Sparklight supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
Coming up on Washington Journal this morning, your calls and comments live.
And then we'll talk about how to recognize voter intimidation and what voters can do if they experience it with Jonathan Diaz of the Campaign Legal Center.
Also, Arthur Evans, CEO of the American Psychological Association, will join us to discuss the physical and mental health impacts of election stress and how to reduce anxiety.
Washington Journal is next.
Join the conversation.
This is Washington Journal for Saturday, November 2nd.
This week, Gannett, the owner of the nation's largest newspaper chain, announced none of its 200-plus publications, including USA Today, would make a presidential endorsement this year.
It's the latest in a growing non-endorsement trend among newspapers.
And to start today's program, we're asking you, should newspapers endorse political candidates?
Here are the lines.
If you say yes, 202-748-8000.
You say no, 202-748-8001.
And if you're unsure, it's 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/slash C-SPAN or on X at C-SPANWJ.
Good morning, and thank you for being with us.
We'll get to your calls and comments in just a few minutes.
But first, wanted to show you this headline from Newsweek.
It says, majority of Americans do not think newspapers should endorse candidates.
It says more Americans believe newspapers should not endorse political candidates than those they think, those who think they should, according to a poll conducted by YouGov on October 29th.
That's just earlier this week.
The poll was released after news that the Washington Post and the LA Times would break with precedent and not endorse a candidate before the 2024 presidential election.
Here's a look at those results from YouGov.
It says, looking at the figures, 28% say they should endorse candidates.
47% 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 talked about the non-endorsements of the newspapers not endorsing a presidential candidate.
Here's that event.
But I thought it was an unusual because we have a lot of people that endorse us.
And do you notice the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times and all these papers?
They're not endorsing anybody.
You know what they're really saying?
Because they only endorse Democrats.
They're saying this Democrat's no good.
They're no good.
And they think I'm doing a great job.
They just don't want to say it.
Washington and USA Today, congratulations.
I just heard USA Today has not endorsed.
They said we're not going to endorse.
That means that they think she's no good.
But 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.
Good morning, Tammy.
I think a lot of people may be rightfully concerned about the overlap between a newspaper being unbiased and just reporting the facts, but I also think it's important that the opinion editors give you their opinion and their biases of who they're supporting, and then you can, as the reader, take that into account when you're reading their paper.
Do you think that the opinion petit, the opinion editors, what they are putting out there, people are impacted by it?
No, not necessarily.
I don't think anyone is making their decisions based on newspaper editors.
I just, as I said, I think it's more of a thing where people can understand where they're coming from when they're writing anything else.
That was Felix Helen in North Carolina says no.
Good morning, Helen.
No, because they're too biased, and a lot of people don't take the newspaper anymore.
They see a lot of it on TV.
I'd 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.
And also, I would like all the listeners, listen to Mark Levine.
He's on Saturday night and Sunday night at 8 o'clock on Fox News, and he will give everybody a lesson in our Constitution.
I'm so upset with all these people calling the past president the names that they call him.
It's ridiculous.
And also, they got a super PAC ad saying he's going to do away with Social Security.
That's a lie.
He's going to increase your taxes.
That's a lie.
This woman does not know she got her part in where she is today.
Okay, got your point, Helen.
I will let you know and the rest of the audience, there's a lot of moving parts in these last few days of the election, a lot of time changes, and it makes programming a little bit more challenging for us.
We will bring you a lot of campaign events today and the next couple days.
You can always find the most up-to-date information on our website at c-span.org.
Sharon in Florida says yes.
Good morning, Sharon.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Hi, Sharon.
Hi.
I think 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're not taking in all the available information they need to make an informed vote.
Sharon, where are you getting your information from?
I get information from stations that I trust and from the news, from some magazines.
I watch MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC.
We get the Tampa paper.
And I've been voting now for over 50 years.
And I just have an inner radar about when people are not being sincere, When they're telling lies, when they're trying to destroy our democracy for personal power, I can't stand hypocrisy.
I left the party that I was with for 20 years because of the hypocrisy of one of the candidates when they were talking about the contract for America.
And I try to stay true to my own beliefs and figure out who's lying and who's telling the truth.
And I vote accordingly.
Sharon, your newspaper there, is at the Tampa Bay Times.
Yes.
According to Semaphore, they are one of the outlets that is not endorsing a candidate this time around.
What are your thoughts on that?
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 had a pro and con from each candidate on all 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.
That was Sharon in Florida.
Alex, also in Florida, Miami Beach, on the line for no.
Good morning, Alex.
Hello, good morning.
Hi, Alex.
Go ahead.
Good morning.
I chose to go on the no line because in a perfect world, I believe that everybody should be able to make their own decisions based off their 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 for 50 years, and all of a sudden this year they decide not to endorse, they're doing it to appease Trump.
That's also the only reason why they're doing it.
They're doing it to, and not endorsing is basically an endorsement to Trump, not endorsing.
They're doing it to be on his good side.
That's my opinion.
That's Alex.
Alex mentioning how people may be impacted.
The YouGov poll that 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 weren't already planning to vote for?
The breakdown, 10% say very often, 28% say somewhat often, 28% say not very often, 14% say not at all often, and 20% say not sure.
Juliet in Rockport, Massachusetts is on one of those unsure.
Good morning, Juliet.
Good morning, Kimmy.
Thank you for C-SPAN.
So the premise of my question I'm a little bit unsure of.
That's why I'm calling you on the unsure line because look no further than an article that I read last evening in Real Clear Politics.
The article was by the Nation magazine.
As you know, one of the most liberal bastions of articles that are written in Christine Vandenhoe, who's the editor-in-chief, they came out without even having to say one way or the other that Kamala Harris is failing, or I should say flailing as a candidate.
For instance, her entire notion on this campaign predicated on the Donald Trump's going to destroy democracy is failing, especially in these key battleground states.
And that she should be speaking more pertinent to the questions at hand, that people are suffering high inflation.
The border crises with just 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, the local union people in, I think it was Wisconsin.
And I'm saying to myself, she's such a hypocrite because these people are unions.
They get their, you know, they pay their dues.
They get, you know, certain perks.
But yet again, she's had the border open for four years, which has been decimating wages.
So anyway, to go back to the nation very quickly, just by virtue of them proclaiming that she's such a terrible candidate, they're not endorsing her, if that makes any logical sense to you.
So that's my comment for today.
And maybe you can give me some feedback on that.
And I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Thank you, Juliet.
Sheila in Texas on the yes line.
Good morning, Sheila.
Good morning.
I would like to say that, 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's my understanding that it's 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, but I mean, 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 that, yes, especially in these times when we have an individual who is twice impeached, 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.
That was Sheila in Texas.
Vice President Kamala Harris has also been talking about the non-endorsements.
She was on Charlemagne the God, on with Charlemagne the God on the Breakfast Club on Tuesday.
Here is a clip from that interview.
How do you feel, Madam Vice President, about these major publications like the LA Times, the Washington Post, refusing to endorse somebody for president?
You know, Charlemagne, it's disappointing, no doubt.
But the other piece of it is it gets back to my point about who is Donald Trump because he is the one, right, who is up for election with me.
And, you know, I think that some of your listeners may know and others may not, which is that, look, it's billionaires in Donald Trump's club.
That's who's in his club.
That's who he hangs out with.
That's who he cares about.
That's why when he was last president, he put into place a massive tax cut for billionaires in the biggest corporations.
And that is exactly what he will do again.
His policies are not about middle-class folks.
He's not sitting around thinking about what he can do to take care of your grandmother and your 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.
For 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 Ganton.
He says, nobody should publicly endorse a political candidate.
Such decisions should be private for each individual.
And Paul in Chesapeake, Virginia says, there was a time when it was appropriate and maybe even necessary prior to the advent of the 24 news cycle and social media when newspapers and not even radio or television was the primary source of news.
With print news losing subscribers, it makes no difference.
And one last from Facebook, Mary Burchert says news is supposed to be unbiased.
So I would say no and go one step further, saying they need to go back to being honest 100%.
Up next, Kenny and Astoria, Oregon says no.
Good morning, Kenny.
Hey, good morning to you.
Yes.
I'm a mega-Republican and proud of it.
And I live, unfortunately, I live in a liberal state.
So two years ago, when there were elections going on, it could have been two and a half 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 socialists, Democrats.
So I actually dropped the newspaper two years ago because I just couldn't agree with it anymore than I could deal with it.
Kenny, where do you get your news now?
Fox News and Newsmax.
Of course, I listen to you every day.
All seven days a week, I listen to your station for at least the first hour because you bring guests in sometimes that I disagree with and I won't listen to it.
Sometimes you have guests I do agree with it, then I'll listen on further on.
But yeah, this is going to be a tight election, I tell you that.
There's corruption.
So we'll just see how it goes.
That is Kenny in Astoria, Oregon.
Rob in Florida is unsure.
Good morning, Rob.
Good morning.
Good morning.
So, yeah, I called in on the unsure.
I'm actually, I called in unsure because I'm divided on yes and no.
It's just that since Donald Trump entered the political scene in 2016 or 2015, whenever, everything's changed.
Okay.
A lot of things have changed.
And I think, like, for example, Jeff Bezos doesn't hit The Washington Post, I think it was, that he owns, doesn't endorse anybody.
He comes out with a statement, or I'm sorry, because they don't endorse anybody, they lose, what, 250 subscribers, 300 subscribers, 300,000 subscribers.
And, you know, why?
Why doesn't the Washington Journal?
Why didn't the LA Times?
Why hasn't the unions endorse anybody?
It's because of Donald Trump.
They're scared that Donald Trump is going to become president.
And again, he said he wants to be the retribution for all this corruption.
You hear it from your callers when they call in.
The MAGA right, the ultra-right gentleman, the lady earlier with the Mark Levine.
They want you to listen to a certain, you know, they say, do your research.
I believe that you should be able to listen to both.
But back to Jeff Bezos, right?
He doesn't endorse anybody.
He comes out and says, hey, we don't want to be political.
We don't want to be part of this.
We're going to stay neutral.
But in reality, he doesn't want to get on Donald Trump's bad side in case he becomes president.
He wants a tax cut.
Bezos wants the tax cuts, the tax subsidies that he's getting.
He doesn't want to jeopardize that by going against and endorsing somebody like Kakamala.
Same thing with LA Times.
Same thing with a lot of organizations that aren't endorsing.
But as far as news, sorry, as far as going back to the newspapers, if they should endorse, I think they should.
But I think as far as news, it's newspapers.
That's a die-in organization.
Everything's going to media, alternative news.
You got on the right, you got Newsmax, OAN, you got people like Charlie Kirk, Ben Shapiro.
You know, they are shooting a certain type of propaganda on the left.
You got CNN, MSNBC, you got people like David Pachman and others on the left shooting their left-handed propaganda.
You got to look at both sides, find something in the middle.
Both sides are telling the truth.
Both sides are lying.
Both sides are going to push their candidates.
But I think because of Donald Trump, everybody's 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.
Do I think he's going to try and kill everybody?
No, of course not.
But is he going to try and punish people?
Yes.
By policy, or again, people say he doesn't use the DOJ, and he does.
But I think people say that you got to do your research, and you do, but you've got to listen to both sides.
