this is how the debate is playing out in the papers starting with the washington post. democrats hang up on bernie sanders in south carolina debate. ruckus york times, democratic debate yields no clear challenger to sanders. the wall street journal frames it this way, rivals focus on sanders at south carolina's debate and the washington times this morning, not so friendly fire at sanders. what are your thoughts on it this morning? we will show you one of those moments where the democratic candidates go after senator sanders and his electability. >> the only way you can do this is to actually win the presidency. i am not looking forward to a scenario where it comes down to donald trump with his nostalgia for the social order of the 1950's and bernie sanders with a nostalgia for the revolutionary politics of the 1960's. this is not about the 1970's or the 1980's. this is about the future. this is about 2020. we are not going to survive or succeed and we are not going to win by reliving the cold war. we are not going to win these critical races if people in those races have to explain why the nominee of the democratic party is telling people to look astroe bright side of the c regime. >> senator sanders, your response. let it be clear that we think health care for all is some kind of radical communist idea. we think raising taxes on billionaires is a radical idea. >> one at a time. that is why i am beating trump in virtually every poll. one of the moments from last night's debate. buttigieg going after senator sanders. senator sanders got the most speaking time last night with over 15 minutes although by mayor michael bloomberg with 13.5 minutes. klobuchar with about the same. elizabeth warren just under 15 minutes. mayor pete buttigieg, 11.5 minutes. tom steyer with seven minutes of speaking time in the debate. democratic candidate bernie sanders also talked about the economy which is president trump's central message in his reelection campaign. here is what senator sanders had to say. great economy is doing for people like mr. bloomberg and other billionaires. in the last three years billionaires in this country saw $850 billion increase. last year, wage increases for the average worker were less than 1%. half of our people are living paycheck to paycheck. 87 million americans have no health insurance or are underinsured. millions of people are struggling with student debt. 500,000 people are sleeping on the street including 30,000 veterans. that is not an economy that is working for the american people. that is an economy working for the 1%. we will create an economy for all, not just wealthy campaign senators -- bloomberg, i will let you respond to that. >> i think that donald trump thinks it would be better if he is president. i do not think so. vladimir putin thinks that donald trump should be president and that is why russia is helping you get elected so you will lose to him. . i am me tell mr. putin not a good friend of president xi of china. putin whol mr. interfered in the 26 elections trying to bring americans against americans. our president of the united youes -- if i am president, will not interfere in any more elections. host: the democratic candidates in south carolina. newspaper from that state with the headline, first in the south. candidates struggled to score points. we will have coverage of that south carolina primary contest on saturday with results and speeches. you can watch that saturday evening. you can go to our website for more information. this saturday on the washington journal, we will have guests from the college of charleston including representatives from the top campaigns so you will be able to talk to them here on the washington journal on saturday. right now, your reaction to the debate last night. emily in san francisco, republican. caller: it is good to hear you. you see everybody in china -- host: we are talking about the debate. matthew in williamson, georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. inhink pete did really well resenting the moderate wing of the democratic party which is the majority wing. very respectful. he was not loud and screaming. you have enough of that in this country. if i wanted that, i would have voted for trump. i think he did really well. in middletown, new york. caller: i see that they are all very respectful and i appreciate that. i have the feeling that none of them could be president. they might be good governors and senators, but i do not see anybody on that stage that could be president. host: why do you say that? caller: consider this. as much as china, who do you want to send over to stop it? it, we are foolish. thank you very much. media, michael on facebook says none of the candidates can win flyover countries. anther, how about amy-elizabeth take it? usther from florida texted to say, biden had a good night. any one of them would be better than trump who is incompetent. the coronavirus is serious and trump treats it like it is no big deal. the only concern is the stock market. that is beyond disgusting. here is a moment from last night's debate when elizabeth warren attacked michael bloomberg, the new york city mayor for the nondisclosure agreements. take a look. we will show you that in a minute. first, we will talk to teresa, democratic caller. caller: good morning. i was interested in the debate last night and wondering why the pro-life issue was not presented for discussion. that would be my question. why is that important to you? caller: it is very much the battle in washington and it is very much the talking point of the democratic party and yet none of the candidates weighed in on that. if we are going to discuss health care for all and all of the different humanitarian concepts that we -- were discussed, the beginning of life concept was not discussed. i thought that was an very interesting -- it struck me. host: ok. raleigh, north carolina. caller: it is amazing to me how all democrats talk about the black vote. very important. i hope the black people in america were listening last night. help the black people more and forget illegal immigration? host: what did you not hear that you wanted to hear from these candidates? caller: they were talking about education, health care. everything that we did for america, they give them birth right, they give them everything. why is the black vote so important but they will not focus on black issues? every year, the same thing happens. they get up there, but once they get in, you don't hear anything about it. host: how are you going to vote? caller: i'm voting for donald trump appeared donald trump is doing what he said he will do. trump is doing a good job, if you ask me. thank you very much. that ihat moment referenced earlier between elizabeth warren and michael bloomberg where she is asked why she thinks he is the riskiest candidate. we are here in charleston. do you know who's going to be entrusted later this week? donald trump will be here to raise money for lindsey graham. who funded lindsey graham's campaign for reelection last time? it was mayor bloomberg. that is not the only right wing senator that mayor bloomberg has funded. $12 millionumped into the pennsylvania senate race to reelect an anti-choice right wing republican senator. i just want to say, the woman challenger was terrific and she lost by a single point. in 2012 he tried to defend another republican senator against a challenger. that was me. it did not work, but he tried hard. [cheering] >> i don't care how much money mayor bloomberg has. the core of the democratic party will never trust him. he has not earned their trust. i will. the fact that he cannot earn the trust of the core of the is thetic party means he riskiest candidate standing on this stage. >> senator warren, thank you. mayor bloomberg, would you like to respond? >> i have been training for this job since i stepped in the pile of -- that was smoldering on 9/11. i know what to do. i know how to run a country. i have run a city which is almost the same size as most countries in the world. i am the one choice that makes sense. i have the experience and the resources and the record. that theose sideshows senator wants to bring up have nothing to do with that. when people hired me to run new ank city three times in overwhelmingly progressive city, they elected b again and again. me again anded again. host: if you wanted a ticket to sit in the audience last night, according to the dnc spokesperson, she writes this on twitter. the tickets were divided up between the dnc, he campaigns with equal allocation, south carolina democratic party, cbs and twitter. we invited leaders and supporters. this is the most of the audience, she said. according to the new york times this morning, they report that the price of the ticket, the charleston county democratic party offered sponsorship $ 1750 whiching from included admission and access to other events. for the first democratic debate in miami in june, the florida democratic party offered sponsorship for thousands of dollars according to the miami herald. for $4500, a sponsor gets two tickets. 