and whether you are not sure, you should definitely get out and vote. >> i vote because my ancestors bled and died for me to vote. >> i'm voting this year because it's a civic responsibility. it's the most direct way that a citizen has to influence what goes on in the country. >> it's one of the most important elections of our lifetime. i know people say that every election but this election is vitally important. it is important no matter how old or how young to get out and make your voice heard. >> today on c-span, a campaign 2024 -- our campaign 2024 coverage continues beginning in the afternoon.

we will be live in studio, taking calls from viewers throughout the day and we will take you to the presidential and vice presidential candidates as they crisscross between swing states in the last weekend for the election. check c-span for updated times and schedules for our campaign 2024 coverage which can be watched on c-span now and online at c-span.org. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including charter communications. >> charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers. we are just getting started. building 100 thousand miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service. along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy.

host: "washington journal" for saturday, november 2. this week in that -- ganett announced its publications, including usa today, would make a presidential endorsement today. it is the latest in a trend among these papers. to start today's program we are asking you, should newspapers endorse political candidates? here is a line if you say yes. (202) 748-8000. if you say no, (202) 748-8001. and if you are unsure, it is (202) 748-8002. you can text your comments to (202) 748-8003. be sure to include your name and city. you can also post a question or comment on facebook at facebook.com/c-span.

good morning and thank you for being with us. we will get to your calls and comments in just a few minutes. we first wanted to show you this headline from newsweek. it says, majority of americans do not think newspapers should endorse candidates. more americans believe newspapers should not endorse political candidates than those who think they should, according to a poll conducted by ugov earlier this week. the poll was released after news that the "washington post" and "l.a. times" not endorse a candidate before the 2024 presidential election. here's a look at those results. looking at the figures, 28% said they should endorse candidates. holy 7% says they should not endorse a candidate. and 25% say they are not sure.

former president trump was in north carolina this week, and during an event he talks about the non-endorsement, of papers not endorsing a presidential candidate. here is that. >> i thought it was unusual because we had a lot of people that endorsed us. and you notice the washington post and los angeles times, all of these papers, they are not endorsing anybody. you know what they are saying? they are saying, this democrat is no good. and they think i'm doing a great job. just don't want to say it. [applause] and usa today, congratulations. i just heard usa today has not endorsed. they said, were not going to endorse. that means that they think she is no good. host: this first hour we are hearing from you, asking the question, should newspapers endorse political candidates?

felix in lexington, kentucky is on the line for yes. good morning, felix. caller: good morning, tammy. i think a lot of people make -- might be concerned about the overlap of a newspaper being unbiased and supporting the facts, but i also think it is important that the opinion editors give you their opinion and biases of who they are supporting, and then you can take that into account when you are their paper. host: do you think the opinion editors, what they are putting out there, people are impacted by it? caller: no, not necessarily. i don't think anyone is making their decisions based on newspaper editors. i think it is more of a thing where people can understand why there -- where they are coming from when they are writing anything else. host: that was felix. helen in north carolina says, no. caller: no, because they are too biased, and a lot of people don't take the newspaper anymore. they see a lot of it on tv.

i would like to make a suggestion. on your guide, how come y'all don't show that trump or harris, what time they gonna speak. it always says current events. i would like all the listeners, listen to mark levine. he is on saturday night and sunday night at 8:00 on fox news , and he will give everybody a lesson in our constitution. i'm so upset with all these people calling my -- the past president the names that they call him. it is ridiculous. and also, they got a super pac add saying he's going to do away with social security. that's a lie. he's going to increase your

taxes. that's alive. this woman does not know she got her part where she is today. host: got your point, helen. i will let you know and the rest of the audience, there was a lot of moving parts in the last few days of the election, a lot of time changes, and makes programming more challenging for us. we will bring you a lot of campaign events today and the next couple of days. you can noise find the most up-to-date information on our website at c-span.org. sharon in florida says, yes. good morning, sharon. caller: good morning. good morning. host: hi, sharon. caller: hi. i think the newspapers should endorse candidates. i still believe in the press. i still believe in news organizations. i think one of the things that some people are trying to do is

get us to not know what the truth is. and a responsible news organization is a good source for information about a candidate for what's going on. i think a lot of people have blinders on and they are not taking in all of the available information they need to make an informed vote. host: sharon, where you getting your information from? caller: i get information from stations in a trust and from the news, from some magazines. i watch msnbc, cnn, nbc, abc. we get the tampa paper, and i have been voting now for over 50 years, and i just have a inner radar about when people are not

being sincere. when they are telling lies, when they are trying to destroy our democracy for personal power. i can't stand hypocrisy. i left the party i was with for 20 years because of the hypocrisy of one of the candidates. they were talking about the contract for america, and i try to stay true to my own beliefs and figure out who is lying and who is telling the truth, and i vote accordingly. host: sharon, your newspaper there, is it the tampa bay times? caller: yes. host: according to semaphore, they are one of the outlets that is not endorsing a candidate this time around. what are your thoughts on that? caller: i'm disappointed. i don't always believe in their endorsements, but when i lived

in washington state there were newspapers that put out our local newspaper every election, and pro and con for each candidate on the issues, what they were proposing, what they were against, and you could sit and read through it, and it really helped. and i depended on it. host: that was sharon in florida. alex, also in florida, miami beach. the line for no. good morning, alex. caller: hello, good morning. host: hi, alex. go ahead. caller: i chose to go on the no line because in a perfect world i believe everybody should be able to make their own decisions based off research, but this is not a perfect world and people are going to be influenced by outside entities. so, i feel like this election

all of a sudden if newspapers have been endorsing 50 years and all of a sudden this year they decide not to endorse, they are doing it to appease trump. that is the only reason why they are doing it. and not endorsing is basically an endorsement for trump. they are doing it to be on his good side. that is my opinion. host: that is alex. alex mentioning how people may be impacted. the poll they did on the 29th also asked the question, how often do you think that by making an endorsement in a presidential election newspapers convince their readers to vote for a candidate they were not already planning to vote for? 10% say very often. 28% say someone often. 28% say not very often.

14% say not at all often. and 20% say not sure. juliet in rockport, massachusetts is one of those on. good morning, julie -- unsure. good morning, julia. caller: the premise of the question, i'm a little bit unsure of. that's why i'm calling on the unsure line. looking at an article i read in real clear politics, the article was by the nation magazine, one of the most liberal bastions of articles that are written in, -- written, and the editor-in-chief, they came out without even having to say one way or the other that kamala harris is failing -- i should say flailing. her entire notion on this campaign predicated on the donald trump is going to destroy

democracy is failing, especially in these key battleground states. in that she should be speaking more to the questions at hand that people are -- especially high inflation. the border, you know, crises. the labor market decimating the wages of average workers. in fact, i just saw your last spot before you came on. she was speaking to the, i guess, local people, local union people in, i guess it was wisconsin. i said to myself, she is such a hypocrite. these people are union. to pay their dues, they get certain perks come up but she has had the border open for four years, which has been decimating wages. to go back to the nation very quickly, just by virtue of them proclaiming she is such a terrible candidate is, they are not endorsing her. if that makes any logical sense. do you?

that is my comment for today, and maybe you can give me some feedback on that and i appreciate it. thank you. host: thank you, julia. sheila in texas on the yes line. good morning, sheila. caller: good morning. i would like to say first of all that kamala harris is not the president. the second thing that i would like to say is that i have no problem with newspapers endorsing candidates. especially since it is my understanding that it is the editorial side that is responsible for that. i would encourage individuals, however, if they do pay attention to endorsements, that they look at outside sources. don't just rely on a single source. so, whether you get your information from c-span, which i

like, because i can see what the candidates are saying from out of their own mouths. look at a variety of sources. i happen to be a liberal. i watch msnbc, but i also watch the local fox station. i also watch cnn. i also watch a variety of other sources. so, i would encourage individuals, yes, especially in these times where we have an individual who is 34-count indicted felon who led a televised insurrection that we keep that in mind. we look at all of the sources and thank you very much for allowing me to speak today. host: that was sheila in texas. vice president kamala harris has also been talking about the non-endorsements. she was on charlamagne tha god

on tuesday. here is a clip from that interview. >> how do you feel about these major publications like the los angeles times, the washington post refusing to endorse somebody for president? vice pres. harris: you know, charlamagne, it's disappointing, no doubt. but the other piece of it is, it gets back to my point of, who is donald trump? he is the one, right, who is up for election with me, and, you know, the -- i think some of your listeners, they know and others may not, which is that, look, it is billionaires in donald trump's club. that is who he hangs out with. that is who he cares about. that is why when he was last president he put into place a massive tax cut for the leaners and the biggest corporations, and that is exactly what he will do again. his policies are not about middle-class votes. he's not thinking about what he can do to take care of your

grandmother and grandfather. he's thinking about people like himself or himself and all of his grievances, and all that makes him angry about how he has personally been treated, as opposed to worrying about how you have been treated and what his responsibility is to lift you up. host: in this first hour we are asking you, should newspapers endorse political candidates? here are some comments coming in on social media. this on facebook from mike. says nobody should public the endorse a political candidate. such decisiould be private for each individual. n chesapeake, virginia ys, it was a time where it appropriate and maybe even ney prior to the advent of the 24 new cycle, with newspapers and not even radi television was the primary source of news. with print news losing subscrers it makes no difference. one last from facebook.

mary says, news is supposed to be unbiased, so i would say no and go one step further, saying they go back to being honest 100%. up next, kenny in astoria, oregon says no. good morning. caller: good morning to you. yes. i am a maga republican, and proud of it. and unfortunately i live in a liberal state. so, two years ago when there was elections going on, could have been 2.5 years, but i think it was around two years. they were doing some midterm voting, and my newspaper, right straight down the line endorsed everybody like socialist

democrats. so i actually dropped the newspaper two years ago. i just could not agree with anymore them. i could deal with it. host: kinney, where you get your news now? caller: fox news. and newsmax. of course, i listen to you every day. all seven days a week i listen to your station for least the first hour. because bring guests in some times that i disagree with, and i won't listen to it. sometimes you have guests that i do agree with, and i will listen further on. but, yeah, this is going to be a tight election, i can tell you that. there is corruption, so we will just see how it goes.

host: that was kenny in astoria, oregon. rob in florida is unsure. caller: good morning, good morning. i called in on the unsure. actually, i called in unsure because i am divided on yes and no. it is just that since donald trump entered the political scene in 2016 or 2015, whatever, everything has changed, ok? a lot of things have changed. and i think -- for example, jeff bezos -- the washington post, i think it was, that he owns -- doesn't endorse anybody. he comes out with a statement -- i'm sorry, because they don't endorse anybody they lose, what,

