. this is what helped me to be a

good managing director because this is what i was wired to do. andrea: let's going now to jordan schwartz, executive vice president, thank you so much, jordan. >> thank you so much. a question about cooperation since that was the call for engagement at the end of your speech. i think over the course of your tenure at the fund, we have watched the institution evolved further from focused traditionally to one evermore concerned with the impact of finance, whether it is climate change or productivity or vulnerability and equity in some of the points you have raised. it brings it closer to the

multilateral banks and ourselves closer to the fund. i was wondering if you could give us a sense of where you see collaboration going across the international financial institution? kristalina: it is very important that institutions do what they do best. for us as the fund, what we are best at is to take the vital signs of each and every economy and identify areas of risks and opportunities for these economies in particular with the risks associated with balance payments. as the world becomes more complex and interconnected, we cannot separate those needs from policy choices countries make.

we have to think about those. and there we find it very useful to partner with organizations that have deeper knowledge. i will give you one example. we have the resilience of sustainability trust to create fiscal space for climate policies, adaptation, mediation. we benefit tremendously from your work, your work of the world bank in understanding what are the key parameters for the climate performance. so then we can draw. for all of us in the financial

institutions, if we are not seen as delivering, the attitudes of society, it is a matter of every single day shown that it is collective assistance. andrea: thank you, everyone. kristalina: and thanks, andrea. [applause] andrea: thank you.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> with 19 days until the election, he a full day of live campaign coverage on c-span. senator jd vance speaks to voters at a rly in pittsburgh live at 12:30 eastern. then at 3:00, governor tim walz is joined by forr esident bill clinton to kick off early voting in north carolina. at 7:15 vice president kamala rr visits green bay wisconsin. also tonight at 9:15 eastern, former president donald trump speaks at the annual alfred e smith memorial foundation dinner, a bipartisan white tie gala tt benefits charities of the ran catholic diocese of new york. you can also watch our live campaign coverage on the free c-span now video app or online

at c-span.org. ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including wow. >> the world has changed. today, fast, reliable internet connection is something no one can live without. we are there for our customers. now more than ever, it all starts with great internet. >> blau. >> wow supportc-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. ♪ >> do you solemnly swear that in the testimony you're about to give will be the full truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? >> weeknights, watch our encore presentation of american history

tv's 10 part series congress investigates as we explore major investigations by the u.s. house and senate in our country's history. we will see historic footage and we will examine the impact and legacy of key congressional hearings. tonight, the house committee of 1993 in 1995 examines events surrounding the deadly siege carried out by the federal government and other law enforcement agencies at the branch davidian, -- compound near waco texas. watch congress investigates tonight at 10:00 etern on c-span2. >> up next, remarks by 2024 democratic presidential nominee and vice presint kamala hars at a campaign event in bucks county, pennsylvania. in the 20 election, presiden biden won the election. the last time a republican won the county was in 1988.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

v.p. harris: good afternoon. good afternoon, pennsylvania. good afternoon, everyone. [applause] good afternoon. bob and christina, thank you so very much for that introduction and for your friendship. as i've said to all the friends and leaders on the stage with me, we had a chance to speak ahead of time, i thank you all for everything that you are doing and the courage you are showing. this is an extraordinary climate right now. and i think we all recognize the courage that you are each showing to speak out so publicly and to put as we are saying because we truly believe of country over party, so thank you all. can we please applaud bob and

christina and all the folks on the stage? please, thank you. [applause] truly. truly. [applause] so, you all have a seat. please do sit. [laughter] so, as i think everyone here knows, we meet in a place that holds very special meaning for our country. here on christmas night 1776, general george washington and over 2000 troops crossed the icy delaware river in darkness. then marched to trenton, where they surprised an outpost of enemy soldiers and achieved a major victory in the american revolution. and after we won the war and achieved our independence,

delegates from across the nation gathered not far from here in philadelphia to write and to sign the constitution of the united states. [applause] that work to write the constitution was not easy because the founders often disagreed, but in the end the including the rule of law, that there would be checks and balances, that we would have

free and fair elections, and a peaceful transfer of power. [applause] principles and traditions have sustained our nation for over two centuries. sustained because generations of americans from all backgrounds, from all beliefs, have cherished them, upheld them, and defended them. and now the baton is in our hands. so i am joined today by over 100 republican leaders from across pennsylvania and across our country. [applause]

who are supporting my candidacy for president of the united states. and i am deeply honored to have their support. some served in statehouses, some in the united states congress, some worked for other republican presidents and presidential nominees, including mitt romney, john mccain, george w. bush, george h w bush, and ronald reagan. [applause] aunt -- and some today served in donald trump's own administration. we also have republican voters from here in pennsylvania and beyond who have been active in their republican party years. who have supported republican candidates up and down the ticket. now, i say all that to make an obvious point. in a typical election year, you all being here with me --

[laughter] it might be surprising and dare i say it, unusual. but not in this election. not in this election. at stake in this race are the democratic ideals our founders and generations of americans before us have fought for. at stake in this election is the constitution of the united states itself. we are here today because we share a core belief. that we must put country before party. [applause] [crowd chanting "usa"]

indeed, and we chance that with such great pride because we all know we have so much more in common than what separates us. [applause] at some point in the career of the folks who join me on stage, one of the other things we have in common is in our careers we have each sworn an oath to uphold the constitution of the united states. [applause] so we know that sacred oath must always be honored and never violated. and that we should expect anyone who seeks the highest office in our land would meet that standard. we hear no the constitution is not a relic from our past, but

determines whether we are a country where the people can speak freely and even criticize the president without fear of being thrown in jail or targeted by the military. [applause] where the people can worship as they choose without the government interfering. [applause] where you can vote without fear your vote will be thrown away. [applause] all of this and more depends on whether or not our leaders honor their oath to the constitution. i have sworn an oath to uphold the constitution six times, including as vice president, as

a united states senator and as the top law enforcement officer of the largest state in our country. [applause] i have never wavered from upholding that oath. this is a profound difference between donald trump and me. he, who violated the oath to uphold the constitution of the united states, and make no mistake, he who, if given the chance, will violate it again. donald trump lost the 2020 election. [applause] and he refused to accept the will of the people and the result of a free and fair election. he sent an armed mob to the

united states capital, where they violently assaulted police officers, law-enforcement officials, and threatened the life of his own vice president. and he refused to engage in the peaceful transfer of power. were it not for the courage and patriotism of vice president pence that day, donald trump might have actually succeeded in overturning the will of the american people. let's reflect on that. and now, donald trump is telling us how he intends to use power if he is elected again. he has stated one of the biggest threats america faces is "the

enemy from within." [ crowdbooing] the enemy from within. know where that language harkens back to. understand and let's be clear what he is saying. he considers any american who doesn't support him or bend to his will to be an enemy to our country. and further, he says as commander-in-chief he would use our military to go after them. honestly, let that sink in. use of the american military? to go after american citizens?

we know who he would target first because he has targeted and attacked them before, journalists. nonpartisan election officials who refused to cheat by finding extra votes for him. judges who insist on following the law instead of following him . it is clear donald trump is increasingly unstable and unhinged. [applause] and he is seeking unchecked power. consider what his closest advisors have said. his national security advisor,

two defense secretaries, his former chief of staff, his own vice president. all have warned america donald trump is unfit to serve. or listen to general milley, donald trump's top general. he has called trump, and i quote "fascist to the core." and said, "no one has ever been as dangerous to this country." think about that. general milley, served in uniform for more than 40 years. commanding american forces around the world. he has confronted some of america's worst enemies. and he is saying no one has ever

been as dangerous to our country as donald trump. america must heed this warning because anyone who tramples on our mechanic values as donald trump has, anyone who has called for the "termination" of the constitution of the united states as donald trump has, must never again stand behind the seal of the president of the united states! [cheering and applause] never again! never again! [applause]

and to those who are watching, if you share that view, no matter your party, no matter who you voted for last time, there is a place for you in this campaign. [whistles and applause] the coalition we have built has room for everyone who is ready to turn the page on the chaos and instability of donald trump. i pledge to you to be a president for all americans. [cheering and applause] and i take that pledge seriously. i take that pledge quite

seriously. as i've mentioned and many of you know, i spent a career as a prosecutor, in law enforcement, and i will tell you, i never asked a victim or witness, are you a republican or are you a democrat? i never asked of anyone who needed help, of anyone who deserved attention, where were they registered and who did they vote for? the only question i ever asked was are you ok? that is the kind of president i pledge to you i will be. [cheering and applause] that is my pledge to you. we have too much to do and too much good work to do to be relegated, to requiring each of

us to be in some silo disconnected from each other. there is too much good to be done. and the challenges we face as a nation require us, if we truly want to create solutions and strengthen our nation, the approach truly requires that we understand we are all in this together. this is so much more than rhetoric or a campaign. [cheering and applause] it's really about tapping into the spirit of who we are as americans. because we are all in this together. we are all in this together. so i pledge to be a president who actively works to unite us around our highest aspirations. i pledge to you to be a president who is realistic and

practical and has common sense. and to always fight for the american people. [cheering and applause] unlike donald trump, who frankly as we have seen, cares more about running on problems than fixing problems. i want to fix problems. which means working across the aisle. it requires working across the aisle. it requires embracing good ideas from wherever they come. that's why i have pledged to appoint a republican in my cabinet. [cheering and applause] that is why i have pledged to establish a counsel on

bipartisan solutions to recommend to me common sense solutions to some of the most pressing issues facing our country. [cheering and applause] nobody has a corner on good ideas. they actually come from many places. [laughter] one should welcome those ideas if they want to be a leader. [applause] those ideas in particular about strengthening the middle-class, securing our border, defending our freedoms and maintaining our leadership in the world. [applause] all of this is to also say i believe for america to be the world's strongest democracy, we must have a healthy two-party system. [applause]

because it is when we have a healthy two-party system that leaders are required to debate the merits of policy and to work across the aisle regularly and routinely to get things done. i have experienced firsthand how important and rewarding that kind of bipartisan cooperation can be. i will tell you, when i was a united states senator, i served on the senate intelligence committee. it was my favorite committee for a number of reasons but specifically this -- we dealt with some of the most pressing issues affecting national security. we would talk about hotspots around the world and what we needed to do to focus on keeping america safe and secure. to do that, we would review classified information which

required us to meet in a secure room. a lot of you know it is called a skiff. [laughter] when we would go in that room, with all due respect, no cameras were allowed. [laughter] no press. and we would roll up our sleeves and get to work. i'm telling you, senators of both parties would walk in the room, take off their suit jackets, roll up their sleeves might have a cup of coffee on the table, and we would have real conversations. real conversations as americans. because we understood that what happened in that room, the stakes were so high. therefore we could not afford to let it be about whether one was a democrat or republican. the stakes were too high. we were in that room and it was

all about us as americans. about doing what is in the best interest of the safety and security of our nation. i loved that work. and the theme of today, it was country over party in action. in action. [applause] so i know it can be done. that is the standard of leadership and the aspiration i have in terms of how we will work when with your help i am elected president of the united states. [cheering and applause] [crowd chanting "kamala"] thank you, we got to get to work.

there is a very fundamental choice in this election. a choice between the leadership i pledge to offer to america, leadership that brings folks together, that builds consensus and focuses on making life better for you, with the knowledge we have so much more in common than what separates us. and on the other hand, the choice of someone who i think we can guarantee will sit in the oval office talking retribution, stu in his own grievances and think only about himself and not you. as i have said, our campaign is not a fight against something, it's a fight for something. [cheering and applause]

it's a fight for the fundamental principles upon which we were founded. it is a fight for a new generation of leadership that is optimistic about what we can achieve together. republicans, democrats and independents who want to get past the politics of division and blame and get things done on behalf of the american people. when it all comes down to it, i know we are all here together. this beautiful afternoon. because we love our country. [cheering and applause] we love our country. and we are here because we know the deep privilege and pride that comes with being an

american, and the duty that comes along with it. and the duty that comes along with it. [applause] imperfect we may be, but america is still the shining city upon a hill that inspires people around the world. [applause] i do believe it is one of the highest forms of patriotism to fight for the ideals of our country. [applause] two people from across pennsylvania and our nation, let's together stand up for the rule of law, for our democratic ideals and for the constitution of the united states. and in 20 days, we have the power to chart a new way forward

, one that is worthy of this magnificent country that we are all blessed to call home. thank you all, may god bless you and may god bless the united states of america. [cheering and applause] ♪ ♪

♪ >> we have a fullayf live campaign coverage here on c-span.

senator jd vance speaks to a rally and then governor tim walz is joined by former president clinton toicoff early voting in north carolina. at 7:15,icpresident kamala harris holds a rlyn green bay, wisconsin, marking her sixth visit to theta. at nine: 15 eastern,orr president donald trump speaks at e annual alfred e smith memorial foundation dinne a bipartisan white tie gala tt benefits charities of the roman catholic diocese of new york we will haval these events live on c-span and you can also watch on the c-span now video app or online at sees and.org -- c-span.org. ♪ >> 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

primary source for capitol hill, providing balanced, unfiltered coverage of government. c-span, 45 years and counting. powered by cable. ♪ >> with one of the tightest races for control of congress in modern political history, stay ahead with c-span's comprehensive political coverage of key state debates. c-span brings you access to the top senate, house, and governor debates from across the country, debates shaping your future and the balance of power in washington. follow local and national debates online at c-span.org/campaign and be sure to watch tuesday, november 5 for live, real-time election night results. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics, powered by cable.

>> texas republican senator ted cruz is seeking a third term, being challenged by democratic congressman colin allred, who has served in the u.s. house since 2019. they participated in theirirst and only debate hosted by wfaa tv in dallas. the nonpartisan cook political report recently moved the ranking of the race from likely republican to liens republican. ♪ >> tonight, the race for u.s. senate in texas, one of the biggest on your ballot in november. republican ted cruz asking for six more years. >> there is a dramatic difference between me and congressman already. >> congressman already says it is time for a change. what separates them? we are looking for specifics tonight on the border, abortion, the economy, and issues facing

texas. live from downtown dallas, colin allred and ted cruz in the texas debate. >> tonight, we are three weeks away from the november election. texas u.s. senate race the debate hosted by. both agreed to meet here in dallas tonight to discuss their philosophy. and discuss how they are different if one of them is elected when one is elected to represent us in the u.s. senate for the next six years first the rules for this debate. both candidates agree to the following candidates will get 90 seconds to answer a question but his opponent then gets 90 seconds to respond will go back to the first candidate for a 62nd rebuttal.

an additional follow-up of 60 seconds will be at the discretion of the moderator. quick several countdown clocks and student with this the candidates can see tonight to help keep them on track timewise. anally both candidates will get one minute each to introduce themselves here in just a moment the end of the debate they will get another 60 seconds for closing statement. let's welcome the candidate for u.s. senate in texas tonight for democrat colin allred and republican ted cruz. ♪ >> gentlemen thank you each for being here tonight. mr. allred you won the coin cost you chose coverage of 60 seconds. next thank you all for moderating in ted cruz thank you. i am a husband and a father i was raised here in dallas by single mom who was a public school teacher i've been shaped by every part of the state. my grandfather was a customs officer in brownsville's were my mom and dad were born and raised and i spent a lot of my child i

was captain of the football team trade for the nfl draft in houston i've served my hometown in dallas and congress for the last six years in that time up in the most bipartisan syntax and in congress i'm the exact opposite of senator who is the most extreme in the art state senate may be the most extreme in the last 30 years. that's not enough is also only focused on himself that's how you can go to cancún millions of texans needs you and hundreds are dying. the truth is we do not be embarrassed by our senator we can get a new one that's what this election is all about them asking texans give me a chance to do it. >> editor give 60 seconds of your opening statement too. >> thank you, thank you jason, thank you to everyone at home listening. texas is an incredible place on the son of an immigrant who came from cuba with nothing, penniless. washed dishes making 50 cents an hour but came to texas to seek out the american dream. and colin allred is the son of a

single mom who became a football star who went on to baylor combo and onto the nfl, now is in the united states congress. it is incredible both congressman colin allred and i have that represent taxes the nicest congress. tonight i'm going to ask you to listen very carefully to the difference between words and actions. colin allred's going to try to save an awful lot of words that sound reasonable. what is not going to talk about is his own record or my record. i am over and over again going to take us back to actual records. his record and my record. we are doing an awful lot right in the state of texas. colin allred wants to change that i want to keep texas, texas pickwick center that is your title way to begin the debate with two big issues that are personal to texans. saturday the first question is for your texas of the strictest abortion bans the united states is no exception for rape or incest as you know. in 2021 yuko concert at bill in congress and included those

exceptions. your later supreme court overturned roe versus wade, he said you get the texas law that has zero exceptions for tonight the question is where do you stand on this? we are opting for your personal opinion as a texan and us as a father. >> will listen, abortion is an issue many texans and americans care deeply about. it is an issue people of good faith can disagree. people are genuinely and deeply pro-life people are genuinely and deeply pro-choice. they're all sorts of positions and between pete i agree with united state supreme court that under our constitution the way we resolve questions like that, questions on which we have real and genuine disagreements it's at the ballot box. that is why the state of the law now is the legislature in austin's at salon texas he would not expect texas laws to be same as california. he would not expect it to be the same as the orca. on the question of abortion there's a lot of berries would disagree but there's also a lot

of consensus. in texas we overwhelmingly support that parents should be notified and have to consent before their child gets an abortion. in texas we overwhelmingly agree late term abortion in the eighth and ninth month is too extreme. i will tell you in texas we overwhelmingly agree taxpayer money should not pay for abortions. unfortunately congressman colin allred's voting record objects that consensus. he is vote in favor of striking him texas laws that gives parents the rights be notified and consent he's legalizing abortion up to and including the eighth and ninth month of pregnancy. that is extreme it's not with people of texas are >> center that your time. >> senator looked into the camera and light to put texans about my position but let's look very clear you should speak into the camera and explained to her

why is said this is perfectly reasonable question is forced to leave her two children behind and flee our state to get the care she needed but look into the camera talk to who is watching explained to her why it's perfectly reasonable that because she had a complication in her pregnancy was denied care so long she may note never be able to children of her own brother 26000 texas of enforcing a birth to that rapist child under this law you call perfectly reasonable. it is not. this is not freedom. trust women to make their own health care decisions. allie and i had two baby boys here in dallas in the last five years. you're scared the entire time for you do not know what they're going to say i cannot imagine at the doctor come in said is a problem with a baby or a problem with allie and there's nothing i can do because ted cruz thanks he knows better but that's not who we are as texans but when i'm in the night state senate will restore woman's right to choose people make roe v wade the law of the land again. and make these stories of seeing