Got your point, Rob.
And Rob, mentioning the number of subscribers that the Washington Post lost after the non-endorsement last week.
This from the Washington Post earlier, or just yesterday, the article says that at least 250,000 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 digital subscribers.
The post began experiencing a huge spike in the number of subscribers looking to cancel online starting Friday in the wake of the announcement by CEO and publisher William Lewis, according to documents and two people familiar with the figures who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to comment publicly.
By Tuesday, the number reached 250,000.
The document, the documents indicate.
Back to your calls up next.
John in Alabama is on the yes line.
Good morning, John.
Good morning.
Yes, I think your topic is: should newspapers support a candidate?
Well, it wasn't the newspaper, it was the editorial part of the paper that wanted to write an article.
So anytime 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's what the statement says.
So now you have editorial people with freedom of the press.
They're not allowed to write an opinion.
And is this only for this is a this presidential race is very important for democracy, for who gets the 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 now, 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.
John, has your local newspaper, have they endorsed a candidate?
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 see, the other thing is, when you're going in this direction, then you're going to say, well, you want to criticize Facebook.
You don't want to criticize Elon Musk for the things, for all of the untruth that he wants to put out over his ex.
So, by any means, what I'm saying is to say that.
Where do you draw the line?
Where are you?
Even your show, Washington Journal.
You something, come on, Washington Journal.
All you got to say is, oh, we don't support those statements, but you're free to advertise, but we don't support that advertisement.
So, you know, it don't make sense to me.
And I know it's done because of because of, I feel it's because of the political climate today.
And this is exactly why the newspapers should be, editorial pages should be able to write freely.
That was John in Alabama.
Alan in North Carolina says no.
Good morning, Alan.
Good morning, Speech fan.
Thank you for taking my call.
Just to reply to the last guy a little bit, Elon Musk is an American hero.
He opened up Twitter and he exposed all the bias.
And, you know, the endorsement part is ridiculous because all you have to do is listen to what they say the rest of the year.
The legacy media supports Kamina Harris with favorable coverage 89% of the time.
And they denigrate Trump, the negative coverage, 85% of the time.
So if then you come out and say you're not endorsing, you've already programmed all your readers.
The only people that are listening to you are people that agree with you.
Or the news media take snips of what you say to say the Washington Post said this, Politico said that.
But everybody already knows where they stand.
So the endorsement, yeah, they're going to lose people that originally this first year that they don't endorse.
But if they continue that, then 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're being brainwashed.
On both sides, they're being brainwashed.
Nobody's 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.
Other than C-SPAN, we appreciate you watching us.
Where do you get your news?
What sources do you go to?
All of them.
I watch the Joe Rogan podcast that Commonwealth is scared to go on.
And I watch Fox.
I watch News Nation.
But when commercial comes on, I go and I tolerate, listen to TNN, the Communist News Network, and I listen to MSNBC, which I don't even know why they got a license because they're just an extension of the Democrat Party.
All they do is propagandize continuously, 100% against Trump.
You know, it's like all the things they say.
All the scams they have, like Charlottesville, when he said there are fine people on both sides, he was talking about the people that were tearing down, 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's calling Nazis coming out of the freaking tree vine with torches good people.
Trump never said they were good people, but the news media just took it.
They just took it and they keep on.
And they keep on saying it.
And the bleach was total BS.
He didn't tell anybody to inject bleach.
He was joking.
And I mean, just after one after another, after another, after another, they take these stories like Liz Cheney, what they just did.
President Trump said that, sorry, excuse me for a second.
President Trump said that Liz Cheney was a war hawk.
And then if you put her on the front lines with rifles pointed at her, that she would run like a chicken.
But she's comfortable sitting in her living room and sending your children to war.
Because she don't have to pay the consequences.
And if she had to pay the consequences, then she wouldn't be such a war hawk.
But the news media took the statement he said, took it totally out of context, and made him look like he was saying something totally different.
They do that every single time.
That was Alan in North Carolina.
Timbo in Mountain Home, Arkansas is unsure.
Good morning, Timbo.
Morning.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I'm unsure about endorsements matter, but I'll tell you one thing I do know, and that is Trump's, might be a billionaire, but he's pretty worthless as a human being.
And when I see his followers waving the rebel flag at his rallies, they're telling me we are the biggest losers.
You know, wave that loser flag that Timbo.
When you're talking about the endorsements and you're not sure, what newspapers are you reading?
Do you have a local newspaper?
I read the Washington Journal.
The Washington Journal?
Yes.
Not a newspaper?
We got a batch of bullets.
But yeah, you know.
Did they endorse a candidate?
No.
They didn't.
That was Timbo.
This on Fox News, the headline: far fewer newspapers are endorsing Harris than backed Clinton or Biden.
The article says that newspaper endorsements for the Democratic presidential candidate have dipped by more than 60% this year since 2016, after VP Kamala Harris became the party's front runner, according to a rough estimate by Fox News Digital.
In 2016, more than 240 newspapers endorsed Hillary Clinton, while only 20 endorsed Trump.
In 2020, 14 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, Trudy.
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.
I mean, they talk about Kamala like, you know, she's a piece of crap.
The crap is Trump.
This man will be a disaster if he gets in there to be the president.
He says nothing about big corporations not giving them tech breaks.
This man is horrible.
He's a horrible man.
I can't even get my words together because I'm so upset at the people that's behind him waving their flags with the t-shirts on.
You know, they're just like trashing, trashing America, period.
This man is, he couldn't even run his own business.
How do you expect for him to run a whole country if he couldn't run his business?
Yes, I think the newspaper should because more people, more older 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.
Trudy, what's your local newspaper there in Cincinnati?
The Post, the Cincinnati Herald.
We have a couple other.
But other than that, yes, I think they should.
This man is running on, he ran on Obama.
Well, I can't even get the words out.
We'll leave it there, Trudy.
We'll go to Tillman and Georgia on the unsure line.
Good morning, Tillman.
Hello.
Hi, Tillman.
You're on.
Yes, thank you for taking my call.
The deal is this, ma'am.
Donald Trump is running for president for one reason, to stay out of jail.
That's the only reason he's running.
He has no programs, no plan, no programs.
He got concepts of this, concept of that.
The man added $8 trillion to national debt in four years.
Tillman.
Tillman, talk to me about newspaper endorsements.
You called in on the unsure line.
Why are you unsure about newspaper endorsements?
AGC, Atlanta.
Tillman.
Tillman, why are you unsure about whether newspapers should endorse a candidate?
I'm calling because the deal is a deal.
Truth is truth.
Truth is true.
This man is a throwback.
We'll go to Howard in Lakewood, Washington.
He says yes.
Good morning, Howard.
Hey, the mighty, mighty Seattle Times put it this.
They said hell yes to Aaron and Walt.
If you look at the calendar, it's November 1860, and you can't be scared.
You can't be cured.
That's what it is, 1860.
Richard in Nashville, Tennessee, also says yes.
Good morning, Richard.
Good morning.
I say yes, but with one caveat, I think all people, all organizations, government, private organizations, 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're conservative or if you're liberal, who you are, business-wise or individually, if you speak something in the blanket media across the country or in your community and you deliberately tell a lie, you get sued to beyond recognition.
Because in the old days, my mama always raised us: if you don't have anything good to say about anybody, keep your mouth shut.
And there is a thing called slander, where you slander is kind of a vague term, but slander basically means that if you say something about someone and costs them their livelihood, that's slander.
And what's happening in this country today, whether it's Facebook, Twitter, or whether it's Washington Journal, NBC, or Fox News, or Newsmax, any of them, if you get on there and you tell a blatant lie, which we've just seen happen just last night, then you get sued beyond recognition.
That's the only way you're going to stop it.
But as far as the free voice, the First Amendment, free speech, praise God, and go Trump.
That's what you wanted to hear this morning.
That's what you're doing this poll for.
So thank you, Washington General.
Thank you.
Bob in Waxaw, North Carolina says no.
Good morning, Bob.
Hey, good morning.
Yeah, Farmer Bob here.
Hope you're doing okay today.
Yeah, my position on this is newspapers should not endorse any particular candidate.
Now, I'm not saying they shouldn't say one thing or the other about him in Representative exactly what the facts are, but they should not endorse candidates.
Can I give you an example real quick?
Yeah, please do, Bob.
And I know a lot of this came up with the LA Times and the Washington Post taking position not endorsing candidates.
Where I get most of my news is from reading the Wall Street Journal.
And I don't know if you, you know, I turned in your show maybe about 20 minutes already into it, so I don't know if you showed what they have to say about it, but the Wall Street Journal hasn't endorsed a candidate since 1928, and they won't do it.
Yesterday, they talked, excuse me, on Thursday, talked about Kamala Harris.
I'm sure.
And basically, just talked about her record.
I'm sure they'll talk about Donald Trump and talk about his record one way or the other.
But in no means was there endorsement one way or the other.
We should be intelligent enough to take a look at what the facts are.
And 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 and make up our own minds, not be positioned one way or the other by what an endorsement from a newspaper.
That's my position.
Bob, you read my mind.
I have that Wall Street Journal 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 hasn't endorsed a presidential candidate since 1928.
Our tradition is to sum up the candidates of the majority party nominees in a separate editorial.
And 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 in California is on the yes line.
Good morning, Teresa.
Good morning.
I do believe they should.
They've been doing it now since the 1800s.
It's a freedom of speech as an editorial.
The question is: if you don't endorse a candidate, do you now say, hmm, I should not have the newspapers also endorsing propositions because they do it all over the country.
I have the LA Times here, the Daily News, and several others.
I look at several newspapers, the Examiner in San Francisco.
So it's a tradition.
Is it going to change how people vote one way or the other on a candidate?
No, I agree exactly what the Washington Post does or has done is that they have, I mean, not the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal.
What they did was to basically sum up both sides of the candidates.
Hopefully they're both, it's both true facts.
Freedom of speech is something that we've always had.
The challenge that 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 gentleman from North Carolina stated that 80% of the information on Kamala Harris was positive, whereas 78% of Trump's reporting was negative.
That's exactly from Fox News.
Fox News, it's a direct quote.
I watch all of them.
And 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's a matter of taking on taking all information, but like they say, trust but verify.
The other thing the man from North Carolina said, and which I do want to, I took umbrage to, is that Elon Musk is a hero.
He is not.
If you look at some of the disinformation that's coming out of from X, it's unbelievable.
And I think that there should be a change in terms of how things are disseminated, in terms of what is truth and what is an opinion and not true.
Alternative facts does not work in this matter.
It just makes us all very angry and not happy.
So thank you so much for your show, and I appreciate your time.
John in Cleveland, Ohio is on the unsure line.
Good morning, John.
Oh, hello.
I said I'm unsure simply because I think 99% of the media is going to be controlled.
But there may be an occasion where you get some 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 Beyond Vietnam speech, Martin Luther King's Beyond Vietnam speech.
This is on tape.
It's on print.
It's available.
If you look it up on the internet, MLK's Vietnam speech, it's absolutely censored from the media on his anniversary in favor of the I Have a Dream speech.
Any right-winger 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 doesn't offer an alternative.
And I think it's very significant that that Beyond Vietnam speech in which he called the United States government the greatest purveyor of violence and imperialism in the world.