250 subscribers? 300 subscribers? 300,000 subscribers. and why? why doesn't the washington journal, why doesn't the los angeles times, why hasn't the unions endorse anybody? it's because of donald trump. they are scared that donald trump is going to become president, and, again, he said he wants to be the retribution for all of this corruption. you hear it from your callers when they call in. the lady earlier with mark levine. they want you to listen to a certain, you know, they say, do your research? i believe you should be able to listen to both, but, back to jeff bezos, right? he doesn't endorse anybody, comes out and says, we don't want to be political, we don't want to, you know, be a part of

this, we are going to stay neutral. in reality he doesn't want to get on donald trump's bedside in case he becomes president. you know, he wants a tax cut. bezos wants a tax cut. you know, the tax subsidies he is getting, he doesn't want to jeopardize that by going against and endorsing somebody like kamala. same thing with l.a. times. same things with a lot of organizations that are not endorsing. but as far as news -- sorry -- sorry, it is going back to the newspapers and if they should endorse. i think they should, but i think as far as news, it is newspapers. everything is going to media, alternative news. you've got on the right newsmax, you have people like charlie kirk, ben schapiro.

no, they are shooting a certain type of propaganda. on the left you've got cnn, msnbc. you've got people like david paquin and others on the left shooting their left-handed propaganda. you've got to look at both sides, find something in the middle. both sides are telling the truth, both sides along. both sides are going to push their candidate, but i think because of donald trump your buddy is kind of scared if he does become president, you talk bad about him or talk against him, especially this close to the election, there will be some kind of retaliation. so, i think he is going to try to kill everybody? no. but is he going to try and punish people? yes. by policy or, again, people say he doesn't, you know, use the

doj, and he does. but i think people, you know, say you have to do your research, and you do, but you've got to listen to both sides. host: got your point, rob. rob mentioning the number of subscribers that the washington post lost after the non-endorsement last week this from the washington post. just yesterday the article says that at least 250 thousand washington post readers have canceled their subscription since the news organization announced friday that the editorial page would end its decade-long practice of endorsing presidential candidates. the figure represents about 10% of the post's digital subscribers. the post began experiencing a spike in the number of subscribers looking to cancel online starting friday in the wake of the announcement by ceo and publisher willing -- william lewis.

by tuesday the number reached 250,000, the documents indicate. bacteria calls up next. john in alabama is on the yes line. good morning, john. caller: good morning. yes, i think your topic is, should newspapers support a candidate? well, it was not a newspaper, it was the editorial part of the paper that wanted to write an article. so any time that there are other instances where something is being reported on television or in an ad or something they say, well, we don't support this statement or we don't agree with

this statement, but here is what the statement says. so, now you have editorial people which, freedom of the press, they are not allowed to write an opinion. this presidential race is very important. for democracy, for who gets to be president. this has been a close race. this is the first time you have a woman actually -- well, you had hillary clinton, but this is a very close race, and how far does it go? does it go into governors when they run for office or other politicians running for office? so you're just not going to have an editorial page that gives an opinion? and every editorial page is nothing more than an opinion. host: john, has your local

newspaper, have they endorsed a candidate? caller: well, i'm in alabama and i don't read the paper a whole lot because i can get -- i look up what the editorials say on my telephone. and whatnot. and c, the other thing is, when you are going in this direction then you are going to say, well, you want to criticize facebook. you don't want to criticize elon musk for all of the untruths that he wants to put out over his tax -- his x. where do you draw the line? even your show, washington journal, all you've got to say is, we don't support those statements, but you are free to

advertise. we don't support that advertising. so, you know, it don't make sense to me. i know it is done because of -- i feel it is because of the political climate today. and this is exactly why the newspapers should be -- the editorial pages should be able to write freely. host: that was john in alabama. allen in north carolina says, no. good morning, alan. caller: good morning, c-span. thank you for taking my call. just a thought to your last guy little bit. elon musk is an american hero. he opened up twitter and exposed all of the bias, and, you know, the endorsement part his ridiculous. because all you have to do is listen to what they say the rest

of the year. the legacy media supports kamala harris with favorable coverage 89% of the time and they denigrate trump. the negative coverage, 85% of the time. so, but then you come out and say you are not endorsing. you have already programmed all of your readers. the only people listening to you are people that agree with you or the news media takes snips of what you say to say the washington post said this, politico said that. everybody already knows where they stand. so the endorsement, yeah, they are going to lose people. this first year that they don't endorse. what they continue that them people will get used to it and it doesn't make any effect anyway. i just don't understand why people can't see that they are being very -- brainwashed. on both sides they are being brainwashed. nobody is hearing the truth. so, i agree with the guy saying

he listens to everything. i sit there and scroll when a commercial comes on i go to c-span. host: other than c-span -- we appreciate you watching us -- when you get your news? caller: all of them. i watch the joe rogan podcast that kamala is scared to go on, and i watch fox. i watch newsnation. when a commercial comes on i go tolerate and listen to cnn. . the communist news network. and i listen to msnbc, which i don't even know why they got a license because they are just an extension of the democrat party. all they do is propagandize continuously. 100% against trump. it's like all the things they say, like, charlottesville, when he said they were fine people on both sides he was talking about the people who were wanting to tear down the statues and the older people who the statues have been there their whole life and they wanted to keep the statues there.

nobody is calling nazis coming out of the tree lined with torches good people. trump never said they were good people, but the news media just took it and they keep on. they keep on saying it. in the bleach was total bs. he didn't tell anybody to inject bleach. he was joking. one after the other after the other they take these stories. like liz cheney, what they just did. president trump said that -- sorry, excuse me for a second. president trump said liz cheney is a war hawk. that if you put her on the front lines she would run like a chicken. she is sending your children to war. she doesn't have to pay the consequences. if she did she did she would not be such a war hawk. but the news media took it totally out of context and made him look like he was saying something totally different.

they do that every single time. host: that was alan in north carolina. timbo in arkansas is unsure. good morning, timbo. caller: morning. i'm pretty unsure about endorsements matter, but i tell you one thing i do know, and that is, trump might be a billionaire but he is pretty worthless as a human being. when i see his followers waving a rebel flag at his rallies, they are telling me, we are the biggest losers, you know? wave that loser flag, that rebel flag. host: timbo, when you are talking about the endorsements and you are not sure, what newspapers are you reading? do you have a local newspaper? caller: i read the washington journal. host: the washington journal? caller: yes. host: not a newspaper? caller: we got a batch of bulletins, but, yeah. host: did they endorse a candidate? caller: no.

host: they didn't? that was timbo. this on fox news. the headline, far fewer newspapers are endorsing harris than black -- then back to clinton or biden. that newspaper endorsement for the democratic president or candidate has dipped by more than 70% this year since 2016 after vp kamala harris became the party's frontrunner, according to a rough estimate by fox news digital. in 2016 more than two hunter 40 newspapers endorsed hillary clinton while only 20 endorsed trump. in 202014 newspapers endorsed trump and 120 endorsed biden. and the article says that this year nearly 80 newspapers endorsed harris, and fewer than 10 have endorsed trump. back to your calls. trudy in cincinnati, ohio says,

yes, newspapers should endorse candidates. good morning. caller: good morning. i think they should, because newspapers was the first source of news for everyone, before all the news stations, cable and everything came about. they talk about kamala's like, you know, she is a piece of crab. the crab is trump. this man will be a disaster if he can be the president. he says nothing about big corporations, not giving him tax breaks. this man is horrible. he is a horrible man. i cannot even get my words together because i'm so upset at the people that is behind him, waving their flags with t-shirts

on, you know? they are just, like, trashing america, period. this man is, he cannot even run his own business. how do you expect for him to run a whole country if he could not run his business? yes, i think the newspapers should, because more people, more old people read newspapers than going to turn the tv on or going to pick up a tablet or going to the internet. yes, i think they should, period. host: trudy, what is your local newspaper there in cincinnati? caller: the post. the cincinnati herald. we have a couple other. other than that, yes, i think they should. this man is running -- he ran on obama -- well, i cannot even get

the words out. host: we will leave it there, trudy. we will go to tillman on the unsure line. good morning, tillman. caller: hi. host: hi, tillman. you are on. caller: donald trump is running for president for one reason. to stay out of jail. that is the only reason he is running. he has no programs, no plan, no programs. he got concepts of this, concept of that. the man has a trillion dollars in national debt in four years. host: tillman, talk to me about newspaper endorsements. why are you unsure about newspaper endorsements? caller: ajc, atlanta. host: tillman? tillman, why are you unsure about whether newspapers should endorse a candidate? caller: i'm calling because the

deal is the deal. truth is truth. truth is truth. this man is a throwback. host: we will go to howard in lakewood, washington. he says, yes. good morning, howard. caller: hey. the mighty, mighty seattle times put it best. they said, hell yes to harrison walls -- harris and walz. if you look at the calendar, it is november, 1850, and you can't be cured. that it -- that is what it is, 1850. host: richard in nashville, tennessee also says, yes. good morning, richard. caller: good morning. i say yes, but with one caveat.

i think all people, all organizations, government, private individuals, anybody out there that has a free voice to speak, you have a right to voice your opinion, but you don't have a right to change the facts. so, anybody, i don't care if you are conservative or liberal, who you are business-wise or individually, if you speak something and the blanket media across this country or your community and you deliberately tell a lie, you get sued to beyond recognition. because in the old days my mama always raise doubts, if you don't have anything good to say about anybody, keep your mouth shut. and there is a thing called slander. slander is kind of a vague term, but slander basically means if you say something about someone and cost them their livelihood, that is slander. and what is happening in this country today? there is facebook, twitter,

whether it is fox news or newsmax, any of them, if you get on the air and tell a blatant lie, which we have just seen happen last night, then you get sued beyond recognition. it is the only way you're going to stop it. but as far as the free voice, first amendment, free speech? praise god and praise trump. that's what you wanted to hear. so, thank you, "washington journal." host: bob in north carolina says, no. could morning, bob. caller: good morning. former bob here. hope you're doing ok today. my position is newspapers should not endorse any particular candidate. i'm not saying they should not say one thing or the other about him, presented what the facts are, but they should not endorse candidates. can i give you an example real -- real quick? host: please do come about.