1750 tickets which covered the debate for one person. and her pathway to the nomination, the wall street journal has a headline this morning on that. it is a challenge, they say. argued thatm has she is better poised. the back-to-back new hampshire and nevada result in which she earned no delegates call that strategy into question. instead, she is falling behind. bernie sanders of vermont with whom she aligns on policy appears to be consolidating support. oklahoma, a republican, what did you think? i was planning on watching all three hours of the debate last night. i ended up watching gordon ramsay. i think the debate license should be revoked and they should come up with another way of acknowledging the candidates other than raising their hands because that was not working. they were all talking over each other. i think the crowd should be instructed to stay silent after the debate and clap afterwards like they do during conventions. it was god-awful as far as i'm concerned. i was looking forward to it because i always like to see democrats carry them selves apart. last night was awful. i could not make heads or tails of it. this is the first time i have seen-- i wish i would have the last debate because that was a lot better, i think. debate was relatively good where you could actually put out some ideas. last night was useless. i did not hear one new idea spoken among any of them because you could not hear what they were saying. the: what about turning off microphones when somebody's time is up? caller: they have to have control. the major seemed like an afterthought. he barely got to ask any questions at all. sue echoes what paul had to say. it was chaos. lacked theors ability to control the situation and it quickly went off the rails. kim in alabama. caller: thank you for taking my call. senator sanders, if he is elected to be the democratic person to run for president, he is a socialist. donald trump and the republican party will win against a socialist. standsdemocratic party behind senator sanders, they will be branded. the democratic party will be branded as a socialist party. if they are branded as a socialist party, they will lose the house, they will lose the senate, they will lose the presidency by being branded as a socialist party. i like bernie sanders, but that is not the way to go. the other thing i would like to save is about joe biden. -- the other thing i would like to say is about joe biden. he has locked up more inican-american people than slavery in the 1800s. black people are voting for him, which i cannot understand. those people who were locked up, they have lost their right to vote. that is mass incarceration equals mass voter suppression. -- thing on roosevelt warren elizabeth warren. the women's movement is strong. the #metoo movement is strong. without the women being nominated to the house, the democrats could not have won the house. the democrats can take the woman, but you need a not sanders and not biden, you need a woman. a woman can be donald trump. hillary clinton beat donald trump in the popular vote. women won the senate for the democrats. you can take a woman, elizabeth she can be trumped. thank you for your time. -- onehank you for your writes, we need a respectful leader that we can be proud of. independent, hi, julia. so disappointed last night in the debate. it was an argument against each other. i know they do that when they go , i am sohey canvas disappointed in the democratic party. i don't think any of them are going to win and we are all going to lose because i think trump is going to win again. i just wanted to let you know that i am so disappointed, i could not watch the whole thing. host: we have more debates. the washington post notes the 11th debate scheduled for march days beforex a few primaries in arizona, florida, illinois, and ohio. it is scheduled to air on 1:00 p.m. on cnn. heading into that debate, march will7% of the delegates have been pledged. -- you seventh-inning saw seven candidates last night. primarya soft turn on a this saturday with 54 delegates up for grabs. super tuesday on march 3. on march 10, idaho, michigan, mississippi, missouri, north dakota, and washington state with 416 delegates. rick in idaho. calling on behalf of president trump. the democrats have succeeded nothing. they have failed at everything. the cost-of-living adjustments in 1975 and 2018. in 2009my message, barack obama increased foreign aid. that posted a 0% of its citizens. work on 2017 code foreign aid to -- posting a positive. increasedarack obama foreign aid above our gdp. in 2015, barack obama increased and costly program billion.taxpayer $32 what did president trump do? he reduced the program costing the american taxpayers only $8 billion. my message is simple. democrats, if you could not get it right in years, why do you think you will get it right in four? host: ok. roseann in san diego, democratic caller. what did you think of the debate last night? caller: i agree with other people that it was hard to listen to. ishink the reason for that totally due to bernie sanders's presence within the party. i think any of the candidates would be better for this country and the planet than trump who is destroying everything. to winsanders is helping again. i think the moderators did a terrible job. it was the worst debate. they did not learn anything from any of the previous ones. i think the reason abortion was not brought up because the moderators did not bring it up. they did not ask a question about it and they did not give anybody time to answer any of the questions. they were scattered, there were too many topics and nobody got a chance to say anything. some people got more time than others. it was terrible. all it does is help trump win and destroy us anymore -- even more than he already has. host: who is your candidate? caller: at this point, it is either going to be stier -- steyer. or buttigieg because he is the only person who actually tells the truth about bernie sanders. i have not decided yet. host: you said bernie sanders is not a democrat. what is he? caller: he is an independent. he is a democratic-socialist. there is committee -- there is really no such thing. he goes back to the democratic party more than he does the republicans or trump. his goal is to change or at least destroy the democrats. i do not know where he is coming from. his mind is stuck in the 60's. american is not the same country it was in the 60's. he became a democrat because he wants their money and their support when he runs for president. roseann echoing what pete buttigieg was arguing last night on the debate stage about bernie sanders and vice president joe biden had this exchange with bernie sanders over the senator's comments about fidel castro which are following him from his 60 minutes interview on sunday. take a look. >> i have opposed authoritarianism all over the world. i was amazed at what mayor bloomberg said. he says that the chinese --ernment is responsible responsive. you have a dictatorship there. what i said is what barack obama said in terms of chela -- cuba. that cuba made progress on education. really? what barack obama said is they made great progress on education and health care. that was a barack obama. occasionally it might be a good idea to be honest about america's foreign-policy and that includes the fact that america has overthrown ,overnments all over the world in what o'malley -- guatemala, in iran. when the chinese or the cubans do something good, you acknowledge that. barack obama was brought in a town meeting. he did not suggest that there was anything positive about the cuban government. he acknowledged that the increased life expectancy. he condemned the dictatorship. he condemned the people who run that committee. he also made sure, and by the way i called to make sure that i was prepared. the fact of the matter is, he did not and has never embraced an authoritarian regime and does not now. he did notid that condemn what they did. >> that is categorically untrue. , whether it isd the people in saudi arabia, cuba, nicaragua. authoritarianism is bad. that is different than saying that governments occasionally do things that are good. your reaction to last night's debate in south carolina. that primary contest this saturday. we will have coverage of the democratic primary contest in south carolina with speeches and reaction and we will see if anybody continues of those seven candidates, if any one of them continue after saturday night. you can go to our website to find all of our campaign coverage there. facebook, sanders won my vote a while ago. to kevin in south carolina. state, how doat you plan to vote? caller: good morning, everyone. i already voted. i voted for joe biden. the thing about what is going on we fail torimary is elect the candidates. we have so many candidates vying for the democratic nominee and that is a problem. opinions and too many wants and needs and not addressing the situation which is that we are the united states . on another note, the media has a problem with encouraging the divide as