And every tax year that we're spending these trillions of dollars on the military-industrial war profiteer billionaires is a robbery of the people in the ghettos and the poor.
We'll go to Ann in Ball, Louisiana.
She says no.
Good morning, Ann.
Good morning.
Good morning.
You're on.
Oh, okay.
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 before he run for president, everybody up there in the White House was good buddies with him.
I feel that it's all unfair.
I don't feel like they should be able to push their opinions on us because 90% of the time, it's lies.
And that's why I voted no.
And tell me about your local paper.
Did they endorse a candidate?
We don't have a local paper here now.
They left.
Where do you get your news?
I get it off of my internet and off of the TV.
What kind of outlets are you reading?
Just whatever I can pull up, I don't have no certain ones.
I know NBC is just, they bash Trump something terrible.
And it's not right.
They should leave all the bashing out and get to the problems that our country is facing.
That was Ann Tony in Indiana says yes.
Good morning, Tony.
Hey, good morning.
Hey, 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 that journalists, they have their ears to the news of the nation, and they're the ones that hear the most of what's going on.
I think they should be able to do that.
I do think it's up to the readers, though, to follow the facts.
They need to look and search for the truth theirself before they make their decisions.
Tony, do you take editorials and the endorsements into consideration when you're deciding which candidate to vote for?
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 watch just DNN or NBC or anything.
I constantly go back and forth between everything.
I want to know everybody's different opinion is on it because if you only follow one network, that's all you're ever going to hear.
And you don't know that they're telling you the truth.
You know, from what I read, a lot of the different news networks are all owned by one conglomerate.
It's pretty obvious if you really watch news, you can tell who's for what for Donald Trump or who's for Kamala Harris by what kind of stories they leave with every night or how much coverage they give to each one of the candidates.
So, no, 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'll go on the internet and I will research that person to see what their background is to see who they lean towards.
That was Tony in Indiana.
The election day is just a couple days away.
One of the states being watched is Nevada.
That's 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, Adernae in New York says no.
Good morning.
Hi, how are you?
Doing well, Adernae.
I'd say no because I think the job of the newspaper business is to investigate.
I'd rather them speak with every person who worked with these candidates and get their endorsement and print their point of view.
Endorsement is just an opinion, and even in the best media, opinions seem to inherently find their way through even their reporting.
So it's unnecessary for them to endorse.
Plus, they're a business, and like any business, they have their own reasons for an endorsement.
I really do think, like any job interview, it's really the opinion of the people who know these candidates that is most important.
Auternay, we've been focusing mostly on the presidential endorsing 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?
No, I honestly believe that their job is to lay out the facts.
I really 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.
They just, I think that's what's getting lost in everything, is that it's a horse race now.
And 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.
Martin in Holland, Michigan is unsure.
Good morning, Martin.
Yes, it doesn't make any difference whether they endorse or not endorse.
What would really be helpful if these reporters would just go ahead and put down their party affiliation?
And that would really tell a lot.
So if the editorial board does not want to endorse, it's all made visible through the type of reporting, what type of articles they run, et cetera, et cetera.
So I think it would be very helpful.
And if the editorial board does decide to go ahead and endorse a candidate with their party affiliation.
And I think that would be very, very helpful to all the readers of the news media.
And a lot of references were made about the liberal media.
I think one thing you should consider is the ideology that's behind all this.
And I'm a conservative, but people have to understand the leftist liberalism is really a threat to democracy here in this country.
And it should be a warning label put out that leftist liberalism is hazardous to your mental and physical health.
It's a carcinogen that erodes the soul.
Martin, where in Michigan is Holland?
Are you close to Detroit or another larger city?
On the west side of the state.
You're on the west side.
What's the newspaper there that you read?
The Holland Sentinel.
It's owned by USA Today.
And in the real conservative area, they run a lot of columns by liberal columnists from Chicago, Washington Post, et cetera, et cetera.
Very seldom do they run, let's say, conservative opinions, but that's what's being done here locally.
But I don't know.
That's Martin.
Darrell in Columbus, Georgia says yes.
Good morning, Darrell.
Yes, good morning.
Good morning, Darrell.
Yes.
I say yes because the reason being for yes is because when you look at most of the Democrat candidates versus the Republican candidates, the Democrat candidates seem to be more truthful.
That's why they seem to get more endorsement from the papers.
Right now, what's happening now with the LA Times and Washington Post and USA Today, these people, the guys that own these papers, they're scared.
You know, just like the guy said earlier, they're scared of Trump.
If Trump wins, they don't want to have no bad blood with Trump.
And then, you know, Sooner or later, if we do win, this thing is going to be just like the Kremlin in Russia.
You're going to have state news.
You're going to have one source.
That's going to be Fox.
And everybody that's going to be cut out of the game.
And I guess everybody here in my town here in Columbus, Georgia, we got the Columbus Legend, but most of us deal with the Atlanta Journal.
That's our best source down here in Georgia.
But if Trump gets in, it's going to be state news.
That's going to be all you get, folks.
I'm telling you.
So you better go with Harris.
And that's all I can say.
Vote for Harris.
That was Daryl.
And Darryl was talking about the Atlanta Journal Constitution.
There, this is from 2009.
The headline to our readers: AJC takes a new approach to our election.
And the article says that after listening carefully to readers and thinking deeply about the modern role of newspapers in elections, the AJC Electoral Board is taking a new approach and election coverage beginning with this November's election.
Going forward, our board will use its unique 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 AJC will no longer endorse political candidates.
Again, that was from 2009.
Just a few minutes left.
Wanted to share a couple messages coming in on social media.
This from Hawk on X says, editorial pages help summarize the topics and trends that help busy people sort out the facts.
If I endorse a newspaper by being a customer, I expect that organization to give me the pulse of the nation so I can weigh each one out and use my best judgment.
And this from Stephanie 24-7, she says, if a newspaper is told that they can't offer their opinion, it doesn't sound like they're allowed to speak freely, and there's clearly interference.
And one more from MLB says, actually, political endorsements are a part of the editorial board's job.
That means their opinions, not facts.
If you don't understand the difference between an opinion and a fact, that's a you problem.
Time for just a couple more calls.
Jennifer in Avery, California is unsure.
Good morning, Jennifer.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Yeah, it's just it kills me how the Washington Post won't endorse Kamala Harris, especially since that reporter was executed with a bone saw in Saudi Arabia, and Trump was president at the time.
And it's just amazing how they, I don't know.
It's just, yeah, it's crazy.
Jeff Bezos is just, he's folding.
He doesn't want any kind of retribution from Trump in case Trump does become president.
And he's just running scared.
And I think it's pitiful and shameful.
Jennifer, you called on the unsure line.
What makes you unsure?
Because I really, I mean, I'm just, I really don't, I'm unsure that I don't think people really listen to endorsements from newspapers.
But that's why I'm unsure.
Yeah.
And our last call for this hour, Peter in Silver Spring, Maryland, says no.
Good morning, Peter.
Hello, yes.
In today's political environment, if you endorse one candidate, everybody who's on the other candidate side rejects everything you say.
And this is a problem with how we're responding to what I call disinformation.
Disinformation is where you believe someone's opinion as being fact.
That's the problem that we have today.
You have Fox giving their opinion and people think it's fact.
You have MSNBC giving their opinion and people think it's fact.
You have to look to all sides and make up 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 disinformation.
Thank you.
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'll discuss the physical and mental health impacts of election stress and how to reduce anxiety with American Psychological Association CEO, Dr. Arthur Evans.
We'll be right back.
American History TV, exploring the people and events that tell the American story.
This weekend, the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia awards documentary filmmaker Ken Burns its 2024 Liberty Medal for his body of work as America's storyteller.
Watch American History TV's series Historic Presidential Elections, exploring what made these elections historic, the pivotal issues of different eras and their lasting impact on the nation.
This week, the election of 1980, in a landslide victory, Republican former California Governor Ronald Reagan defeated incumbent Democratic President Jimmy Carter, winning 489 electoral votes in 44 states.
On Lectures in History, 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 online anytime at c-span.org slash history.
Book TV, every Sunday on C-SPAN 2, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.
Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
At 6.30 p.m. Eastern, history professor Evan Friss looks at the history of bookstores and their role in American culture with his book, The Book Shop.
And at 8 p.m. Eastern, best-selling author John Grisham and his co-author Jim McCloskey share their book, Framed, about the challenges of exonerating a person who's wrongfully convicted.
Then at 10 p.m. Eastern on Afterwords, journalist Lena Zeldovich explains how a nearly forgotten life-saving healing virus could be groundbreaking in treating deadly infectious diseases.
With her book, The Living Medicine, she's interviewed by USA Today health reporter Adriana Rodriguez.
Watch Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.
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 spit, no commercials.
Just the candidates, the results, and you.
Follow C-SPAN this election night beginning at 7 p.m. Eastern, live Tuesday, on TV, online, or on the free C-SPAN Now video app.
Washington Journal continues.
Joining us now to discuss voter intimidation in Campaign 2024 is Jonathan Diaz.
He is the Voting Advocacy and Partnerships Director at the Campaign Legal Center.
Jonathan, thank you for being with us.
Good morning.
Why don't we start with having you remind us about your organization, what is the Campaign Legal Center, and what is the mission?
Sure.
So Campaign Legal Center is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization here in Washington, D.C.
And our mission is to advance democracy through law.
We do that through a combination of litigation, policy advocacy, and public education focused on the pillars of the democratic and electoral process, campaign finance reform, voting rights, redistricting, and government ethics.
So when you're talking about those issues, who are you working with?
And also, how's your organization funded?
We represent individual voters and nonpartisan civic and community organizations.
We work really closely with election officials and members of the public to advance pro-voter policies and try and explain and simplify what can sometimes be a complicated electoral system to voters and the members of the public.
We are funded by individual donations as well as some foundation donors as well.
In your title, you are the voting advocacy and partnership director.
Explain what that means and what you focus on.
So 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 that they are developing policies that reduce barriers to accessing the ballot.
And I also coordinate our work with the many partner organizations we work with at the national, state, and local level.
And you're here today.
We're going to be talking about voter intimidation.
When we hear that, what exactly are we talking about?
So 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, or coerce someone into voting or not voting a particular way.
Those laws are enforced by not only the Justice Department, but also state law enforcement agencies like district attorneys.
And they're 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.
And what can voter intimidation look like?
It can take many forms.
I think viewers are probably familiar with some of the historical examples, armed men on horses and fire hoses and dogs and things like that.
But in today's day and age, voter intimidation can take subtler, more modern forms, online harassment, publishing people's personal information or their home address online, threatening them with job or economic consequences.
There's lots of different ways that people can try to intimidate or coerce somebody into voting or not voting.
And that's why we have these legal protections to make sure that everyone's vote is cast freely and safely.
How often is voter intimidation happening?
And is there a typical target?
Unfortunately, it is a recurring issue over the whole of American history and today is no exception.
But fortunately, the response from law enforcement and good government groups like Campaign Legal Center is really robust.
And so we are not seeing it maybe quite as often as we did decades ago.
But there are still isolated incidents every election cycle of voters feeling unsafe or feeling threatened.
And so we respond pretty quickly to those.