caller: the los angeles times and washington post not endorsing candidates, where i give most by news is from reading the "wall street journal." i turn on your show, maybe 20 minutes into it, so i don't know if you showed what they have to say about it, but the wall street journal has not endorsed a candidate since 1928, and they will not do it. yesterday they -- excuse me, on thursday they talked about kamala harris. and basically just talked about her record. i'm sure they will talk about donald trump and his record. one way or the other. but by no means was their endorsement one way or the other. we should be intelligent enough to take a look at what the facts are. you just heard that one guy talk a little bit ago about facts. we should be able to take a look at what the absolute facts are in make up our own minds.

not positions one way or the other by what an endorsement from a newspaper. that is my position. host: bob, you read my mind. i have that article in front of me. the headline, how risky is a trump second term? this was from thursday. the editor's note on the article says that the wall street journal has not endorsed a presidential candidate since 1928. our tradition is to sum up the candidates of the majority party nominees in a separate editorial. on thursday we assessed kamala harris. here we take up donald trump. you can find both of those on the wall street journal's website and read them at -- in full. teresa is on the yes line. morning, teresa. caller: good morning. i do believe they should. they have been doing it now since the 1800s. it is the freedom of speech and

an editorial. if you don't endorse a candidate do you say, i should not have the newspapers also endorsing propositions? because they do it all over the country. i have the los angeles times here, the daily news several others. i look at several newspapers. the examiner in san francisco. so, it is a tradition. is it going to change what people -- how people vote one way or the other on a candidate? no. i agree exactly with what the washington post has done, is that they have -- not the washington post, the wall street journal. what they did was to sum up the sides of the candidates. hopefully it is true facts. freedom of speech is something we have always had. the challenge we have is, people do not -- or the media -- and

when i say media, social media as well as all media -- does not say what is an opinion and what is news. earlier the gym and from north carolina stated that 80% of -- the gentleman from north carolina stated that 80% of the coverage on kamala harris was positive, whereas 78% of trump's reporting is negative. that is from fox news. it is a direct quote. i watch all of them. unfortunately, that is not all correct either. a lot of it is opinion. if you listen to fox news, they have a 70% bias against the democratic party. and msnbc, same thing. they have one against the republican party. it is a matter of taking in all information, but like i say, trust but verify.

the other thing the man from north carolina said, which i do want to -- which i took umbrage to, is that elon musk is a hero. he is not. if you look at some of the disinformation coming from x, it is unbelievable. i think there should be a change in terms of how things are disseminated, in what is truth and what is an opinion and not true. alternative facts does not work in this manner it just makes us all angry and not happy. thank you so much for your show, and i appreciate your time. host: john in cleveland, ohio is on the unsure line. good morning, john. caller: hello. i was -- i said i am unsure simply because i think andy 9% of the media is going to be

controlled. but there may be an occasion if it is an honest newspaper that will tell the truth, but i think that would be the rare exception . i would suggest people get -- for an example of that, martin luther king's jan vietnam speech. martin luther king's beyond vietnam speech. this is on tape, this is in print. it is available if you look it up on the internet. martin luther king's beyond vietnam speech. it is absolutely censored from the media. in favor of the i have a dream speech. any right we are can support that, because it opposes any kind of social assistance or affirmative action to compensate for centuries of slavery and jim crow. so, it does not offer an

alternative. i think it is very significant that that beyond vietnam speech, which called the united states government the greatest purveyor of violence and imperialism in the world, and every tax year that we are spinning these trillions of dollars on the military-industrial war profiteering billionaires is robbery of the people in the ghettos and poor. host: we will go to and in bulk, louisiana. she says, no. good morning, ann. caller: good morning. good morning. host: good morning. caller: good morning. host: you are on. caller: ok. i voted no, because ever since president trump had run for president before they bashed him from the word go. as well as the news media. but for he run for president

everybody up there in the white house was good buddies with him. i feel it is all unfair. i feel we should be able to push their opinions on us, because 90% of the time it is lies. and that is why i voted no. host: tell me about your local paper. did they endorse a candidate? caller: we don't have a local paper here now. they left. host: brady you get your news? -- where do you get your news? caller: i get it on the internet and off of the tv. host: what kind of outlets are you reading? caller: just whatever i can pull up. i don't have no certain ones. i know nbc is just, they bashed trump something terrible. and it is not right. they should leave all of the

bashing out and get to the problems with our country is facing. host: tony in indiana says, yes. good morning, tony. caller: good morning. first off, thanks to c-span. i love watching you guys. only get to do it on the weekends, but i say, yes, definitely. i think journalists, they have their ears to the news of the nation, and they are the ones that hear the most of what is going on. i think they should be able to do that. i do think it is up to the readers to follow the facts. they need to look and search for the truth ourselves -- truth themselves before they make their decision. host: tony, do you take editorial and the endorsements into consideration when you are deciding which candidate to vote for. caller: yes i do. i want to know what other people think.

i don't just watch one news outlet. my wife hates it when i get home because i constantly am switching -- i don't just watch cnn or nbc or anything, i constantly go back and forth between everything. i want to know everybody's differing opinions on it, because if you only follow one network, that is all you are ever going to hear, and you don't know that they are telling you the truth. you know, from when i read a lot of the different news networks are all owned by one conglomerate. it is pretty obvious if you really watch news. you can tell who was for donald trump or kamala harris by what kind of stories they lead with every night, or how much coverage they give to each one of the candidates. i try to watch everything i can.

i read everything i can on the internet. and even when they have one person that gives their opinion i will go on the internet and i will research that person to see what their background is to see who they lean towards. host: that was tony in indiana. election day is just a couple of days away. one of the states being watched is nevada. that is one of the swing states for not only president, but also a tight senate race. las vegas has two newspapers, the las vegas sun has endorsed vice president harris, and the las vegas review-journal has endorsed former president donald trump. just about 10 minutes left in this first hour, asking you, should newspapers endorse political candidates? up next, in new york, says, no.

caller: i say no, because i think the job of the newspaper business is to investigate. i would rather them speak with every person who worked with these candidates and get their endorsements and print their point of view. endorsements is just an opinion, and even in the best media opinions seem to inherently find their way through even their reporting. so, it is unnecessary for them to endorse, plus they are a business, and like any business they have their own reasons for an endorsement. i really do think, like any job interview, it is really the opinion of the people who know these candidates that is most important. host: we have been focusing mostly on the presidential

endorsements, presidential candidates, but new york has several house races that are going to be watched on tuesday. what do you think about down ballot races? should newspapers be endorsing state-level races or initiatives? caller: i honestly believe their job is to lay out the facts. i would love to see comparisons on a single piece of paper. do you believe in this? and, you know, this is what each candidate believes in. i think that is what is getting lost in everything, is that it is a horse race now. newspapers, really the only vehicle in media that does any investigative reporting. if you watch cnn, nbc, fox, any of them, the root of their reporting is based on what the print media does. so, in my opinion, we just need

seekers of truth. host: martin in holland, michigan is unsure. good morning, martin. caller: yes, it doesn't make any and do -- it doesn't make any difference whether they endorse or do not endorse. what would be helpful is if these reporters would just go ahead and put down their party affiliation. that would really tell a lot. if the editorial board does not want to endorse, it is all made visible through the type of reporting, the type of articles they ron, etc. so, i think it would be very helpful. and if the editorial board does decide to endorse a candidate, put their party affiliation. i think that would be very helpful to all of the readers of the news media. a lot of references were made about the liberal media. i think one thing you should consider is, the ideology that

is behind all of this. i am a conservative, but people have to understand, the leftist liberalism is a threat to democracy here in this country and they should be a warning label put out that leftist liberalism is hazardous to your mental and physical health. it is a carcinogen that erodes the soul. host: martin, where in michigan is holland? are you close to detroit or another larger city? caller: on the west side of the state. host: what is the newspaper there that you read? caller: the holland sentinel. it is owned by usa today. and, see, it is a real conservative area. they ran a lot of columns by liberal columnists from chicago, washington post, etc. very seldom do they run a

conservative opinions i'm about that is what is being done here locally. host: that is martin. darrell in columbus, georgia says, yes. good morning, darrell. caller: yes, good morning. i say yes, because the reason being is because when you look at most of the democratic candidates versus the republican candidates, democrat candidates seem to be more truthful. that is why they seem to be -- to get more endorsements from the papers. right now, what is happening now with the l.a. times, the washington post, and usa today, these people, the guys that own these papers, they are scared.

you know, just like the guy said earlier, they are scared of trump. if trump wins they don't want to have no bad blood with trump. if they do win this thing is going to be just like the kremlin in russia. you are going to have state news, you're going to have one source. that is going to be fox, and everybody else is going to be cut out the game. here in my town, in clumps, georgia we have the columbus ledger, but most of us deal with the atlanta journal. that is our source down here in georgia. but if trump get in, it's going to be state news. that's going to be all you get, folks. i'm telling you, so you had better go harris. that's all i can say. vote for harris. host: that was darrell. darrell was talking about the atlanta journal-constitution.

this is from 2009 the headline, ajc takes a new approach to our election. the article says that after listening carefully to readers, thinking deeply about the modern role of newspapers in elections, the ajc elector board is taking a new approach in election coverage, beginning with this november's election. going forward, our board will use its position to work for readers in pursuing with candidates the issues that are critical to the future of our community. the board will provide readers with clear, concise information about candidates' positions and records. the agc will no longer endorse political candidates. again, that was from 2009. just a few minutes left. one it to share messages coming in on social media. this from hawk. it says, editorial pages help summarize the topics and trends that help is he people sort out

the facts. if endorse the newspaper by being a customer i expecthat organization to give me the pulse of the nation so i can weigh each one out and use my best judgment. this is from stephanie. she says, if a newspaper is told that they cannot offer their opinion it does not sound like they are allowed to speak freely , and there is clearly interference. and one more from mlb says, actually, political endorsements are a part of the editorial board's job. that means therapy -- they are opinions, not facts. if you don't understand the difference that is a you problem. time for just couple more calls. jennifer in avery, california is unsure. good morning, jennifer. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: yeah, it just kills me how the washington post won't endorse, harris. especially since that reporter

was executed with a bone saw in saudi arabia and trump was camino, president at the time. [laughter] it is just amazing. jeff bezos is just, he is folding. he doesn't want any retribution from tromping case trump does become president, and he is just running scared, and i think it is pitiful and shameful. host: jennifer, you called on the unsure line. what makes you unsure? caller: because i really don't. i'm unsure that i don't think people really listen to endorsements from newspapers. but that is why i am unsure. yeah. host: and our last call for this hour, peter in maryland says no. good morning, peter. caller: hello, yes.