these horrific experiences going on all of the night say something of the past. that is my commitment to texas >> congress would think a center you do not directly ask the question of going to ask it to again do you suppose exceptions are rape or incest question mike asking as a texan and father tonight pickwick soon to be very clear if you listen to jennifer's answer at no point did he make any reference to his own record. he desperately wants to hide from the fact that as a congressman he voted to strike down texas parental notification law. he voted to strike them texas him texasparental consent law. he voted to legalize late-term abortions including the eighth and ninth month. he says he was a cockfight roe versus wade but that's not what he voted for. outside what tonight i suspect it's going to run away from his record on whole lot of issues. we have a website called facts.com for it every time you get sent answer click on that and find out we will show you the exact vote he cast. i asked with the law should be

in texas that's a decision only by the state he is running all sorts of ads saying i made this decision. i do not serve in state legislator not the governor. the folks who make the lot of the state legislature and governor he knows that. oxen want to jump in here. it's too important. >> will give you 60 seconds because i want to be very quick to people of texas i support the protection and the restrictions under row. but senator cruz called himself pro-life hurt you or not. you're not pro-life but is not pro-life to deny women care so long that they cannot have children anymore. it is not pro-life to force a victim of rape, to carry that rapist baby but is not pro-life that are maternal sky rate by 50% that is not pro-life senator prep for x every texas woman at home and every texas it might watching us understand that when ted cruz says he's pro-life he does not mean yours. >> sentiments give you 60 seconds why is this an issue want to address about saying

whether you support or oppose? >> jason i'm curious why do you keep asking me that question but one for second i have asked colin allred twice about his voting record the fact he voted to strike down texas parental notification law and parental consent law. you have not asked him about that. that is his record. he does not deny it. he gives language that is disconnected from the actual voting record he has a part and listen, my view i believe in democracy. if jen ford is not the decisions made the decision of the governor made, he is welcome to asked to run for state legislature and governor and congress either one of us have a boat i have not voted to strike down texas law. congressman allred has. congressman allred is voted to tell you, a mother at home, you have no right to know if your daughter is getting an abortion but that is an extreme position. and i can tell you the overwhelming majority of texans do not agree with congressman

allred extreme position against parental rights apart against the rights of a mom and dad to be with their daughter in a horrific and challenging time pickwick center let's move on to the topic. >> was turned aboard a security congressman this next question is for you. in 2019 you called trumps proposal to expand the border wall racist. you said my generation will be the one that tears it down. but last year you said you supported president biden's plan to expand the border wall. congressman, why the change? >> thank you for the question this is personal for me my families from brownsville. my grandpa was a customs officer there he joined the department in 1930 my mom and aunt work raised and where i spent a lot of my childhood. border communities are real places for folks trying to raise their families and get ahead. so time and again, senator cruz treats like is going on the support he comes down and puts on his outdoor close and tries to look tough. he goes back to washington and

does nothing to help. in fact he does worsen nothing. toughest border security bill in generation came up at the night state senate, $20 billion to border security he said we do not need the border bill. that is what he said. listen, this is a pattern for him he is never there for us when we need him. when the lights went out in the capitol of the world he went to cancún. january 6, when a mob was storming the capitol he was hiding in a supply closet. the toughest border security bill generation came up in the night state senate, he took it down. we do not have had a senator like this. let me be very clear i believe in physical barriers are part of a comprehensive strategy to secure the border. we had a bill for $20 billion for thousand new border patrol agents. for more immigration judges, or seven officers to help deal with the backlog. i want to make sure you pass that when i'm in the senate we will put will also fix our broken illegal immigration system. senator cruz's been there forever and is a nothing to solve this problem why would we believe he will six more years?

>> entity of 90 seconds for response. >> on to note once again hidden his entire answer jen for zero reference to anything he has done in office. as jeffries rightly noted in this question, congressman allred said publicly if you believe border security matters, he thanks you are a racist. he calls the border wall quote that racist border wall. he has a pledge to tear down the racist border wall personally. and he said quote we will not have that wall in this country. and by the way, that's when his consistent voting record is voted as the board about not once, not twice, but three times. every single time there is a serious and measure in the house to secure the border, colin allred vote no. it's a pattern we seen at the presidential level it's what kamala harris does as well. in understand at home, colin allred is kamala harris. their records of the same but i've served with both of them for they voted in favor of open

borders over and over and over again. and now they are desperately trying to hide that from the voters. at the end, congressman allred says ted cruz is not done anything on that. but my record when donald trump was present i worked hand-in-hand with president trump to secure the border. we achieved incredible success. we produce the lowest rate of illegal immigration and 45 years to be that is what joe biden in kamala harris inherited. it is what colin allred inherited they deliberately broke it and open the border. texas is paying the price of precooked senator that is your time. congressman allred in your 62nd response can you address the original question? why was trumps border or wall clocks listen, listen as birch i got bored security that we do not fall into demonizing. take something out of context and seven years ago which is what is trying to do. he does not want to talk about what he said this year we don't need a border bill. so i've a simple question for

you, $20 billion for 1000 border patrol agents, for 100 immigration judges for personnel to help us have technology and catch mental coming across the border, why did you not support that comes senator? that's a great question. but you cannot have my time. then allied. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> i'm not yielding my time. [inaudible] >> i'm asked the question you can answer any of it your time. >> the we had a bill. this is a pattern. the toxic tough but he never shows up. we have a phrase for this in texas all hat and no cattle for that is what senator cruz is. six more years this, come on he's had 12 years to do it already. give someone who will a chance. quick center take 60 seconds bring. >> congressman allred's memorize designs well. i will said this he asked what he be done? we produce the lowest rate of illegal immigration 45 years. working hand-in-hand with president trump. he did not address that pretty

also did not address the fact it did not take a bill for joe biden and kamala harris to and colin allred to break the border. you can watch and listen to congressman allred talk about the border and all read fax.com. he also said a couple of years ago he said i don't hear much about the border here in dallas is not a top of mine is shipped out to staff represented dallas in the whole state i hear about everywhere i go hear about alice, the folks concerned about the dallas woman who venezuelan gangs and broke into her house, and tied her up, pistol whipped her with a gun. threatened to cut her fingers off and robbed her to hear about in houston from the mother the 12-year-old girl who was raped and murdered by venezuelan illegal immigrants that joe biden kamala harris. [inaudible] lecture not listening in texas precooked leisure time. >> demos move on to different the topical cycle if the economy

the high cost of insurance. in the last five years of premiums for home and auto insurance and taxes have risen faster here in texas and anywhere else in the country. some insurers of stop writing policies that limit the coverage. this is happened to places like florida, california, climate change is causing extreme weather events for the question, senator, insurance and the federal solution? >> no it does not. insurance is much better handle of the state level. i will tell you when it comes to inflation, inflation is caused by the policies of kamala harris seat and congressman allred. kamala harris and congressman allred came in and went on a spending binge they spent drawings of dollars we did not have. they borrowed trillions of dollars in china that we did not have and they ran the printing presses. i and many others said if you do this you're going to drive up inflation. they did not care. texans at home are experiencing it. refining harder and harder to pay your bills if you are a

working couple buying your first home if you are a single mom worried about getting braces for your daughter the inflation caused by kamala harris and congressman allred spending binge is turning texans across the border. i got the help he inflation has been exacerbated by kamala harris and congressman allred war on energy, oil and gas in texas. understand over and over again joe biden kamala harris put executive orders in place to hurt energy and congressman allred his vote against texas oil and gas and energy over and over again. he voted in favor of joe biden's ban on new permits to export liquid natural gas pretty voted in favor joe biden's ban on new gasoline powered engines at present eight years, two thirds of all cars have to be electric congressman allred voted in favor. oleksander, that your time i will live to respond to

cocksure. i agree insurance is better handled at the local level than the state level talk about inflation. i was raised by single mom is a public school teacher in a state where we do not hear teachers and oxford i know what it's like to go to the grocery store line and collector debit card and say little prayer and hope this week you can afford i've been so laser focus on lowering folks costs and lowering the cost of your prescription drugs, on your health care, on your childcare, on your housing but without is a good idea to cap the cost of influent insulin for $35 a month ago to port and senator cruz agreed and disagreed we try to cap it for a good one in four americans are rationing intelligent with that means? you're not taking the medication you need to survive. we said let's make sure this is affordable. i voted for, senator cruz voted against it. it's not surprising he's also the biggest recipients of campaign donations from big pharma lobbyist in the entire united states and it is true.

this is a pattern somebody goes to the ritz carlton and cancún do you think he cares about inflation and working families? his entire career springtime china cut taxes for the rich ant looking out for working folks. when i'm in the central assembly represent all 3 million of us mixer keeper was on lowering costs of your weekend regards congressman thank you salary of 60 seconds regards tina once again congressman allred takes a responsible for his own voting record no responsibility for the toys is betting that have driven inflation but no responsible for the warm texas energy lng and oil and gas but instead what he said is gosh, is devoted to lower the price of insulin but so did i put on the senate floor to lower the price of insulin to a dollar a viable joy the democrats blocked that. portable insulin as soon as joe biden and kamala harris came into office they pulled that out. you know he also voted in favor of? he voted in favor of taking

$300 billion to medicare. and using it to pay for kamala harris pet project. using it to pay for health insurance for illegal aliens. driving up the cost have gone up 20% and are projected to triple. i will fight to lower reprimands make it more affordable and give you the consumer greatest choice. lexis move on to a topic that's been a hot button issue in your senate campaign. congressman, your opponent is saying and political ads you refuse to protect the integrity of women and girls sports the most recent ad came out today. congressman where do you stand on transgender athletes click close be very clear about what's happening in this campaign. don't be a former nfl linebacker to realize a hail mary when you see when it burrowed desperate d attempt to distract you because

you cannot defend his own record. i'm a dad, i'm a christian of course they do not support these ridiculous things he's talking about. kids in bathrooms you're not thinking about women in hospitals. indefensible that way from hospitals living out in their cars in waiting rooms being found by their husbands. all of the sudden perfectly reasonable of a girl is raped by a relative of hers, victim of incest she should be forced to carry that child to term and give birth to it. you think that's personally reasonably going to set yourself up? it's laughable. i've never seen someone run for office on what he hasn't done it one of the least productive senators in the entire country. you know that. i talked both times i cannot think of anything ted cruz is

done to help me in my life. i'm going to lower your cost on securing the border, she choose that is what i'm focused on. >> senator cruz at 90 seconds to respond about striking once again that answer he said not a word about us on record but have to admit at the beginning of it reminded me of kamala harris in her debate answering everything look, i was born in the middle class. it's lines that sound nice but ignores record protect what is voting record but again you can go to trance evidence he devotes. four times he has come out for men playing in women's sports for boys playing a girl sports he is a cosponsor voted for a law called the equality act for the quality act mandated boys to be able to go girls bathrooms and their locker rooms and their changing rooms pretty voted for paris that is his record. number two there is a bill a very simple bill narrowly defined as protecting women and girls sports. he voted no. the only issue on that bill was

whether biological boys should compete against our daughters that's not fair. congressman allred was an nfl linebacker it's not fair for man to compete against women. the third time he signed on to something called the transgender bill of rights. explicitly and he cosponsored it, mandated boys compete against girl sports. just two weeks ago congressman allred joint 100 radical democrats in demanding our military allowed drag shows on military bases. paper soldiers to have sex changes using taxpayer money. and pay for children to be sterilizing a sex change on military bases. again that is extreme that's not texas that is voting record oleksander that is your time. congressman would like to respond? you have 60 seconds. >> yes it is a lot. stand here as a proxy for millions of texans who are sick and tired of this act.

when genzyme starts talking about sports the only thing he played is left out. set this one out please listen, i do not support boys.girl sports i don't shoot. [inaudible] let me speak, let me speak. folks should not be discriminated against poet senator cruz should try to explain to us why he thanks they should. but ultimately, what he is trying to do is a thing called distraction to distract you from his record of doing horrific things or folks in the state. abandoning us when he needed us most. of not being here when we needed him for that's what he's trying to do and that's why spend so much time on this. >> i would like 60 seconds on that. >> have a question for you in the 60 seconds. parents of transgender youth are worried about the safety and well-being of their kids and say ads like these like the ones you are running are dangerous. what you say to those parents? >> look, we should protect every child.

and we should protect every person. i have advocated for checking the safety of every child, every person, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, everyone deserves to be protected against violent crime, against discrimination. but congressman allred is not said that parties not voted for that is voted repeatedly for a lot of you all at home for example sought to biological men competing in women's boxing at the olympics. that was wildly unfair. my youngest daughter plays volleyball. it's not fair for a biological boy or man a teenage boy despite the volleyball at her. he has voted repeatedly in favor of that. if you do see extreme read the letter congressman allred signed it's on allredfact.com. you can read it do not trust my description of it. read the words yourself. you know he argued for? military bases should have drag shows and fly a transgender flag above it. probably old fashion bread daily flag that should buy above our military flag should be military

flag up a quick 60 seconds to respond clearly outline where you stand on transgender and women's sports. >> like is that i do not support boys playing women's sports but let's be clear about the equality act is a bipartisan vote in congress. it is endorsed by the u.s. chamber of commerce. so folks at home who do not know what that is it's basically the biggest speaking for the business community national natl association of manufacturers. this is not a radical bill. what saying is people should be discriminated against. what ted cruz want to do it again he wants to distract you for that's what is going to do. he's been here for 12 years. folks think of i think of you i hear about all the time it's turned the page and let someone else. >> thank you congressman. senator, let's move on to january 6. a question for you, your words and statements of change in january 6, 2021. at one point you call the insurrection a violent terrorist act. saying anyone who commits an

actual act of violence should be prosecuted. president trump has said he was consider pardoning the rioters. would you support that? you have 90 seconds. >> thank you for that question but my view is clear. anyone who commits an act of violence should be prosecuted should go to jail you assault a police officer, you should go to jail for very long time. and by the way that's true whether happen to agree with your politics or disagree with your politics. i've spent 12 years fighting to defend the men and women of law enforcement by that's why been endorsed by the leaders of organizations over 44000 law enforcement officers but that's why i've been endorsed by kim all the district attorney in harris county. she is twice elected democrat the chief law enforcement officer in houston. she has endorsed me and this current race. why customer joins a centered and will send with law enforcement bring a lock up criminals and fight to secure the border. and unfortunately congressman has voted not once but twice in

favor of defendant the police. right here in dallas and went up 17% and centered it went 57%. you don't hear them talking about the black lives matter at riots that burned city across this country. if you commit an act of violence you should go to jail. there should be no political favoritism in that regard. >> congressman 90 seconds to respond. >> that was really something. you cannot be for the mob on january 26 and the officers but it's not funny. i was on the house floor when we went to the boat you objected to the results in arizona. you all at home may not remember

where you were on january 6, what you are doing. i knew where i was and i know where he was. they told us to reach under our seats for the gas masks that i did not know we had. they were going to pour teargas and there attended the officers locked all the doors the president walks through to deliver the state of the furniture we usually use toll paper. seven months pregnant with her son at home whatever happens, i love you took off my suit jacket and prepared to defend the house floor the architect of the attempted overthrow center cruz was hiding supply closet that's okay i did know him to get hurt by the mob. i really doubt this election is about accountability you could not be patriotic when your side wins. for the first time in 250 years this a project of ours, the shared american project we did not a peaceful transfer of

power. the folks responsible have to be held accountable that's weightless that cheney has endorsement got involved in this campaign and sing to texans ever do not put ted cruz back in the position of authority. he sent it once, he'll do it again. >> energy of 60 seconds for a rebuttal. but answer the question, would you support pardoning of those convicted of capitol riots questioned. >> a look i think the biden/harris and mr. asia persecuted some and engage in peaceful speech if you are being pursed to give her peace will speak to should be pardoned. if you engaged in violence, absolutely not call me should not be parted. announcer: find the full debate at c-span.org. let's take you now to a rally with vice-presidential nominee j.d. vance. ♪

♪ mr. vance: wow! [crowd chanting "j.d."] mr. vance: thank you, thank you, thank you. i've got to say, it's great to be in this beautiful place in pittsburgh. we're going to win pittsburgh and pennsylvania and we're going to make donald trump the next president of the united states and it starts right here, my friends. now, i honestly am just -- my breath is taken away by this beautiful space. it makes me realize, you know, the place where we stand,

pittsburgh, pennsylvania, is one of the great capitals of american craftsmanship and american manufacturing. it is an incredible, incredible place. i think there's so many things the presidency of donald trump represents but one of the most important things donald trump's leadership represents is we'll get back to a country of making beautiful stuff and doing great celebrations in beautiful buildings like the one we're in right now. we've got a lot of great local officials here and want to call out the great congressman guy rushen taller. where are you? i appreciate you. we have 19 days to go. 19 days to work.