We've seen individuals who have been in the news for going to polling places and trying to intimidate voters as they're waiting in line to vote.
This also from this morning's Washington Post, it says creepy voting mailers provoke ire in Maryland.
And it's talking about these mysterious letters titled Voting Report Cards.
And it's giving recipients' names alongside their voting histories and those of their neighbors.
They've been landing in voters' mailboxes across the country in recent days.
They are coming from a group, the Voter Participation Center and the Center for Information.
Is it typically more individuals who are focused on voter intimidation or groups and organizations like that?
It can be both.
I want to be careful to draw a distinction between persuasive political messaging like mailers that are 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 just pure speech is that's protected by the First Amendment.
There's lots of speech that you or I or anyone else may not like that folks have a constitutional right to express.
That's different from threats of physical violence or financial consequences or the things that are designed not to persuade people to vote, but to threaten or induce fear to prevent people from voting or to try and push somebody.
Sometimes you cross the line.
We have to balance the right to vote a free and safe ballot with the right to free speech and political persuasion.
We are talking with Jonathan Diaz.
He is 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 start calling in now the lines.
If you're a Democrat, 202-748-8000.
Republicans, 202-748-8001.
And Independents, 202-748-8002.
And going back to the distinction, it sounds like there's a gray area.
How is, what do protections look like for what we know is voter intimidation versus something that maybe just makes something somebody uncomfortable?
So context really matters.
It's not just what someone says or does, but also when, where, how.
And that's why, you know, I think law enforcement looks at allegations of voter intimidation really carefully.
Because again, we're balancing protecting voters and keeping them safe with protected First Amendment political expression.
So some conduct that may not be voter intimidation in some contexts, if it's done at a polling place right by a line of voters, if it's directed at primarily voters of color or things like that, all of those factual questions really matter.
And that's why I think when in doubt, it's always safe to report any instances of suspected voter intimidation to local election officials or law enforcement.
Our first caller for this segment is Mike in Woodbridge, Virginia on the Line for Independence.
Good morning, Mike.
Yeah, Mike.
I want to know his opinion on Supreme Court ruling about Virginia's voter registration.
Yeah, and on this issue, I think the Supreme Court heard in their decision, because DMV does not have anything to do with immigrants of object of immigrant citizenship.
We only go there to acquire driver license.
When you go there with your green card, you will take that.
You are not a citizen.
Along the line, your status can change.
And when you change, that is where you go and register to vote.
And the only place that can determine your citizenship is immigration.
It's citizen and negative service, not DMV.
So when they went into DMV to check your old forms, that was wrong.
And they didn't even give the opportunity for the immigrant to show whether he is a citizen or not.
Mike, we'll get a response from Jonathan.
Yeah, so in the interest of full transparency, Campaign Legal Center represented some of the voters who challenged those removals in Virginia from the voter registration list.
We were extremely disappointed in that Supreme Court decision.
I do think that it was wrong.
You know, I think the district court and the Fourth Circuit, which is the Intermediate Appeals Court, I think they got it right.
Virginia was relying on outdated information and stale data.
And what we found and the clients we represented in that case showed was that these were naturalized U.S. citizens who maybe at one point were not citizens and had indicated as much to the DMV, but then ultimately naturalized, became citizens, and then registered.
And Virginia is relying on outdated information to identify potentially ineligible voters and remove them from the roles, we think, in violation of federal law.
The good news is that in Virginia, there is same-day voter registration.
So anyone who was wrongfully removed from the roles can still go and vote in person on Election Day and register at the polling place.
But that's not the case in every state.
You know, we've challenged similar programs, removing naturalized citizens from the rolls in Alabama, Texas, elsewhere.
And I think it's a real concern when states are using bad data and removing eligible American citizens from the voter rolls.
Can you talk about the distinction between intimidation and suppression?
Sure.
Voter intimidation is a form of voter suppression.
Anything that prevents people from going to the polls, whether it's because an administrative barrier has been erected or because they're afraid.
And in a democracy, we want our elections to reflect the will of all eligible voters.
And so anything that is preventing people from voting is really damaging our government and our elections' ability to fully represent the views of all Americans.
Ted in Ocean View, Hawaii, line for Democrats.
Good morning, Ted.
Good morning.
Yeah, we were just talking about the voter intimidation and people need to just turn it around on somebody that tries to intimidate you and say, if you want to pass information in a nice, normal tone of voice, that's not intimidation.
But if you're going to be threatening or intimidating, just turn it around and say, why can't you win my vote with information rather than intimidation?
Everybody needs to think about that.
Information, not intimidation.
It's real easy.
Any response for Ted?
I mean, I don't think I could have said it better by self.
I think we want to persuade our friends and neighbors with ideas and with policies, not with fear or threats.
Sergio in Texas, line for Republicans.
Good morning, Sergio.
Good morning.
I have a very serious concern with mail-in ballots for this reason.
Say you have a family of five.
You get five ballots, all voting age.
You get five ballots dropped off in the mailbox.
You've got a dominant figure in the family.
He gathers the ballots, opens them all up, fills them all out, seals them, and tells his children and his wife, hey, I've already done your voting for you.
All you need to do is sign these things.
I'll take them over to the drop-off box.
No one addresses that issue, but it's a very real concern that I have.
Don't know that it would be too widespread, but it's something that you would never be able to track it or figure out how to stop it.
Yeah, I mean, I think that's certainly an interesting concern that is not the typical kind of voter intimidation concern that I think we often think about.
You know, voter intimidation, and I think that that scenario would qualify, is illegal no matter where it happens.
It doesn't necessarily need to be at a physical polling place.
You know, coercion, which is what I think the collar just described, is specifically listed in the voter intimidation statutes as something that is not okay.
And voter intimidation is, you know, it's not just illegal, it's a crime.
It carries, you know, potential sentences, including jail time, pretty serious fines, and civil liability.
And so, you know, I think that that's why we have these protections in place.
What impact does voter intimidation have?
Do we know how many people are opting not to vote because they feel like it's not safe?
You know, it's hard to quantify exactly because, you know, if somebody is too scared to show up to the polls, they may not report it.
And so we don't have a full picture.
But Campaign Legal Center, like many nonpartisan legal organizations, works on the national nonpartisan election protection hotline at 866OURVOTE.
And we get reports every single election cycle from voters who report feeling afraid, being intimidated.
Many of them still are able to go and vote.
They go back to the polling place the next day or they vote by mail.
But just because someone is able to overcome intimidation and cast their ballot doesn't mean that voter intimidation hasn't taken place.
And the law also prohibits attempts to intimidate or threaten or coerce voters to affect their vote, even if it's not ultimately successful.
You just mentioned a phone number, if you want to say it again, that people can report intimidation to, if you can give us a phone number again, but then also what else can voters do if they are feeling like they're experiencing intimidation?
What resources are available?
Sure.
So the number I mentioned is 866OURVOTE, which is the national nonpartisan election protection hotline.
It's staffed by legal volunteers and election lawyers like myself.
And that's a place where voters can report any issues that they're having with their ballot, whether it's, you know, your mail ballot hasn't arrived at your home, you're not sure where your polling place is, you don't know how to check if you're registered, or you're at the polls and you're experiencing voter intimidation.
Other suggestions that I would make to voters who are concerned about what they're seeing would be to report it to your local election official.
Those are usually the folks best equipped to immediately respond to any issues.
They often have very close relationships with law enforcement in their local area who will be fastest to respond if necessary.
So I would say between the national nonpartisan hotline at 866 hour vote and your local election official, those would be my go-to's if voters have intimidation concerns.
Ethan in Rapid City, South Dakota, line for Democrats.
Good morning, Ethan.
Hey, good morning, guys.
So my question is, and this is something I just want to have everybody kind of ponder.
Voter intimidation, is it, I mean, we've had some circumstances where, yes, voter intimidation here in Canada and America, and we've had that over this series of years, a series of decades.
Maybe, have we ever considered how much people aren't just voting because they don't have the faith in any of the systems that we've built?
People have lost interest, millennials as myself, have lost interest in this entire system.
Voter intimidation is just a random amount of word of being like, oh, people are going out and about and just burning ballots and stuff like that.
Maybe people aren't just voting.
And this might just be a thing that people kind of use to stir up the fire trying to get millennials to vote.
I just feel like, I don't know, are we really confident 100% that voter intimidation is the actual problem?
Maybe we should be considering something more realistic here, that voter intimidation isn't real as much as it compares to voter just doesn't, what's it called?
I don't know.
Voter apathy.
Ethan, we'll get a response from Jonathan.
Yeah, I mean, I think both are concerns, right?
Voter intimidation certainly still happens.
I think just 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.
So it certainly still happens.
But I think voter apathy is also a very real problem.
I think many Americans are disillusioned with the political system, whether that's because of the influence of big money in politics or of partisan gerrymandering.
And that's something that Campaign Legal Center is really concerned about and something that we have worked to, I think, overcome with voter education, letting people know that their votes really do matter.
There are local races decided every election cycle by just a handful of votes.
And most often, those local races, your city councilor, your mayor, things like that, are the ones that have the most direct impact on your daily life.
And so I definitely hear what you're saying.
And I think that we can be concerned about both voter intimidation as a real threat and folks' lack of confidence in the election system.
And working to combat things like misinformation and other elements that reduce public confidence in our election system is something that Campaign Legal Center is very focused on.
And this headline in the Hill, you mentioned an incident in your home state of Florida.
The headline, Florida Teenager Accused of Using Machete to Intimidate Voters at the Polling Station.
It's a pretty eye-catching headline.
You see machete.
It's an incident that happened.
What's being done to prevent voter intimidation from happening to begin with?
Who's involved?
So it's a wide constellation, I think, 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.
And this incident, I think, is a perfect example.
Local election officials and law enforcement worked 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, both in law enforcement and in election offices, who are working tirelessly to keep our elections safe.
Bob in Eagle River, Wisconsin, on the line for Republicans.
Good morning, Bob.
Good morning.
I just wanted to ask, since you've researched and studied it, you had spoke of the people that were actual legal citizens at the time, and they registered to vote.
I think there was one state that took off 2,500 people off the voter rolls because they were ineligible to vote because they were non-citizens.
Do you have the number of how many people were actually non-citizens on the roll that got removed and how many were actually citizens that got put back on the roll out of all the different investigations?
Basically, they're just purging the system, which the voter rolls, which is required by law.
And how do you feel about the states that are no longer using ID?
How can you vote with, you can't do anything in America without proving you're an American citizen.
I don't know how this is even federally legal to vote without an ID.
That means anybody, a tourist on vacation, can come here and fly here just to vote in our election.
How is this even happening?
So there's a lot packed in there.
So I'll start at the beginning.
I'm not sure exactly which state you're referring to with that specific number.
But I can tell you that in most of these instances, when a state official announces that there's some number of suspected ineligible voters on the rolls, that's all it is.
It's suspicion.
They haven't confirmed those numbers, which is why when we investigate and we reach out to some of the folks who are on those lists, we find that they are in fact eligible citizens.
The state of Georgia, I think, is a really great example to give some concrete numbers.
They did a comprehensive audit of their voter rolls going back several years and identified only 20 non-U.S. citizens who had become registered to vote in Georgia over a period of several years out of the more than, I think it's 7.5 million registered voters in Georgia.