in today's political environment if you endorse one candidate everybody who is on the other candidate's side rejects everything you say. this is a problem with how we are responding to what i call this information. this information is where you believe someone's opinion as being fact. that is the problem that we have today. you have fox giving their opinion and people think it is fact. you have msnbc giving their opinion and people think it is fact. you have to look to all sides and makeup your decision by listening to both sides. if you only listen to one side, if you only listen to fox, if you only listen to msnbc you do not have the facts. you have this information. thank you. host: that does it for this first hour. next on washington journal, jonathan diaz of the campaign

legal center is going to join us to discuss how to recognize voter intimidation and what voters can do if they experience it. and later we will discuss the physical and mental health impacts of election stress and how to reduce anxiety with american psychological association ceo dr. arthur evans. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ >> american history that tell the american >> this weekend, the national constitution in philadelphia awards documentary filmmaker ken byrnes as the liberty medal for his body of work for america storyteller. watch "american history tv"

historic presidential elections. the pivotal issues of different eras and their lasting impact on the nation. the election of 1980. ronald reagan defeated incumbent president jimmy carter winning 489 electoral votes in 44 states. exploring the american stories. watch "american history tv" every weekend and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online any time at c-span.org/history. book tv features leading authors discussing their latest non-fiction books. here's a look at what's coming up this weekend -- at 6:30,

history professor evan looks at history of bookstores and their role of american culture. and at 8:00 p.m., john grisham and his co-author share about the challenging of exonerating a person who is wrongfully convicted. and a journalist explains a lifesaving human virus could be groundbreaking in treating infectious diseases. she's interviewed by "u.s.a. today" health reporter adriana rodriquez. watch book tv every sunday on espn2. c-span 2. >> this election night, c-span delivers something different, not just the presidential race, but the state races, the balance

of power in congress. no political pundits, no spins. no commercials. just the candidates, the results and you. follow c-span this election night beginning at 7:00 p.m. eastern, live, tuesday on tv, online or on the free c-span now c-span app. >> "washington journal" continues. "washington journal" continues. host: joining us to discuss voter intimidation and campaign 2024 is jonathan diaz, voting advocacy and partnership director at the campaign legal center. thank you for being with us. what we start by you reminding us about the organization. what is the campaign legal center and what is the mission? guest: campaign legal center is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization in washington, d.c. and the mission is to advance democracy through law, through a

combination of litigation, policy advocacy, public education focused on the pillars of the democratic and electoral process. campaign finance reform, voting rights, redistrict in, ethics. host: who are you working with and how is your organization funded? guest: we represent individual voters and nonpartisan civic organizations. we work closely with election officials and members of the public to advance pro-voter policies and try to explain and simplify what can sometimes be a complicated electoral system to voters and members of the public. we are funded by individual donations and some foundation donors. host: you are the voting advocacy and partnership director. explain what you focus on. guest: i work on some litigation across the country, but most of my work focuses on policy advocacy, especially administrative advocacy with local election officials

especially. making sure they are developing policies that reduce barriers to accessing the ballot. i coordinate our work with the many partner organizations we work with at the national, state, local level. host: we will be talking about voter intimidation. what are we talking about? guest: there are a variety of federal and state laws that are meant to protect voters from undue influence. it is illegal under federal law to threaten, intimidate, coerce someone into voting or not voting a particular way. laws are enforced by not only that the justice department but state law enforcement agencies like district attorneys. they are taken very seriously. we want to make sure that every american has the right to vote safely, freely, and privately without fear of any kind of consequence for participating in the political process. host: what can voter intimidation look like? guest: it can take many forms.

viewers are probably familiar with some of the historical examples like armed men on horses, fire hoses, dogs, things like that. in today's day in age, intimidation can take more subtle modern terms like online harassment, publishing peoples personal information or home address online, threatening them with job or economic consequences. there are a lot of different ways that people can try to intimidate or coerce somebody into voting or not voting. that's why we have legal protections to make sure that everyone's vote is cast freely. host: is there a typical target? guest: unfortunately, it is a recurring issue over the whole of american history and today is no exception. fortunately, the response from law enforcement and the government groups, like the

campaign legal center, is robust. we are not seeing it quite as often as we did decades ago, but there are still isolated incidents every cycle of voters feeling unsafe or threatened. so, we respond quickly to those. host: we have seen individuals who have been in the news for going to polling places and trying to intimidate voters as they are waiting in line to vote. this from this morning's washington post says, creepy voting mailers provoke ire in maryland talking about the mysterious letters entitled voting report cards. it is giving recipient names alongside their voting histories and those of their neighbors. they have been landing in mailboxes across the country in recent days. they are coming from the voter participation center and center for information.

is it typically more individuals who are focused on voter intimidation or groups and organizations like that? guest: it can be both. i want to be careful to draw a distinction between persuasive political messaging, like mailers protected by the first amendment as political speech and can sometimes make people uncomfortable or people may not like the message that they received, but that kind of pure speech is protected by the first amendment. there is lots of speech that you or i or anyone else may not like that folks have a constitutional right to express. that is different from threats of physical violence or financial consequences or things designed not to persuade people to vote but to threaten and induce fear to prevent people from voting or to try to push somebody sometimes across the line. the right to vote a free and safe ballot with the right to

free speech and political persuasion. host: we are talking with jonathan diaz, the voting advocacy and partnership director for the campaign legal center the topic is voter intimidation in campaign 2024. if you have a question or comment, you can call now. democrat, (202) 748-8000. republican, (202) 748-8001. independent, (202) 748-8002. going back to the distinction, it sounds like there is a gray area. what do protections look like for what we know is voter intimidation versus something that may be makes somebody uncomfortable? guest: context really matters. it's not just what someone says or does but when, where, how. that's why law enforcement looks

at allegations of voter intimidation carefully. again, we are balancing protecting voters and keeping them safe with protected first amendment political expression. some conduct that may not be voter intimidation in some contexts if it is done at a polling place by a line of voters if it is directed primarily at voters of color and things like that. all of those factual questions really matter. that's why in doubt it is always safe to report any instances of suspected voter intimidation to local election officials or law enforcement. host: our first caller for this segment is mike in woodbridge, virginia on the line for independents. caller: my -- i want to know his opinion on the supreme court ruling about the voter registration.

and on this issue, i think the supreme court -- they should not have anything to do with immigrant, immigrant citizenship. when you vote with your green card, you are not a citizen. your status can change. that is when you register to vote. the only place that can determine your citizenship is immigration, not dmv. when dmv to check your old forms, that's wrong.

the opportunity for the immigrants to show if he is a citizen or not. guest: in the interest of transparency, campaign legal center represented some who challenged those removals from the voter registration list in virginia. we were disappointed in that supreme court decision. the district court and the fourth circuit, intermediate appeals court, i think they got it right. virginia was relying on outdated data. what we found in the clients that we represented showed that these were naturalized u.s. citizens who may be at one point were not citizens and indicated as much to the dmv, but ultimately were naturalized, became citizens, and registered. virginia is relying on outdated

information to potentially identify ineligible voters and remove them from the rolls we think in violation with federal law. the good news is in virginia there is same-day voter registration so anyone wrongfully removed from the rolls can vote in person on election day and register at the polling place. that is not the case in every state. we challenged similar programs removing naturalized citizens in alabama, texas, elsewhere. i think that it is a real concern when states are using bad data and removing eligible american citizens from the voter rolls. host: talk about the distinction between intimidation and oppression. guest: voter intimidation is a form of voter suppression. anything that prevents voters from going to the polls. whether it is an administrative barrier that has been erected or they are afraid. in a democracy, we want our elections to reflect the will of

all eligible voters. anything that is preventing people from voting is really damaging our government and election's ability to fully represent the views of all americans. host: ted in ocean, hawaii. line for democrats. caller: good morning. we were talking about voter intimidation. people need to just turn it around on someone who tries to intimidate you and say, if you want to pass information in a nice, normal tone of voice that is not intimidation, but if you're going to be threatening or intimidating just turn around and say, why can't you win by vote with information rather than intimidation? everybody needs to think about that. information not intimidation. it's real easy.

host: any response for ted? guest: i don't think that i could have said it better myself. we want to persuade our friends and neighbors with ideas and policies, not fear or threats. host: sergio in texas on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: i have a very serious concern with mail-in ballots for this reason. so you have a family of five. all voting age. five ballots are dropped off in the mail but you have a dominant figure in the family. he gathers the ballots, fills them all out, and tells his children and his wife, i've done you're voting for you. all you need to do is sign these and i will take them to the drop off box. no one addresses that issue, but it is a very real concern that i have. i don't know that it would be to widespread, but it is something that you would never be able to

track or figure out how to stop it. guest: i think that that is certainly an interesting concern. it is not the typical kind of voter intimidation concern we think about. i think that that area would qualify. it is illegal no matter where it happens. it doesn't necessarily have to be at a physical polling place. coercion, which is what i think the caller described, is listed in the voter intimidation statute as something that is not ok. voter intimidation is not just illegal, it is a crime. it carries potential sentences including jail time, serious fines, and civil liability. that is why we have these protections in place. host: what impact does voter intimidation have? do we know how many people are opting not to vote because they

feel like it is not safe? guest: it is hard to quantify, because if someone is too scared to show up to the polls they may not report it. we don't have a full picture, but campaign legal center, like many nonpartisan legal organizations, work on the national nonpartisan election hotline and we get reports every election cycle from voters who report being afraid and being intimidated.many still able to vote the next day or voting by mail, but just because someone is able to overcome intimidation and cast their ballot does not mean that voter intimidation has not taken place. the law also prevents attempts to intimidate, threaten, coerce voters to affect their vote even if it's not successful. host: you mentioned a phone number that people can report intimidation to. if you can give us the number

again, and what else can voters do if they are feeling like they are experiencing intimidation? guest: the number is 866-our-v ote. it is staffed by legal volunteers and election lawyers like myself. that is a place where voters can report any issues that they are having with their ballot, whether the mail ballot has not arrived at your home, you aren't sure where your polling place is, you don't how to check if you are registered, or you are at the polls experiencing intimidation. the other suggestion that i would make to voters concerned about what they are seeing is to report it to your local election official. those are usually the folks equipped to immediately respond to issues they often have close relationships with law enforcement in their local area and will respond if necessary. i say between the national nonpartisan hotline and your local election official, those would be my go to's if voters