well. which we can tell as we have been listening to c-span. we can tell who is a normal person who is not. another thing i would like to say is i hope we get it together because i used to be a republican but i cannot support the book -- republican party. i was conservative, but i cannot address the policies that the trump administration has been doing and continues to do. i hope we get it together. i hope the democratic party does have a candidate who can support the down ticket which is needed -- we needot just be a moderate, someone who can work both sides of the party. i believe joe biden is the one who can do it. thank you. clyburn of your state is in leadership. bidenpoised to endorse before the south carlotta primary on saturday. here is a text from paul in ohio who says lives with warren is a single issue candidate. the issue is beating up michael bloomberg. tim, what do you think? whyer: i would like to know biden's mental capacity is not addressed. clearly, something is wrong with him and the mainstream media does not seem to want to address that. host: what do you mean by that? what is wrong? twoer: he cannot string coherent sentences together. it is shameful the way the guy fumbles along. politicalays been a hat. there is something wrong with it. host: who are you voting for? who is your candidate? shamefult is really the choices you have. believe i will have to support president trump. host: and you are reluctant to do so? caller: not when you look at the lineup of democrats. republican caller in florida. good morning. caller: good morning. it was a clown show last night. it was nothing but a circuit. i am inviting anybody out there, all of the democrats and republicans to come on home. come on back to the republicans. vote trump. look at the job he is doing. does anybody really want that as a president? really? come on home, people. stop this. they degraded black people last night. it was pathetic. -- black people cannot get poor black people can't get a job, get an education, feed their family. poor black people. they really degraded the black people. come on, let's all be real. poor black people get put in jail. that is ridiculous. when you see a black person you will think they are to greater because of what they do to them. they get up there and do promises and all of this, they do not do anything. look at what trump has done for the black people. and he does it for white people. they are constant, i want that black vote. they degraded the black people last night so bad, it was pathetic. all of them. host: let's show a moment from the debate where the moderator asked bloomberg about his stop and frisk policy as mayor of new york city. question to ask you that impacts the black and brown community. you have apologized for stop and frisk. what are you apologizing for? >> we let it get out of control and when i realized it, i cut it back by 95% and i have apologized and asked for forgiveness. i have met with black leaders to get an understanding of how i can better position myself and what i should have done and what i should do next time. let me tell you, i have been working very hard. we have improved the school system for black and brown students in new york city. we have increased the jobs that are available to them. we have increased the housing available. >> what more can you do about this issue to put people's fears and skepticism to rest? it continues to follow you. >> that is because it is in their interest to promote that. if you talk to the people, i have over 100 black elected officials that have endorsed me. a lot of them are in the audience tonight. i have earned the respect of the people in new york city. i was the mayor of the largest most populous city in the united states for 12 years and people will tell you, it is a better city today. it is safer for everybody. the school system is better. the budget is under control. we have done the things people need it all ethnicities. done the things that people need for all ethnicities. street journal this morning says the trump campaign manager its allies are pushing donors in an effort to counteract the bloomberg effect. the former mayor and billionaire has spent half $1 billion on ads alone according to the paper and plans to devote to help whichever democrat means the nomination -- wins the nomination. that is double the $29.1 million that president obama and democrats raised in the same period of 2012. pedro from south carolina. how do you plan to vote? caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i just want to say i think you are doing a fabulous job and you are a beautiful woman. host: thank you. how do you plan to vote? caller: i plan to vote with my conscious. host: candidate would that be? caller: the candidate is going to be trump. host: and why? caller: because he has done a lot of good for the country. how did you vote in 2008 and 2012? caller: i voted for trump. host: in 2008 and 2012? caller: i abstained at that point, actually. i'm sorry, i woke up with a major headache. host: lisa from ohio, democratic caller. caller: i am concerned about all of these different agendas. i support bernie right now. there was a time i was a registered republican but trump turned to me of that. bernie speaks the truth. he is taking on the political systems, democrat and republican, that have been dysfunctional for years. we can all admit that, right? did the democratic establishment become this wonderful thing that works so well for the people? wrong with a democratic-socialist? it is a word. he literally said he does not agree with anything authoritarian. you can take the sound clip and put it all over tv. 500 times a day. the thing is we do not listen to truth or facts anymore. we watch a little tv blurbs and the same words get set over again. donald trump is an authoritarian who is in with russia. berniere scared of sanders because he says he is a democratic-socialist? come on. host: you said you were a registered republican but the president cured you of that. what happened? caller: he fooled me. i am not a fan of hillary. . am tired of the political b.s they are all out to make money. something needs done for the americans. we do not need more bombs. we do not need more military spending. know, we need to take care of the people and meet -- we need to take care of our children and this planet. i am tired of everybody talking about everything but what is really true and what really matters. host: how will you vote if the nominee -- what if bernie is not the nominee? caller: anyone. i like elizabeth warren. she is my first pick. i love her. because trump who is dangerous. he has turned out our government. we live in a monarchy now. jay from south clara -- south carolina says, we do not need a president with no integrity to serve this country. he has a nasty mouth. in junior, independent. in virginia, independent. thisr: i am independent at point. i have been leading democrat because of living wages for the working class. eileen for amy klobuchar at this point. lean for amy klobuchar at this point. host: tell us why. folks are notof made for college and do not want to go four years. i think we should move slower. instead of jumping in and making , improving ons the of formal care act. my wife works in health care. i think it is too much too fast. after gettingars women's right to vote, i think it would be appropriate to elect a woman. i think we have a good possibility in amy. she has been in the system long enough to see how it works and i think she would make a great candidate. phoenix, arizona, republican. caller: the democrats missed the boat last night. they had a chance to talk about .he one issue there are a lot of republicans like me who are sick of it. had to for trump but i change my registration to democrat. i'm going to vote for tulsi gabbard. i am very disappointed in the commentators last night. the only issue they talked about dlibhould we intervene in i province. the syrians and iranians are trying to destroy al qaeda. turkey does not want syria to d ock out al qaeda. there are issues that nobody talked about. after we took out saddam hussein, we did not get out. we had to fight them until 2011. they could mobilize half a million militias. we stay there in stupidity. everybody is sending rockets pr based -- our base. host: just to let you all know, one issue that came up in the debate last night. it was 80 minutes into the debate. the coronavirus outbreak was a big issue on capitol hill yesterday. it continues to be a debate in washington and how the trump administration is handling the coronavirus outbreak. today at 9:30 a.m. eastern time, alex cesar will be on capitol help for the house appropriations subcommittee. we are going to have coverage of that on c-span2, c-span.org, or you can follow along with the free c-span radio app. today on the washington journal coming up at 8:30 a.m. eastern time, we are going to talk to jennifer nuzzo who is a senior scholar and associate professor at johns hopkins all about the response and preparedness for the coronavirus outbreak globally and what is