And none of those 20 had ever cast or attempted to cast a ballot.
So they were likely only put on the rolls through some kind of administrative or clerical error.
And that's Georgia's Republican Secretary of State that conducted that investigation.
So what that says to me is that the safeguards that are built into our election system to make sure that only eligible Americans are able to cast a ballot are working.
Whenever somebody violates one of these laws and they are serious laws, the system finds them and they are often prosecuted.
As far as voter ID, there are many states that require a 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.
But you have to remember that it also 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.
Loretta in Cleveland, Ohio, line for Democrats.
Good morning, Loretta.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I think we lost Loretta.
Give us a call back, Loretta.
We'll go to Eric in Pennsylvania, line for independence.
Good morning.
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.
Well, I don't do a ton of work with FBI and IRS and CIA, so I don't know that I can answer that question.
But, you know, Campaign Legal Center, you know, fights for access to the ballot for all eligible Americans and for accountability from politicians regardless of party.
I think if you look us up, you'll see that we are not afraid to initiate litigation or call out politicians of either party when they violate the law.
We file campaign finance complaints against Republicans, Democrats, Independents, super PACs.
You know, I've sued red states, blue states, purple states, states of every color because our commitment is to democratic principles of good governance and of equal access to the ballot.
I've never once asked a client what party they affiliate with, and I've never thought about the political affiliation of a state or county official when I think that they've done something that violates the law.
And I think that that's how all of our election laws should be administered, without preference or favor for voters of any one political party.
And it's not, we're talking about voter intimidation, but it's not just voters who can feel threatened.
This headline from NBC, almost 40% of local election officials surveyed report threats or abuse, says a new report that came out, I believe, in March.
What precautions have been put in place at polling locations to protect poll workers and election administrators?
Yeah, I think that is a troubling recent trend over the last few years is poll workers and election officials receiving lots of threats to themselves, their safety, their staffs, their families.
And, you know, both election officials and law enforcement take those threats really seriously.
We've certainly seen criminal prosecutions of folks who've made credible threats to election officials over the last several years.
And 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 over the last few years, had their home addresses and pictures of their children published online, which is really scary.
And I think it's important to remember that election officials are, in most cases, your neighbors, especially at the local level.
These are people from your own community who, if they're volunteers, are taking time out of their lives and not even necessarily being paid for it to perform a really critical service for our country, for our society, to run elections.
The election system is really decentralized, and what that means is that elections are run at the local level by city and county workers and volunteers.
And so I think it's incumbent on all of us to remember that to support our election workers.
And I don't want to get into too much detail about what election officials are doing specifically to protect themselves, but I know that they've taken a lot of steps and are working with state, local, and federal law enforcement to make sure that they stay safe this election season.
Carol in Jacksonville, Florida, line for Democrats.
Good morning, Carol.
Good morning.
How are you doing, C-SPAN?
Good morning.
My comment today is that, like Mr. BS stated, that I was really surprised to see that voter intimidation was showing up in Jacksonville and was really threat.
I heard the interviews on TV, and I really was concerned about that.
I already voted early, so I knew that my vote was in.
My background in 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 won'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.
Yeah, thank you.
Thank you for that call.
I mean, I think it's 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 that those laws are enforced.
Loretta, Cleveland, Ohio, Democrat line.
Loretta, thanks for calling us back.
I'm sorry I hung up on you.
Oh, well, thank you.
And good morning, Jonathan.
Good morning, America.
Yesterday, 11 family and friends, we all went to vote yesterday morning.
And after voting, we went to breakfast.
And I'm telling you, it was, I don't think we dispersed until like two or three o'clock.
We was having such a good time just talking about everything.
But my cause specifically is about January 6th.
And the Secret Service just had all these investigations about the Trump attempted assassinations, but they skipped over what happened to the text that were erased on January up to January 6th.
They erased all the tapes maybe from January 1st to we don't even know where it ended.
And not only did they erase the text from the individual phones, they erased the information from the cloud.
And I'm 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 their own pocket because they might like click on their own bank account.
They ain't got a damn in there.
And you don't know where it all come from.
Loretta, that might be out of Jonathan's expertise, but we'll see.
I think most of that is.
But when it comes to January 6th, you know, that is the legally mandated date when the joint session of Congress will come together to count the electoral votes again in 2025, like they did in 2021 and every four years before then.
And I mean, for those of us here in Washington, I think we are already starting to see, you know, the security measures around the Capitol 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 in to make sure that the newly elected Congress, which takes office on January 3rd, will be able to meet and carry out their duties to count the electoral votes on January 6th.
This is also the first presidential election being conducted using the procedures under the new Electoral Count Reform Act, which was passed in 2022 by a bipartisan majority of 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 6th this time around.
January 6th, 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 independence.
Good morning, David.
Good morning.
Yeah, I had a question.
I had heard stories of local voting officials coordinating with high schools in the area where they would bring all 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.
I think it probably depends on the specific context of what was said and when and where.
I think it is probably inappropriate for an election official to recommend to a new registrant, no matter their age, who they should be voting for.
On the flip side, I think voter registration, especially at high schools and in the states that allow pre-registration for voters who will be 18 on election day but aren't yet, is a really great way to increase voter participation and get get young folks involved early.
But you know, election officials in every state are, you know, supposed to administer their responsibilities and conduct our elections in an impartial way, and so I don't think that it would be appropriate for an election official to suggest to again any new registrant, regardless of age, who they should or should not be voting for.
Albert in California line for Democrats.
Good morning, Albert.
Good morning, can you hear me okay?
Yes, go ahead, Albert.
Okay, voting is a right and a privilege and everybody should vote, no matter what, because the vote is secret and it's private, and it's something that we Have, an America that many other places do not have.
So don't let them intimidate you.
Go and vote.
Thank you.
Yeah, I think that the freedom that 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.
Early voting has been open in several states for the past few weeks, week or so, and will continue to be open depending on where they are.
And something people who may go into a polling location to vote may see is a poll watcher.
What can you tell us about that role and what they can do and what they can't do?
Sure.
So in virtually every state, there are slightly different rules, but basically every state as a transparency measure 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's supposed to.
You know, it's a really, I think, essential transparency tool, but we also want to be mindful of the limitations on what poll watchers can and can't do.
Usually, poll watchers are not allowed to directly interact with the voters at the polling place.
They're limited to notifying election officials if they think that something's gone wrong.
And that's meant to protect against things like undue influence or voter intimidation.
Because what we don't want is party-appointed watchers influencing the way that people are voting.
So again, it's like most things, it's 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're casting their ballots.
John in Falcon, Missouri, line for Republicans.
Good morning, John.
Good morning.
How are you all this morning?
We're doing well, yeah.
Well, my question is: if you guys refer voter intimidation, why does ABC, NBC, CBS, all the news channels, they're funded by Zoros.
He's bought over 200 radio stations.
Why is it allowed that he can push forth his agenda on the news media and nothing is said about it?
I think that's a little outside of my area of expertise.
We'll go to Judith in Pennsylvania, line for Democrats.
Good morning, Judith.
Hi.
Thank you for taking my call.
I am a Democrat in Pennsylvania.
I'd like to ask Mr. Diaz a couple of things.
Number one, Donald Trump tends to downgrade illegal immigrants, immigrants in general, I believe.
And I'm wondering if his rhetoric doesn't instigate hate and anger in his supporters who then would follow through with voter intimidation at the polls.
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.
And 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 shooting of Donald Trump.
It is a tense time, which is, I think, why we're 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've earned their citizenship.
They're as American as anyone else and have the right to vote.
And so rhetoric from political figures is certainly something that contributes to voter intimidation and to a political environment of fear and tension.
And that's why groups like mine and law enforcement and election officials are working so hard to make sure that every voter is able to cast their ballot safely.
William in Wilson, North Carolina, Line for Democrats.
Good morning, William.
Yes, good morning.
How y'all doing this morning?
You know, I've been voting since the early 60s.
I ain't never seen this much controversy going with the voting until Donald Trump came along, who's a man used to cheating his whole life too.
And he figured the only way anybody could beat him is by cheating, and it's spread throughout the whole Republican Party.
Anytime a Republicans lose a race, they always claim cheating.
What do you think about that?
I mean, I think there was a lot of misinformation going around after the 2020 election about the results.
And, you know, as election officials, Republican and Democrat across the country will tell you, you know, the results of the 2020 election were some of the most scrutinized in American history.
And, you know, 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.
Time for just a couple more calls.
Kimberly in Champaign, Illinois on the Line for Democrats.
Good morning, Kimberly.
Hi, good morning.
Hi, Mr. Diaz.
Hey, I have a question.
First of all, are there any countries that do online voting, online voting?
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're seeing.
I mean, if people can vote in the privacy of their own homes, you know, what are you going to do?
You can't, you know, I think that would be a great means for minimizing, mitigating this voter intimidation that we've been seeing lately.
I'll hang up and listen to your answer.
That's a really great question, and I'm glad you raised it.
There have been a couple of countries around the world that have experimented with online voting, and it hasn't gone super well.
I think one of the reasons that our election system is secure is that voting machines are not connected to the internet.
They can't be hacked because they are not online.
And I've worked with both folks on the tech side and folks on the election admin side who have really serious concerns about online voting because it's just not, the technology doesn't exist to make it both secure and private.
And we want our election results to be reliable.
That's why most states use voter-verifiable paper ballots and why we have encouraged states to adopt measures like that so that even if you're voting using a voting machine, it prints out a paper ballot that you can review to make sure your selections are correct.
And I think one of the other things that gets lost sometimes in debates about online voting is voter secrecy.
Every voter has the right to a secret ballot.
And when you're 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 their ballot, that their vote is not only secure, but also secret.
Last call, David in Tampa, Florida, line for Democrats.
Good morning, David.
Yes, 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're diminishing democracy.
That basically means that you're diminishing your love for the country.
You should leave things as it is and trust in everyone's opinion, and everything would just work out fine.
It's 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.
Yeah, we want every eligible American to participate in the political process and to cast their ballot safely, freely, and securely.
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.
Thank you for having me.
Still ahead this morning on Washington Journal.
We'll 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 2024 campaign or a public policy issue, here are the lines.
Democrats 202-748-8000.
Republicans 202-748-8001.
And Independents, 202-748-8000 and 2.
We'll 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.
I've been present now for almost four years.
I've had to make thousands of decisions, and each one of those decisions has been a learning process.
I've seen the strength of my nation, and I've seen the crises that it approached in a tentative way.
And I've had to deal with those crises as best I could.
Are you better off than you were four years ago?
Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago?
Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago?
Is America as respected throughout the world as it was?
Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we're as strong as we were four years ago?
In a landslide victory, former California Governor Republican Ronald Reagan defeated incumbent Democratic President Jimmy Carter.
Watch historic presidential elections today at 7 p.m. Eastern on American History TV on C-SPAN 2.
Book TV, every Sunday on C-SPAN 2, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.
Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
At 6:30 p.m. Eastern, history professor Evan Friss looks at the history of bookstores and their role in American culture with his book, The Bookshop.