19 days to knock on doors. 19 days to make phone calls. 19 days to get our friends to the polls to vote. and 19 days until we get to say that kamala harris and her broken leadership, you are fired, go back to san francisco where you belong. i have to say, you'll probably be surprised to hear me say this but i feel bad for governor tim walz, kamala's running mate. and here's why. tim walz has to defend the indefensible which is kamala harris' failed record of leadership the last 3 1/2 years. think about this. when i agreed to be donald trump's running mate and he called me and offered me the job that would change my life and change the life of my family,

think about it. all i have to do is go talk about how donald trump rose take home pay, the fastest in a generation. he did. i go out and talk about how donald trump delivered rising wages for workers and inflation that was the lowest in 40 years in the united states of america. he did that, too. and of course i get to go out there and say levels of illegal immigration were lower. donald trump had secured the border in a big way for the american people but that's true, too. now, here's what governor walz has to do. he has to try to pretend that kamala harris hasn't delivered the fastest rising inflation in a generation. the state of pennsylvania is

paying $1,000 more a month to afford what we all could have afforded 3 1/2 years ago when donald trump was president. tim walz has to pretend kamala harris didn't open the southern border and of course we know she did. she came into office bragging about it and then did that exact thing. and tim walz has to go out there pretending that kamala harris is a person who delivered chaos around the world and is going to somehow bring peace to a globe that's gotten more intense with war because of her leadership. that's a pretty hard job, my friend. but i think that we all -- tim, don't worry. because in 19 short days, we're going to end that job because the american people are not buying your crap and they're not buying kamala harris' crap. now, kamala harris -- oh, in some ways it's too easy, my

friends. you talk about donald trump's record of achievement and fundamentally you're talking about a great period of peace and prosperity for the american people. you talk about kamala harris and what she said and man, we could be here all day. think about it. yesterday she had an interview with brett baird. did you see that interview? wow! wow! that made me feel pretty bad. i felt bad for her and felt bad for every single person who was watching. because remember, kamala harris, we have to remember, the entire theme of her campaign is basically pretending she doesn't know who joe biden is. don't pay attention to high inflation or that wide open southern border because kamala harris will tell you it's not her fault. she's never seen seen joe biden is what she'll go out and tell people. she'll stand up in front of crowds without a hint of shamelessness and say on day one

we're going to fix the inflation crisis affecting american families. on day one we'll lower the price of groceries. on day one we'll secure that southern border. and anybody with a lick of common sense, day one was 1,400 days ago, what have you been doing that whole time? go do your job! so brett bear asked her, well, the american people are saying they want to turn the page and that is in fact the theme of your campaign. they want to turn the page, well, who are they turning the page on because you've been the vice president for the past 3 1/2 years. you know what she said? she started talking about trump. these pathologically incapable of talking about the american future without talking about a person who hasn't been president for 3 1/2 years. look, i wish he had been president for the past 3 1/2 years, we wouldn't have had all these problems. but kamala harris, it's so

shameless and something i think most politicians wouldn't be able to do to stand up there and run so far away from the record that she bears a lot of responsibility for. and we're voting for the prosperity of our children and we're not giving kamala harris a proceed possession for the president of the united states is what the people of pennsylvania are voting to do. i want to talk about the affordability crisis facing families and how we'll make it better. think about this. in just 3 1/2 years the price of housing has gone up 40%. the price of eggs has gone from $1.50 to well north of $3 for a

dozen eggs. the price of groceries at large is up 30% because of kamala harris' policies. this is not rocket science. if you want to lower the prices on families, what we need to do is release pennsylvania workers and drill, baby, drill, at lower prices for all of us. [cheers and applause] mr. vance: i'm asked sometimes what's the connection between energy and groceries, energy and housing? the answer is everything. because energy is the biggest cost of what most of us make. if you think about the truck drivers getting the groceries to the grocery store, if he's paying 50% more for diesel, you're paying more for your groceries or the carpenter getting lumber delivered to the

site, the guy delivering that is paying 50% more for gasoline and you're paying more for a house. the biggest and most important thing donald trump wants to do to lower prices for pennsylvania families is very simple, we're going to drill, baby, drill, and unleash american energy. [applause] mr. vance: now, if we think about it, look, we've got plente great commonwealth of pennsylvania, on the saudi arabia of natural gas. we have between west virginia, ohio, pennsylvania, we have enough coal and natural gas to power a golden age of american prosperity but the only way we're going to be able to take advantage of it is to fire kamala harris who is saying she wants to buy oil and natural gas from dictators all over the world.

donald trump and i want to buy it from american workers and american territory. we have plenty of it right here at home. and to the friends watching at home, just look at the clips, kamala harris announced she wanted to ban fracking in 2019 and pursued policies that made it harder for american workers and american businesses and now she says i didn't mean any of it. we know she means it because she governed to make it hard for pennsylvania families. don't trust kamala harris on the campaign trail but trust her deeds and her deeds show she's not fit to represent pennsylvania and she's not fit to serve as president of the united states of america. let's talk about something else

where kamala harris' deeds don't match her words and that's what's going on at the american southern border. kamala harris, i don't know if you watched any of her interviews. i don't recommend it because you lose 20i.q. points if you do. kamala harris has religion on the border. all of a sudden after 3 1/2 years of being the border czar during the worst period of open borders, kamala now tells us she really cares about a secure southern border and blames donald trump who has not been the president for the last 3 1/2 years, she blames donald trump for the problems that have come up during kamala harris' own time in office. think about this, on day one kamala harris undid 94 executive orders of donald trump that destroyed his successful border policies. she ended remain in mexico. they suspended deportation. they stopped construction of the trump border wall. i've been to the border more times than kamala harris.

if you go down there, you know what you see? big, beautiful slabs of rusted border wall sitting on the ground because kamala harris has made it impossible for american workers to build an american border wall and now she wants to lie to us and tell us that she cares about the border. how dumb do you think we are, kamala harris. we saw what you did and we don't believe you now that you're running for president. now, i will say to kamala harris' credit, every time she gives an interview we gain about 100,000 votes. and you know, the reporters will talk about how until yesterday, and of course that was a disaster, that kamala harris would only do softball interviews. we have any sports fans, any baseball fans in the room here? [applause]

mr. vance: you know, as everybody who has ever played baseball or softball will tell you, the problem with a softball interview is you still have to be able to hit a softball. and unfortunately, even when kamala harris goes and does a softball interview, she says something that blows up the entire narrative of her campaign. i don't know if you noticed but about 10 days ago she did an interview with "the view." that's the easiest interview in the world for a democratic politician. i love tucker carlson but that's like me going to to do an interview with tucker carlson and saying it's a tough interview. she gives an interview with "the view" and say what is one thing you would have done differently than joe biden during your time in office. and she said, nothing comes to mind. nothing comes to mind. after standing up there and lying for years -- or i should say months, about how she's going to somehow be different than joe biden, she cannot name

a single thing she would have done differently than joe biden. i think, actually, her interview revealed an important truth about the kamala harris campaign. if you think about their plans and slogans, because they don't really actually have any details, maybe we should change the slogan of the kamala harris campaign to nothing comes to mind because i think that would capture the kamala harris campaign better than what they're saying right now. so let's try it out. kamala harris, how are you going to lower the price of groceries for american citizens? nothing comes to mind. kamala harris, how are you going to secure the border you opened for 3 1/2 years? nothing comes to mind. think about it, i think we may have just saved the kamala harris campaign. at least she'll be honest if she goes out there and says to every question, nothing comes to mind. that would at least solve that one problem for her.

but look, we need a president who actually has ideas and a plan and a vision for how to solve this country's problems. but let's just compare and contrast the record of kamala harris and the record of donald trump where she did 94 executive orders to open up the american southern border, donald trump shut down that southern border, built a wall, and secured america for american citizens. that's a hell of a record to run on. where kamala harris had groceries up by 25% and housing up by 40%, donald trump made it affordable to live the american dream for american citizens. where kamala harris wants to raise taxes on american workers and reward companies that ship jobs overseas, donald trump

wants to cut taxes for american workers and penalize the companies and countries shipping our jobs overseas. and of course where kamala harris implemented regulation after regulation, she shut down the keystone pipeline, donald trump is going to reopen that pipeline and open up american energy for all of our citizens. and you know, she's got a problem. kamala harris has got a problem because the words have not matched the deed, and a lot of folks who used to be the foundation of the democratic party are abandoning the democratic party in big numbers, especially in the commonwealth of pennsylvania. a lot of you know my story. i was raised by two blue-collar democrats, my grandparents who took care of me because my own mom struggled with addiction.

i think my grandparents, if they were alive today, they'd be doing what a lot of other union democrats are doing, which is recognizing the democratic party of kamala harris has left them behind and they're welcome in the republican party of donald j. trump. that's why, my friends, i'm proud about this. over 65% of pennsylvania teamsters support donald j. trump for president. and that's why union workers, nonunion workers, but pretty much just everybody with common sense is welcome in the big tent republican party of donald trump. i don't care what letter is next to your name, you're welcome in our movement. now, i want to talk about --

somebody asked me earlier, why do we have so much division in the united states of america? i think that's an important question. because i think, look, whoever they vote for, whatever their background, i genuinely do think most of our fellow citizens are good people, whether democrat, independent, or republican. they're our neighbors and they're our friends. but when kamala harris talks about division, she likes to blame the republicans and our country for being the source of that division. i'm thinking to myself, where is the leadership of this country, if you've been the vice president for 3 1/2 years, maybe the divisiveness in this country is something you ought to look in the mirror about rather than blame republicans all over the united states of america. but i also think one of the biggest sources of division in the united states of america is we have leaders who would rather

censor their fellow citizens than listen to them and persuade them. this is an important thing that changed about this country. and i want you to go back, my friends, to just a few weeks ago, i pointed out that there's a small town in ohio, and of course there's -- what's going on in aurora, colorado, we're seeing all across this country that criminal gangs sometimes are moving into our communities and making it unsafe for american citizens. even if it's not criminal gangs, sometimes it's just people moving into our communities who have no legal right to be there in the first place. that causes a lot of problems,s especially for the folks watching this at home when we add thousands of illegal aliens in american schools, children who can't speak the english language and that means american citizens lose quality in their

education. [applause] mr. vance: when we bring in millions upon millions of illegal aliens and give them free health care, that means hospital wait times in the commonwealth of pennsylvania have shot up for pennsylvania families. i feel terrible for anybody who has to take their kids to the emergency room because you'll wait longer than three hours because there are millions of people in the united states of america who don't have the legal right to be here. here's the thing, kamala harris and they are friends in the media, they will say somehow donald trump doesn't support social security and medicare. donald trump is fighting to protect social security and medicare every single day. but i'll tell you what is going to bankrupt social security and medicare, and that's kamala harris' plan to give social security and medicare to illegal aliens who have no right to be here in the first place.

so while kamala harris wants to roll out the red carpet forily dell aliens and give them medicare and social security, the message of donald j. trump to people here in this country illegally is simple, pack your bags because in four months you're going back home. [cheers and applause] mr. vance: it's not just that i disagree with kamala harris on the policy of immigration, you know what really gets me going? when kamala harris attacks the citizens in her own country that they are racist for daring to say she shouldn't have opened up the american border. i think that's one of the most disgraceful things. so i think our message to kamala harris ought to be very simple, stop trying to censor us for criticizing your government.

stop calling us racist for saying we've got to close down that southern border. stop accusing us of being bad people because we have the audacity to say to kamala harris she ought to do her damn job and she needs to look in the mirror and stop attacking the citizens in her own country. and i think that is what has led to the divisiveness in our country. because donald trump, whether we agree with you or disagree with you, whether you vote with us in 2024 or don't, we're rooting for you because you're our fellow citizen and we will always fight for your right to speak your mind. our founders -- the genius of the first amendment is not that it protects everybody's rights, the genius of the first amendment is that when we debate our ideas rather than censor one another, we can actually come to the table and we can disagree but still share share a meal

with one another afterwards. and we ought to remember that while kamala harris and tim walz talk a big game about bringing our country together, you do not bring our fellow citizens together by trying to silence them, you bring our fellow citizens together by talking with them and inviting the conversation on how we'll make this country better and fix our problems. that's what donald trump and i promise you and promise everyone watching. we may not always agree with one another but we'll fight for your right to speak your mind and this is america and we get to say whatever the hell we want to. [cheers and applause] [crowd chanting "usa"]

mr. vance: thank you all. sorry, i'm fired up there. but i want to say one more thing and we'll take a few questions from reporters and you guys are welcome to stay and watch me as i answer these questions. but i want to remind you that as much as the energy is really good in pennsylvania, and we've got a lot of good energy in pennsylvania, i think we'll win this state and win it in a big way. and by the way, we're not just winning pennsylvania just for president trump and j.d. vance, we're winning pennsylvania for dave mccormick running for the senate. let's get out there and support him. and for a lot of our great congressional candidates, and i know we have great state candidates running, too, but we're not going to do it unless we get out there and vote. i'm going to make three requests, three requests of

every single person in this room. number one, first thing i'd like you to do is take out your phone, take it out right now. take a photo of this event, take a selfie, a photo of me, whatever. post about it on social media or send it to your friends in a text message and tell them why you're voting for donald trump and remind them we have to get out and vote on or before november 5. that brings me to my second point. i'm not a fan, to be honest with you, election season over election day but donald trump has said this very well, it is what it is. and we've got to take advantage of all the methods we can to vote because if we're not doing it, we're giving ground to the other side. vote by absentee if you're not going to be in town. vote by mail if that's what you want to do. vote early. vote election day. just get out there and vote. i believe we've done more on the last few years of election integrity at the republican

national convention so rest assured we're fighting every single day that your vote is going to count but only if you get out there and actually cast it. everybody, make sure you get out there and vote. two more requests here. the third thing is i don't want just you to vote, i want everybody to get out there and get nine of their friends and family to the polls, too, because if you do that, look, pennsylvania could be decided by a couple thousand votes and none of us want to wake up november 6, this is nightmare fuel with the idea of a president-elect kamala harris. if you want to prevent that, don't just get yourself to the polls but your friends and family out there, too. every single one of us commit nine people in addition to yourselves to get out and vote. this is the final thing i want to say. i'm going to read the website to get it right. swampthevoteusa.com.

jumpthevoteus swampthevoteusa.com. check your polling information. track your polling information. we're going to win this election by working our rear ends off for it and getting out and voting. swampthevoteusa.com. check your registration and make sure we all get out there and vote. look, i think -- man, we're 19 days out and i'm feeling good about this election. i really think we're in a position to not just elect donald trump the next president but to take this country back in a very, very big and meaningful way, so let's do it. so i'm grateful to all of you

being here and grateful for what you've already done. and most of all, i'm grateful we're all going to work our butts off the 19 days and make donald trump the next president of the united states. god bless you all. thank you for having me. i'll take some questions from the reporters now. mr. vance: thank you all so much. we're not done yet. we'll have a little bit more fun. i ask we start with the local reporters. i'll only take four or so questions because i have to get on the road. but the first question, i don't know we have a microphone there. i assume we do. i love jesus. thank you, ma'am. it's always good to have that reminder, jesus loves every

single one of us. that's an important thing. god bless you. first question. reporter: hi, senator. hi, senator vance, my name is steven more from wtrf channel 7 in wild and wonderful wheeling, west virginia. now, the u.s. labor force participation rate is historically low among young men in particular. there are a lot of reasons for this from drug addiction, lack of education, mental health problems. how does this administration plan to address this issue and get our young people back to work so they can start families, buy homes, and participate in the american dream? mr. vance: yes, sir, a very important question and the most important way to get people back into the labor force is to make sure we've got good jobs and the dollar goes far enough to support a family in this country. if you want to get people a back to work, you've got to make sure when they earn a dollar, first of all, they get to keep as much

of it as possible, which is why we want to lower focus' taxes. but second of all, a lot of people are not going to choose to work if they work 40 hours a week, 50 hours a week and can't afford food or can't afford to buy a house. this inflation that we've experienced under kamala harris' leadership, we've got to make the dollar worth a dollar again and that's something donald trump and i are going to fight for every single day. now, a second thing we've got to do is we've got to promote more pathways in this country to the middle class. when i was growing up, what everybody told me, all my guidance counselors, all my teachers, they told everybody, you've got to go to college, you've got to go to college. well, here's the thing. now we're waking up and realize we have way too many basket weavers with a four-year college degree but not enough electricians or welders or enough people to build things in

this country and that's got to change. so we want to make it easier, whatever you want to do, if you want to go be a doctor, be a doctor. but if you want to work with your hands and build something in the greatest country in the history of the world, we have to make sure there are pathways available for people who want to do that. that's how we get people back engaged with the work force is we give them the training for the kind of jobs they want to do that will make our whole country better in the process. thank you for the question. reporter: good afternoon, nicole ford here with wpxi in pittsburgh. when it comes to pennsylvania, which county are you going to look at the margins first to know that you have won the state? mr. vance: that's an interesting question. look, i'm not a -- i'm a political candidate but not much of a political prognosticator. the only prognostication is pennsylvania will make donald

trump the next president of the united states. i really do believe that. but look, i mean, the smart people who know this state will tell you, you know, you've got to look at bucks county in the east and eerie county in the west. there are a couple really important counties we'll pay attention to. this, my friends, is why i'm so excited and optimistic about this race, if you look at the early voting numbers and look at how much redder pennsylvania has gotten in the last couple years, we are going to win this race so long as we work for it over the next 19 days. i really do believe that. but the final point i want to make about this is the reason why i think president trump's message resonates so well in pennsylvania, more, frankly, than republicans did from 20 years ago is that president trump believes in making things in america and stamping more product with the incredible

label, "made in the u.s.a." and the only way -- look, pennsylvania has some of the proudest traditions of steel manufacturing, of craftsmanship in the entire country, frankly, in the entire world. but we've gotten way too far away from self reliance in the united states of america. let me give you a statistic that scares the hell out of me and should scare every person in pennsylvania. china has 32% of world manufacturing g.d. that means the goods that are made, 32% of them are made in china. you know what the number is for the united states of america? 18%. that means china makes more stuff -- i'm talking about the pharmaceuticals that we put in the bodies of our children. some of the important weapons of the future, the computer chips. we've got to make more of our own stuff in the united states of america. the way to do that is lower regulations and lower energy costs for american businesses

and to rebuild the great american middle class. final point i'll make about this and this is where president trump gets the most criticism but also where president trump is the most right. if you are a business and you rely on foreign slave labor at $3 a day, the only way to rebuild american manufacturing is to say if you want to bring that product made by slave labor back into the united states of america, you're going to pay a big fat tariff before you get it back into our country. and don't -- my message to pennsylvaniaians, don't trust anybody, especially kamala harris when she tells you she's going to rebuild american manufacturing without forcing the chinese to pay a tariff, there is no way to do it unless you're fighting hard against the people stealing our jobs and

stealing our manufacturing industries. you've got to do it. if you're not doing it, you're not serious about rebuilding the american middle class. next question. reporter: hi, j.d., adam for the pittsburgh post gazette. you've raised questions about election security and integrity and if you think it cuts both ways. if you're leading in the popular vote nationally after election week do you think kamala harris should concede if she has similar concerns? mr. vance: whoever wins this election, and it's going to be donald trump and j.d. vance -- you know, we certainly expect to have a good election. we certainly expect to be congratulating the winner, and we certainly expect that winner is going to be us. look, can you say on the one hand you don't think big tech should be interfering in an election while at the same time respecting the results of the election. i don't think there's any inconsistency of that. i think american citizens have a

right to be heard and american citizens have a right to have every legal ballot counted. we'll work on legislation while in office which is the save act that makes it harder for illegal aliens to vote in american elections. and i think, like most people, most people in our country, whether they agree or disagree with me on any issue, they can admit we can have faith in the 2024 election and i do have faith in the 2024 election while assessing we can do a hell after lot better at the same time. both thoughts can be held in our heads the same time and is certainly true for the majority of the residents of this commonwealth. thank you. reporter: hi, i'm ryan with the pittsburgh tribute review. you talked a little bit about housing costs. i'm kind of wondering if you could elaborate more on the issues on dealing with the supply of housing. i know here in pittsburgh we

have -- just like everywhere, we have a bad supply of housing. how do we boost that and address that issue? mr. vance: important question. we have to talk about the supply issues and the demand issues. you asked about supply. we don't make enough houses. there's not a high enough supply of houses in the united states of america. what does it mean? lower energy costs to make it easier to build. that's why we say drill, baby, drill, and that's the most important point of lowering housing costs and get mortgage rates down so people can afford to buy a home when they find a home they like. and thirdly, you have to end the regulations that make it harder for people to build homes in the united states of america. we're the proudest building country in the world and we have to get back to that very proud tradition. but we also have to be honest. if you build five million new homes over the next three years but you import 25 million illegal aliens, the price of housing is going to go up.

because when american homes don't go to american citizens, that is one of the biggest drivers of the increase in housing costs. so here's the simple donald trump plan to reduce housing costs for american citizens, build more american homes but make sure they go to american citizens, not people who don't have the legal right to be here. we'll do just a couple more. reporter: with kdt news. trump talks about the enemy within. will trump use the military to go after people who oppose donald trump. mr. vance: of course not. [crowd booing] mr. vance: i'm glad you asked the question. it's so preposterous. first of all, the biggest problem we have in this country right now, because of kamala harris people can't afford housing and groceries.