have intimidation concerns. host: rapid city, south dakota, line for democrats, good morning, ethan. caller: voter intimidation, we have had circumstances where voter intimidation in canada and america over a series of years, decades. have we ever considered how much people aren't just voting because they don't have the faith in any of the systems we have built? people have lost interest, millennials like myself have lost interest in the entire system. voter intimidation, people are going out and about and burning ballots and stuff like that. people aren't just voting. this might be a thing that people use to stir up the fire

trying to get millennials to vote. are we really confident 100% that voter intimidation is an actual problem and should we be considering something more realistic that voter intimidation isn't real as much as it compares to the voter isn't -- what is it called? host: apathy? we will get a response from jonathan. guest: both are a concern. voter intimidation happens. this week there were a couple of arrests in my home state of florida because individuals were brandishing weapons at the polling place and making anti-semitic remarks at voters in line. it certainly still happens. voter apathy is also a very real problem. many americans are disillusioned with the political system. whether that is because of the influence of big money in politics or partisan gerrymandering, that is

something that campaign legal center is really concerned about. something that we have worked to overcome with voter education, letting people know that their votes really matter. their are local races decided every election cycle by handful of votes. most often the local races, city counselor, mayor, they have the most impact on your daily life. i definitely hear what you are saying and i think we can be concerned about both of voter intimidation as a real threat and folks' lack of confidence in the election system and working to combat angst like misinformation -- things like misinformation and other elements that reduce public confidence in our election system that is something campaign legal center is focused on. host: this headline in the hill,

you mention the incident in florida. florida teenager accused of using a machete to intimidate voters at the polling station. it is a pretty eye-catching headline. you can see machete. what is being done to prevent voter intimidation from happening to begin with? who is involved? guest: it is a wide constellation of law enforcement agencies, election officials, nonpartisan groups, like ours, the department of justice is sending monitors to many jurisdictions across the country to keep an eye out for things like voter intimidation or other violations of federal law. in this incident, i think it's a perfect example of local election officials and law enforcement working together to respond very quickly. i believe that individual has been charged with a criminal offense by local prosecutors in florida, because there are countless local officials, in

law enforcement and election offices, working tirelessly to keep our elections safe. host: bob in eagle river, wisconsin on the line for republicans. caller: i just wanted to ask, since you have researched and studied it, you spoke of people who were actual legal citizens at the time and they registered to vote. i think one state took off 2500 people from the voter rolls because they were not eligible to vote because they were noncitizens. do you have the number of how many people were actually noncitizens on the roll that were removed and how many were citizens that were put back on the roll out of all of the different investigations? they are basically purging the system of the voter rolls, which is required by law. how do you feel about the states that are no longer using id?

how can -- you can't do anything in america without proving you are an american citizen. i don't know how this is even federally legal to vote without an id. that means that anybody, a tourist on vacation, can fly her e just to vote in our election. how is this even happening? guest: there is a lot in there so i will start at the beginning. i'm not sure which state you are referring to with that specific number, but i can tell you that in most of these incidents when a state official announces that there is some number of suspected ineligible voters on the rolls, it is suspicion. they have not confirmed those numbers. which is why when we investigate and reach out to folks on those lists we find that they are eligible citizens. georgia i think is a great

example, to give concrete numbers, they did a comprehensive audit of their voter rolls going back several years and identified only 20 non-us citizens had become registered to vote in georgia over a period of several years. i think it was out of 7.5 million registered voters in georgia. none of those 20 had ever attempted to cast a ballot. they were likely only put on through some administrative or clerical error. that is the georgia republican secretary of state who conducted that investigation. so, what that says to me is that the safeguards built into our election system to make sure that only eligible americans are able to cast a ballot are working. whenever someone violates one of these laws, and they are serious laws, the system finds them and they are often prosecuted. as far as voter id, many states require voter id, but every

state has safeguards built in where voters are required to validate not only their identity in some way, but also their eligibility to vote, including u.s. citizenship. different states use different methods to validate the eligibility of their voters. you have to remember that it depends on how something like a voter validation law is structured. if a state is only permitting some forms of id but not others, we have to think about how that affects different kinds of voters who may or may not have access to those kinds of id. host: loretta in cleveland, ohio on the line for democrats. i think that we lost loretta. give us a call back. eric in pennsylvania, line for independents. caller: good morning. thank you. my question is, what is your opinion or have you taken any action on agencies that have

shown nonpartisanship, such as fbi, doj, irs? and how can you convince me or the audience that you are nonpartisan and honest? thank you. guest:guest: i don't do a ton of work with fbi, irs, cia, so i don't know i can answer that question. campaign legal center fights for access to the ballot for all eligible americans and accountability from politicians regardless of party. i think that if you look us up we are not afraid to initiate litigation or call out politicians of either party when they violate the law. we filed campaign-finance complaints against republicans, democrats, independents, super pacs, red states, blue states, purple states, states of every color.

our commitment is to democratic pentacles of good governance and equal access to the ballot. i have never once asked a client what party they affiliate with. i have never thought about the political affiliation of a state or county official when i think that they've done something that violates the law. i think that is how all of our election laws should be administered, without preference or favor for voters of any one political party. host: we're talking about voter intimidation, but it is not just voters who can feel threatened. this headline from nbc, 40% of local election officials surveyed report threats or abuse . that is a new report that came out i believe in march. what precautions have been put in place at pulling locations -- polling locations to protect workers and administrators? guest: poll workers and

administrators receive a lot of threats to themselves, their safety, their staff, their families, and both election officials and law enforcement take those threats seriously. we have certainly seen criminal prosecutions of folks who have made credible threats to election officials over the last several years. election offices have invested a lot in physical security for their physical offices, cybersecurity is a major concern as well. election officials have been doxxed. they've had their faces published online which is scary. election officials are in most cases your neighbors. especially at the local level, these are people from your communities who if they are volunteers are taking time out

of their lives and not necessarily being paid for it to perform a critical service for our country, our society to run elections. the election system is really decentralized. that means that elections are run at the local level by city and county workers and volunteers. it is incumbent on all of us to remember that, to support our election workers, and i do not want to get into too much detail about what election officials are doing specifically to protect themselves, but i know that they have taken a lot of steps and are working with state, local, federal law enforcement to make sure that they stay safe this election season. host: carol in jacksonville, florida, democrats, good morning. caller: good morning. how you doing? mr. diaz stated, i was really

surprised to see that voter intimidation was showing up in jacksonville. i heard the interviews on tv. and i really was concerned. i already voted early, so i knew that my vote was in. my background and growing up, both my parents worked for the justice department, so i had a view of seeing how things were done and carried out. both my parents always stated that, you know, it's your right. also, i want to state when an official is running for office, when they state that you don't have to vote again, that is

really voter intimidation. because that's stating that our rights will be taken away. thank you for taking my call. jonathan: thank you for that call. i mean, i think it is worth repeating that every american has the right to vote safely, freely, and privately. and that's why voter intimidation laws exist and why doj and local and state law enforcement make sure those laws are enforced. host: loretta, democrat line. thanks for calling back. i am sorry i hung up on you. er: thank you. good morning, jonathan. yesterday, 11 family and friends, we all went to vote yesterdayning anafter voting, we went to breakfast.

and i'm telling you, it was, i don't think we dispersed until like:00 or 3:00. ju talking about everything.me but my call specifically is about january 6. and the secret service just had all these investigations about the trump attempted assassination, but they skipped over what happened to the texts that were erased on january, up to january 6. they eat erased all the tapes may be from january 1 -- they erased all the tapes may be from january 1 two we don't even know where it ended.

not only did they erase the texts from the individual phones, they erased the information from the cloud. and i am calling to say that it takes specific people to do that kind of stuff and i don't like the kind of people that trump got doing things and people got to start thinking about they own pockets, because they might like click on their own bank account and they ain't got a dime in there and you don't know where come from. host: that might be out of jonathan's expertise but we will see. jonathan: i think most of that is but when it comes to genera six, that's the legally mandated date when the joint session of congress will come together to count the votes in 2025 like

they did in 2021 and every four years before then. for those of us in washington i think we are already starting to see security measures around the capital get erected. you know, the department of homeland security has designated that joint session a major national security event so there are lots of resources being put into make sure the newly elected congress which takes office on january 3 will be able to meet and carry out their duties to count the electoral votes on generous six. this is also the first presidential -- january 6. this is also the first presidential election been conducted using the new procedures under the new electoral count reform act passed in 2020 two by congress that has really modernized the process of counting electoral votes in congress. and really i think has limited opportunities for disruption of that process.

so, we should, hopefully, see a quieter january 6 this time around. host: january 6, 2025 is a monday next year. and just like in 2020, c-span will have full coverage of that. david in maryland on the line for independents. good morning. caller: i heard stories of the local voting officials coordinating with high schools in the area where they would bring all the voting age students out of class to come and register at the high school and then, in certain situations, the official would recommend who they should vote for. and i just wondered if that was considered coercion, if that would be legal or not to do that? i can take my answer offline. jonathan: i think it probably

depends on the specific context of what was said and when and where. i think it's probably inappropriate for an election of fisher to recommend to a new registrant, no matter their age, who they should be voting for. on the flipside i think voter registration, especially at high schools and in the states that allow preregistration for voters who will be 18 on election day but are not yet, is a great way to increase voter participation and get young folks involved early. but election officials in every state are, you know, supposed to administer their response builds and conduct our electoral's special elections in an impartial -- elections in an impartial way so i don't think it would be appropriate for an election official to suggest to any registrant regardless of age who they should or should not be voting for. host: albert in california, line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. can you hear me ok? host: yes. go ahead. caller: ok.

voting is a right and a privilege and everybody should vote, no matter what, because your vote is sacred and its private and it is something that we have in america that many other places do not have. so, don't let them intimidate you. go and vote. jonathan: yeah, you know, i think that the freedom we have in this country to vote and to shape our own government, to participate in elections is something that some americans might take for granted. i certainly don't and i hope that no one watching does either. host: early voting has been open in several states for the past few weeks. we will continue -- something people who may go into a polling location to vote may see is a poll watcher.