And at 8 p.m. Eastern, best-selling author John Grisham and his co-author Jim McCloskey share their book, Framed, about the challenges of exonerating a person who's wrongfully convicted.
Then at 10 p.m. Eastern on Afterwords, journalist Lena Zeldovich explains how a nearly forgotten life-saving healing virus could be groundbreaking in treating deadly infectious diseases.
With her book, The Living Medicine, she's interviewed by USA Today health reporter Adriana Rodriguez.
Watch Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back.
We are in open form 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 rifles disqualifying.
The article says, Vice President Kamala Harris said Friday that Donald J. 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, quote, nine barrels shooting at her.
Mr. Trump, the Republican candidate for president, made his remarks Thursday night in an end-of-campaign 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.
Even worse, he has increased his violent rhetoric, Donald Trump's hands, about political opponents and in great detail, in great detail, suggested rifles should be trained on former Representative 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 permanently 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 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.
So I'll end with this.
Voters are making their decisions.
Many have voted, but there are still those who are making a decision about who they'll vote for.
And what I offer is I ask folks to, among the many issues before you, just consider who's going to be sitting in the Oval Office on January 20th.
Either you're going to 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.
Also, yesterday, former President Donald Trump doubled down on his Thursday comments about former Representative Liz Cheney.
Here is that video clip.
Oh, yeah, sure.
She's a warhog.
She kills people.
She wanted to, even in my administration, she was pushing we go to war with everybody.
And I said, if you ever gave her a rifle, let her do the fighting.
If you ever do that, she wouldn't be doing too well, I will tell you right now.
But she's a warhog who wants to go kill people unnecessarily.
And if she had to do it herself and 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.
And a programming note for you.
Tuesday, we will be live all night to bring you the results of the 2024 presidential election and get your reaction by phone to the evening's outcomes as the ballots are counted and each state is called in favor of either Vice President Harris or former President Trump.
We'll also follow all the state races that will decide the balance of power in Congress.
Our coverage begins at 7 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN.
You can also watch on C-SPAN now, our 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 C-SPAN Now.
We'll hear from Eric in Auburn, California at first on the line for Democrats.
Good morning, Eric.
Hi, C-SPAN.
Thank you.
You're like insanity in a crazy world.
It's one of the things that Trump, I've been independent, I've been Republican, I've been Democratic, but I go for the president that seems to be 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 Paris is they don't take credit for all the things they've done, from the CHIP Acts 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, under the, he says he holds the Bible in his hand, and the seventh commandment says, Thou shalt not lie.
The man lies.
It's almost entertaining.
People are watching because he'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 doesn't 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.
Kama Harris just doesn't take enough credit for everything they're trying to do.
I mean, our economy is the number one economy in the world.
Our stock market's hitting new highs every week, every day.
The people that are calling about, I said, I have a small business and I'm making money.
You're making money because the Democrats are in office.
And if you look at facts, facts matter that every Republican president has almost run the country down under Bush.
He ran it into, they said it was running, but Obama took over and he brought it all back.
Trump has inherited a really, really healthy economy.
And then it got went down because he cut taxes.
If people were 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 doesn't support our military.
He says he does, but he doesn't.
He lies.
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 and things.
Yes, the other stuff, I watch CNN, I watch C-SPAN, I watch CNBC.
You've got to look at all of it.
But the last one is about health care.
He's going to take away the health care.
In fact, Mike Johnson said it yesterday, and then he had to retract it.
It's going to eliminate the Jobs Act.
Got your point, Eric.
We'll go to Jerry in North Carolina on the line for Republicans.
Good morning, Jerry.
Yes, thank you for having me on C-SPAN.
I'm voting for the first time, and the reason I'm voting is because I believe this election is one of the most important we'll ever have.
I am voting for Donald Trump.
I have voted for Donald Trump already.
And 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 warred against him and tried to put him in jail.
I've never heard him say one thing about an enemy's 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.
But Donald Trump, I was the best off I was four years ago than I've ever been in my life.
I'm 66 years old.
And so I felt like I had to vote because, as the caller talked about, those other news outlets, I watch Fox and Newsmax, and I do try to watch the others, but they're so biased.
They're continuously biased against President Trump.
You said you're 66.
This is the first election you're voting in, and you're voting for former President Trump.
He ran in 2016 and 2020.
Why didn't you support him then?
Why didn't you vote for him then?
Pardon me.
Why didn't you vote for former President Trump in 2016 or 2020?
Well, one reason up to that point, I thought that he was going to get the election, and I had never voted 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's one reason I'm voting now.
But the liberal media just blows my mind how they're so biased about Trump and never tell the truth about Ms. Harris.
And she continuously landbasts him, though he's had an assassination attempt twice.
And the third time, maybe they caught the guy before he could do it.
But what gets me is they don't stop their rhetoric.
They call us fascists.
They call us Hitler followers.
They call us garbage.
And they never once asked or apologized for it.
So, you know, that's how I feel about it.
That was Jerry in North Carolina, Margaret in California, line for Democrats.
Good morning, Margaret.
Hello?
Hi, Margaret.
Hello.
Hi.
Thank you.
The reason I'm calling is because I'm worried.
Trump is going to get rid of people who are paying my Social Security.
Millions, he says.
The Social Security system is going to run out soon.
College all have people who rely on Social Security.
These people are working in low-paying jobs, construction labor in the fields, agriculture, cleaners, meatbackers, brick clearers.
We're worried about our economy now.
The U.S. needs these people.
They all pay into our Social Security.
Our country was built on immigrants because we needed them.
Well, we need them again.
And we have to figure out a way to satisfy everyone.
And soon.
Well, thanks for listening.
That was Margaret in California.
Last night, former independent presidential candidate RFK Jr. 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 is a clip from that event.
The Democrats sued me and they sued me to keep me off the ballot.
They spent $10 million.
They filed suits in 10 states.
And then when I endorsed President Trump in August, they sued me to keep me on the ballot.
And they lost most of those suits.
Yes, two days ago, they won two of them in Wisconsin and in Michigan.
And why did they do that?
Because they want to confuse the voters.
They want to interfere with the election.
Because they're keeping somebody on the ballot who's not running.
So when you go to the voting booth on Tuesday, you're going to see my name on the ballot.
I do not want your vote.
I want you to vote for Donald Trump, because the only way I'm going to go to Washington is if we get Donald Trump elected.
Wisconsin is one of the swing states that is being closely watched for Tuesday's presidential election.
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.
It says the Trump and Harris campaigns have raced to reach undecided voters in the final weeks of the presidential election, but their main focus isn't 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 campaign sees them as a vital source of untapped support.
They account for more than one quarter of the voter pool, strategists say, though estimates vary.
By contrast, Wall Street Journal's polling finds that only 3% of registered voters are truly undecided on a choice of candidate.
The Wall Street Journal poll showed that the election outcome 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 in every journal survey this year, and that tested her as a presidential candidate.
Back to your calls, Kathy in California, line for Republicans.
Good morning, Kathy.
Good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
I'm a first-time caller, but I've watched you for many, many years.
I am a Trump supporter.
I will be voting for him for the third time.
I believe in him.
I am very upset with the Biden-Harris administration for all the things that we've gone through for the last four years.
I felt that we've been lied to over and over and over again.
I'm very upset when I heard that their administration had actually helped 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's a real travesty.
So, yes, I'm voting for President Trump.
I believe in the man.
Everybody has their issues or their problems, but he knows how to do this.
I think the team that he's brought together of Kennedy and Musk and who else is on the team is other people, the VIC, and all of them.
And Vance, I really like that.
I like the fact that they're 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.
That was Kathy in California, and Kathy said she was a first-time caller.
We really enjoy hearing from those first-time callers.
If you haven't called in, please consider joining in on the conversation.
Margarita in Long Island, New York, line for Democrats.
Good morning, Margarita.
Hi, 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've been watching all the events with Trump, the cursing, the demeaning of the women, saying he's in charge of us.
I have young daughters also.
I think that people should start looking at his speeches and how he's cursing the people that are with him.
Harris is timely changed.
We get a woman in there to show the compassion and the 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 other side, that with Trump, it's going to be the most horrible thing, especially for our children who are growing up and his beliefs and his criminals, the things, everything that he has.
I love to say so much.
It's just overwhelming just being able to say as much as I can.
And I just urge, especially the women, I have, like I said, I have people who are young.
I work with young people to vote, vote.
I'm also going to be working at the election poll, so I'm looking forward to that.
This is my first time in my life.
I'm 62 years old, and I am so excited.
So please go vote and let's go for Harris.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to say my comments.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
That was Margarita in Long Island, New York, and she was encouraging people to vote.
This also from this morning's Wall Street Journal, this headline, hey, undecided voters.
If you haven't chosen by now, maybe just stay home.
It's an opinion piece by Jeff Greenfield.
He's an author and television journalist.
And he says, he writes that with Election Day approaching all across the land, candidates and their supporters, civic-minded media, good 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.
He says, for months, you have been offered countless hours of TV coverage, endless 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, porn sites, I assume.
Several billions of dollars worth of political advertising has appeared before, during, and after sitcoms, dramas, and sporting events.
And if after all of this you are still undecided, the likely reason is not that you are still weighing the candidates' ideas about taxes or the Middle East or health care.
No, the more likely reason is that you have deliberately tuned out as much information about the political universe as possible.
And yet your vote, should you cast it, will have the same weight as a citizen who's spent the weeks before the Election Day comparing the candidates and reading through the ballot propositions.
So if you're 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, decline to exercise the right you value so little.
If interested, we'll promise to let you know who wins.
Just a few minutes left.
We will hear from Ken in Alabama on the line for independence.
Good morning, Ken.
Yes, good morning.
How are you?
Doing well, Ken.
Yes, I'm calling because, you know, I agree with the person who said what the undecided.
If you haven't decided yet, just stay home.
Matter of fact, don't even open your door.
You'll know who won on the 6th or the 5th of November.
But anyway, I was calling because, you know, can any of these Republicans or mega or whoever they call themselves, can they say a moment when they have ever heard any presidential candidate that's running for president, not like how Joe Biden just said the other day, that ever called a human being an illegal alien?
What is an alien?
And another thing that I would like to say, when it comes to all the rhetoric that Trump says and say what he's going to do, 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 what Trump may not even be half of the things that he says he wants to be.
But those people who are voting for him, that's what's in their heart, and that's who they are.
And the last thing is: I've been calling before, and no one yet has been able to tell me: name a time when America was great for everyone.
They can't even name a month, a year, a decade.
When was America great for everyone?
Thank you.
Rob in hometown, Illinois, on the line for Republicans.
Good morning, Bob.
Good morning, Tammy.
Love C-SPAN.
I want to call, I want to make a comment about the future of our country, but first I want to touch on a couple of the news things.
I saw President Biden refer to Trump's supporters as garbage, and I saw Trump refer to Liz Cheney as a war hawk and having rifles pointed back at her.
He was not attempting assassination on Liz Cheney.
The media twists it the way they want.
I'm 72.
I got 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 anyhow, I'm the father of seven, grandfather of 15, and I tell all my young ones I can't predict the future, but four years from now, if I close my eyes and think about it,
what 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 re-elected and he can rein in some of the criminality and cut some of the wasteful spending in Washington, D.C.