we have to fix that problem. that's why me and donald trump are running to bring back prosperity to the american people. and we have 25 million illegal aliens, many who committed violent crimes who shouldn't be in the united states to begin with. by the way, those are the issues that pennsylvaniaians care the most about. when you go out and talk to them, you look at the polls. we ought to be talking about how to deliver peace and prosperity for the commonwealth of pennsylvania and that's what president trump and i are focused on. but look, the media picks up on this question when he makes this observation that we've also got to have law and order in our own country, too, because this is an important issue. do we remember the media loves to talk about january 6, and of course january 6, 2021, if you were violent and committed acts of violence, then you should be

prosecuted for them. everybody believes that. but what they don't like to focus on, is months prior, $13 million was damaged and 20 lives were lost in the mass riots in this country in the summer of 2020. and what president trump has said quite directly, look, if that happens again, and you ever have people that think they cannot just exercise their first amendment rights but loot and riot and burn down american cities, we're going after them and going after them hard. we don't tolerate that crap in the united states of america. reporter: hi, kayley gunderson, channel 4 in pittsburgh. i know you touched on election integrity but i want to ask about mail-in voting. how do you reconciled former

president donald trump and the party casting doubt in mail-in voting when the republican party is encouraging supporters to vote by mail. mr. vance: let me say two things about that. first of all, as i said earlier, i don't love that we've gotten away with having an election day where everybody casts the same ballot and casts it on the same day. but again, the people of pennsylvania, through their elected legislatures, through the governor, have changed how this works. i'm not saying i prefer mail-in voting, i'm saying that mail-in voting is now here so let's deal with that reality and make sure our voices count just as much as the other side. that's all we're saying here. now, by the way, a number of international organizations, a number of folks have talked about the fact that mail-in voting can sometimes introduce problems, and we're fighting every single day to make sure those problems don't happen in

pennsylvania or anywhere else in our country. here are the things you've got to do. you've got to make sure mail-in votes have the proper signature matching. you've got to make sure mail-in votes are properly tracked to a real registered voter. there are all these things we can do and the republican party is fighting every single day, not just for our own voters but for everybody. we want every legal ballot to cast and count but we only want the legal ballots to count, not the illegal ballots. so we've got the election integrity underway whether you vote by mail or voting early or in person, your ballot is going to count. my message to everybody is get out there and vote because it's the only way we're going to send kamala harris back to san francisco where she belongs. so on that note, because we're

going to have to hit the road here. and i'm very excited. my friends, my cousin who is more like a little sister to me, is getting married tomorrow. let's give her a round of applause. we'll tell her that the people -- i'll tell my cousin bonnie rose, named after my mama, the thoughts, the prayers, the blessings, and the good wishes of the commonwealth of pennsylvania go with her on this new journey. [applause] i want to tell you a story. i've got so many stories and i have learned so much about our country over the last few weeks. people always ask me how i'm doing and i appreciate you asking but the answer is i'm doing as good as a person possibly could. because aside from being married from my beautiful wife and being a father to our three kids, the greatest honor of my entire life

is to stand up here and ask all of you to make me your next vice president of the united states. it is a cool thing. it is a great honor. [crowd chanting: jd] but one of the things that happens of course is you get to meet a lot of people. there is a woman that i met a few weeks ago as a matter of fact, she was just in one of these photo lines, you take photos with people before, and she was talking to me about how she was really hurting because she couldn't afford her groceries anymore. she was talking about the things they cut back on, the things they like to have in their house but they don't have anymore because they've got to make ends meet and they have to make do with what they have. she spent about 30 seconds telling me about how she was struggling to buy groceries and then she spent the next three minutes telling me that she prays for my family every day.

she knew the three names of our beautiful kids and she prays for each one of them by name every single day. and she spent more time asking me how i was than talking about her problems even though i'm the one who gets to run for vice president and she's worried about paying her bills. i've met so many people like that. you know it it's taught me? it's taught me we have a generosity of spirit among our people that i was not fully aware of until i excepted this incredible honor. i think that when you realize how great the people of the united states of america are -- [applause] and how beautiful of a country we have, i was in williamsport, pennsylvania just yesterday i believe, and we get off the plane and there is a mountain by the airport that is red and yellow and orange and green because of course pennsylvania is really beautiful but especially this time of year. and we've got the best natural

resources. the chinese and the russians would literally kill for, sometimes they have, for the natural resources we have just right here in the commonwealth of pennsylvania. and i realize that is frustrated as sometimes we get and certainly as frustrated as i get with the failure of kamala harris's leadership, we've got to remember, my friends, that the only thing that is truly broken about the united states of america is the failed leadership in washington, d.c. so over the next 19 days when you are feeling tired or you are sick of talking about the election, i want you to remember that woman who is working hard to elect donald trump and is worried that if he is not elected president she is going to go another four years where she is not able to afford her groceries. i want you to remember a kid like me were sometimes my mama

wouldn't turn on the heat at night if times were especially tight. withrow a few extra blankets on and just make do. i would like you to remember that the basic principle that every american citizen deserves to have safe communities. every american citizen deserves to turn on the heat during the middle of a cold winter night. every american citizen, so long as they work hard and play by the rules, all to be able to afford the groceries they want for themselves and their families. and that is only going to happen if we get donald j. trump back in the white house. so let's go fight for it, let's go earn it, let's go make donald trump the next president, and we're going to do it together. god bless you guys and thank you for everything you're doing. we love 'ya. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

announcer: with 19 days until the election we have a full day of live campaign coverage here on c-span. governor tim walz is joined by former president bill clinton in durham, north carolina to kick off early voting in the state. that is live at 3:00 p.m. eastern. at 7:15 vice president harris hold a rally in green bay, wisconsin. it is her sixth visit to the state since the start of her president a campaign. at 9:15 p.m. eastern former president donald trump speaks at the annual alfred e. smith dinner that benefits chaties of the roman catholic archdiocese of new york. we will have all these events live on c-span. you can also watch on the sea -- on the free c-span now video app or online at c-span.org. announcer: c-span is your

unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more. including sparklight. >> what is great internet? is it strong? is it fast? is it reliable? at sparklight, we know connection goes way beyond technology. from monday morning meetings, to friday nights with friends, and everything in between. but the best connections are always there, right when you need them. so how do you know it is great internet? because it works. we're sparklight, and we're always working for you. announr: sparklight supports c-span as a public service, along with the other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. announcer: friday nights watching c-span's 2024 campaign trail, a weaker discussion about the presidential, senate, and house campaigns have progressed

in the past week. reporters join to take a look at the week ahead. watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail friday nights at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or download as a podcast on c-span now, our free mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. announcer: next the president of ipsos clifford young talks about his book polls, posters, and public opinion. the conversation includes challenges to pulling accuracy on the role of pollsters. hosted by johns hopkins university school of advanced international studies in washington, d.c. this is about one hour and 10 minutes. >> ok.

good afternoon, everyone. and thanks a lot for joining us as part of our continuing america's focus area lunch speaker series. today, we actually have one of our own, dr. cliff young joining us. he teaches a couple classes here at sais, one of which he will talk about but the other which is also our capstone to brazil. we have invited him here. he is currently the president at ipsos of polling and societal trends. before that he was a cluster president. he has had a number of years at ipsos. polling is his expertise. so we are really proud to have him here. he has recently released his new book polls, pollsters, and public opinion. i highly recommend the book. he really goes into depth as to

what the role of pollsters are. to be quite frank, i am consumed by news and always watching the polls of upcoming elections whether it be the presidential election here or any other presidential election or referendum down in latin america. and i thought i quite understood it until i read this book. you do an amazing job talking about what polling is and what are the roles of pollsters. you can call them data scientists, fortunetellers, and spin doctors. an important way of talking about all the different roles. i don't know if you wanted to maybe share with us what was the motivation for writing the book and then may need -- and then maybe go more into detail on contents of the book. dr. young: great to be here doing this talk at johns hopkins sais.

the book is for someone like you. maybe you thought you knew everything about polling. hopefully it give you insight into what a pollster actually is. a pollster is someone or something, an organization, that measures and analyzes public opinion. a pollster is not an a pollster -- an upholsterer. i had a long conversation with an aunt that asked me if i wanted the reader her -- redo her sofas and sitting chairs. i'm not an expert on that. the motivation at one level is the memorialization of my own journey along 25 years of doing what i do as a pollster. i, like all baby pollsters, are

confronted with a series of challenges. by definition it is multidisciplinary. we are data scientists, social psychiatrists, economists, we are decision tree experts. we are statisticians. different pollsters are trained in different ways. i was trained as a sociologist and statistician. i trained in a number of other disciplines. we were challenged with the issues at hand because we didn't have all the tools needed at the time in front of us. the profession of a pollster is very artisanal. it is very much hands-on. it is very much an apprentice-like profession.

what i wanted to do was i wanted to improve the learning curve for young pollsters and analysts, and i will come back to that in a second. so that they didn't have to go through all the trials and tribulations i went through. that there was one place that was synthetic in nature, that laid out the profession in a way that made sense from a practical perspective. and ultimately on that journey, i have had 16 or so years of students here, for 13 of those years, students at the university of columbia university that were my guinea pigs, and where i tested out materials and frameworks and ways of thinking about being a pollster and how to organize it. ultimately that is what the book is. the book is memorializing my own journey. it was a journey as a young pollster to understand the

profession. the professionalized profession. ultimately it is not just for the pollster. at the end of the book i say it is for the non-pollster, for the mom like you want to analyze public opinion data but we tell the story through the eyes and the lens of the pollster. mr. marckwardt: thank you for that. as i was reading the book, when i first started stinking about polling, i think of it more as just the science. numbers, statistics. i think what you laid out really well, you talk about in the beginning, you had your first client and you looked at your data sets and your biases and looked at how the interpretation was made and you presented it. what i found was in this book at least there is a whole other side of it, if you will, maybe the art of it, which is using some of your own know-how and

experience to figure out different questions that might be asked of you or understanding different biases you might not have thought of before. i don't know if you want to talk about your first story when you went up to the client and the asked you questions you are not even anticipating. dr. young: i will jump in. the book has four vignettes for the four sections of the book. those vignettes are these initial experiences in my career that i did not have answers. and that indeed set me on the journey to organize this book. the first vignette is about my first paying client that was nine. i lived in brazil for 10 years and it was my first client ever. it was the brazilian horse racing club of rio de janeiro. and yes, i did a poll for them. there was a presidential race going on in the club.

and yes, those individuals spent money on polls to know who was up in front in that race. they had a lot of money and resources, obviously. it is horse racing, and people going to a horseracing club probably have resources. so i organized my poll. i did the sample design, the questionnaire, are the questions unbiased. have i organized my analytic framework so i am ready to tell a clear story at the end? i got it all together and i actually did not brief the client in person. i did it by phone. i tend to do it by the phone quickly comes to politics. i didn't speech portuguese at the time. i was learning words while they were talking, that is how sketchy my portuguese was. they ultimately asked me, so,

who's going to win, are we going to win or are they going to win? i sat there and i didn't have an answer because i didn't know. i did a robust poll done in a scientifically rigorous way, but i have no idea if they are going to win or not. i didn't say that. i was unclear. i said, let's reflect on that. you are always better off staying 50-50 if you really don't know. that is what we are doing today, no one knows. but ultimately, that was really the first challenge of me realizing that i had some of the tools to exercise the profession of polling, but i didn't have all the tools. i didn't have rules of thumb or context or any way to talk about the relative odds of winning. and that was jarring.

the next day they call again and they are like, the other side, we got the other side's poll. i am like, oh my gosh, the other side has polls too, this is incredible. they are running for the presidency of the club and they both bought poll. they said their poll says the other side is going to win. so which poll is right? yeah, once again, another example of not having the requisite gray hair, not having the sufficient amount of apprenticeship, knowing what those rules of thumbs were. just going back a bit about your initial question, this book, i would not call it art. i would call it context. what this book does above and beyond the technical side of saying what a margin of error is, or what's a good or bad sample, how you correct for bias, that is the more technical aspect.

a lot of the book is about content. because we only understand things within context. how do we contextualize elections? how do we contextualize changes in public opinion? how do we understand if public opinion appears unstable? and so the book is really about frameworks to provide meaning in context. mr. marckwardt: what i really enjoyed about how you break down the book, you cover the different vignettes, and really the vignettes are based on your own experiences. you talk about different biases, you talk about the nonresponse bias, coverage bias. you talk about these specifically as it comes up to the 2016 presidential election. you talk about how you felt a lot of confidence over the years after that first experience at the racing club. and then your entire community,

not just yourself, polling professionals ran into the 2016 presidential election, and how that shocked the whole entire industry. i don't know if you would like to share some thoughts about that. dr. young: yeah. we ultimately have an external benchmark for the profession, which are the elections. if we get it right we are awesome, and if we get it wrong we are bums. i use the example of -- 2008 is when i first came back from brazil, i had been in brazil for 10 years. i got to do the obama win, which was historic. i was there for lulu's win as well. we were high on the hog in 2008 because we nailed it. we didn't nail it more or less,

we nailed it to the decimal point. you fast-forward to 2016, we w ere wrong like everyone else was wrong. i think it is an interesting case study. same pollster, same country, but ultimately two very different results. sometimes that happens. sometimes that happens. what we do as a profession is we reflect on our method and assess in more detail about specifically what happened. it is just not an individual like myself who does this. it is also professional associations like the association -- american association of public opinion research. every other country has similar associations. but honing our craft, assessing why we made mistakes is article. the last point i will make is reemphasizing the three personas.

i call it the three hatted pollster. multidisciplinary. the first hat is the data scientist. the second is the fortuneteller, that is the persona that predicts. and the third is the spin doctor, which is aligning with public opinion. i use spin dr. kind of tongu -- spin doctor kind of tongue-in-cheek because it is really hard to -- going back to the data scientist, that is really the focus on our craft. how to make polling optimally robust. what are the biases associated with polling. assess where we got it wrong and correct what we need to correct looking forward. mr. marckwardt: in that section you also talk a lot about the different types of biases. one question i had issue talk a

lot about bond response bias that was really evident in the 2016 campaign. that is to say, a lot of people who were going to vote for trump preferred not to respond to the polls, which then gave you a bias, especially in swing states, that was a lot more evident. and so, is that continuing today? how are you adjusting for that? is that something you are seeing more of not just in the united states but in other countries as well, that there is a tendency in some groups to be more leaning towards not responding and throwing off a lot of polls? dr. young: what i would say first and foremost we don't have one problem, we have multiple problems. that is the tricky thing about what we do is to isolate each of these problems. obviously 2016 there were a number of things going on. i think it was also an era of forecasting more so than even the method itself. and the signals were there, but

we will come back around to that. ultimately i would argue that politics today globally is wreaking havoc on our methods. and so what do i mean by that? what do we find, what does ipsos find? we find that there is a rise in anti-system, antiestablishment sentiment, widespread belief the system is broken, widespread belief that parties and politicians no longer care about the average person, widespread belief system is raked, and the found a leak that there is the need for a strong leader to take the country back even if they must break the law. does that sound familiar? we find that not just in the united states but around the world. we find this in brazil, in turkey, in france, in mexico, in the u.k., in south africa,

indonesia, in india, we find it everywhere. it is a global phenomenon. what happens is in this context you have strong populace brands like erdogan, like le pen, like bolsonaro, who are tracking individuals who heretofore participated in nothing -- nothing -- they are nonparticipating. they have checked out of society, they don't want to purchase a paid in polls or anything -- they don't want to participate in polls or anything. and this is ultimately our problem is they are voting now. finding these individuals who hereto for having participated in politics before. before 2015 or so, really we didn't care if we didn't capture in our sample. so what are we doing today is an industry? we are doing things at the design stage, designing better

samples to try and capture these individuals from the get-go. then we have what we call post-survey adjustments. we have ways to correct the sample to hopefully minimize the fact that we have these individuals that are not responding. do we have a perfect solution? i think we have a solution. will it play out now in this electoral cycle in the united states? will we be ok? i becausen 2016 and 2020, the average error was about three points. hopefully not. hopefully we have it right, but we will see. mr. marckwardt: you mentioned there is more than one bias and one reason that influenced the 2016 election. maybe if we bring in the social media aspect and whatnot, and you talk about coverage bias as well and how you are able to reach out to different populations of people that are polling in the united states.

it is easier to reach people by telephone or cell phone but that might not be the case. you create a bias in other countries where there is not much penetration with cell phones. but you talk about so many different biases and i think you just mentioned before 2015, you just didn't account for so many different factors. are we entering an era in which the methodologies that were pretty consistent for longer periods of time, you will have to adjust at a quicker cycle, given all the changes going on around the world? dr. young: yeah. first, we have always had these problems. maybe these problems were not as acute in the past, or certain moments in the past, but we have had some pretty profound mrs. all over the place. what i would say is the following. the way humans communicate and interact is changing profoundly.

therefore the way we contact or communicate with our respondents must change as well. a study showed never before have we had so many different methods that were employing to capture individuals. sometimes face-to-face, sometimes by mail, sometimes by phone, sometimes online, sometimes a combination of all of them or some of them. so as pollsters, we're going to have to refine our method. people probably -- it will probably be increasingly heterogeneous because we want the most robust swath of the population. but without a doubt we are challenged today compared to an era where we knocked on the door, or an era when people only had a landline to communicate. mr. marckwardt: one concept you talk about especially when you get into the fortuneteller is one of the roles -- i

highlighted this which i found a really interesting way of describing two different kinds of people. hedgehogs and foxes. hedgehog being those who are really knowledgeable on one area, and foxes being those who are not as knowledgeable in one area but has more breadth of knowledge, maybe not as much depth. when it comes to polling and pollsters, it is usually the foxes are the smaller population but they forecast more accurately than the hedgehogs. so why are there more hedgehogs than there are foxes, and will this change? are people going to become more breadth in their understanding forward, as there seems to be making more of a need for that? dr. young: by the way, this analogy is not my own. i wish i could say it was me but

they take it from tet lock who has written a number of books on forecasting. he did an analysis of relative accuracy of forecasts. it is actually taken from an isaiah berlin short story. ultimately what we are talking about, i like to call it learning styles. do you have a single input learning style, or a multi-input learning style? by the way, this goes for not just elections, this can go for anything we analyze. what is the difference between a fox and a hedgehog? a hedgehog has one way to react to threats and that is to curl up in a little ball. by the way, hedgehogs are really cute. they are, actually. they are small and -- i don't

know if they are furry, but they are cute. but they only react one way. a fox when it comes to danger or threats reacts in a multitude of white. it could run away, hide, play dead, a multitude of ways. so this sort of analogy, this sort of framework helps us reflect a bit on forecasting. what do we find? we find that a forecast that is using multiple inputs is typically superior to a forecast with just a simple input. hedgehog forecasts have higher rates of failure than fox forecasts. so this is some important sort of insight. we can build these methods -- i college training galatia -- i call it triangulation. and two things. nate silver had a fox logo

because of this analogy. i think 2016 is a classic case of a single input failure. if you looked at the polls there was no doubt clinton would win. if you looked at other models and inputs, it wasn't so clear. that doesn't mean we would have forecasted exactly correctly. but at the very least we should have had doubt in our level of conviction about our forecast should have been lower. in other words, the signals were there, but the fact that everyone was behaving like a hedgehog rather than a fox for the most part as a market, we missed those other signals. mr. marckwardt: again, under that talk a little about triangulation. i don't know if maybe you want to explain triangulation, what it means to pollsters. dr. young: just in general for

forecasting, triangulation is nothing more than being a fox and taking multiple inputs and putting them together. somehow combining them. you can combine them in different ways. you can combine them quantitatively, qualitatively. at least having multiple inputs in one place to basically assess a potential future outcome. it could be polls like, is the economy doing well or not. if the economy is doing well, it will favor the government candidate. if it is not doing well, it will favor the opposition. could we use other indicators, like the candidate strongest on the main problem we know wins about 85% of the time is another model. could we use fundamental models? we know the incumbent has a threefold advantage. we know that at 40% approval

rating, a success for nonincumbent has a 6% chance of winning. who is the successor at 40% approval rating today? kamala harris. so at the very least we have these other models, inputs that we can use, and we can assess them together. mr. marckwardt: you talk about afterwards the argentinian election, 2019. i don't know if you want to share some lessons learned from forecasting in that election. dr. young: we talked about single input learning styles versus multiple input learning styles, the hedgehog versus the fox. another bias is confirmation bias. it has to do with how what we believe. the 2016 election in the u.s.