happening here. this is what the health and human services secretary had to say when he held a briefing yesterday to outline the risk to americans. >> the immediate risk to the general merrick in public remains low. as we have warned, that has the potential to change. there is now community transmission in a number of countries including outside of asia. and is deeply concerning community spread in other countries will make can sensible -- successful containment at our borders harder. that is why we have been working closely with local and private sector parties to repair for mitigating the virus's potential spread in the u.s. because we will likely see more cases here as we have said throughout this episode. the doctor will provide more details on what that will look like including how we would treat potential cases that arise from community transmission here in the united states. this preparation has been possible in part because of how aggressively president trump has responded to this outbreak. as soon as we knew of the threat presented by this novel virus, public health leaders were monitoring it and beginning to prepare. the travel restrictions that the president put in place at the beginning of this month have given our country valuable time to continue to prepare and it is precisely what those measures were designed to do. hhs secretary yesterday. he is on the capitol hill this morning and he will make a second appearance today. it will be his third appearance this week talking about the budget, the coronavirus outbreak. we will have coverage of that at 1:00 eastern time on c-span2 and on our website or you can listen with the free c-span radio app. the new york times has a map tracking the spread of the outbreak and you can see in red, this is the area where you should avoid all nonessential travel. avoidn, at risk groups travel and in italy as well. u.s.,are 57 cases in the 11 in canada, 17 in france, 13 in britain, over 100 in iran. russia only has two cases. korea and in south that relates to a headline in the hill newspaper. a u.s. soldier in south korea tests positive for the coronavirus. yesterday top military officials spoke about travel restrictions for overseas troops and their families. this is what they had to say. >> inside the chest rotation enterprise locations like travis air force base has become a receiver for potential folks coming out of the pacific. particulartaking health protection measures. in a more broad sense, we are in support of the health and human services. feel you have been given the resources and other tools that servicemen and women and their families in europe? >> yes, senator and we have been given the proper authorities. the nation that is most concerned is italy. we have restricted travel to certain zones and we require all arrival flights to be screened for the virus. any additionalng byps to constrain and travel servicemen and women or their leave and so forth? >> we have. what we feel are the affected areas in particular, two states inside of italy. >> do you have plans to restrict travel on any other states? >> we anticipate the need arising in germany but that is to be determined. host: top military officials on capitol hill yesterday and today on capitol hill, the defense secretary along with the joint chiefs of staff general mark millie lee testifying about the request. they are likely to get questions about the coronavirus. today on c-span3 is where you can watch that hearing along with our website and our radio app. reminder, the hhs secretary is testifying twice today. this morning at 9:00 a.m. eastern and the radio app is where you can listen. he will be having -- show up again this afternoon at 1:00 p.m. eastern time to talk about the president's budget and the coronavirus outbreak. you can watch there, c-span2, on our website, or the free c-span radio app. back to our conversation about last night democratic debate in south carolina. seven remaining candidates squaring off in charleston. what was your reaction? christine in chicago, thank you for holding. caller: thank you for taking my call. the first thing i want to say is -- it isdebate was sad. it is so sad that the democrats have come to this point. bernie is a marxist. if people like him, they should visit cuba and see what he is giving away. i think part of it is that he has been living off of the taxpayers for over 30 years. he complains about the country. what did he do in 30 years? and now he is going to be president? my other thing is about the blacks. they do this to them all the time. obama did it to them in chicago. if i get in, i am going to make sure that you are living in a safe neighborhood and everything will be better for you. there were 14,000 shootings and 6000 murders while he was president. it goes on and on. last night, i had to turn it off after maybe a half hour because i agree. those women that were asking the questions had no control at all. they let them scream at each other like that. it really saddens my heart that this is what happened to the democratic party. they are no longer the kennedy party or even before that. . had always voted democrat i live in a building with 600 units. they were all very democratic. no more, they all said. they talk about it in the halls and the elevators that they cannot believe. one more thing, they keep saying that hillary won the popular vote. no, she did not. they started the count in florida and wisconsin to see the votes. all of the democrat votes were fraudulent so they stopped counting. host: david in north carolina, republican. caller: good morning. that just goes to show you what this country has come to. i voted republican my entire life. i just started watching the democratic debates just to see what they think. obama, that i do know. he is a different type of democrat. these people they have up-to-date are scary. haveese people that they up there today are scary. how many republican debates have we had? zero. that is how confident they are in the republican party. this coronavirus going around, ban people because there is an outbreak, you have to look at the united states. to be talkingoing about the coronavirus outbreak at 8:30. we will take your questions and comments then. tommy is a voter in north charleston. do you have a candidate? caller: yes ma'am. host: who is your candidate? caller: joe biden. host: ok, and why? caller: kamala harris made a good comment. at this point, we don't need nobody that has a plan. we need somebody who can get things done. we need somebody capable of crossing over the aisle. and dealing with the republicans. host: in what way? negotiating with them? i think bernie is too far to the left. i don't think he can win. not head on with trauma. -- trump. what is tom steyer's presence like in the state of north carolina. do you see his ads and billboards everywhere? caller: he had a profound effect. think he is digging into joe biden's support. host: what do you want him to do? what do i want tom steyer to do? host: he is digging into joe biden's support, as you say. caller: if he does not show very he isn south carolina, not going to do that great in super tuesday. he probably needs to drop out. host: what if joe biden does not win south carolina? he was asked this last night. do you think he should drop out? caller: joe biden? i think i would wait until after super tuesday. i think he is going to win. host: here is one of the exchanges between the former vice president and the billionaire, tom steyer over president prisons. me, you want to know what it meant a woman would do, look what they have done. they are concerned about race. my good friend on the end of this platform, he infected body system that was a private prison system. after he knew that what happened men iny hogtied young prison here in this state. georgiae sure that in they did not have health care for the people being held. they went on, he said, after he knew that, he bought it and then he said he was proud of his accomplishment. they talk about bernie. he has not passed much of anything. the fact is -- i am not out of time. you spoke overtime time and i'm going to talk. here's the deal. the fact of the matter is, look at what is happening here. we have to win the senate back. i went into all of those races that got 41 new democrats. the majority of them are supporting me for president. president, i have to allow -- mr. mayor, you are allowed to respond. >> i investigated and i spoke. >> you knew when you bought it that they had done that. worked inhen, i have private prisons in my own state and we have ended it. i have started a bank to support black ownership of businesses, women owners of businesses and latino owners of businesses because this is prejudice. i have worked carless -- tirelessly on this and you know i am right. thousands ofds of young black and latinos -- >> there is something going on here. i have worked for racial justice completely. ronald in new york, democratic caller, your reaction. caller: at one point in the were some in the audience screaming about something. cbs did not mention what it