what can you tells about that role and what they can do and what they can't do? jonathan: in virtually every state, there are slightly different rules. but basically every state has a transparency measure that allows for poll watchers, usually representatives of both of the major political parties selected in advance, to be present in the polling place to observe the process and make sure that everything is working the way it is supposed to. it is a really i think essential transparency tool but we also want to be mindful of, you know, the limitations on what poll watcrs can and can't do. usually, poll watchers are not allod directly interact with the voters at the polng place. they are limited to notifying election officials if they think something has gone wrong, and that's meant to protect against things like undue influence or voter intimidation. because what we don't want his party appointed watchers

influencing the weather people are voting. so, again, like most things, it is a balance. we want to encourage transparency, make sure that everything is above board, but we don't want to be influencing voters in any way while they are casting their ballots. host: john in missouri, line for republicans. good morning, john. caller: good morning. how are y'all this morning? host: we are doing well. caller: my question is if you guys are referring to voter intimidation, why does abc, nbc, cbs, all the news channels, they are funded by soros, he has bought over 200 radio stations. why is that allowed that he can push forth his agenda on the news media and nothing is said about it? jonathan: that's a little outside of my area of expertise.

host: we will go to judith in pennsylvania, line 4, democrats. -- line for democrats. good morning. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. i am a democrat in pennsylvania. i would like to ask a couple of things. number one, donald trump tends to downgrade illegal immigrants, immigrants in general, i believe. and i am wondering if his rhetoric doesn't instigate hate and anger in his supporters, who then would follow through with voter intimidation at the polls? jonathan: i mean, i think that rhetoric from any candidate, any party leader, any public figure

has the, you know, carries the possibility of inspiring people to action, whether that action is positive or negative. certainly i think in this election cycle, we have seen a pretty tense environment. not just from the candidates but also i think an earlier caller mentioned the attempted assassination of donald trump. it is a tense time, which is i think why we are having this segment and talking about the legal protections against voter intimidation. a lot of that rhetoric has been directed at immigrant communities. and i think, as i mentioned earlier, naturalized citizens are really bearing the brunt of a lot of that criticism and a lot of that pressure and are, in some cases, being unlawfully removed from the roles, even though they are eligible voters. they have earned their

citizenship, they are as american as everyone else and have the right to vote. and so, you know, rhetoric from political figures is certainly something that contributes to voter intimidation and to a political environment of fear and. tension that's why groups like my nhan law enforcement and election officials are working so hard to make sure that every voters able to cast their ballots safely. host: william in wilson, north carolina, line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. how y'all doing this morning? you know, i've been voting since the early 60's, i ain't never seen this much controversy go on with the devoting until donald trump came along -- with the voting until donald trump came along. he said the only way anybody could beat him is by cheating and it spread throughout the whole republican party.

and a time republicans lose a race, they always claim cheating. what do you think about that? jonathan: i think there was a lot of "misinformation" going on during the 2020 election about the results. as election officials, republican and democrat across the country will tell you, the results of the 2020 election were some of the most scrutinized in american history. all the votes were counted and the results were what they were. and you know, i think that's all there really is to say about that. host: time to take a couple more calls. kimberly in illinois on the line for democrats. kimberly? caller: i have a question. first of all, are there any countries that do online voting, electronic, yeah, online voting. , you know we already register, we can renew our licenses online, we file our taxes online. i just find, you know, if that

happens or if that is a means for voting, i think that that would be a great way to minimize or mitigate voter intimidation and all of this craziness that we are seeing. i mean, if people can vote in the privacy of their own homes, you know, what are you going to do? i think that would be a great means for minimizing, mitigating this voter intimidation that we have been seeing lately. i will hang up on this into your answer. jonathan: it's a really great question and i am happy you raised it. there have been a couple of countries around the rubber have experimented with online voting and as not gone super well. i think one of the reasons our election system is secure is that, you know, voting machines are not connected to the internet. they cannot be hacked, you know, because they are not online. and you know, i have worked with, you know, both folks on the tech side and folks on the election admin side who have

really serious concerns about online voting because it is just not, the technology does not exist to make it both secure and private. and you know, we want our election results to be reliable, that's why most states use, you know, voter verifiable paper ballots, and why we have encouraged states to adopt measures like that so that even if you are voting using a voting machine, it prints out a paper ballot that you can review to make sure your selections are correct. and you know, i think one of the other things that gets lost sometimes in debates about online voting is voter secrecy. every voter has, you know, the right to a secret ballot. and when you are working with digital technologies and online voting, there are almost always ways to tie a specific person to their selections on the ballot using metadata and things like that, and that's something

that's flatly illegal in most states because we want people to know that there ballot, that their vote is not only secure, but also secret. host: last call, david in tampa, florida, line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. just want to make a brief statement or at least open some eyes out there in reference to intimidation. you have to think of it this way. if you're intimidating someone in your country in a free and fair election, you are diminishing democracy. that basically means you are diminishing your love for the country. you should leave things as it is and trust in everyone's opinion and everything will just work out fine. it is the people's will, it's not your will. and doing so and intimidating

someone i feel in my opinion is treasonous. thank you. that's all i have to say. jonathan: we want every eligible american to participate in the political process and cast their ballots safely, freely and securely. host: our guest, jonathan diaz, he's the voting advocacy and partnership director at the campaign legal center. you can find his work and more on the website campaignlegal .org. jonathan, thank you so much for being with us this morning. jonathan: thank you for having me. host: still have this morning on "washington journal," we will talk with american psychological association ceo dr. arthur evans about the physical and mental health impacts of election stress and how to reduce anxiety. but first, more of your calls during open forum. if you have a comment about the 2020 four campaign or a public policy issue, here are the lines. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. and independents, (202) 748-8002

. we will be right back. ♪ >> as the 2024 presidential campaign continues, american history tv presents its series historic presidential elections. learn about the pivotal issues of different eras, uncover what made these elections historic, and explore their lasting impact on the nation. today, the election of 1980. pres. carter: i've been president now for almost four years. i've had to make thousands of decisions in each one of those decisions has been a learning process. i've seen the strength of my nation and i've seen the crisis that it approached in a tentative way and i've had to deal with those crises as best i could. pres. reagan: are you better off than you were four years ago?

is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores that was four years ago -- ban it four years ago? is there more or less on a plane in the country then there was four years ago? is america has respected throughout the world as it was? do you feel that our security is as safe, that we are as strong as wwere four years ago? >> in a landslide victory, former california governor, republican ronald reagan, defeated incumbent democratic president jimmy carter. historic presidential elections today on american history tv on c-span2. ♪ >> book tv, every sunday on c-span2 futures leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. here's a look at what's coming up this weekend. at 6:30 p.m. eastern, a history professor looks at the history of bookstores and their role and american culture with his book "the bookshop."

best-selling author john grisham and his co-author share their book "framed," about the challenges of exonerating a person who was wrongfully convicted. at 10:00.m. eastern on after words, a journalistic fines how a nearly forgotten lifesaving healing virus could be groundbreaking in treating deadly infectious diseases with her book. she is interviewed by usa today health reporter adriana rodriguez. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2, and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back. we are in open forum for the next 25 minutes or so. wanted to start by showing you this headline from this morning's new york times. harris calls trump's violent language about cheney and rivals

disqualifying. the article says vice president kamala harris said friday that donald trump had disqualified himself from serving as the nation's chief executive by suggesting that liz cheney, one of his most prominent republican critics, should be put on a battlefield with "nine barrels shooting at her." mr. trump, the republican candidate for president, made his remarks thursday night in a burst of vitriol that intensified his dispute with one of the most prominent political families in the nation and drew criticism from leaders of both parties. yesterday in wisconsin, vice president kamala harris responded to former president trump's remarks about liz cheney. here is what she had to say. kamala: even worse, he has increased his violent rhetoric, donald trump has, about political opponents. and in great detail, in great detail suggested rifles should

be trained on former representatives liz cheney. this must be disqualifying. anyone who wants to be president of the united states who uses that kind of violent rhetoric is clearly disqualified and unqualified to be president. representative cheney is a true patriot who has shown extraordinary courage in putting country above party. trump is increasingly, however, someone who considers his political opponents the enemy, is terminally out for revenge, and is increasingly unstable and unhinged. his enemies list has grown longer. his rhetoric has grown more extreme. and he is even less focused than before on the needs and the concerns and the challenges facing the american people. i have also thought a lot about what this means in terms of our standing in the world.

as vice president, i have represented the united states of america around the world. and what i know is that when we walk in those rooms representing the united states of america, we have the earned and the self-appointed authority to then talk about the importance of democracy, the importance of rule of law. and as a result, people around the world who are fighting for freedom and opportunity hold us up as a model. america deserves better than what donald trump is offering. america deserves a president who understands our role and responsibility to our people and to the rest of the world to be a model. i will end with this, voters are making their decisions, many have voted, but there are still those who are making a decision about who they will vote for. and what i offer is i ask,

folks, among the many issues before you, just consider who's going to be sitting in the oval office on january 20. you can either have donald trump there, who will be stewing over his enemies list, or i will be there working hard on your behalf on my to do list. that is the choice among many that is at stake in this election and i would be proud to earn the vote of the american people and i do intend to win. host: also yesterday, former president donald trump doubled down on his thursday comments about former representatives liz cheney. here is that video clip. pres. trump: oh yeah, sure, sure. she's a war hawk. she kills people. she wanted to, even in my administration, she was pushing that we go to war with everybody. i said if you ever gave her rifle and let her do the fighting, if you ever do that, she wouldn't be doing too well,

i'll tell you that. she killed people unnecessarily and if she had to do it herself as she had to face the consequences of battle, she wouldn't be doing it, so it's easy for her to talk but she wouldn't be doing it. she's actually a disgrace. host: a programming note for you, tuesday we will be live all night to bring you the results of the 2024 presidenal election and get your reaction byhone to the evening's outcome as the ballots are cound and each state is called in favor of either harris or president trump. we will also follow all the state races that would decide the balance of power in congress. coverage begins at 7:00 p.m. eastn on c-span. you can also watch on c-span now, are free mobile app, and online at c-span.org. also wanted to let you know that there are several campaign events that c-span will be bringing you today. you can find an updated list and

follow along on our website, c-span.org, and also the mobile app, c-span now. we will hear from eric in auburn, california first on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: hi, c-span. thank you. you are like sanity in a crazy world. one of the things, trump, i have been independent, i have been republican, i have been democratic, but i go for the person that seems like they will do the most for the country. trump ran a small family business and he was bankrupt six times. the one thing i don't like about harris is they don't take credit for all the things they've done, from the chip act to the recovery act to turning around the country from the pandemic. when they took over, the country was going down. a million people died under trump. these are facts.