was very much like that. we cite a lot of different experts and pundits in the book physically saying there is no way someone like trump could win. he looks strange, he is orange, can't win, or his hair is crazy. no, he's a celebrity, it is not serious, no way a celebrity could win. so he had this confirmation bias and what happens ultimately, you begin to sort of understand your own data differently. we actually had a citation of a very well-known political science and modeler who basically had a model that suggested that trump would win, but he was questioning the assumptions of his model. a great example of confirmation bias. the output doesn't make sense accord into the way i think the world is aragorn iced -- the world is organized, therefore i have to make sense of it. right now pollsters are trying

to understand the scenario today. 2019, which was sort of a primary -- it is more than a primary because everyone is on the ballot, but in argentina the polls -- and the pundits more importantly, seriously overstated the president's chances of winning and they were surprised on election day. why? because he looked the role, he was an orthodox from an economic perspective. he went to all the right schools. he circled around the right circles. obviously things were going to improve over time. there was even this notion that somehow there was a trend towards him up to election day. whether that was the case or not is another question. on the flipside you had the

opposition that didn't look the role, wasn't found in the right circles. who ultimately won the election and became president of argentina. the problem is that the polls were shaky. there are lots of new methodologies, a lot of online, untested. and so the polls were, i would say questionable at best. misleading at worst. if you look at all the indicators, it suggested he was going to get creamed. you had an economy that was imploding. economy was a number one issue. fernandez was leading by about 10 points on the economy. just three data points suggested that. maybe i shouldn't trust those. that is just a great example where he had mixed signals and if analysts took all the signals

together, they would have a lower level of conviction. ultimately the day after election day, the market was very surprised. mr. marckwardt: so, there are events that change really quickly public opinion, such as 9/11, black swan events. kind of taking it a little more can temporarily, you mentioned incumbent approval rating being 40% or higher. now we have a change in the election. we have kamala harris and biden. not so much to predict what's going to come, but are the pollsters trying to work with the change and the fact that there is not really an incumbent, or there is, and it is arguable in one way or another because she is the vice president? how do you account for that change, or are you obviously

still trying to figure out how you might be able to account for that difference? dr. young: we are in a complicated moment. because a lot of events have happened. and they have muddied the scenario. we have a former president running again. we have a vice president that took the place of the same president. i think that all we can do in a situation like this is go to our basic indicators and look at them at face value. a lot of what is happening right now, and if you listen to the market today, everyone is questioning all the indicators. maybe we need to step back and say maybe they are just right and we just have to read them for what they are. on the polling side up until about four days ago, harris was in the lead in most places. that is slowly shifting. the number one problems are the economy and inflation. trump leads by about seven on

that. we have a historically weak incumbent, the successor is running. all these sorts of things which should suggest a trump victory by a lot. but it's pretty close. and why is that the case, perhaps? perhaps because he has a ceiling. i think he does have a ceiling. he is not liked by everyone. he has not ingratiated himself to the majority of the population. but ultimately this is an election about inflation, about cost-of-living, and there are constituencies that are really suffering still today and they don't trust the sitting government. that's the summation of our indicators. yeah, probably it's an election that should be leaning trump. should be. but there a lot of second-guessing right now. and why second-guessing right now? because the polls are so close.

mr. marckwardt: so, kind of taking it to a broader look at latin america, what have been the successes and failures of polling, and what are some of the trends in latin america? obviously there is a lot of discussion of democratic backsliding a lot of countries, and tendencies towards more authoritarian figures, policies. taking it back to the polling, is that something that will continue over the long-term? can polling even ascertain as a fortuneteller of those tendencies to continue? or is this something that might be temporary and what you are seeing? dr. young: part of the role of the fortuneteller is they say something discrete about the future. we work with other subject matters like referenda, or

impeachments, for instance. but a lot of the work we do, a lot of the work i do is also setting the stage, the broad stage for the future. what i can say about latin america is first and foremost, like in the united states, there is a widespread belief that the system is broken. this antiestablishment sentiment is not going anywhere. like in the united states, in latin america there has been a relative break down in ev consensus. i think we should expect more anti-system politics looking forward into the medium to long-term. i think that is a given. brazil is the place i pay most attention to and without a doubt be can see out every day. lula right now is an anti-system political actor who is exercising his role as such. i see this next election in 2026

repeating that. i think this trend, this is a generalized trend. mr. marckwardt: what i wanted to do is open it up for some questions from our audience. we do have a microphone, so we will have it passed over here. but please. >> thanks a lot. i wanted to ask many questions, but i will only ask one. when you talk about your hat as a spin doctor, and put in the context of the 206 election, i wonder if we failure at the time wasn't one of misinterpreting a probabilistic situation as a certainty. to some extent, i think it feels like when you say there is a 70% chance that candidate x is going to win, people interpret that as

candidate x is going to get 70% of the vote and a certain outcome. i felt that when biden was in place people were doing that, but the opposite. trump has a 70% chance of winning and treating that as a certainty. how do you think about communicating results in a world where people make this type of interpretation your wrist -- how do you marry the fortuneteller with the spin doctor in a way that gets around that, if that is at all possible? dr. young: that is a great question. that is super difficult and a huge challenge. we talked about cognitive biases. single input learning styles and confirmation bias. in that chapter is a third one which is probabilistic versus determine a list of thinking. and the importance of the analyst thinking probably stickally.

the critique on 2016 is they had the probabilities wrong. it was more of a 50-50 election. whether it was 6040, it was leaning clinton but was much closer. and so we got that wrong because we didn't incorporate all the signals. if we had, i think it would have been more reasonable at least, our expectations would have been. but communicating this to the larger public is very difficult. because most people think determine illicitly. they think trump will win, will not win. harris will win, will not win. i would just say the only answer i have is every day of my professional career i explained to someone the notion of variance, even though i don't say variance. how do you communicate uncertainty in a way that people understand?

i think it is incumbent upon us professionals to try and provide the context needed to explain things, and i do that obviously with clients and with the media, i am doing it here in part. but that is essential challenge because most people think determine unless the clay. and we have these sorts of problems of interpretation ultimately. that is not an easy answer to that question but it definitely is a challenge we face every day. mr. marckwardt: yes, up here in the front. or in the back. >> what are your thoughts on our lichtman -- on alan lichtman, academics like him who have these, what, 13 bases, or? dr. young: his keys?

it's a model. it's a model that i don't understand 100% but i think it is a bit of take about how he measures things. there is a measurement issue. only he knows how to use the keys, it seems. if he can't open up the method from a scientific perspective and locate it then we have a problem. just as an aside i teach another class at some other places i am forecasting. what we do is we take the last electoral cycle and decompose all the models and recompose them. because they are transparent so we know how they are put together. we can take them apart and put them back together and figure out is wrong. there's not a lot of transparency there. i don't know how he is measuring variables. but he has some sort of probabilistic model so it is no different. there is no special sauce.

it is like any other model that exists. it has an outcome which is the election and a series of other variables. his are mostly structural. but i do not think there is a lot of mystery. it is just a mystery of what is the framework. >> thank you very much. i don't envy your position as being the avatar of all pollster s. one comment which is that, in looking back on it, to me, the 2016 miss was partially an improper focus. the focus pushed was the aggregate popular vote. of course hillary clinton indeed won the aggregate popular vote. but due to the nature of our system, it's the electoral college that counts. and trump took by a good margin.

somehow the polling was saying look at the popular vote, look at the popular vote, she's winning, she's winning. and don't look at this, which is indicating he's not winning. let's not publicize that. i really picked that up with nate silver a lot. like, we want hillary, so the stuff that doesn't look good, we simply aren't going to make public. which really undermines credibility. there is that factor and there is also the expense factor. i adhered -- they had to dramatically cut back sample sizes because they simply can't afford the big person-to-person sampling. as you mentioned, personal contacts on the phone or face-to-face or elaborate questionnaires.

so do you think those kind of things are seriously eroding public confidence at least in polling? thank you. dr. young: there is a lot to unpack there. we just take this step-by-step. i agree with you about the swing states. actually in the book i go through systematically and show if we focused just on the swing states we would have gotten it right. the signals were there, the polls were overstated towards clinton but the other signals told a different story. i think we have gotten better in the united states with understanding that there is a certain degree of divergence between the swing states and the national result. i do a lot of brazilian media

talking about the u.s. elections in brazil. they will not talk to me about the national polls. they have been taught by someone, i don't know who, that they only look at the swing states. i think that is an innovation in the general sense for all of us where the swing states don't clearly represent the national poll. when it comes to accuracy, if you look at the long-term trends we have only become more accurate. the problem is we have erred in some massively important elections on the wrong side that undermines confidence, when we picked the wrong winner. actually we were more off in 2020 then we were in 2016, but w e picked the right winger. and all we can do, we can only control what we can control when we make an error like that, we admit it. we are open and transparent about it. the pollsters don't do anything

individually, we work as a group and we did down into the data to understand is wrong and then we come up with solutions looking forward. that is the only way that i believe we stay credible in a very complex world doing a very complex thing, is to open up the door and let people in. >> thank you so much for this. i have two related questions. you described the 2016 election as a classic example of a single input failure. what was that input? could you elaborate? then there has been a lot of conversation about the fact that pollsters have learned from 2016 and are now becoming much more sophisticated, i guess as a fox would be, to include other variables that would not miss the silent trump voter or

whatever. the related question is that i am looking at a gallop poll that came out either yesterday or today, that shows -- and this is testimony to the degree of polarization in the united states, that the top-five issue for republicans in the top five issues for democrats and those leaving each direction are completely different. for republicans it is the economy, immigration, terrorism, and national security, crime and taxes. whereas for democrats it is democracy in the u.s., the type of supreme court justices that a president would nominate, abortion, health care, and education. so when you say that the economy is the most important issue and that trump leads by 7% or whatever, are you really capturing this complete divide

in terms of how partisan identities break down in terms of the issues that are considered most important? dr. young: those are great questions. on your second question, yeah, we are a highly, highly polarized society. if you look at the messages in each campaign, you have an overarching umbrella set of messages mostly about the economy. and you have a series of other issues that are based issues. trump is talking about immigration. why? because he is talking to his base. harris is talking about threats of democracy. why? because she is talking to her base. but if you talk about the population in general, ours differs a little bit from the gallop poll but there are similarities. at some level, all americans are worried about the economy. if you take republicans and especially independents, the economy is number one. in this highly polarized time you have to have differentiated

messages, you have to have some messages that are there to mobilize your base. you have to have some messages that are going to be able to carve off the undecideds. and the economy is the one that does that specifically. on your first question, the thing input -- the single input was the polls, if i was not clear on that. if you just looked at polling, the vast majority of polls at the state and national level -- if you looked at fundamental models, incumbency, all the other problems with all the main factors, they suggested trump, or more specifically, a much tighter election. if not a 50-50 election. when i would say is this triangulation, we need to be careful. there is one thing about perfecting our own craft, the craft of the poll.

ensuring that we have the most robust instrument possible. and in this context today, that means having methods that get at those maga nonresponders. those are the silent killers for us. but perfecting our craft is different than using multiple indicators to forecast an election. we want the most robust poll possible. we want those maga nonresponders. we also want these other indicators, like the main problem i mentioned in our forecasting model to understand what we have so we can perform summary judgment. i wanted to separate the two. the poll is one of the tools but we use other tools as well when we forecast elections. >> really great book. i already have my copy and it is fantastic.

kind of building on what you're talking about, looking -- putting that looking forward hat on. polling has evolved over time, and as new technologies have come on board we have either adopted to them or adapted to them. now that we are deep into the ai era and generative ai, are those tools as techniques enhancing what pollsters do, but also what might be the dangers to look out for? dr. young: just as an aside, the photo of my book that i pushed out in social media, the finger is not my finger, it is actually your finger, michael. there we go. by the way, michael is a nationally renowned expert knows more on this than i do, but i fake it a bit. i think the following. i think the pollster is a

pollster no matter what the method is to capture public opinion. whether we are using traditional polls where we talk to people, whether we are using non-survey based data in one way or another, we are still pollsters trying to capture the pulse of the people. i think with the advent of ai and the plethora of data that is out there, i think this is a very exciting time. i think you and i will begin the mapping of alternative ways to measure public opinion. we will be the validator's invalidation become very important. validation is always important.

our profession will be about taking these alternative measures and seeing if they work or not. i am excited about that. to what extent does ai affect the actual business of polling? obviously there will be a lot of innovation, a lot of creative destruction there. i think more from a data perspective and capturing public opinion. i am avenue gnostic -- i am agnostic. the polls are there to be the guardian of public opinion. what i did not emphasize is the critical linchpin between those who govern and those who are governed. whether we are using the poll itself or some alternative that is less important, we will be there to validate it. >> hi, cliff. sorry if i am asking something

you discussed in the book already because i have not finished it yet. but you mentioned polarization and calcification as a framework being used to analyze elections both here and in brazil, which i know you follow closely too. but in brazil, we are in the middle of a local election where this polarization didn't hold, at least not the way where the analyst expected. do you think the local election is a different animal and that is why the polarization didn't hold as expected, or have we peaked on that kind of polarization and societies are moving away from that of the? -- that a little? dr. young: brazil just had the first round of its municipal elections. i think you are talking more

specifically about sao paulo but generally about the elections. being extremely polarized between the right and the left doesn't necessarily mean the political outcomes will be exactly -- it is one fact among many that is important in determining what is going to happen. voters are complicated creatures that take into consideration many things. it could be the ideological distinction or polarization plays out at the national level but at the local level it is much more about meat and potatoes. actually in-- you win and lose t the garbage men to vote, you win and lose if you keep the streets paved. it might have been more basic bread-and-butter issues that mattered and where you sat on

the political spectrum was less important. i think at the presidential level that matters, but maybe the local election brought out more practicality in brazilian voters. >> questions? >> thank you for this talk. i have a question about your thoughts on decision-makers, policymakers, donald trump, kamala harris, joe biden and how they view the will of the people from your perspective. and if you had a magic wand that you could get decision-makers and politicians to understand about polling and the industry, what would you try to get them to understand? >> i can't speak specifically about these actors but what i can say is they run the gamut. you have individuals that are

heavy consumers of information and incorporate that information in decision-making. not as a sole input, many inputs. my experience over my career is the best politicians or lay researchers because they listened to their networks when information came through. they tend to be lay researchers always listening and incorporating information. i also work with people that are magical thinkers and they think they can magically think themselves out of a situation. the book in part as a critique on that because it shows public opinion is very stable and if not stable, very predictable. for the most part there is not room for magical thinking. but those sorts of decision-makers exist as well. what i would say is the following -- most important is meeting people where they are.

if there was any rule, any take away from my career, you are more likely to be successful if you meet people where they are. a lot of factors go into that. decision-makers often get that wrong because they think they know best. >> joking on that, in the book you talk a lot about public opinion being more static and changing over time with slower trends with events like 9/11 where president bush got overwhelming approval literally overnight. i understand public opinion is more static. what are the trends you are seeing, the directions especially as it related to the 2016 presidential election, as it related to antiestablishment

fever spreading across the nation. what is the trend? is that increasing or is it plateaued or how do you view it going forward, what are the numbers telling you? >> again, the anti-system belief system is here to stay. that means increase problems with governments, increased inability to come to consensus. we should get used to it. there is a clarity there. it's not increasing but it's not decreasing. it is embedded in who we are as global citizens, not just in the united states. i mention we found this all over the world. to properly put in context our

political dispute today, specifically in the united states but more generally in the west, latin america and europe. look across the board, society is increasingly becoming more progressive and more tolerant across a host of domains. gender equity, racial equity -- equality, excuse me. gay marriage, identity, sexual identity, etc. but there is a reaction to that. it is more complex than i am portraying it but we have these broad trends but in the short to medium-term we are in the middle of chaos in part because we have part of society reacting to that. in different countries that is taking on different forms, different flavors, but the trend

forward has a reaction as well and we can understand the political disputes in that context. the question is, how long does this last? i would say it would probably take a generation or so to work itself out. for now this is the critical point of dispute in the united states and most countries in the world. >> it's really interesting with the social trends. one of the last roles you talk about, you talked about three different roles, the role of spin dr. specifically spin daca -- spin dr. as it means how the messages will be received, what is the optimal message, given a certain policy, what is the optimal way of transmitting it to get more approval ratings,

that's how i understand that. given the context of social trends going forward, are our politicians and organizations leveraging more of the spin dr. roll of posters? >> i've said this but i want to emphasize it again, spin dr. is somewhat pejorative in nature but i use it purposely because we can only do so much with public opinion. public opinion in a given moment and you are more likely to be successful if you meet public opinion where it is rather than try to convince it to come to you. there's a lot of magical thinking professionally speaking around this issue but i think the data bears out that people are fairly set in the short term in terms of what they believe and you won't change that. you've got to talk about them and what they need. seeing a bit of messaging, let's call it, in this context, we can

see it in the campaign today. harris is talking about the opportunity economy and the future, let's go to the future, not the past. trump is making allusion to the way things were back then, they were better. you see a framing in a way that means things to people. trump is emphasizing a lot immigration but immigration politics is not about immigration, it's about national identity. so critically, especially for trump space, the key question for them is what does it mean to be a real american? who is a real american? is america today the same america that once was? no it is not.