was. you find out about that and tell us? host: i don't know. our producer can do a little research to see what they were screaming about. i think there was overall reaction from the audience to what was being said by the candidates. what did you think about that? about what? host: about the audience getting to react to what they heard? were saying they was something similar to what happened last week at the previous debate. there were some people that were screaming about something with biden getting his concluding remarks. i have one question for you. as i watched c-span, i that it looks like there is construction going on. what are they doing? host: they are refurbishing the steps that lead up to the capitol. there are also some sculptures and water, for lack of a better word. there is the shot. they are redoing the steps that lead up to the capitol, the sculptures, and on the top of my head i don't have the money they spent but that is correct what you are seeing out window. middletown, new york, independent. what is your name? what did you think of the debate? caller: the debate was a mess because they should have focused on trump instead of attacking each other. because heed sanders is a socialist. he is not a socialist, he is an american. what are you talking about, socialist? he did not ask china or russia for help. trump did. they should have gotten rid of him a long time ago. he should have been president. taken him fore the vice president instead of the other guy, that is why she lost the election. host: we will leave it there. we have been getting your reaction to last night's debate, the salmon -- seven democratic candidates. courier,"he post and "first in the south," is there headline in south carolina. courier"the post and and democrats gang up on bernie sanders in the democratic debate. -- ruckusork times" debate yields no clear challenger. times" -- a not so friendly fire for senators sanders and bloomberg taking a beating on the debate stage. on saturday, the south carolina primary takes place. there will be over 1300 delegates at stake on super andday which is march 3, march 10, 416 delegates up for grabs in idaho, michigan, mississippi, missouri, north dakota, and washington. there is an 11th debate coming up, cnn has the debate on march 15. steve in fair dale, kentucky, republican. what did you think of the debate? caller: i thought it was a clown act last night. i seen two billionaires looking for a tax write off, three people riding the coattails of the taxpayers. i have seen more from south bend, indiana, it was a complete failure there, and i seen amy, i don't know what she was even talking about to be honest with you. trump won again. i am all for trump. everything he has said, he has kept his promises. host: steve mentioned the billionaires on the stage. that became an issue for the other candidates. here is an exchange between elizabeth warren and mayor mike bloomberg about releasing tax returns. >> we have to be able to trust our president because there are a lot of decisions the president makes that you cannot follow every part of that, and that is one of the reasons we need to see any candidate's taxes. mayor bloomberg has been doing business with china for a long time and he is the only one on the stage who has not released his taxes. he plans to release them after super tuesday. it is not enough to be able to say, just trust me on this. president who a is going to release his taxes. >> mayor bloomberg, would you like to respond? >> i got into this race 10 or 12 weeks ago and we have been working on our tax returns. we have another couple of weeks to go and we will get them out as soon as we can. we have complied with every single requirement. when i was mayor i released tax returns 12 years in a row. i will do the same. host: john, it democratic caller. do you have a candidate? caller: yes, i'm actually a big but i switchedr to the democrats so i can vote for him in the 2016 election. host: why do you support bernie? caller: i think his policies will truly change the mode of operation of our popular -- politicians to support the people. it is out of whack. we can ever make the country truly great again until the government starts working for the people and not simply the wealthy. policy that bernie is trying to implement, people who were claiming he is a democratic-socialist is wrong. there is a big difference between democratic-socialist and socialist. , heou go back to 30 years is essentially a centrist democrat from that state but since that time the democrat has taken more money. everybody knows that trickle-down economics does not for and you have to start the middle class or else the -- it is sad that people are fooled by trump instead of .ooking at what is going on andver gets the most votes who truly excites the u.s. voters can defeat trump. host: bob in north kingston, rhode island, says i will be voting for p2 to judge -- pete buttigieg based on electricity -- electability. putting up someone from the northeast that was born during world war ii seems like a losing pic from the get-go. the demeanor, and analysis, strategy discipline to get this done. caller -- did the stacked thebate -- audience with supporters? those watching the debate suddenly noticed another way in which bloomberg was unexpectedly being bolstered. the audience interjected with oyster's applause when he spoke, including mentioning -- boisterous applause when he spoke, including mentioning gun senator and booing at sanders. bloomberg appeal is not centered on his charisma and obvious observation. let me give you the facts on who was in the audience. divided amongre the campaigns with equal allocation. we invited local and community leaders and dnc supporters. this is the most diverse audience. by the were being sold organizers of the debate to sponsors who could afford it. times,te in the new york the charleston county democratic party offered sponsorships to 3200, which50 included admission to the debate and access around other gatherings surrounding the event. this is something the average person does not get to do, the station quoted the party chair as saying. the democratic party offered sponsorships for thousands of dollars. gets000 $500, sponsored two tickets to a free debate and two tickets to both debate nights. ticket that covered admission to one debate for one person. john in new jersey, republican, you are next. how much of the debate did you watch? caller: greta, i wasn't able to watch all of it, but i have seen the reruns on c-span this morning. frankly, i am embarrassed by what i saw. rudewere all, most of them to each other, interrupting each other, and the moderators did not help. three of them up on that stage scare the living daylights out of me. host: who is that? caller: mr. bloomberg, mr. sanders, and ms. warren. host: why mike bloomberg? caller: if one proposal he has was close all the coal mines in the united states, what kind of impact would that have economically on a lot of people? warren, speaking of health care free for everybody and all asked, theas insurance industry for health asked her about what would happen to all those people , and she flippantly replied, they will get other jobs. that is easy for her to say. mr. standards -- sanders scares me the most. i do not buy this democratic-socialist stuff and i think he goes a lot farther than that. -- we need a says president who is calm, and cool under pressure and elizabeth warren was the only one who displayed that during the bait -- the debate. in north kingston, rhode island, independent. , i will be voting for pete buttigieg. i do think his demeanor is the best that we have out there. host: did i just read your text? caller: you happened to, yes. funny that i got in as well. on top of that, if you look at it from a strategy analysis, he happens to have the ability to look at where the towns are to win and collect different delegates, and that is the strategy you need to win the electoral college. i think he would put together a team that could attack those kinds of things and look at it that way. i like bernie sanders and his policies. i voted for him the last time around. i just get really worried about the first thing pete said, if we have trump versus bernie, we will only have more polarization. we will not get anything done. come 2022, i think things will flip back read if bernie wins -- red if bernie wins and we will have a new president. we need somebody like pete. they will not attack him on things that go way back or have talking points like the fidel castro story and everything else. he would be a person to have to start uniting the country. host: as the papers frame it this morning, the candidates on that stage, six of them went after the leading candidate, senator bernie sanders. overis one exchange senator sanders' record on gun control. >> allow senator sanders to respond because you have gone after the insurance industry, taken on pharmaceutical companies and big tech. to did you vote repeatedly give gun manufacturers -- in the past? >> joe voted for a terrible trade agreement. [booing] joe