And I think it'd be a much brighter future if they all get out and vote for Donald Trump.
Thanks, Tammy.
Love C-SPAN.
Last call for this hour, John in Conway, South Carolina, line for Democrats.
Good morning, John.
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.
So 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 4,000 times being charged for stupidity.
He almost destroyed our country with a disease that he was laid a 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.
That was John in South Carolina, our last caller for the Open Forum segment.
But next on Washington Journal, we'll 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'll be right back.
C-SPAN Now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in Washington, live and on demand.
Keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the 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 visit our website c-span.org/slash c-SPAN now.
C-SPAN Now, your front row seat to Washington, anytime, anywhere.
American History TV, exploring the people and events that tell the American story.
This weekend, the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia awards documentary filmmaker Ken Burns its 2024 Liberty Medal for his body of work as America's storyteller.
Watch American History TV's series Historic Presidential Elections, exploring what made these elections historic, the pivotal issues of different eras and their lasting impact on the nation.
This week, the election of 1980, in a landslide victory, Republican former California Governor Ronald Reagan defeated incumbent Democratic President Jimmy Carter, winning 489 electoral votes in 44 states.
On Lectures in History, 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 online anytime at c-span.org/slash history.
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 spit, no commercials.
Just the candidates, the results, and you.
Follow C-SPAN this election night beginning at 7 p.m. Eastern, live Tuesday, on TV, online, or on the free C-SPAN Now video app.
Washington Journal continues.
Joining us now to discuss managing election stress and anxiety is Dr. Arthur Evans.
He's the CEO of the American Psychological Association.
Dr. Evans, thank you so much for being with us.
Thank you.
I'm glad to be here.
Your organization just released its newest stress in America.
The survey is out now.
Before we get to the findings, tell us about how that survey was conducted.
Well, it was conducted back in August, the first part of August, the first couple of weeks of August, about over 3,000 people.
And one of the things that we do so that we can talk specifically about subgroups is we oversample certain populations so that we have enough in the sample that we can reliably say that this is what we believe this group is saying and thinking.
And one of the things that the survey looked at is the relation to election stress that's causing Americans.
Here are some of the findings.
41% reported the state of the nation has made them consider moving to a different country.
39% say the political environment in their state has made them consider moving to a different state.
64% feel their rights are under attack.
82% worry people may be biasing their values and opinions on false and inaccurate information.
32% say the political climate has caused strain between them and family members.
Talk to us about this report and your takeaway from those findings.
Sure, that's actually a very good summary of what we found.
You know, what I would say is that election stress is bipartisan.
One of the things that was very striking in this survey is that on most of the questions that 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 phenomenon that is affecting all of us in the population.
The other thing that was really striking is that people are really thinking about the consequences of the election in pretty dire terms.
72% saying that they think that this election will end in violence.
And again, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents think that.
Over half of people thinking that this election can be the end of democracy.
Again, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents saying that.
So there's a lot of consistency in how people are viewing these issues, even if we have pretty elevated levels of stress around the election itself.
And Dr. Evans' research shows that the distress 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?
Well, we know that stress can affect both our physical and our 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, and substance use.
So we really have to be concerned about election stress because it is stress, and we know the stress can have a very negative impact on our overall health, both physical and mental.
And you mentioned that this 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 did the survey tell you about those groups?
Sure.
So what the survey said, one of the interesting findings is that historically, what you find is that older adults have the least amount of stress.
So the older we get, the less stress we tend to experience.
And data show 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 ending in violence, actually adults, older adults, 65 plus, had 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 that says is that on that particular question, older adults actually think that that's more likely and that they're experiencing more stress about it.
So it really makes you wonder for people who have gone through 9-11 and all these other events, what are they seeing 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 weren't large differences, but there were significant differences on questions like that.
So even though we have these sort of big numbers, even though that there is pretty much agreement along the political lines around what's important, what's causing people stress, there are these demographic differences in the population.
We are talking about managing election stress and anxiety with our guest, Dr. Arthur Evans, CEO of the American Psychological Association.
If you have a question or a comment for him, you can start calling in now the lines.
They 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 mountain or Pacific time zone, 202-748-8001.
Dr. Evans, we're just a couple 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?
You know, one of the things that's 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 phenomena around stress around the political environment is actually carrying into our daily lives.
You mentioned the data that say that 40% of Americans have contemplated moving out of the country or out of their state because of the political environment.
We also know that about a third of people are saying they are reducing their interactions with their family members or they're having stress in the interactions with their family members.
So we're seeing people report that the relationships that they have both with friends, about half of people saying that they are spending less time with their friends because of political differences, and people even saying who they date is affected by their political viewpoints.
So what we're seeing is it's not just the election, but it's how the political environment largely is affecting our daily lives even after the election cycle.
Our first caller up for you is Ronald in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
Good morning, Ronald.
Yes, good morning.
I'd like to get some advice.
You know, it started in the 2020 election when Donald Trump was elected, before he's elected, actually.
And my neighbor down the street took down his American flag and put up a Trump flag.
I took a picture of it, and I want to post how unpatriotic that is to take a, you know, take the American flag down to whatever on my post.
And in turn, it was like an army of neighbors coming down to my street, you know, almost attacking my wife, wanting to know, we need to take that post down and all that, you know, and it started there.
In turn, we go up this year to every time Trump was indicted, the neighbors and stuff would run around with their Trump flags, intimidating people, saying how strong they are.
You know, Harris people do not do that, as far as I know.
It ain't around here.
We don't try to intimidate people, and it's a stress factor brought upon our neighbors, not necessarily the campaigners, but our neighbors are so gullible.
What do you got?
You got any advice for us?
It's not the TV.
Yeah, you know, unfortunately, what we're seeing is that more and more people are engaging in that kind of activity.
And in fact, the survey talked about just a large majority of people really being concerned about the civility that we're seeing.
You know, I think some of this belongs to our political leaders.
I think they have to turn down some of the rhetoric around the elections.
But the other part of it is we really have to think about the bigger picture here.
And the bigger picture is at the end of the day, we all still have to live together.
We all still want the same things for our families.
And in fact, again, the survey showed that there's a lot of agreement on what the issues are.
What we disagree on is how to get there.
So, what I would hope is that 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 their political viewpoints are important and that that affects their relationships, about an equal number of people believe that we should still have the conversation.
So, even though people with people who disagree with them, I should say.
And so, even though there is what we see as this vitriol and anxiety and those kinds 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're seeing.
And, Dr. Evans, to that point, right now, because there may be so much stress going around and people aren't 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?
Sure.
And I think that point that 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 that I would 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, I've worked in political environments quite a bit, actually, 20 years I spent in political environments.
And most of the time, we come into those kinds of situations thinking about where our differences are and starting the conversation there.
And if you step back and think about where we are similar and how can we start the conversation on the things that we agree on, you actually get a lot further.
Most people are probably going to agree on maybe 80% of the things.
Again, people may not agree on how to approach those things, but there are a lot of things that people will agree on.
The other thing is to approach those conversations, not trying to convince the other person, but really trying to listen and try to understand.
If you think about it, most people have pretty set political views.
You know, I heard some of the callers right before this segment.
They're probably not going to change their viewpoints around who they're supporting politically, but they can step back some and try to understand why people who think differently than them have those positions.
So, I think it really is about trying to understand, try to listen, and then trying to find common ground where there is agreement.
Roland in Detroit, Michigan.
Good morning, Roland.
All right, Graham Rising.
Dr. Evans, I have something for you.
I'm glad you're here to discuss this.
There has been an abundance of flyers, Miller's, called voter participation.
And it says in commercials, too, if your vote is private, who you vote for is private, but whether you vote or not is public.
To me, that is stressful.
It's almost like we're going to profile you.
You're going to have a lower or a higher social score.
And this time around is really crazy.
Have you heard of that campaign voter participation?
And don't you think it's not cool?
Yeah.
Well, you know, it's really helping to educate people about the political system.
And in our political system, we do track whether you vote.
We don't know how you voted.
And so it's really more of an educational campaign to let you know what the reality is around how our political process works.
And Dr. Evans, for somebody like Roland who is feeling some election-related, political-related stress, they're not necessarily tuning in and watching actively.
They're just going about their day-to-day life.
They open the mailbox and there's something in there that maybe triggers stress.
How can people best deal with that political-related stress and anxiety?
What are some coping strategies?
Yeah, you know, there are actually a lot of things that we can do to manage stress.
The first thing is to recognize that we are experiencing stress.
One of the reasons we do the survey is to highlight for people what people are experiencing stress about, and it gives us an opportunity to have these kinds of 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 cynical, a cynical person.
And so this can manifest in different ways for different people.
It could be that people start to increase the amount that they're drinking.
It could be that they are much shorter with their kids or their co-workers.
But all of us need to be aware of that.
And if you're not aware, simply ask the people around you.
They will tell you what are the signs that you're experiencing stress.
Secondly, it's important to do the things that we do to manage stress more generally.
Diet, exercise, sleep, just fundamental and very important in terms of us having a baseline.
Around political stress in particular, really being able to manage that and to be much more conscious about how we manage that.
For example, rather than just sitting at your computer or with your phone and going through article after article, you might want to set a timer so that you're not, you know, you don't look up and it's been an hour or two hours that you've been doing what we call Zoom scrolling, just looking at article after article.
There are things that you can do to make sure that 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're probably not going to know the outcome of the election on election night or how many days after that.
And one of the things that raises our anxiety is uncertainty.
So if we know that we're 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.
So the main thing is to really be conscious about this, to understand some of the strategies at the American Psychological Association.
We put this kind of information on our website so that people can be much more knowledgeable about strategies they can use to reduce stress.
And it's really important to just be aware of how this stress is impacting on our lives.
Robin and Syracuse, New York.
Good morning, Robin.
Hi.
This kind of bizarre because this election has never affected me this way before.
I could deal with it with other people, and usually you can just walk away.
But when it's a family member and you're from a close group and they have such, it's not even Republican or Democrat.
It's just bizarre feeling, not feeling, but it's what they want.
And, you know, they want the United States actually to go under because they think that we deserve it.
And it just, I just don't want to talk to her anymore.
I can't stand it.
I can deal with everything else with the family members that I love and that I would give a kidney or anything for.
I just want to block them out of my life and I just don't know what to do.
That's it.
Thank you.
Yeah.
And, you know, and I hear how stressful and distressing that is for you.
I think, I mean, you said something that was really important that despite the differences that you have with your family members, you still care deeply about them.
And, you know, maybe that's the place to start.
And, you know, the issues around the political differences can be that way.
I think many of us have experienced that.
And again, the data show that.
So I would really encourage you to have a conversation that is about agreeing to disagree and agreeing that your relationship with your family members is much more important than the differences that you have from a political standpoint.
And I would frame the conversation that way because any other way becomes a process where one side is trying to convince the other side.
And that's probably not going to work.
I think people are pretty set around how they view, but if you can get past that and have that other conversation, I think that's the place to focus.
Dr. Evans, where are some resources?
Where can individuals go to get more information for callers like Robin who is looking for maybe how to best handle some of these situations?
Sure.
You can go to our website, APA.org.
That's for the American Psychological Association.org.
You can also go to the NIMH.
They have a really great website and they talk about stress there.