how do we go back to the way it was? you have this sort of orientation toward these issues and we see political actors framing their messages around the way public opinion thanks -- thinks. >> what are some other thoughts or the key lessons you would love the public to glean off of the book? >> there is so much. i think generally speaking this is a book for the decision-maker. i think it's a manual they can use. our students use it but also those using public opinion data, that's the first point. i think the second is is a thin -- a synthetic piece that allows

a poster at the beginning of his or her career to have a framework to provide meaning and understanding in terms of what they do. they can see around the corner. they don't have to bump up against the wall like i did and others have as well. i think lastly i would say this is a book about the profession of the pollster. i don't think it's been defined anywhere else. i wanted to hear. a lot of what we do is on the job training and we also call ourselves a poster and i think that job is important. as i said before, we are the linchpin of democracy. elections are feedback loops of those in power, who was in power and who is not is out but polls are a faster feedback loop. i truly believe it's a noble

profession. we are the guardians of public opinion and ultimately we are not a posters, we are posters -- pollsters. >> in our public opinion because we talked a lot about convergence and you were talking about the most effective politicians being the ones able to meet people where they are. with that in mind, i was wondering how you see both campaigns in that regard and how effective the trump campaign in the harris campaign have been in this campaign cycle in terms of converging with public opinion. thanks. >> he's angling for an a, right? [laughter] ultimately i think they are both converging right now and i think that's why it's really close.

i think the harris campaign hit the ground running and had a message that was convincing. she doubled down and it was trying to reframe the economy away from inflation i think that was the right thing to do. trump was a little unfocused at first but now you look at ads in swing states, they are really well done. they talk about inflation and link inflation to biden and harris. i would say they are optimally converging right now and running fine campaigns. i think the difference probably will come down to relative credibility when it comes to the economy. right now trump has the edge but we will see. i think they both are running on message campaigns. >> any other questions? you want to give some closing

thoughts on your book? >> i think the last one is, i really appreciate the time i've had here. if taught this class for 13 years. i taught it a few times as a summer course and then i tried to make it a semester course which was not easy. i got a deluge of complaints -- >> we will take you live to milwaukee were vice president harris is addressing the death of a hamas leader. vp harris: justice has been served. united states, israel and the entire world are better off as a result. he was responsible for the killing of thousands of innocent people, including the victims of

october 7 and hostages killed in gaza. he had american blood on his hands. today i can only hope the families of the victims of hamas feel a measure of relief. he was the mastermind of october 7. the deadliest day for the jewish people since the holocaust. a terrorist attack that killed 1200 innocent people and included horrific sexual violence and nearly 250 hostages taken into gaza including seven americans, living and received -- deceased who remained in captivity. a terrorist attack that triggered a devastating war in gaza, a war that has led to unconscionable suffering of many ellis -- innocent palestinians and greater instability throughout the middle east.

in the past year, american special operations and intelligence personnel have worked closely with their israeli counterparts to locate and track sinwar and other hamas leaders. i commend their work and i will say, to any terrorist who kills americans, threatens the american people or threatens our troops or our interests, know this -- we will always bring you to justice. israel has a right to defend itself and the threat hamas poses to israel must be eliminated. today there is clear progress toward that goal. hamas isn't decimated and its leadership is eliminated -- is decimated and its leadership is eliminated. this moment it's us an

opportunity to finally end the war in gaza and it must end such that israel is secure, the hostages are released, the suffering in gaza ends and the palestinian people can realize their right to dignity, security, freedom and self-determination. and it is time for the day after to begin. without hamas and power -- in power. we will not give up on these goals and i will always work to create a future of peace, dignity and security for all. i think you all. -- i thank you all. reporter: will you be ain israel to end the war? >> the vice president confirming what israel said a few men ago, the killing of yahya sinwar

, one of the plaerof the october 7 attack that set off the war, and has led to larger conflict. hamas has yet to respond to israel's announcement of the death. the israeli president released a statement that reads "i commend the israel defense forces and the security services for eliminating the arch terrorist. sinwar has for years been responsible for heinous attacks against israeli citizens, citizens of other countries and the murder of thousands of other people. he was dedicated to terror, bloodshed and destabilizing the middle east. now more than ever we must act in every way possible to bring back the 101 hostages still being held in horrific conditions by hamas terrorists in gaza. that from the israeli president.

we will bring you updates including any response from u.s. leaders on the c-span networks. >> the house will be in order. >> this your c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979 we've been your primary source for capitol hill, providing balanced, unfiltered coverage of government, taking you to where policy is debated and decided with the support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting, powered by cable. >> with 19 days until the elections, we have a full day of live campaign coverage on c-span. governor tim walz is joined by former president bill clinton in durham, north carolina to kickoff early voting in the state at 3:00 p.m., and at 7:15, vice president harris holds a rally in green bay, wisconsin. also tonight at 9:15, former

president donald trump speaks at the alfred e smith dinner, a bipartisan white tie gala that benefits charities of the roman catholic diocese of new york. we will have all of these live on c-span. you can also watch on the c-span now video app or online at c-span.org. >> do you solemnly swear that in the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> weeknights watch encore presentation of our american story tv series, congress investigates, as we export major investigations by the u.s. house and senate in our history. authors and historians tell the stories, you will see historic footage and examine the impact and legacy of key congressional hearings. tonight, the house committee in

1993 and 1995 examine infants around a siege carried out by the federal government and law enforcement agencies at the branch davidian compound near waco, texas. watch tonight at 10:00 eastern on c-span two. >> more from campaign 2024 with a debate fm oregon. a republican congressman faced her democrat challenger in the race to represent the state for congressional distris. . topics include homelessness, the economy, diversity and climate change. the cook political report with amy walter rates the re a toss up. hosted by central oregon daily. this is about an hour. this essential organ daily news election coverage your choice 2024. good evening everyone. thanks for joining us for this special edition of central

oregon daily news helping you make your choice this election season. most voters in the county ballots will arrive in the mail tomorrow making tonight's debate your last chance to hear from the candidates in what could be the race to determine the balance of power in washington d.c.. for the past two years republicans have held a slim majority in the house of representatives congressional district 5 is considered one of the most evenly split in hotly contested seats in the country right now. control of the seat either by the republicans or democrats could very well be a tipping point in control of congress. the stakes are high and your vote matters more now than perhaps ever before. i'm david along with my fellow moderators heather roberts from news radio and julie johnson from the bulletin. ladies thank you for being here as well. candidates republican incumbent

lori chavez-reremer the congresswoman won her seat two years ago the first election held in what was the redraw district 5. her challenger state rep in the janelle bynum and ms. bynum's currently is serving as state representative for happy valley. prior to accepting her petition for debate the candidates agreed to a set of rules for each candidate will have one minute for an opening statement as well as closing remarks. we have conducted a coin toss for each response to each question will be limited to one minute along with the one minute rebuttal to the moderator asked the question can allow either candidate 30 seconds to clarify or edit their comments. this is at the moderator's discretion. this question comes from us the moderators viewers listeners and readers as well as the league of women voters of the city and county club event. congresswoman chavez-deremer

won the coin toss hitting the order for us. you have one minute for your opening remarks. >> thank you and thank thank you for hosting this event. it's so important to oregon voters especially if the district. i'm honored to represent or are going -- oregonians in the district but i thank you will hear a successful record of bipartisanship. how hard i work in washington d.c. telling oregon story and what we brought home to the fifth congressional district. unlike what you will see from my opponent who is going to distract from her failed record in the state legislature for almost 10 years. she will stand up will stand before you tonight and express her opinion but what we know is she has a failed actual track record. she has supported rioters because she thinks we should work in concert with riders and she is a supported rapist because she thinks we should

protect them better than the victims and she is protecting criminals and drug cartels by having open street drugs for our young people. the sentinel crisis is killing our kids so i'm looking forward to taking your questions tonight and exposing her failed record. >> congresswoman thank you and representative bynum one minute for your opening remarks. >> good evening. i am janelle bynum and i'm a sports loving mama for electrical engineer small business owner and four term state legislator. i'm running because washington is not working for oregon families there isn't much getting done. i have worked across the aisle for the past eight years looking at legislation and asking the question is it going to help working families and is it going to help us move ahead? our children going to be better off than we are and sadly those same questions need to be asked

in washington as well. we don't know which lohrei is going to show up tonight and we don't know if it's going to be maga extremist lohrei or trump loving lohrei. we know we are the champions ready to roll up our sleeves for working families housing healthier the economy and choice. i'm that candidate and i'm ready to get to work. >> congresswoman redemer some have a level of concern about what's happening at the border. there is a bipartisan bill the senate this year year. need year but in either have -- if either admitted to the house when you have supported those bills? why or why not? >> it's so important because the failed policies of this administration have affected oregon. so many states or border states.

in the that sentinel crisis is killing our kids and -- it's like come on and drug cartels and poison our kids on the streets. people are dead because the choices she made in on the border bills they passed in the house of representatives the most strict order bill that we could have early last year which i supported which would have funded our border patrol making sure they have the tools that they need. that is sitting on chuck schumer's desk in the senate. the senate bill never got out the senate. i would have taken a hard look because we had to give them the tools to stop the flow of drugs coming in to hurt our kids in oregon. >> representative chavez-deremer isn't entitled to change the facts. we know she was not going through the border bill because she follows trump and trump kill that bill. we also know i was a leader in the legislature making sure that

we corrected any wrongs that were made with measure 110. i led the effort to make sure than to know and other drugs were re-criminalized with an emergency. i led making sure we had a town hall support anybody else read than talking about centinela. the congresswoman can barely spell no -- fenton l.. she's so far into the trump's line of thought. she's associate with him and we know he killed that bill and that's a testament to how far she's associate with time. we know she does on the border bill to pass. what specific actions would you address on the eagle -- issue of illegal immigration on the border?

>> i worked on the border for six years that i worked on the border for six years and i believe human trafficking is one of the largest of atrocities related to the border as it stands. human trafficking is an issue and we know that drug trafficking is also an issue that we also know and in my time working there we know that the border is a function of our economy. we has have to protect it and we had to make sure there's a free flow of goods and services to make sure our economy is strong. i worked there in mind or stand the border. it's not this free-for-all that lori chavez-deremer is claiming it is. it's part of our economy. and the congressman i want to get give a chance to respond. >> i have been there twice and not only if i supported there is on the border with the things that was important to me was making sure again or border has

the tools they need so we can set the people coming to this country we know more than 10 million people and tens of thousands of those have records of criminality whether murder rape. you can't have an opponent who will allow people to die in the street because of. it's because of her failed policy because of what she champions. she championed drugs on the street. what do you say to those families? she has no answer to it and it's a failed policy. she can have her opinion all day long but she is failed policies that she has a record on here in the state of oregon which he deflects him because she doesn't want to own it senator you have 30 seconds to respond.

>> i grew up in washington d.c. during the crack-cocaine epidemic. i remember seeing people strung out on the streets and i understand what means to remove the family member to drugs. i get that. my opponent doesn't. she wants to sweet people under the carpet and throw them away like dogs. i am the other hand believe in the rule of law. i understand what happened when you are at community with gun violence and drug violence. i understand it better than my opponent ever has. >> i want to move on to the issue of abortion if we can. we will start with you representative bynum. campaign web site says i'm running to codify roe v. vs. wade at the federal level. if you're elected to represent or again why should you decide what states like idaho wyoming kansas and other conservative leaning states should do when it

comes to if a woman can seek an abortion clinics that the main question here is to codify roe vs. wade. >> scotus has says you cannot. we don't have the luxury of voting in the house. >> answer the question. is that a yes or no? >> representative let me get back to this and answer the question as to why liberal state should be able to decide what conservative state should do when it comes to a woman's right to an abortion. >> in the previous interviews that we have had in the previous debate we talked about what happens when women cross borders and when women cross-state borders and i believe every american woman, every woman on our soil should have the right to have decisions made between her and her doctor and it

doesn't matter where in this country you exist. you should have the right to have their reproductive health options safeguarded by this country. government should not come between you and your doctor period. my opponent can't say that. >> congresswoman a different on that question and let set the record straight first of all in your position. you have said you do not support a nationwide ban on abortions further saying the supreme court did get it right. making abortion acts as a state-level issue. when so many other issues whether it's who you're allowed to marry or antidiscrimination laws are set at the federal level why wise that a portion for state-by-state issue like. >> again i want to be clear where i stand. pree dobbs on national abortion i have my group -- made leadership aware that because oregonians should decide if they

want access to a portion for more than 65% of oregonians have said this is the action they want. oregonians have determined what they want and now scotus has ruled in their favor a greek with oregonians to say this is what we want. that's the position i take and i promise oregonians that i will not be in the way now that scotus has ruled that it's a states rights issue and i will keep that promise. .. we deserve to make sure young women across this country have access to abortion wherever they are heard wherever they choose to study.

wherever they choose your vacation they ought to have access. >> congresswoman you have acknowledged the diversity we have in the fifth district one of the most politically diverse in the state. how have you specifically bridge the divide constituents? the urban divide israel people to talk about it. they try to understand the differences are. there are so many commonalities we can bring together. i want to make sure we are listening to both. for far too long people in rural areas in this part of the district felt left behind with portland. they felt maybe they're not being listened too as a former mayor as a mom and a small business owner it is my opportunity to say i am listening to all sides. i've taken that story to congress. i am the second most bipartisan member of congress. that's by my track record that's proven by might track record over the 300 bills i am on, over 884% of those are bipartisan to

work with my colleagues here in oregon, all of the imports i work on several committees i'm one of the problem solvers caucus we are trying to have common sense, pragmatic, thoughtful, center forward decisions that are made. i take it very seriously. i roll up my sleeves every day and say how am i going to tell organ story? nationalizing any of these issues is not important to me. make sure organ and i will continue that work throughout the 119th congress. >> representative similar question two how do you plan to bridge the east to west divide to represent all constituents? >> i'm a firm believer in town halls as i was driving here today i was thinking lori chavez-deremer came to the first tunnel she sat in the back with her husband and daughter, hired a heckler to sit up front. i taught her how to do town halls. i will continue to town halls.

i'm a well known for doing my taco town hall you bring the tacos and i come. we talk about whatever issues on your mind, your heart, whatever group wants to host that. i do that. i do walking town halls act on them at the high school, at the mall, i have been a person that is always been known to be accessible. to be open and to make sure that even if you and i agree on things or disagree on things, that i am open to new ideas. i think what's really challenging about this district is there's a mountain that separates us. through conversation, through understanding, through listening i think we get there. we get to solutions. >> congresswoman i want to give you a chance to respond to the allegation that you hired a heckler to attend that town hall. [laughter] i remember that town hall on transportation the lack of leadership she was going to

show. this is 2024 this is not 2016 but we have to have a dose of reality for it i've accepted every single debate that was offered. my opponent chose not too. why? she wants to hide behind her failed policies. again, when she cannot answer bipartisanship at the legislature that the house, the senate, the government's governor's mansion there's no reason for her to listen to everyone else. >> will move on now to the next question. we've seen this issue all throughout the district from the national force, homeless site cleanups throughout the district. what concrete steps would you take to address the homelessness crisis at the federal level? >> is in my trunk which i am sorry representative bynum that's to you. >> addressing the homeless in crisis at the federal level i think is eight variety of attacks. meaning attacking the problem.

as an engineer i think are what are the root causes and how do we fix them. their work on tiny homes, transitional housing. making sure we had the legislation available making sure we have the infrastructure to develop transitional housing sites. it is more infrastructure that's needed from the federal government rather than less. what i really think is important we can not trust lori chavez-deremer to offer that funding. she's part of a regime in washington d.c. it's not getting anything done. we heard her say she's on 300 bills i do not know how many of them have passed but it is rubberstamping the trump agenda. rubberstamping and chaotic agenda were not moving the needle on housing as we should. congresswomen deremer what steps would you take to address the

homeless crisis on the federal level? >> thank you we worked hard on this issue because the state has failed this is a state issue, housing, how were going to have more affordability. i want to go back quickly to what bills have passed. i think she threatened nonsense about not knowing how one of the bills assigned by the president of the united states was to fend off intentional act to make sure we can protect our young again on the street. we work hard in congress making sure the bills come forward to fix the problems for oregonians that she has created and on the homeless and the housing and affordability. i have worked continuously on that to get the funding on the infrastructure for small communities the state will not help. small communities like defendant, like redman would give the infrastructure projects to be able to grow to have the housing affordability. we have done the american relief for families acts of free choice and affordable housing bill that i supported that i work through hud with and child tax credit.

and child tax for dependents of people could afford the rent. the voucher program i've sponsored as well. we're doing our part at the federal level and she will not hold on her hands to help oregonians. cooked us of the homeless issue for just a moment and let start with you congresswoman the homeless crisis is having a particular big impact on social oregon. we have witnessed a number of fires across the area. one in particular that comes to mind is the darling three fire. that one determined to have been started in an encampment. these are individuals spending months if not years on federal lands. the blm, the forest service in d both are basically crickets when asked, what are you doing about the 14 day limit that people have two camp out on federal land? do you believe part of the homeless solution should evolved federal agencies and should things like forest service and

blm be doing more? >> certainly working together. enter agency coalitions are so important congress. making sure we are dressing with the problem is. and assisting our state parties were there feeling to do their job as well but we do have a lot of federal land here in central oregon. it really throughout the state. talking to what that's going to do at the local level, the state level and then the federal level. want to make sure there's funding for one, mitigating our forests and making sure we are managing them in a way they are not have 2 million acres that we experience the cycle. making sure we have the wildland firefighter. we are tagamet homeless we have to make sure we are assisting people were talking about drug addiction, mental health, homelessness, all wrapped around together. one of the bills i've been working on is the direct care act street medicine work with mosaic right here in central oregon to address the needs of our most vulnerable and then talking about the forest fires. we have to address that.

millions of acres can go up at the heat we are experiencing but i'm doing everything i can. the state government has to step up and make sure we are managing and supporting our local agencies as were doing so. we need to get more funding toward local agencies as well. representative bynum what are you willing and prepared to do to get more federal resources into deal with the living and the force? what is important to point out that lori chavez-deremer also supported an arbitrary cut of 30% to federal government resources. >> not true. >> that is quite shameful. we talk about agencies working together with our state agencies and our city. a city elected leadership, there cannot be that if you are to go in and cut immediately. it's a bit disingenuous to say you want to work together yet you want to cut the very service

that oregonians really rely on. which would be blm. that is basic to me. that is a one piece to focus on. the other one is quite simply the reasons for homelessness. i think it is inhumane to step over bodies on the streets or in our forest. i think it is inhumane and we should work harder to make sure that is not a reality for any other oregonian. >> i am guessing few disagrees into the question i asked was not answered by either one of you. what is the federal role blm forest service in maintaining a 14 day limit on people camping in the forest when there are so many fires around here. and so much threat to the residents of central oregon. >> enforcement is what is key. that's supporting getting the funding for the local agencies and fighting the manpower to do so to enforce a market with the local issues and local agencies. the blm lands and forest lands i

work every day in congress with their agencies making sure we can have that conversation. and so she is not telling the truth again about funding. she is talking about specifically nothing that has to do with that of what was her answer? i just think we should work harder but what if you been doing for 10 years of the state agency to support this? nothing. there's more almost today then thanthere was when you started. because you have failed in your policy. >> representative bynum if you are elected to congress what is the priority to the blm and the forest service dealing with those spending months if not years in the woods? >> it's clearly up priority and enforcement. it's also very important to have people to go. one of the things we've learned over time is shifting people from place to place to place is not a solution for the solution has to be civil holistic you have to have wraparound services. you have to have additional

housing units. and you have to have enforcement. and you have to be serious. my opponent is not serious about bringing solutions. that is the difference. we cannot trust her. courts were going to ivanka to integrity. that have served more than 12 and a people to vote without verifying citizenship. do you trust the integrity of oregon's election we do accept the election of the outcome on november 5? >> i believe accepting election outcomes is a problem of the trump friends come trump cronies, my opponent could barely accept the outcome. i think i had to ask me directly directlywhether biden really on. for me it's about having safe and secure secure elections i

had grandparents who could not vote. that makes a democracy defender. and still within my children this idea civic participation is a requirement it is not optional. election integrity is something we should fight for we should defend. i've called for. investigation on the issue that happened at the secretary of state's office. whoever made the mistake would be cap held accountable per. >> i like to clarify two things. the question was specifically would you accept the outcome of this election yes or no per. >> absolutely. all right congress and congressmancongresswomen deremeu trust integrity and will except the outcome of this election? >> thank you for the question. the concern has come up 1500 non- citizens have been

identified there register to vote for that's a concern for all oregonians for that's a democracy free and fair election were to allege the secretary of state and the governor's office asking, let's identify where we can do better. we expect free and fair elections. i would and i think that's we count on and depend on but let's do the investigation and find out why my opponent voted for the dmv bill and so we have to check into it it's its accountay matters print hold its accountable on this election absolutely. we have to grow thin at the federal level two. listen, this is going be a toss up election. that does not change how it work. i signed on to two agreements to support this election with my colleagues across at a bipartisan letter, unity letter that says we will accept the outcome to this election when it said and done that so important to do. it is important to tell oregonians that as well pizza thank you for the question.