voted for the war in iraq. cast thousands- of votes, including bad votes. -voting record d from the nra. the oneo, i likely lost seat for congress in vermont because 30 years ago i opposed -- i supported a ban on assault weapons, 30 years ago. we need tomy view is expand background checks and the gun show loophole, and do what the american people want, not what the nra wants. [simultaneous speaking] >> recognize me, thank you. i have a 6 million person organization. checks int background 20 states. you can do it. it is congress that can't seem to do it and i don't know why we think they are going to do it. ae vice president voted for debt bill and supported the nra and senator sanders supported the nra, but we need to stop talking about it. >> the way we do it is someone leading the ticket from the part of the country where we have the vote. i have long supported the assault weapon ban and i'm the author of the bill that closed the boyfriend loophole that says domestic abusers cannot go and get an ak-47. >> i wrote the bill. >> you did not write the bill. >> out of the hands of people who abuse their -- let's look at the fact check. the only thing that avoids that loophole is what was not covered. i could not get that covered. get ita senator tried to covered and mitch mcconnell is holding it on his desk right now. we are going to lose across the board. host: more from last nights debate and your thoughts on it. hot springs,sert california, democratic caller. do you have a candidate? caller: i do, but my candidate is not ready yet. for 2020, i would love to see mayor pete in, but i think he is a candidate for 2024. last night, a lot of the callers have said this, it was just a goat rodeo. i think the best line of the night was from joe biden where he called tommy tommy come lately. they are all come lately. the reason why i say that is because they haven't figured out or developed a candidate strategy for 2020. trump is running on the economy, , and what did i hear, health care a few times. china butout taxes on not a cohesive strategy on what they are running on. votesnie does gain enough to take the nomination, the democrats need to respect the process. that came up in the last one, but i'm not worried about bernie running for president because the media will take care of that. the media will have a field day on his past. we will probably have trump again in 2020, fine, i am ok of that. red,ouse will probably go the senate will stay red, and i'm voting for trump. pete is not ready yet. he is 2024. host: what is your reaction to rich harvey on facebook who said -- warren buried her campaign last night and drained her guns at the wrong candidate, the one who did not have a fight anyway. the fight is against sanders and trump and she gave both of them a major pass. she's toast. caller: that is a spot on comment. york forived in new many years when michael was the mayor. he did some good things, but he is johnny-come-lately or michael come lately, he has spent so much time trying to buy this thing. it does not make sense, but that is a spot on comment and i think it is right, absolutely right. host: john in pennsylvania, republican. caller: good morning, greta, and thanks for taking my call. my comment is on the question they had on housing. it seems they all want to go back to the last four years of obama. there were changes made in the obama administration to free up loans and lower interest rates to allow poor and underprivileged people to buy houses in america, and if nobody remembers, that led to a big foreclosure problem in this country. these people got houses, they didn't pay their mortgages, foreclosed on their mortgages, and destroyed a lot of properties around this country. i don't want to go back to that. the other comment i would make, if all the candidates on the stage wanted to legalize marijuana, i hope they realize that even in states where marijuana was legalized, employers still drug test so even though marijuana is legal, you still get drug tested to get a job. they are not making sense and that is why trump will be in for another four years. i cannot see it another way. host: the president tweeted this ratingsthis -- the low and cnn are comcast doing everything possible to make the coronavirus look as bad as possible, including panicking markets. if possible. like why, their incompetent do nothing democrat comrades are all talk, no action. usa is in great shape. i will be having a news conference at the white house at 6:00 p.m. cdc representatives and others will be there. thank you. the president holding a conference on the coronavirus at axa clock p.m. eastern time. -- 6:00 p.m. eastern time. alex a's are will testify -- azar will be testifying before that. that is on c-span two, c-span.org, and the c-span radio app. at 1:00 p.m., he will be testifying again, more questions on the coronavirus outbreak preparations in response by the white house. 10:00 a.m. on c-span three -- military officials mark x mark esper and general mark milley will be testifying about the pentagon budget but are likely to get asked about coronavirus as well. jackie, jacksonville, north carolina, independent. caller: how are you? host: good morning. caller: good morning. let's start with tom steyer. he wants to do reparations for the african-americans. here is what i have to say about that my family came here in the 1920's. we never owned slaves. he has got the money. why doesn't he do something about it? then i heard the candidates talking about how obscene it is that the billionaires have so much money, but they are ones -- they are the ones that pass legislation and laws that allow them the loopholes and tax breaks. frisk.o to stop and i am 60 years old and i have been stopped and frisked in my younger years and i have nothing on me and i was let go. what is the crime in stopping somebody and frisking them if they are in a situation that could be dangerous? let's talk about the coronavirus. who was the idiot that decided they should go to military bases ? the military might be based in one state but they are from many states. host: we will be talking about the coronavirus and will take your questions and comments at 8:30 a.m. eastern time. -- only bloomberg can build a broad coalition that click -- includes -- but he cannot handle the debates very well so it is going to be bernie, sadly. margie in philadelphia, democratic caller. caller: i listened to the debate and bloomberg is my candidate i would like to see run for president. when they talk about stop and frisk, they don't talk about why that program was put into place, because there was so many murders done by black and brown people they had to stop the murders. sanders, he was talking about they want free college, but look at vermont. bernie sanders' wife sat on the board of a vermont college. in 2013, that college went under. they did not get no free college from bernie sanders in vermont. the college went under because of that. people need to look at what they are doing and who they vote for. vermont took their nuclear waste and buried it in a small town of latino poor neighborhoods and when they complained about it, bernie sanders did not want to hear a thing they had to say. he told those people to dropdead, bernie sanders did. this is the man we are going to put up for president? you know what trump is going to do with this president? he went down to nicaragua and protested with those people against the united states. host: karen in alabaster, alabama, republican. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to say that the democrats, the debate last night, they keep talking about how trump if we get four more years of trump it will destroy the economy. i just want to know specifically what they mean, how is he going to do that? so far he has done ok. we are still walking around, everybody is happy with the way things are going, so i would like more information on why they think he is going to destroy the economy. in newaroline brownsville, texas, republican. good morning, go ahead. caller: i would like to say that i watched the debate last night and to me, it seemed like all wereen in the program acting like children in short pants except for bernie sanders. he was wearing leader hose and -- liederhosen. the thing about bernie sanders, i don't think he realizes if he decides to go socialist or whatever it is he wants to go, when i found out he said he was jewish, doesn't he realize that communism killed over 6 million jews at one time? said --rla on facebook biden did an excellent job and sounded presidential. he will be ready on day one and trump fears them the most. jimbo in baker's bill -- baker's bill, california -- mayor bloomberg has publicly stated he is willing to spend as $2 billion of his own money to get whoever is the democratic nominee elected president, but i keep wondering if bloomberg will renege on this pledge is senator's son -- senator sanders becomes the presumptive democratic nominee. if anyone thinks socialism is a takehing, say you will not -- please sign a waiver saying you will not take