trump, she holds a bible in his hand and the seventh commandment is thou shall not light. the man lies. it's entertaining. people watch and because it's entertaining but he's only there because he doesn't want to go to jail. that's his number one goal, he wants to stay out of jail. number two, he wants to get revenge. number three, he's probably going to resign and turn it over to jd vance because he really does want to be there, he said it. he's almost 80 years old he shouldn't be in office, he's not fit to be president in my mind. kamala harris just doesn't take enough credit for everything they are trying to do. i mean, our economy is the number one economy in the world. are stock market is hitting new highs every week, every day. the people that are calling about, i have a small business and i am making money, you're making money because the democrats are in office. if you look at facts, facts matter, that every republican president has almost run the country down.

under bush, obama took over and he brought it back. trump inherited a really healthy economy and then it went down because he cut taxes. people who are worried about health care, he tried to overturn health care over 20 times, he tried to vote against the health care act. he called senator arizona a coward. he does not support our military. he said he does, but he doesn't. it's entertaining how many times he lies. it's almost like wow. if you watch fox news, they don't talk about any of this stuff. they just talk about, they tell jokes on things. i watch cnn, i watch c-span, i watch cnbc. you've got to look at all of it. but the last was about health care. he's going to take with health care. mike johnson said yesterday and then had to retract it, he's not to eliminate the jobs act. host: got your point, eric. we will go to jerry in north

carolina on the line for republicans. good morning, jerry. caller: yes. thank you for having me on c-span. i am voting for the first time. and the reason i am voting is because i believe this election is one of the most important we will ever have. . i am voting for donald trump, have a voted for donald trump already. your last caller, talk about lying, i've never heard him say one thing about him going to jail. all i've heard about is how the government have worked against him and tried to put him in jail. i've never heard him say one thing about an enemies list and stewing over it, but they continuously put him down because ms. harris don't have any plans for america. it's going to be all the same stuff. with donaldi'm 66 years old, soe

i had to vote, because as the caller talked about, those other news outlets, i watch fox and newsmax, but they are so biased. they are continually biased against president trump. host: you said you are 66 and you are voting for former president trump check on he ran in 2016 and 2020. why didn't you support him then? why didn't you vote for him then? caller: pardon me? host: why didn't you vote for former president trump in 2016 or 2020? caller: well, one reason, up to that point i thought he was going to get the election and i had never bowed before because i had the attitude that, you know, my vote didn't really count. but i understand i should have voted in 2020 because of the closeness of the election, and that is one reason i am voting now. but the liberal media just blows my mind, how they are so biased about trump and never told the trooper -- the truth about ms. harris, and she continually

lambaste how he had an assassination attempt twice and they caught the guy before he could do it, but what it is, is they don't stop there record. they call us fascist, they call us hitler's-followers, they call us garbage, and they never once apologize for it. that's the way i feel about it. host: that is dairy in north carolina. margaret in california, line for democrats. good morning, margaret. caller: hello? host: hello, margaret. caller: thank you. the reason i'm calling is i'm worried. trump is going to get rid of people -- get rid of social security. the social security system is going to run out soon. callers all have people who rely on social security. these people are working in low paying jobs. construction labor, in the

fields, agriculture, bricklayers. worried about our economy now, the u.s. needs these people. they all pay into our social security. our country was built on a -- immigrants because we needed them. well, we need them again. and we have to figure out a way to satisfy everyone, and soon. thanks for listening. host: that was margaret in california. last night former independent presidential candidate rfk junior urged voters in wisconsin to save their votes for donald trump. that, after the supreme court rejected his plea this week to keep his name off the state's ballot. he spoke at former president trump's rally in milwaukee. here a clip from that event. >> and the democrats sued me, and they sued me to keep me off the ballot. they spend $10 million.

and then when i endorsed president trump in august they sued me to give me on the ballot. [laughter] and they lost most of those suits. two days ago they won two of them. in wisconsin and michigan. why did they did that? they did that because they want to confuse the voters. they want to interfere with the election, because they are keeping somebody on the ballot who is not running. so, when you go to the voting booth on tuesday you were going to see my name on the ballot. i do not want your vote. i want you to vote for donald trump.

i do. the only way i'm going to go to washington is if we get donald trump elected. host: wisconsin is one of the swing states that is being closely watched for tuesday's presidential election. i wanted to show you this headline in the wall street journal. the headline is, campaigns pursue occasional voters. it is going to come down to just a few voters. trump and harris campaigns have raced to reach undecided voters in the final weeks of the presidential election, but their main focus is not the voters decided on which candidate to back, instead they are doing more to target those who are undecided on whether they will vote at all. most occasional voters, those who sometimes skip elections, lean toward one candidate or the

other, and the campaigns see them as a vital source of untapped support. they account for more than one quarter of the voter pool, strategists say, though estimates vary. the contrast wall street journal's polling finds only 3% of registered voters are truly undecided on a choice of candidate. the wall street journal polls show that the election out, turns heavily on low-frequency voters, habitual voters who showed up for the past two presidential and midterm elections have favored harris over trump by at least four percentage points. back to your calls. kathy in california. the line for republicans. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am the first time caller but i have watched you for many years. i am a trump supporter. i will be voting for him for the third time.

excuse me. i believe in him. i am very upset with the biden-harris administration, for all of the things we have gone through for the last four years. i felt that we had been lied to over and over again. i'm very upset when i heard that their administration had actually help fund iran, which then turned around and helped with hamas and hezbollah to attack israel. i want to know why they funded them, why they allowed them to pump their oil and sell their oil to enrich their country when we were not able to do that. i feel that is a real travesty. so, yes, i am voting for president trump. i believe in the man. everybody has their issues or problems, but he knows how to do this. i think the team he has brought

together of kennedy and musk and -- who else is on the team? is other people, the vac and all of them, and vance. i like that. i like the fact that they are all working for the american people. and i believe in this country and i want to save this country. so, i am voting for president trump. host: that was kathy in california. kathy said she was a first time caller. we really enjoy hearing from -- from those first time callers. margarita in long island, new york, line for democrats. morning, margarita. caller: good morning. i am a first time caller also. i love your station and i just want to say that i am for harris. i work with children. i have been watching all of the events with trump, the cursing,

the demeaning of the women. saying he is in charge of us. i have young daughters also. i think that people should start looking at his speeches and how he is cursing. the people that are with him. harris, it is time we change. we get a woman in there to show the compassion and love that us women have, and i feel that the democrats this year are going to go all the way and i just want to tell the people out there, i have family members who are on both sides with some of them on the others, with trump. it is going to be the most horrible thing. especially for our children who are growing up, and his beliefs and criminals, and everything he has. i love to say so much, it is

overwhelming being able to say as much as i urge -- especially the women. like i said, i have people who are young. i work with young people to vote. i am also going to be working at the election polls. i will -- i'm looking for to that. this is the first time in my life. i am 62 years old and i am excited. please go vote, and let's go for harris. thank you for giving me the opportunity to say my comments. i appreciate it. host: that was margarita in long island, new york. she was encouraging people to vote. this also from this morning's wall street journal. hey, undecided voters, if you haven't chosen by now, maybe just stay home. an opinion piece by jeff greenfield, an author and television journalist. he writes that with election day approaching all across the land candidates and their supporters, civic-minded media, big

government groups, celebrities and well-meaning friends are raising their voice with one clear message. please vote. i have a different message to offer those still undecided about which way to vote. stay home. it might be better for everyone that way. for months you have been offered countless hours of tv coverage, and less social media commentary, journalism of every flavor to say nothing of the direct mail solicitations flooding your mailbox. political messages pop up on google searches, video games, poor insights, i assume, several billion dollars worth of political advertising has appeared before, during, and after sitcoms, dramas, and sporting events. if after all of this you are still undecided the likely reason is not that yours will wane the candidates' ideas about taxes, or the middle east or health care. the likely reason is that you have deliberately tuned out as much information about the political universe as possible. yet you are vote, should you

cast it, will have the same weight as a citizen who spent the days before election day comparing the candidates and reading through the ballot propositions. so, if you are among those who have not given a minute's thought to this contest where the differences are so stark and the potential consequences so large, do the right thing. client to exercise the right u-value so little. if interested, we promised to let you know who wins. just a few minutes left. we will hear from kim in alabama on the line for independence. good morning, ken. caller: yes, good morning, how are you? host: doing well, can. caller: i agree with the person who said they are undecided. if you haven't decided yet, just stay home. don't even open your door. you will know who won on the sixth or fifth of november. i was calling because, you know, can any of these republicans for

mager, whoever they call themselves, can they say a moment when they have ever heard any presidential candidate that is running for president, not like how joe biden just said the other day, that call a human being an illegal alien? what is an aliens? when it comes to all the rhetoric that trump says, is it a reflection of who donald trump is for these people to be voting for him or is it a reflection of who they are? because trump speaks -- trump may not even be half of the things he say he want to be, but those people are voting for him. that is what is in their heart and that is who they are. and the last thing is, i have been calling before, and when yet has been able to tell me, they my time when america was great for everyone. they can't even name a month, a

year, a when was america great for everyone? thank you. host: rob in illinois on the line for republicans. good morning, bob. caller: good morning, tammy. of c-span. i want to make a comment about the future of our country but first i want to comment on a news thing. i saw president biden reported trump supporters as garbage and i heard trump refer to liz cheney as a war hawk, and having rifles pointed back at her. he was not attempting assassination on liz cheney. and the media twisted at the way they want. i have 10 years on that lady from long island. and for over 50 years i voted straight democrat, and i just can't vote with the dems no more, because i don't believe in men participating in women's sports and more than two sexes.

but i am the father of seven, grandfather of 15, and i tell all of my young ones, i can predict the future, but four years from now if i close my eyes and think about it what does this country will be if kamala harris gets in there with open borders and crime in our big cities and lawlessness and what it could be if president trump is reelected and he can rein in some of the criminality and cut some of the wasteful spending in washington, d.c. i think it will be a much brighter future if they all get out and vote for donald trump. thanks, tammy. love c-span. host: last call for this hour. john in south carolina. line for democrats. good morning, john. caller: good morning, c-span. it is so sad to see a beautiful

country divided. over lies, intimidation. kamala harris is the vice president. she's not in charge, joe is. people need to stop throwing everything on her. the other part is, the other party has got a man that has been in court over 4000 times being charged for stupidity. he almost destroyed our country with a disease that he laid the playbook on how to control it and he was too stupid to handle that. we need to stand up, vote this woman in, get this country back on track, and stop being divided. host: that was john in south carolina. our last caller for the segment.

next on "washington journal" we will talk with american psychological association ceo dr. arthur evans about the physical and mental health impacts of election stress and how to reduce anxiety. we will be right back. ♪ >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington. live and on-demand. keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams off floor proceedings and hearings from u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling information for c-span's tv networks and c-span radio. plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play.

scan the qr code to download it for free today or download our website, c-span.org/c-span now. c-span now, your front row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere. >> american history tv. explain the people and events that tell the american story. this weekend the national constitution center in philadelphia awards documentary filmmaker ken burns it's 2024 liberating battle for his body of work as america's storyteller. watch american history tv's series historic presidential elections, exploring what makes these historic, and their lasting impact on the nation. this week the election of 1980. in a landslide victory ronald reagan defeated incumbent democratic president jimmy carter, winning 489 electoral votes and 44 states. on lectures in history the university of dallas history

professor william otto discusses the decade leading to the 1787 constitutional convention and the key compromises that led to the ratification of the united states constitution. exploring the american story. watch american history tv every weekend and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch it online anytime at c-span.org/htory. >> this election night c-span delivers something different. not just the presidential race, but the state races that will decide the balance of power in congress. no political pundits, no spin, no commercials. just the candidates, the results, and you. follow c-span this election night, beginning at 7:00 p.m. eastern, live tuesday on tv, online, or on the free c-span now video app.