>> representative 30 seconds hear about all per. >> my opponent was a little sketchy on the last election. and whether we should accept the result that president biden oh oneinformer president trump los. i think it is that hesitation that should give voters had hesitation. when you have to question and election you except your own results be done except the higher level results whose a little sketchy we should not trust her. >> like to offer the congressman for a short rebuttal. >> i've been very clear in my support for free and fair elections. this is just another attempt to nationalize organs fifth congressional district. she will not take accountability for her actions, for her boats, for a failed leadership it she will just deflect, deflect, deflect, deflect and oregonians as or better than this but i've said it repeatedly but i have accepted the election outcome will to continue to do so and

work of my colleagues across out to let people know when americans know this is important to the united states of america. congresswoman lori chavez-deremer the and drug decriminalization law. however this was decided at the state level put your federal position had input instead of doingto focus on lessons learne. what lessons, including mistakes have you learned in the past years in congress? >> oh gosh. the more we talk, maybe we won't hear. the more we listen we can learn from other colleagues across the aisle and other parts of the country that might be experiencing or sharing some the same issues we have to coalesce around to get policy forward decisions made. that takes hard work. it's easy to side with one side or the other. what's not easy is to work against the tide. to make sure you are being focused and talk into your leadership. but that measure 110 is

important to the federal level, why? want to make sure were being supported. closing the southern border affects all americans. having 10 -- 50 million people come on vetted fx oregonians and all americans it is important to me and measure 110 with the failed experiment i would not want to share with anybody any other state in the nation because it was a failed experiment. can we do better? yes we can. but she has not done better. ten years almost that legislature and oregonians too. >> you know exactly how long. because i beat you twice. [inaudible] >> in with that when she squandered it. she did not use her ability to do better. >> representative representative bynum the rest of this is to you put comes from the raiders and the bold bullets in the original version of measure 110 which you

supported has been widely considered a failure and acknowledged as such. both sides of the aisle are working together to change it. what did you learn from measure 110 and its aftermath about the consequences of sweeping legislation and how would you bring that lesson to congress? >> its action organ issue. number one systems you need to be in place when you pass the bill. i worked to make sure mental health providers were in place. i had 88 million-dollar bill to growth a number of mental health providers. i also again did the town hall reaching out to people in the community. finding out was a challenge for them and how we could actually improve things. but the particular feature here of the issue is of critical importance to understand. this was a measure put to the people from an outside source. that's a function of our constitution and how citizens can bring forth issues to put before the voters. so the lesson learned here as we

consider things that citizens put forth we have the structures and the infrastructure in place and we make sure we are constantly evaluating that over time. if things aren't working we should not be afraid to cut bait and readjust quickly which is what we did. >> thank you. >> alright, let's move on to the issue of gun rights if we can for just a moment. representative bynum will start with you but this is a two-part question for the first part is very simple yes or no, do you support an assault weapons ban? >> yes. on the second part of that question, what changes to federal law regulating gun control do you support? >> the principle here is that our children are dying in

schools. people are dying in grocery stores. people are dying in the public square. people are dying because we do not have mental health support that i've already mentioned. nmb there are not enough red flag laws that are enforced, implemented that can help identify people at an early stage for not being fit to own a gun that can shred people in an instant. i think it is time for us to stop playing fast and loose with her children's lives. i do not want to bury any more children that have been harmed as a result of a school shooting. this is an issue that republicans will not take out. this is an issue that mothers like me are very concerned about. we have to do better. in my opponent cannot get there. congresswomen deremer do support

an assault weapons ban in this country? >> taking guns with law-abiding citizens is not where i stand that. i support the second amendment. but let me tell you i think we can do. i supported cosponsor of the act to bicameral, bipartisan national threat assessment center to prevent violence on all americans. my opponent mentioned that red flags law do you know she's voted to isolate criminals out of prison here in oregon? she has also voted to reduce felonies to misdemeanors what happens when you reduce the felonies to misdemeanors? people have access to guns. how on a one hand you say you care about red flag laws. you care about protecting oregonians and you are willing to decrease a criminal offenses they been charged forward to get but guns back in the hands of those criminal so that is false she is not supported that part and dismantling and defending law enforcement. she has been a champion of that

including crumb back on that she has voted for pre- >> that is not true. that is not true. >> measure 110. [inaudible] she will not stand by that statement. >> let me back up for just a second congresswoman for is there a gun-control law that you would support in congress question. >> yes i just signed on to bicameral, bipartisan making sure we identify where the threat assessments are. we have to address mental health and again not been done by my opponent. drug addiction. again the failures here have made our job to have to come in and fill the delta because of a failed policy. >> representative bynum there's a lot said there on your gun control and the light. you have 30 seconds. >> well, i think it just goes to show as a mom she's not as serious about making sure our kids are not shrouded in

schools. that is the whole thing. we saw eve all day. we saw florida. we sought boston. saw boston. we have seen las vegas. how much more do we have two seat before we get serious about protecting our family? there's a whole lot of talk but there is no action. and then there's a whole lot of baiting about who wants to defund it. i never did that. that is you. that issue. >> thank you. >> congresswomen deremer were going to talk about the balance of power. your election two years ago how specifically house republican control over congress benefited district five voters? >> oh well, listen. when i went to washington i wanted to tell the same story i think i've said this over and over again how important it was

to take oregon story to washington. belts the power and working across the aisle, how important that is. but again this is going to be the one her 19 congress may tell my congress that it's not the first is going to be the 119th. we have to do our best work we are there. the balance of powers going to shift. and again the presidential election is not going to be surprising to anyone who is watching, but my work is not going to change. my work is going to important to oregonians i went to work across the aisle to continue to care in the work as i did as a mayor, as a mom. i say this often but i have identical twin girls they are 30 years old once a democrat once a republican. but it is important to our family it's important to the balance of power whether we do in our own nucleus at the state level or the federal level it's working hard rolling up her sleeves and remember it was important for the everyday issues that are affecting all americans. >> congresswoman the question

was how specifically house republican control benefited voters here? are you able to give a specific example? >> sure. we talked about the fiscal responsibility at cutting $2.1 trillion over 10 years but that is important for oregonians in your address and the debt. making sure we can bring funding back a part of talked about in her wildfires. i talked about in our law enforcement. if talked about in the public safety. total leadership how that is important to me. i want to focus on that. we are traveler bringing money back five and $20 million support glenn d.a. making sure the dollars come back. we're talking $27 million invested in the fifth district. we closed a here cases we turn $4 million. allowing us to do that and be independent thinkers does not mean we have to party a legion. it means we have to be conservative in our values and making sure bringing that back in policy center forward staff. ounce of powers important to me. >> owing to give representative bynum a chance to answer a similar question for this

balance of power and swing districts like this on, how specifically which are election possible control the house moving back to democrats impacted resident of the fifth district? >> i was really excited to work on organs a version of the chips act. we know as a function of national security, a function of growing our economy and making sure we bridge a talent with opportunity. this is a chips act also had the impact of having 200 million-dollar investment for oregonians and bringing back $43 billion worth of investment. we also made sure our universities benefited as well. these are the types of investments that i think oregonians are looking for us to make. one of the things i think -- we sometimes lose sight of what the facts and her children graduate from high school, do they have anything to look forward to? and that for me it was a chips act. i was able to accomplish that.

even with the republican led congress. making sure we brought those dollars back home to oregon and senator was right in the mix with it. when the vice chairs of the committee. so that is one example of how i could do things just from here that will help oregonians in the long term. >> thank you both. representative bynum on a national scale unemployment is historically low. yet, the economy remains a central point of debate in this election cycle. representative bynum, we will begin with you. is the u.s. economy rising or failing? what steps do you think congress needs to take to economic growth in the next year? >> there is a lot there. the first thing i would say is that the economy does not appear the same for all of us. case in point, lori chavez-deremer said trump tax cuts would be good for some of

us. i think it is important to remember that working families deserve a break. whether it is with the child tax credit, making sure their kids are not matriculating through school , coming up with a lot of debt and it's also making sure they are good at family wage jobs being created right here in oregon. the central issue here is who gets the benefit from being in power? i believe republicans and lori chavez-deremer are really interested in making sure they and their friends and benefit from the tax laws that are passed. and all of the investments. i am a champion for working families and i will continue to roll up my sleeves and win for them. >> representative bynum the question was what steps do we need to take for economic growth question what could you address that question specifically? >> it's more of the same. we did the chips act to pay we did the infrastructure act.

we did inflation reduction. we didn't making sure we are working on reducing our dependence on foreign oil. those to me are functions of the federal government. i sponsored a bill to help us get to a clean energy hub and having oregonians be leaders on that. that is what i think congress can do to help shore up the economy. continue to make large investments. >> congresswomen chavez-deremer is the economy thriving or failing what steps seem to be take to economic growth in the next year? >> review driver and organs of the fifth district the toad's failing rents are up, gas prices are up, grocery prices are up, people trying to make ends meet to have more than one job. they cannot find childcare. and they do need the assistance of the federal government to step in and say >> w we will leave this here and take you live to hear from democratic vice presidential nominee governor tim walz and former president bill clinton

and a campaign rally in durham, north carolina. it is the tar heel state's first day of early voting. live coverage on c-span. >> there's a couple of minutes we need to take care of. this is durham. durham this is -- this is durham ! [applause] this is durham. we are the fourth most educated city in america. [cheers and applause] we have the highest per capita phd rates in our country. [cheers and applause] we are home to north carolina central university. [cheers and applause] we are home to duke university. [cheers and applause] which means we can read, y'all. we good at reading. but we also got what my mom used to call good horse sense. we got common sense as well. and since this is a bull city,

we know some bull when we see it. [applause] we are aware of the choice that is before us in this election. we know that vice president harris and governor walz want to help us as taxpayers. the vice president harris plan on giving tax relief to over 100 million americans -- [cheers and applause] through restoring the expended child tax credit and strengthening the earned income tax credit. who wants to be in that number? [cheers and applause] i was just in minnesota couple weeks ago looking at the great work that minneapolis is doing with affordable housing. vice president harris and governor walz plan on doing something historic when it comes to housing in our country. it is her plan, and we are way past the conceptual stage of plans -- [laughter] way past.

it is her plan to build 3 million units of housing in our country -- [cheers and applause] and to give up to $25,000 in down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers. we can read, y'all. [cheers and applause] where are my small business owners, where the entrepreneurs in here? [cheers] her plan is to raise the deduction for small business startups from $5,000 to $50,000 to start new businesses. [applause] we can read, y'all. and because we can read, we can also read project 2025. [boos] move over, stephen king. [laughter] if you read project 2025, durham

, they not only want to take our rights away, they want to tell grown women to sit down and be humble and just do what you're told. where they doing that at? not durham. not here. not in durham. so today i'm asking you to join with us all across the state. and shout-out to my people enjoy checking they did a great job -- shout-out to georgia. [applause] 3000 people on the first day? shout-out to georgia. but north carolina! [cheers and applause] come on and raise up. with all due respect to georgia, it's our turn, because finally, friends, we know if this state is going to be won, durham is going to have a large part to do with it. as durham goes, so goes the

state of north carolina. so, y'all ready to get this started? [cheers and applause] if it's on, then it's on. let's leave the country, durham, to turning out in ways we've never turned out before, and let's elect kamala harris is the president of the united states america and tim walz as vice president of the united's of america. god bless you, durham. [cheers and applause] >> good afternoon, durham.

[cheers] my name is clarence birkhead, and i probably stand before you- -- proudly stand before you to serve as the sheriff of durham county. what a great day. [applause] i have dedicated my career to maintaining public safety, protecting the rights and freedoms of north carolinians, and ensuring that no one is above the law. [cheers and applause] i am proud to be here today to support vice president harris and governor walz, who have always fought to keep our community safe. with her decades of service, vice president harris understands the importance of protecting the safety and security of americans. she's always been a fearless fighter for the people.

and believes in tough, smart solutions to keep our community safe. as a prosecutor, she stood up for women and children by going after those who committed sexual abuse. as attorney general of the most populous state in the country, she went after international drug gangs, human traffickers, and cartels that smuggle guns and drugs and human beings across u.s. and mexico border. as vice president, she helped make the largest federal investment in public safety ever, including investing billions of support to local law enforcement in 1000 cities, towns, and counties. under the biden-harris administration, crime is now at a near 50-year low. [cheers and applause]

and vice president harris chose a fantastic running mate in tim walz. [cheers and applause] as governor, he's been laser focused on public safety funding. minneapolis police department helped to more cops on th the street and investing in body-worn cameras. governor walz and vice president harris are gunowners and supporters of the second amendment. but like millions of gunowners, we support responsible gun ownership. [applause] i know that vice president harris and governor walz are committed to supporting law enforcement and will always prioritize keeping our communities safe. now, on the other hand -- [laughter] donald trump --

[boos] a convicted felon, 34 counts of fraud, who has been found liable for sexual abuse and has shown to have no respect for law enforcement. he tried to cut funding for law enforcement in every single you here was in office and tried to cut funding that helps local police departments hire more officers. violent crime skyrocketed under his tenure. he did nothing to keep guns off the streets and out of the hands of dangerous criminals while he was in office. trump calls the convicted january 6 rioters hostages and patriots at those rallies. [boos] any has doubled down -- and he has doubled down to that she will pardon everyone of them who participated in the generally

six insurrection. and trump has handpicked a candidate for governor, mark robinson. [boos] mark robinson has a long history of endorsing violence and saying some folk need killing. trump even bragged about killing the toughest and fairest immigration bill in decades simply because it would hurt him politically. it's clear that trump doesn't care about the safety of our communities. he only cares about himself. with early voting starting today, this is what i want every north carolinian to know about vice president harris and governor walz. they are the only candidates who are committed to upholding and protecting the safety and security of americans.

meanwhile -- [cheers and applause] meanwhile, donald trump has made it clear that he has no interest in keeping our community safe, he only cares about gaining power and enacting the extreme project 2025 agenda to enact revenge against his public enemies. that's why i am proud to cast my early vote -- [cheers and applause] to cast my early vote for vice president harris and governor tim walz, because i know they will always put community, safety-- put community safety first. thank you, thank you. [cheers and applause] ♪ >> it appears it is going to be

a few minutes before we hear remarks from governor tim walz and former president bill clinton. we will this until they arrive in durham, north carolina. should be about 15 minutes or so here on c-span. r first guest of the morning is bill adair, the founder of political fact and also the author of "the epidemic of political line, why republicans do it more, and how is -- our democracy." guest: thanks for having me. host: you start this book with an instance of when you were on the show years ago. we will show the clip, but set that up for us. guest: in many ways, this frames one important part of the book. i was here in 2012, answering questions about our work on the 2012 election, and a caller called in on the democratic line

, ryan from michigan. and brian asked, he said he had read in "the nation" that republican live more and live worse, that they had tallied up fact-checks by "politifact" and by the washington post and he wanted to know what i said about that. host: the me pause you there, we will show and then give your response. [video] >> isn't it true that political fact, your nearest competitor had listed in general statements of republican vs. democrat that almost seven out of 10 were given to the republicans? democrats light almost as much, but republicans lied more. isn't that true? >> i can honestly say i don't keep score. host: that's what you said in

2012, so fill in the rest of it. guest: i was lying. we did keep score. we didn't keep score by party, but we kept score and still do by individual. so you can easily look through the prominent republicans and compare them to the prominent democrats, and see that brian was right. but i lied, and i lied because i was trying to show that we were impartial. and this is really important in washington journalism, to show that you are not taking sides. the challenge with fact checking is that it is kind of a rough-and-tumble form of journalism, and you are making calls. that is important, that is what political fact checking is all about. but in doing so, we see this unmistakable pattern that we will talk about in a bit, but i

am -- other fact checkers didn't answer that question when i got asked that question, when i gave speeches and other tv appearances because i was trying to show my impartiality that we were truly nonpartisan in what we did, and that is still a core principle of "politifact", that it looks at both parties equally, it looks at each statement individually. but this pattern is unmistakable and now that i no longer work for "politifact", that i'm a faculty member at duke, i can talk about it freely. and i think as a nation we need to talk about it. because the fact that there are so many lies coming from the republicans, it's really affecting our discourse. host: and that brings us to the book, "beyond the big lie." (202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats.

independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. what is the value in lying in politics? guest: that is interesting. what i realized as i started to research the book is that as a journalist i had never asked that question. i had never asked a politician why do you lie? why do politicians lie? it's just one of these things that goes unspoken here in washington. so i did, and i interviewed a bunch of politicians and political operatives and ask them why they lied. so the value is a calculation. it's like instant math. the politician or the political operative will make the decision we are going to gain more from this lie than we are going to lose. and that is especially easy today with a media environment

that shelters people from contrary views, that shelters people from contrary facts. and so it's very easy for politicians to live. so why? ambition is sort of the number one reason that people gave. politicians live because they think it helps them. it helps them with their constituents, it helps them with their party base, it helps them raise money. so that's really the biggest reason. host: >> the consequence of lying these days? guest: some people say there is no consequence, and that's the problem. i think it used to be, and some people said to me it used to be that politicians would feel ashamed if they were caught in a lie, but what has changed is with gerrymandering and with partisan media, there's less

pressure on politicians when they are caught in a lie. it's not like they go home to their districts and the constituents are like, hey, i saw that the washington post said this. i don't think that happens very often and i think politicians are sheltered from being held accountable, and so it's easier than ever to live. the partisan media also becomes an echo chamber for the liar. if you look at some of the lies that other fact checkers have been following, partisan media just repeats these lies, and they sort of become conventional wisdom even though they are not true. host: when you say partisan media, clarify that. guest: so i would say that cable news channels are on the right.

foxx, newsmax, in durham talking to a trump supporter watches newsmax to get his information. they read conservative blogs, they listen to talk radio. on the right, msnbc, they read liberal blogs. they are very distinct news media echo chambers that i think prevent people often from seeing the facts that are contrary to what they want to believe. and this is more prevalent on the right. we saw in the dominion case when foxx didn't go along with the lies the 2020 election, they lost viewers.

and so there is an economic incentive i think to chime in and protect the politicians. host: to what degree do you think there is equity in calling out eliza former president trump would say or vice president harris, if she tells a lie? guest: and that is done every day. when i was editor of political fact, we would try everyday to make sure that we were examining both parties. but there's just no comparison between those two candidates in terms of the volume of lies. donald trump is unmatched in american history in terms of the volume and repetition of his lies. he will double down on things as he has on the false claim that immigrants in springfield, ohio were eating dogs and cats. and that is a great case study.

that claim was thoroughly examined and many media organizations, not just the fact checkers, but other media organizations that went to springfield, talk to people, and yes, it just got repeated and repeated, distilled getting repeated today. host: why republicans do it more and how it can burn down our democracy. dan is in california, go ahead. caller: i just find it a little bit ironic that you have a book that is targeting republicans which we are a diverse group of people, religions, ethnic lines, where we come from in the world. we are not all americans, native born. and you're just sort of labeling us like that, and in the title

of your book is the big lie, and you open with a 2012 clip where you yourself said you lied. i mean, i don't know if you have a nondisclosure or ndaa, but you capitalized on it, you are a capitalist. i get that you're selling a book, i just think it is rich and that is my comment. i don't understand how you can write a book about people that live and" yourself that you lied when asked that exact question. guest: thanks for that comment, and i think you need to look at the opening scene in the greater context of the book. my point was that i think journalists need to talk about this disparity. now, that's hard for fact checkers in particular, but i do

think journalists and really the nation needs to confront this. this is crippling our political discourse, we can have serious conversations about climate, about immigration because there is such a disparity in lying. the whole idea of opening with myself lying was to confess that even i did it, but then to make the point that we need to have this conversation. host: richard is in maryland, democratic line. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i appreciate the conversation. i just want to ask a couple quick questions. could you comment on the quality of the line that is going on today as opposed to 20 years ago, and also, if you believe that there is a moral universe,

the quality and quantity of the line is going forth right now is such a level that it is the wind that is driving the sales of the uss america. and with that, we have to be going to a bad place because as johnnie cochran once said, flyers shall not go unpunished, and our space now, political space is so upfront with flying that it is overwhelming. like with trump the other day, he was saying he save the aca, obamacare. and it was clearly john mccain everybody knows it. everybody has seen it, yet they proceed to tell those same whoppers. and i just think that if you could make it make sense, make a comment about the quality of the line now. guest: thanks for the question. so i think the biggest difference is the volume, as

richard was indicating. if you go back to -- and one thing i do in the book is i have a chapter that is about the history of political lying, i call it the lying hall of fame. the thing about when you go back in time, there just wasn't the sort of repetition of individual allies like there is today. now, equality is a difficult thing to measure, but if you look at president johnson's lies lead to an escalation of the vietnam war, and lead to of additional decks that were unnecessary. so lies have consequences, they always have. president johnson is in my hall of fame. other lies from the past seem

almost quaint today. i have a chapter about a lie told in the 2012 campaign by the romney campaign, and it had to do with a television commercial that the campaign aired that claimed falsely that jeep was moving its production from ohio to china. and looking back, the chapters from each report, because i got into the machinations of the romney campaign decision about that and talk to someone in the campaign didn't want them to do this. so that lies seems quaint compared to the think that we are dealing with now. to the point that it is overwhelming, it is overwhelming. and that's one of the reasons i wrote the book, to sort of help people realize, ok, this is a serious problem now and we need host: to talk about it. host:former president nixon is

on the hall of fame, facebook is on it, and then you have the fox news couch. guest: my idea was to write a history chapter without it looking like a history chapter. i work with my students and other faculty members to decide who and what deserved to be in the lying hall of fame. so it includes president clinton, it includes of course donald trump, richard nixon, but then i included people and organizations that i think play a big role in establishing different ways that politicians live. so others in the hall of fame include big tobacco for its lies about the safety of smoking, exxon mobil for its long campaign to deny climate change,

and the couch on fox and friends, which i say in the book is a launching pad for lies and a place where in a very sly way, i think false claims get said every day. host: bob is in virginia, independent line. caller: yeah, thanks for taking my call. you know, there is a lot of lying that goes on from various politicians, it happens from the democrats, from the republicans. i think even a larger impact on the population and on the public opinion is the effect of the information that is simply not being told. it is what is not being said that has a huge impact. this is a technique that is used all the time.

if you look at the press conferences that are held every day by the white house and the state department, you will hear a lot of standard boilerplate stuff, and most of the very important things, facts are simply not mentioned. and this propels democratic and republican administrations to drive our country into war and to keep the wars going endlessly, just as we have now in ukraine and our support of this horrible campaign in gaza. this is all driven by not giving people all the information and also by lying as well. this happens from the democrats and republicans. another example is in venezuela, we are being told that the reason why the venezuelan people are suffering so much is because of nicolas maduro, but what is not being told to us is that

donald trump put horrendous sanctions on the country of venezuela, which was designed to cause the government to collapse. that was years ago. just one more point, pedro. host: ok. caller: what has joe biden done to change the sanctions? he's done nothing. guest: so to the question about misleading by things not said, i think that is a valid point. and it's not anything that -- i think journalists would reported, but bob makes a good point that there are not a lot of things that go on said and that creates a misleading impression. i do think that that isn't on the same scale as lying which i think just has really significant consequences. host: how has fact checking as

an industry changed because of what you are seeing today when it comes to line? guest: fact checking has grown in the united states in some really positive ways. there are definitely more fact checkers today than there were in 2012 when i was on this program. i don't know the number specifically to the u.s., but there are more. i think the challenge if there are not enough. we did a study at duke where we looked at where fact checkers are and where news organizations have a staffer or a team dedicated to political fact checking. and we have found there is no political fact checking. so that means in those states, they can talk freely about

getting a pass, getting called out by a local television station, and that is really troubling because this is an important point in journalism. it's really important to question what our leaders are saying and assess their accuracy, so i think one of the things we need is more fact checking, even more than we have today. host: arkansas, democrats line, you next up. caller: i think it is simply a matter of numbers. as nikki haley pointed out, they've lost seven of the last eight election based on the popular vote. they have to change the truth in order to win. one of the most egregious

examples i can remember was right here on c-span, senator johnson from wisconsin described the january 6 riot, described as festive. somebody told him he was there and it was festive. but anyway, that is my point. it is a matter of numbers. that's the only way they can win. guest: that's a point that some people made to me that is in the book. and that is that one reason for the republican party lie is that with a shrinking base, with a base that is older just demographically, the republican party is challenged, so what people said, and these were

democrats, that the republican party to response to that and fire rockets based has to resort to lying. and that is a way to motivate supporters, motivate donors, by creating this false impression of many more problems from immigration than in reality and so on with other issues. host: this is a viewer who writes saying who fact-checks the fact checkers? how do we make sure they are not serving the cause of the establishment or what you describe as a two-party system? probably not the first time you've heard that. guest: i love that line, i think i wanted on a t-shirt. first of all, the fact checkers welcome scrutiny, and in the case of political fact, we were very transparent about showing our work, showing all the sources that we relied on, all

the interviews we did, and so if you look at our fact-check, it really shows deep reporting. the truth reflects a tremendous journalist. so you start with that. i do think fact checkers get lots of scrutiny from critics who question things when they believe fact checkers get things wrong. fact checkers do get things wrong every now and then. i think the most common thing at "politifact"'s i would hear complaints, i think that rating was wrong. we rate on the truth meter and people would say you gave that half true, i think it should have been mostly false. so there is, i think, a healthy industry almost that does hold

fact checkers accountable. host: in 2013 use it for president obama told a lie of the year about health care. if you want your health care, you can keep it. did you get a response from that? guest: i was worried they were going to be people with torches and pitchforks outside our office. we, and a lot of complaints about that. "politifact" draws a lot of interest every year for the lie of the year. it is an honor that they get out in december, usually, and it recognizes the most significant lie of that political year. but inevitably whatever lie is chosen, some people are happy, other people are not. host: the founder of "politifact" and also the author

of "beyond the big lie." john is in ohio, republican line. caller: bill, i've got a question for you. if i hear something on the local news and then i repeat it to a friend of mine, and my lying because it turns out what they said wasn't true? i mean, is it my job to check the local news? the reason i put the question to you this way is i live about 30 miles east of springfield, ohio. and on the local news, i heard the story that haitians in springfield were eating cats and dogs, and this was three or four days before trump ever said it publicly on the national scene. so if he or his team heard it on the local news and then he repeated it, is that necessarily

making him a liar? like you stated he was when i first turn this on. that's all it got for you. guest: break question, and that gets to the definition of the word live. fact checkers have wrestled with and i have wrestled with this personally, at what point to something become a lie? it very strict definition is it is a lie when the person saying it knows it is wrong. but i think more recently, that term has evolved to mean a falsehood that is passed along. so are you a liar for passing information you heard on the news? i don't think any reasonable person would say that. i do think we have an obligation as individuals to check things out before he passed them along. and so you can decide is that source good enough, do you need to look it some other way, but i

think one of the problems in our political ecosystem is that too often people pass along things without checking them out. in the case of the dogs and cats, i'm not familiar with the content of those early reports, but i do believe that any politician, not just donald trump has an obligation to check out what they say before they say it. it is not enough to say i saw this on the news. i think we expect bigger things from our elected officials. host: to what degree do you think consumers are more savvy to lying? guest: i'm concerned that they are not savvy enough. and i think that particularly,

and i don't want to broad brush everyone, i think some people don't discern the quality different in different news sources, and one of the things that i would love to see is more media at the schools without just so that younger people come up understanding the difference between different kinds of information sources. of course, one of the challenges this for older people, how to help them become better consumers. host: a remedy you prescribed to this is some type of that for tax reform, for those politicians starting tax breaks, you want to apply that to lying. guest: you mentioned grover has been very successful in washington. he runs a group called americans

for tax reform, and sort of the core focus of his work is the lying pledge, where republicans, and it is overwhelming the republicans, there are only a handful of democrats who signed it, pledge not to raise taxes. in that pledge has really become the culture of the republican party. and grover and this pledge enforced that. so imagine if we were to take that same approach and use it for lying. if someone with the same leadership and personality that grover has work to start an organization that got politicians to sign a pledge against lying, because the very simple pledge, they wouldn't have to adjudicate. that could be done in campaigns, that could be done by the media,

and you can very much see candidates challenging each other. hey, you signed the pledge but you said this thing about me, you are violating the pledge. i think that could go a long way to changing the focus of app politicians think about lying. host: so it would be self policing, so to speak. guest: self policing, but with a robust debate. you know now that anytime people say things that are questionable, that there is very quickly feedback on social media. hey, so-and-so said this, it was wrong. in-state campaigns we see that. and congressional -- congressional campaigns, we see that. i think that could be the enforcement mechanism, so to

speak. host: joyce is in south carolina, independent life, good morning. caller: my question this morning is why so many christians believe that they live. if they believe that jesus christ, the word of god says i am the way, the truth and the light, so if i wasn't a christian, i would never become a christian the way these christians believe that they lie and are behind trump. explain that please. guest: i don't know that i can. i think supportive politicians who lie goes beyond faith, in many ways. i'm not sure i have a good answer to that. host: you do right in the book that sometimes it makes it easier that way.

guest: yes, i think increasingly politicians aim for that base because they find that one, it is easier than ever to reach them through targeted advertising, through their media. it's less important for them to go through the news media to get their message out, so yes, it can be very targeted to the base. host: bill joins us from washington state, republican. caller: hey bill, my name is bill. i've never called in, and sorry i'm a little bit nervous. i'd like to talk about the stories in the mainstream media that frankly don't get covered. i've been following this story

since 2008. warren buffett started buying all the railroads in the business news, all the railroads are losing money, why would you buying railroads? and during that time, he strongly was backing president obama, and suddenly he is starting to build export plants in washington state and oregon, which are very liberal states, and suddenly he's transported endless amounts of oil and coal through washington and oregon. host: what would you our guests to answer? guest: --

caller: i'd like you to explain why some stories just get dropped and not covered after it's obvious that there is a lot of answers in them. guest: that's a great question, and the answer is simply resources in a shrinking news media. i don't know what part of the state of washington your from but if you look at the media in seattle, the seattle local media is much smaller today than it was in 2012 when i first was on this program, for 10 years before that when i wrote a book about a plane crash involving a boeing airplane. with fewer journalists, editors have to make decisions about

what they cover or don't cover, and so on any given day, any editor will tell you they've got a dozen or more stories that any reporter could do, and they've got to decide what can be done. and so they make the best choice they can, but as a result, some stories go uncovered. host: what impact has social media done to the world of line? guest: social media has been great for lying. social media has been a giant megaphone that has spread lying so much faster than we ever had before. and i think you go back to we started fact in 2007, that was the year that facebook was just getting going in 2007.

and so when we were looking at how people passed on lies, they were using chain emails. so your uncle bob would send an emailed to everyone in his address book that would have false claims about barack obama. that is much less of a problem today because it is so easy and frictionless to spread things over social media. host: so is that also a form of political advertising? when it comes to lying in the lies that are spread through political advertising. guest: political advertising has gotten, as you would expect, much more sophisticated in a digital age. campaigns can target very narrowly constituencies that they are trying to win over with specific advertising. but the difference is it used to

be that fact checkers would watch tv to see the ads. now because so many of them are digital and show up on websites or can be sent on streaming tv, fact checkers don't see them. so it is easier than ever for campaigns and super pac's to get away with false advertising because the fact checkers never see them. host: virginia beach, democrats line. caller: high there. i am 82, and i am an absolute junkie for the news right now. i've been aware of politics most of my life, and what concerns me now is that it is such a left

and right culture right now, you are either lying or you are either lying or you're telling the truth. and in my opinion, it worries me that if trump gets in, the lying will just take over, and we will not be hearing anything of reality. they deny the climate change and what we've just been through with florida, north carolina and so on. it's climate change, but the republicans do not believe it. they will not accept it. so my question is -- well, my question is i'm fearful. can we get out of this? when i want something and it is black-and-white, and then i go

to fox and they just live, live, lie, for example, the kamala interview, both of them yesterday with charlamagne and then the threat, he said ahead of time i'm not giving her questions, she has no idea. she answered the questions clearly, persistently, and then after it's over i went over to fox and they just lied about what she said. host: thank you. guest: so this is why i do think it is so important to address this. as donnie indicated, there have been so many lies about climate that i think it just makes it impossible for the parties to have a serious conversation

about a policy that might address climate change. i think in the case of our politicians, we need to start asking them this question, why did you live about that? that's not a question that gets asked often enough. host: forma vice president mike pence comes up. guest: he comes up because i talk about my experience with mike who is a former neighbor, and watching him move up through the ranks and light increasingly, and then of course when he became trump's vice president, stood by and really could have spoken up and said these things are not true.

one thing that was particularly troubling to me was after the election, so he certified the election, but then continued to pay lip service to the false claims about the 2020 election. and i just think that is very destructive and the subtitle of my book is how we could burn down our democracy. i think the lies about the election are really worrisome. because the result in things like threats against election workers, they make people question the validity of election results i think unfairly, and i write this in the chapter, sort of watching his evolution, it struck me that ambition overtook honesty. host: on our independent line,

this is from georgia. emmanuel, hello. caller: good morning. real quickly, who defines a lie? the cultural context -- this cultural context have any bearing on line, and here's the question i want you to answer. well, those two, but this one. did christopher columbus discovered america? host: guest: so who defines a lie, it seems to me that the process of checking the politicians say is in some cases, particularly for presidential candidates, robust. everywhere they say is scrutinized. i think the news media does a good job of telling what is true or false.

i think there's a distinction probably with candidates at the lower levels because they just don't get the scrutiny that they need. with so few fact checkers, politicians are free to say anything they want. host: the other question if you want to take it on? guest: i will leave that one to historians. host: beyond the big lie. >> live picture this afternoon from north carolina, where we are awaiting remarks from democratic vice presidential nominee governor tim walz. if you will be joined this afternoon by former president boat -- he will be joined this afternoon by former president bill clinton. we are told they are just a couple minutes away from starting, and we will have live coverage when he gets underway here on c-span.

. few research data recent look at news consumption and where they get the news from. when it looks at platforms, taking a look at 2024, when you look at the topic of digital devices, 57% of those responding says when it comes to news consumption that is what they choose most. 29% say they sometimes choose those digital devices. it is in the single digits when it comes to the never and rarely categories. television, only 33% of those in 2024 saying that is where they get their news from. 39 percent saying sometimes where they get their news, and the 22% saying rarely do they get their news from that platform. it goes down drastically when you go to radio, specifically when it comes to radio. only 11% saying they get their news from that.

more sing sometimes they get their news, 29% saying they rarely get their news from radio. pew took a look at social media and asked the same question. the percentage of adults who get news from social media. in 2024 25% of those responding saying they get their news from those sites. sometimes at between 9% -- sometimes at 29%. in the never category, 28 percent responding saying when it comes to news consumption social media is not it. that is some of the folkfrom pew thing that, you can tell us where you get your news as well. if you want to let us know it i (202) 748-8001 republicans, (202) 748-8000 free democrats and independents (202) 748-8002. text us at (202) 748-8003 and

you can always post on our social media sites on facebook and x. let's start with kendra in virginia. independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i mostly get my news -- i try to find stations that are unbiased. i have been watching c-span washington journal for over 10 years now. i used to watch cnn and then i stopped because i realized they were really left leaning. my most recent station i watch since 2021 is newsnation. that is the station i watch, mostly in the evenings to get my news from. host: when you watch,