social security and medicare/medicaid benefits. caller: there were some questions i would like ask. -- asked. i would like to know about bloomberg's connection to china. i would like to know about in theeg's father gramercy society of america where his father was leading officer of the american communist party. we know what bernie is. i would like to know more about what elizabeth warren has told stories about through her entire election, about not being an indian and the pregnancy firing, and find out more about that. sorry, i just cannot go with joe biden. the reason i don't is because he was with obama and obama started his entire presidential campaign with billions at bernadette dorn's house, a known american taurus -- terrorist. we have communists ruling my party and i want to know what i can do about it. bloomberg just thinks he is george soros and will buy the votes from everyone. i don't think he will be representative of america either. we are in trouble. host: james in massachusetts -- we will leave it there. when we come back, we will change subjects and focus on the coronavirus. jennifer nuzzo joins us to talk about the u.s. and global response to the coronavirus outbreak. later on, we focus our attention on russia on new reports that russia may be meddling in the 2020 election. ♪ >> the south carolina primary is saturday. join us to hear the candidates' reactions to the result, live coverage saturday evening on c-span, on demand at c-span.org, or live on the c-span radio app. this november, we are going to take back the house, we are going to hold the senate, and we are going to keep the white house. >> president trump speaks at a rally in south carolina friday ahead of the primary. watch our campaign 2020 coverage live at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. watch live on c-span.org or listen on the go with the free c-span radio app. season,g this election the candidates beyond the talking points are only revealed over time, but since you can't be everywhere, there is c-span. our campaign 2020 programming differs from all other political coverage for one simple reason, it is c-span. we brought you your unfiltered view of government every day since 1979 and this year we are bringing an unfiltered view of the people looking to steer that government this november, in other words, your future. unfiltered.ect, and see the biggest picture for yourself and make up your own mind, with c-span's campaign 2020, brought to you as a public service by your television provider. "washington journal" continues. host: jennifer nuzzo, senior scholar and associate professor at johns hopkins here to talk about the coronavirus and the response. let's begin with this virus. itt exactly is it and how is that it became something that went from an animal to a human? guest: it is a respiratory virus. there are coronavirus is that circulate and are a frequent cause of the common cold, but this is a new one and people do not have immunity, and seems to be reducing more serial beer -- severe symptoms. it originated in animals and jumped over to humans and became capable of being transmitted to humans. when that occurred, we don't fully know. the initial outbreak was detected in december and it is likely it started a month before then or earlier. host: how does this jump from animal to human? guest: the mechanism is not known but likely a human came in contact with an animal that was infected and the virus mutated so it could live in humans, and became adapted to living in humans and could spread between humans, got the right receptors to bind to the lungs. host: is it ingesting or just touching? guest: it is largely by droplet transmission. someone can expel directly on you or on a surface that you touch and then your face or mouth. host: is it that they touched this animal or eight it? -- ate it? guest: it is unclear. host: is that where all viruses originate, from ingesting meat products? guest: we don't know that it was ingested. i should say, the evidence we have is that this virus likely came initially from bats. people think there was an intermediary animal, perhaps a mammal, but we do not know what that animal is or was so we do not fully know and do not know how people were exposed. host: why do these viruses originate from animals to humans? the storyfeels like that you read about new viruses emerging is increasing which is true. the vast majority are wildlife and origin, partially new viruses and partially that people i counter them -- encounter them and they change in a way and we do not have immunity, that is when these outbreaks occur. host: why don't we have the immune system to combat this virus, or do some people have it? what makes them stronger? guest: this virus is new and it is not thought that people have existing immunity. what has been testing on amount of the population has been affected. thought ifnk as much you have gotten a cold and had a virus that it would protected from this one. host: what should you do if you think you might have it? guest: it depends where you are in terms of whether you are likely to be tested. it is a little bit tricky, because the virus starts out like many other respiratory viruses, a fever or sore throat, some kind of initial symptoms. the vast majority of people affected, 80%, continue to have mild symptoms throughout the course of the illness, but some go on to have severe illness and some have critical illness and some portion dies. in terms of how you could be tested, in the united states if you want to be tested you essentially have to have and have a wuhan lower respiratory infection. that is one city where it is thought this global academic -- epidemic started. it is also in china, possible to be tested. if you do not fall into those categories, you are not being tested. host: even with outbreaks in italy, iran, south korea? guest: we are quite concerned about that, that as this epidemic has evolved, and there has been an app in -- active debate as to whether we should call it a pandemic, many countries have reported transmission, 34 of them. many are reporting active, intense epidemics spreading locally so many have suggested that the limited criteria for testing is probably no longer applicable and would be beneficial to expand testing beyond those limited categories. host: what is the definition of a pandemic? guest: you will get a debate among individuals. i an epidemiologist, we look at in the description of global spread or geographic spread, so you have 34 countries , to us that satisfies the definition of pandemic. the world health organization has pushed back strongly against that characterization. i personally do not believe that and that is not we learned in epidemiology. i think we can have mild pandemics but also severe pandemics. host: how would you define overseeing? guest: i believe this is a pandemic that we are seeing countries across the globe reporting cases. surveillance for the virus is limited in places -- in ways i told you about. to miss cases that have resulted from other exposures. when you have a situation like that and you have a virus that , and peopleoks mild are eventually able to spread when it is mild, that makes it difficult to interrupt and to know where in the world the virus is. countries that are not reporting cases may have cases but have not found them yet. seenr, we haven't aggressive actions that countries have taken like shutting down travel, have such -- have stopped the spread. host: what role are you playing in tracking this? center, weresearch are faculty in the school of public health so we teach and mentor students and conduct public research. our group five us -- focuses on epidemic andeak what governments and practitioners should do to be ready for it. i also direct a project called the outbreak in servitude or he where we study the operational -- what services are needed to --bat host: what is your concern with over 100 cases in iran and the migration in and out of that country into the neighboring ,reas where they have had wars fragile governments, and not a lot of transparency? guest: that is where our biggest worry is, that this virus will turn to places that have weak infrastructure. who,irector general of the in deciding to declare this time a9 epidemic at the public health emergency of international concern, he cited concerns about weak health systems in making that designation to make sure they get ready and think about how they will manage potentially an influx of infected patients. potentially countries are reporting cases and as you mentioned, a number are undergoing many other challenges that could make it difficult to manage this on top of the day to day civil conflict. host: the iran foreign minister a news conference and it was made public that he tested positive for the coronavirus. should he have been, or should people be in public if they are feeling sick and from these areas and have tested positive? guest: if you have tested positive, it is important to isolate at home. we think it is possible to spread it relatively early in the course of illness, and this