>> "washington journal post go continues. host: joining us now to discuss election stress and anxiety is dr. arthur evans, ceo of the american psychological association. dr. evans, thank you for being with us. guest: thank you. i'm glad to be here. host: your organization just released its newest stress in america survey. for we get to the finding -- before we get to the findings tell us how that survey was conducted. guest: it was conducted in the first couple of weeks of august. over 3000 people. in of the things we do so we can talk specifically about sub-groups is we over-sample certain populations so we have enough in the sample that we can reliably say this is what we believe this group is saying and thinking. host: one of the things that the survey looks at his the relation

to election stress. here are some of the findings. 31% reported the state of the nation has made themder moving to a ent country. 9% say the political environment in their state has mem consider moving to a different state. e 4% feel their rights are under attack. their values and opinions oning false and inaccura information. 32 percent say their political climate has caused strain between them and family members. talk to us about this report and your take away from those findings. guest: sure. that is a good summary of what we found. what i would say is that election stress is bipartisan. and of the things that was very striking in this survey is that on most of the questions you talked about there, there are not a lot of differences between democrats and republicans and independents, for that matter.

so, we know this is a phenomena affecting all of us in the population. the other thing that was really striking is that people are really thinking about the consequences of election in pretty dire terms. 72% saying they think this election will end in violence. and again, democrats, republicans, and independents think that. over half of people thinking that this election could be the end of democracy. again, republicans, democrats, and independents are saying that. so, there is a lot of consistency in how people are viewing these issues, even if we have pretty elevated levels of stress around the election itself. host: dr. evans' research shows that the stress we are feeling about the state of politics can harm both our physical and mental health. how can that present? what can it look like? guest: we know that stress can

affect our physical and mental health. it can affect our cardiovascular health. it can affect chronic diseases like diabetes. we know it can affect our mental health. anxiety, depression. so, we really have to be concerned about election stress because it is stress and we know that stress can have a very negative impact on our overall health, both physical and mental. host: he mentioned that the stress is pretty much evenly spread out among individuals, regardless of the political party that they consider themselves under. but what about other groups? younger generations, older generations, men versus women? what does the survey tell you about those groups? guest: sure. one of the interesting findings is that historically what you would find is that older adults

have the least amount of stress. so, the older we get the less stress we tend to experience. data shows that pretty consistently over time. one of the things that was interesting about this survey is that on the question about concerns about the election and the environment, actually adults, older adults, 65-plus, have the highest proportion of people saying that they were concerned about that, and the younger generation actually said that they had less. so, one of the things that says is that on that particular question older adults actually think that that is more likely and that they are experiencing more stress about it so, it makes you wonder, for people who have run through 9/11 and all of these other events, what are they saying about the current election that would lead them to that conclusion? we also saw demographic differences around race and

gender, around race, for example we saw that african-americans and latinos are more likely to believe that their vote is going to matter, that their vote counts. there were not large differences, but there were significant differences on questions like that. so, even though we have these big numbers, even though that there is pretty much agreement along political lines around what is important, what is causing people stress, there are these demographic differences in the population. host: we are talking about managing election stressing -- and anxiety with dr. arthur evans, ceo of the american psychological association. if you have a question or comment for him you can start calling in now. lines are broken down by region. if you are in the eastern or central time zone the line, (202) 748-8000. and if you are in the pacific or

mountain time zone, (202) 748-8001. dr. evans, we are just a couple of days from the election, so people may be feeling that peak stress right now. how long does the stress usually last? when does it start to get better? guest: one of the things that is really interesting in the data in the survey is that, yes, we see this peak in stress levels around the election cycle, but a lot of the phenomenon around stress around the political environment is carrying into our daily lives. mentioned the data that say 40% of americans are contemplating moving out of the country or out of their state because of the political environment. we also know that about one third of people are saying they are reducing their interactions with their family members or their having stress in the interactions with their family members.

we are seeing people, reports that the relationships they have both with friends, half of people saying they are spending less time with their friends because of political differences and people saying who they date is affected by their political viewpoints. so, what we are seeing is not just the election, but it is how the political environment largely is affecting our daily lives, even after the election cycle. host: our first call her up for you is ronald in myrtle beach, south carolina. good morning, ronald. caller: yes, good morning. i like to get some advice. you know, started in 2020 election when donald trump was elected. before he was elected, actually. my neighbor took down his american flag and put up his

trump flag. i took a picture of it. i wanted to show how unpatriotic that is, to take an american flag down and whatever and turn -- he was like an army of neighbors coming down my street, almost attacking my wife, you need to take that post down, you know? and it started there. in turn, we go up this year, every time trump was indicted the neighbors and stuff would run around with their trump flag , intimidating people, saying how strong they are. harris people do not do that. as far as i know. they did not around here. we don't try to intimidate people, and it is the stress factor brought upon our neighbors. not necessarily the campaigners, but our neighbors are so gullible. you got any advice for us? is not the tv. guest: unfortunately what we are

seeing is that more and more people are engaging in that kind of activity. in fact, the survey talked about , just a large majority of people being concerned about this ability we are seeing. -- the civility we are saying. some of this belongs to our political leaders. they have to turn down some of the rhetoric around the elections, but the other part of it is we have to think about the bigger picture here. at the end of the day we all have to live together, we want the same things for our families. the survey shows there is agreement on what the issues are. we disagree on is how to get there. what i hope is we can step back, take a look at the big picture. what is really important? and really try to be much more civil. one of the silver linings in the survey was that even though 80%

of people believe that all -- that their political viewpoints are important, about an equal number of people believe we should still have conversation. so, even though people -- with people who disagree with them, i should say. so, even though there is what we see as vitriol and anxiety and those kind of things about the election, people still believe that they should be able to talk to people who disagree with them politically. and so, that gives us hope that if people understand some strategies to do that that we can start to make a turn in what we are saying. host: dr. evans, to that point, right now because there may be so much stress going around and people are not wanting to have those conversations now, what advice do you have on how to

repair a relationship that may have been impacted by the election once we get past it? guest: sure. i think that point you made about getting past the election is very important. trying to have those conversations now is probably not going to be very fruitful. a couple of things i will say. to really think about what matters and where you agree as opposed to where you don't agree . what i have found over my career, particularly in political environments, 20 years i have spent in political environments, most of the time we turn to those kinds of situations, thinking about where our differences are in starting the conversation there. and if we step back and think about, where are we similar and how can we start the conversation on the things we agree on, you actually get a lot further. most people are probably going to agree on may be 80% of things.

people may not agree on how to approach those things, but there are a lot of things people agree on. the other thing is to approach those conversations not trying to convince the other person, but trying to listen and understand. if you think about it, most people have pretty set political views. the callers right before this segment, they are probably not going to change their viewpoints around who they are supporting politically. but they can step back and try to understand why people who think differently from them have those positions. so, i think it is about trying to understand, listen, and then find common ground where there is agreement. host: rowan in detroit, michigan. good morning, roland. caller: dr. evans, i have something for you. but you are here to discuss

this. there has been an abundance of flyers, mailers called voter participation, and it says in commercials too, your vote is private. who you vote for is private, but whether you vote or not is public. to me, that is stressful. it is almost like, we are going to profile you, you're going to have a lower or higher social score, and this time around is really crazy. have you heard of that campaign? voter participation? and don't you think it is not cool? guest: yeah, well, you know, it is really helping to educate people about the political system. in our political system we do track whether your vote. we don't know how you voted. so it is really more of an educational campaign to let you know what the reality is around

how our political process works. host: dr. evans, for somebody like roland, who is feeling some election-related, political-related stress, they are not necessarily tuning in and watching actively, they are just going about their day-to-day life. they open the mailbox and there is something in there that maybe triggers stress. how can people best deal with that political-related stress and anxiety? what are some coping strategies? guest: there are a lot of things we can do to manage it. the first thing to do is to recognize we are experiencing stress. one of the reasons we do the survey is to highlight the people what people are experiencing stress about and it gives us the opportunity to have these conversations. most of us have our own signs that we are experiencing stress. for example, i know that when i become more cynical, for

example, i'm probably experiencing stress, because i'm typically not a cynical person. so, this can manifest in different ways for different people. it could be that people start to increase the amount that they are drinking. it could be that they are short with their kids or coworkers. but all of us need to be aware of that. and if you are not aware, please ask the people around you. they will tell you, what are the signs you are experiencing stress? secondly, it is important to do the things we do to manage stress more generally. exercise, sleep. just fundamental terms of us having a baseline. around political stress in particular, really being able to be conscious around how we manage that. for example, instead of sitting at your computer or with your phone and going through article after article, you might want to set a timer so that you don't

look up and it has been two hours you have been doing what we called him scrolling -- doom scrolling, looking at article after article. there are things you can do to make sure you are staying socially connected, which we know is a really important way to help us manage our stress. one of the things that is going to be important for this election in particular is knowing that we are probably not going to know the outcome of the election on election night, or however many days after that. one of the things that raises our anxiety is uncertainty. if we know we are going into a period where there may be some uncertainty, we can plan for that. we can plan for the fact that we may not know and that this is not going to be over. >> you can finish watching this at c-span.org