CDC also has information on stress.
So there are a lot of resources out there.
One resource that I also want to make sure that we mention is for election workers.
One of the things that we're seeing is that election workers are under a tremendous amount of stress.
We saw that during the last election.
We're seeing that now we're hearing reports of people being harassed at polling stations.
We're hearing people having their yards damaged who are election workers.
So a lot of stress for that group of individuals as well.
And we created a video to help them manage the stress related to that and to manage difficult situations at the polling place.
And you can get that on our YouTube channel or you can Google Election Worker and APA and you should be able to find it that way as well.
Fred in Riverside, California.
Good morning, Fred.
Hi, good morning.
Thanks for taking my phone call here.
Good morning to the guests.
Good morning.
So, my question: Good morning.
My question was about this term we hear in pop culture called Trump derangement syndrome.
What is the last politically charged term for that phenomenon?
And what are some maybe some factors that would lead to something like that beyond media consumption?
Because it seems like when I talk to some Kamala supporters that are within the black community, it's a very sassy, angry tone that I get back.
I'm just curious about the real peer-reviewed science behind something like that.
Yeah, I'm sorry, I didn't quite hear the term that you used.
He said the Trump derangement syndrome.
Oh, okay.
Actually, I haven't heard it.
That's a term that I haven't heard.
I'm not quite sure exactly what it means.
It probably means, based on what I'm hearing the caller say, is that, and it sounds like it's directed at people who may be supporters of the former president.
So I'm not quite sure what the phenomena is that is being discussed.
I would just say that, you know, people throw out terms quite a bit.
I think that that can be a little dangerous when we start to characterize people in terms of their mental health status, particularly if we don't have training in that area.
But I'm not quite sure of what that term is or how people are using that term.
Patty and Wellsboro, Pennsylvania.
Good morning, Patty.
Good morning, Cammy.
Thank you so much for taking my call.
Thank you, Christeesman.
Thank you, Scotty, for being on today.
My question has to do: we have a multi-generational home here.
So my daughter and her husband and the kiddos, grandkids live with us.
We all live together.
So my two granddaughters are now teens, 17 and soon-to-be-15 girls.
I'm very politically active.
They know that I help organize the Women's March.
I do canvassing and all of that.
That helps me cope.
Something that started happening as they became more aware, because we've always tried to sort of shelter them.
Like, you know, we've never played Trump speeches on television.
We try to shelter them somewhat, but have conversations so they bring it up.
So during COVID, is when things started to get a little scary because their grandfather was home and was playing those daily briefings.
And they saw him as crazy.
And so, and they were getting scared.
And then they started looking around at like our extended family members who were supporters.
And now it's much worse because the 17-year-old and now the 15-year-old, they have more access to social media.
They've become aware of statements having to do with Trump's attacks on women, like the Access Hollywood tape.
So the last few days, it's become worse.
The last few weeks, I don't know how to help them cope.
They don't know how to look at family members who they are now old enough to understand are actively voting for someone that they have information about that they see as a threat to them.
And I don't know how to help them deal with that because I can't reconcile it myself.
You know, and so now I have a 17 and seems to be 15 year old who just don't know how to cope with knowing that there are people in their lives that would actively vote against their self-interest.
How do I help them reconcile that?
Sure.
So one thing to know is that for our children, particularly younger children, but even older children, how we manage these issues has a big impact on how they manage them.
In fact, the level of stress and distress that we're experiencing often impacts on our children.
So number one, I think you being a role model around these issues is very important.
I think, you know, as I was talking earlier about really trying to separate out the political viewpoints of family members from how you care about those family members is really important.
You know, I think all of us are dealing with this phenomenon that really feels like something we haven't dealt with before, that the political environment is now such that it is impacting on our relationships and on our lives beyond the election.
And that's a new phenomenon.
We don't have a lot of experience with that.
And what I would really encourage is to have the conversation, particularly about the point that you're making, which is help us understand how you think differently, so differently on these issues.
I want to understand that as a way of really bridging that gap and bridging that divide that people may feel because of the political differences in the family.
And Dr. Evans wanted to point out that the new Stress in America survey also did have some bright spots.
And there was a 61% feel hopeful about the change this election will bring.
59% said hopeful the election will lead to a more inclusive society.
77% said they intend to vote in the presidential election.
And 51% said they feel compelled to volunteer or support causes they value.
What can you tell us about the positive aspects of political engagement?
Yeah, well, one of the things we know from psychological research is that one of the things that raises our anxiety is feeling out of control and having a greater sense of psychological control actually is a very important strategy in managing our stress.
So what's hopeful about the data that you talked about is that half of the people are saying that they're going to engage or are engaging in the political process.
Well, that goes a long way in giving us that psychological sense of control and therefore helping to reduce the anxiety and stress that we may be feeling.
So there is some hope there.
You know, earlier I talked about the data that over 80% of people feel that even though they may disagree with someone, it's still important for them to hear and understand those viewpoints.
So there is some good news there, and I think we should have hope that because of that, you know, we have a way forward that begins to help reduce some of the impact and stress that we're experiencing from the election process.
Andy in Salisbury, North Carolina.
Good morning, Andy.
Good morning.
I think that we have been tenderized for 20-some years by the, I would say right, but it's both sides to where they're stoking their fear and their anger to the point to where everybody, especially the ones, my loved ones around me and the ones I go to church with and everything are a bunch of old people that are scared and pissed.
And they are acting on this emotion.
And it scares me.
To evoke emotions instead of giving me facts, I think is the wrong thing to do.
And what I have tried to train myself to do is spend time in the mirror and realize what are they trying to make me feel instead of what the actual issue is.
And that's my biggest thing.
I just think everybody is scared.
And if you're a person on the left, you're scared of Trump.
And if you're a person on the right, you're scared of everybody but Trump.
And everybody else is lying except Trump.
And I can't wrap my head around that, but I can spend my time in the mirror and judge accordingly.
And thank you for my talk.
Yeah, well, you know, the caller is saying, you know, you can't say it much better than that, that one of the ways people are manipulated around the election is by trying to stoke their emotions, and particularly anger.
Anger is one of the ways that people use to really get people to take the position that they want them to take.
And so I think being aware of that is really important.
And I thought you said it well in terms of that's the strategy.
And if we can be much more aware of that, we're less likely to succumb to that.
I think the other thing about that that's important is really being careful about the sources that we get our information from.
You know, our survey said that many people, majority of people are very concerned about fake news about how AI can be used to manipulate information and what is perceived as a source of that information.
And so I think we're going to have to be much more vigilant about getting our news from sources that are reliable.
Certainly they may have different viewpoints, but there is a lot of misinformation out there that misinformation is used again to manipulate feelings.
And we want to minimize the likelihood that that can happen.
Gina in Mississippi.
Good morning, Gina.
Good morning, Dr. Evans.
The last two callers kind of touched on what I wanted to say.
I like to explain, I'm a high anxiety level person, and the thing that gets to my anxiety the most is the untruth that is spoken over the airway.
And then when you have, I mean, a political, to get the truth today in politics, you have to watch, you have to want to be a political addict.
You have to watch everything since the beginning.
And I am a political donkey.
And since the beginning, when Trump came down the escalator, I have heard untruth propagandized against him.
And it just gets worse and worse and worse and more and more.
And I don't think the media, maybe they do, but I don't think the media really realizes the effect that it's having on the American population.
Like I had a lady call in the other day.
She was a Democrat, and she was literally crying saying that Trump was going to take her Social Security away from her, which is just a ball-faced lie propagated by the Democrats.
And it's just little things, little things over and over, how they take one word out of a sentence or a paragraph and turn it into what they want it to mean.
I do believe it is a STEM doctor.
I think that the Lord is watching.
And I think that the Democrats set out to destroy Donald Trump almost 10 years ago.
And now they have turned him into something that is as bad as Satan himself.
And I do believe that the Lord is listening and watching.
And I do believe that the Lord protected him when someone tried to kill him.
We'll get a response from Dr. Evans.
Yeah, well, you know, a couple of things that you said that were important that I want to pull out.
One is that information and people's positions can be mischaracterized.
And it happens both sides of the political spectrum.
And so we want to be aware of that and particularly things that poke at our emotions, as the previous caller said.
The other thing that you mentioned is about your faith.
And one of the things that when we're talking about how we manage and cope stress, actually our faith is actually a really important, can be a really important resource and support for us.
And so I would also encourage people who are people of faith, who have a community of faith that can be supportive, that to rely on that community to help sustain you as well.
And Dr. Evans, this survey also found that 77% of adults said the future of our nation was a significant source of stress in their life.
Come Election Day, once the dust has settled, there's a good chance that about 50% of the country will not be happy with the president who has been elected.
How can people continue to manage their political related stress after the election's over?
It's going to be very important for people to put the election in perspective and the impact of the election in perspective.
One of the things that is driving stress is that the election and its results have been put into existential terms, that if this election doesn't go my way, it's the end of America as we know it.
It's the end of my life as we know it.
It's just these very stark terms.
The reality is that for most of us, even if our person didn't get into the White House, our lives haven't changed that dramatically.
Most of us still have the same jobs that we have.
Most of us still live in the same home that we have.
Most of our lives are pretty much the same.
That doesn't mean the election wasn't consequential and it's not important, but for the most part, life hasn't changed as dramatically as it is painted prior to the election.
So I think it's really important to keep that in mind as we're thinking about this.
And then at the end of the day, we all want the same things.
We want to have life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, you know, as Americans.
And The importance of that engaging in the political process, engaging in civic activities becomes even more important.
What drives our anxiety and stress is this feeling of not being in control, the feelings of uncertainty.
And the more that we can do to actively engage, the more that we can do to be involved in and really trying to address the issues that people are concerned about, the better that we're going to do post-election.
Bill in Northbrook, Illinois.
Good morning, Bill.
Good morning.
Mike, it's more of a statement than a question, but I'd say you're basically dealing with emotions.
50, 60 years ago, we got our information reading a newspaper, but today we're online, we're constantly bombarded.
And I would say, I would think one message is that each person, regardless of the level of education, should always ask themselves, what do I think?
Not what I'm being told on the television to think or on my computer, but what do I think?
And what are the reasons that I hold those views?
And not just, and by asking it that way, you sort of get away from that you're just being manipulated and might reduce your anxiety.
That's my only comment.
Yeah, I think that's well said.
Dr. Evans is the CEO of the American Psychological Association.
You can find information and resources at apa.org.
Dr. Evans, thank you so much for being with us this morning.
Thank you.
That does it for today's Washington Journal.
We'll be back tomorrow morning at 7 a.m. Eastern with another edition of the program.
Enjoy the rest of your Saturday.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal, our live forum involving you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from Washington to across the country.
Coming up Sunday morning, discussion on campaign 2024, including the presidential race, plus key House and Senate races.
First, with Inside Elections Jacob Rubashkin.
Then we'll talk to former Wall Street Journal Executive Washington editor Gerald Seib, now a visiting fellow at the Dole Institute for Politics.
Join in the conversation live at 7 Eastern Sunday morning on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, or online at c-span.org.
Discover the heartbeat of democracy with C-SPAN Voices 2024 as we engage voters ahead of Election Day asking, why is it important to vote?