this makes this virus quite different from the sars virus that caused the global epidemic in 2003. that was caused by a coronavirus. we were able to stop the spread in part because when people became infected, they tended not to transmit until they were quite ill and they did not feel up to being out and about. by improving infection control processes at hospitals, we were able to stop transmission, but this virus is different and it is critically important that people who are sick stay home. unfortunately in many places, it is difficult to test people for the virus. as a general rule, any time are not feeling well, it is good for society for you to stay home. host: are you saying you could spread it before you start to feel it? --st: there is an active they have found virus in people who have not had symptoms. we do not know to what extent they may spread the virus because it is easier to spread when you are symptomatic because you are more likely to expel the virus when you are coughing and sneezing. it is possible people can spread early in their infections before they recognize how ill they are. they thought they had a cold or maybe were coming down with something, but not as severely ill as someone might expect to be with this virus eventually. host: we want to take our viewers' questions and comments. eastern and central part of the country, if you live there, (202) 748-8000. mountain and pacific area, (202) 748-8001. we can read some of your questions if you text us at (202) 748-8003. health-care officials in the government said this could be bad. how bad? what do you think when they say that? guest: there are a few open questions about the virus. it is a certainty that we will see additional cases here in the united states. one of the difficulties right now, we are not testing very many people, so the united states we have tested fewer than 500 people. , whereorea and singapore they are experiencing large outbreaks, they have tested tens of thousands of people, so i think we have a very poor view of whether or not there are cases already here. certainly, we should expect to see more in the future. in terms of how bad it could be, one of the open questions about this virus is what level of severity is produced by this virus? if you took the number of deaths reported and divided that into the number of illnesses reported, it is about a 2% case fatality ratio, and that probably sounds small to a lot soundsle just because 2% small, but that is on the order of what we saw with the 1918 influenza pandemic, one of the deadliest events in modern history. myself doe including not fully believe that that 2% calculation is accurate because i think -- and i think others hold this view -- there are probably many more mild cases that we are not counting and if we were able to count it, the case fatality ratio would be much lower. nevertheless, still potentially ore if it were 1% or .5% even .1%, when you layer that on top of health systems struggling to deal with the flu, it is still quite a challenge to think about how to manage those patients. far, american public health systems have sought to contain the virus by isolating cases while monitoring close contacts of patients for infection. is that the way to handle this? guest: isolation is important and monitoring contact is important, but there will be a point where the cases are such that we will not be able to do that, and we have to expect that shift in trying to prevent those individuals likely to become quite ill and die, for the most part elderly and people with underlying health conditions. if we get many more cases, you will see efforts focusing on trying to mitigate the impact and helping the vulnerable. host: would that be closing schools? what would that entail? guest: it is an open question that was mentioned at the cdc press conference that cities may have to consider these measures. i hope states are considering what actions if any they will take, and it will be important in thinking through those considerations that we not only examine their potential to produce transmission -- reduce , slow transmission but maybe not affect the total number of cases we see. it is important as they consider taking those measures in an effort to potentially slow the spread of this virus, they examine not only potential it'sh benefits but potential impact on society. although i think a number of people are talking about school closures, that was something we did during the 2009 influenza pandemic for a short while before we realized the virus was not as severe as we initially feared, but these are very disruptive measures. working parents have to stay home with their children and that possibly means they cannot go to work. there are people working at health care facilities or power plants or stocking the shelves at grocery stores, that could create a situation where we have potentially more harm than the virus would pose. we have to make sure to balance those and mitigate those unintended consequences. host: nick in illinois, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am not as concerned as everybody is about the coronavirus. it is bad. it started in china. china has nearly 2 billion people and they have lost almost 2000 people. we have people like richard fowler on fox news last night was shannon brain blaming the trump administration and the executive branch for this virus that started and another country, from them feeding their people rats, beavers, baby wolves, the list goes on and on. you cannot have 1.5 billion people living on top of one another. inhave lost 14,000 people north america from the flu. host: let's take that point. compare that to the deaths over the flu. guest: obviously very worried about the flu, it is an important contribution to severe illness and death in the united states, and a frequent cause of hospitalizations, particularly in the season we are in now. it is absolutely worth being concerned about and i encourage anybody who has not gotten the vaccine to get the vaccine, because it is your best chance of not having severe illness and death if you are vaccinated. also it would be helpful to reduce the number of flu cases. that is less burden for the hospital to manage. one of the reasons this virus is getting the attention it is is not because things like flu are not deadly, but there is an open question as to whether this virus is more deadly than the flu, and from the numbers reported to date, it is far more deadly. i reported i think those numbers are not quite accurate, but uncertainty is still there and we have to prepare. the other challenge is that unlike flu, we do not have the same tools for the coronavirus so we have limited ability to test and diagnose people in the u.s. we do not have a vaccine like for the flu. we do not have medicines like we give for the flu, so the absence of those tools and the weertainty make it essential prepare. we need to face what we need to do. host: when it comes to this disease or any disease, are there things people can do beyond the flu shot or in addition to the flu shot to boost your ma in system? guest: the best thing you can do , take measures to reduce the likelihood of becoming infected in the first place, staying away from people who are sick possibly with respiratory symptoms the best you can. washing hands is important because if somebody coughs on a surface and you touch it and touch yourself, there is the possibility you could infect yourself. those are probably the best measures at this point. there may become a point if there are a lot of cases where we will think if going to crowded public spaces is worth it. there is still some planning that needs to be done, and part of that involves people's risk tolerance. someone who is elderly or has underlying medical conditions may be less inclined to take those risks. host: pat in new jersey. caller: i am also having a hard time getting into a panic over this. aren't the at risk people, the people with a higher risk of illness and disease the same people at risk in every other infirm,, the elderly, compromised immune systems? for 95% of the people, what are we supposed to do? how do i get worried over something that in many people is asymptomatic? how would i know the difference between coronavirus and a cold? point.that is a fair the elderly and those with underlying health care withtions, we see issues flu and coronavirus can cause death in some individuals. this novel coronavirus has the ability to cause severe illness and death in previously healthy individuals, so while the elderly and people with underlying health issues are most at risk, they are not the only ones who have severe outcomes like i described. i think your point about, why should i worry, i think i agree with you. what we are looking for is preparing the best we can and worry at this point is probably not productive. nevertheless, it doesn't mean that we should not appreciate the hard work going on in the country to prepare for it, and i want to make sure we are doing as much as we can. host: linda in maryland wants to know, what is being done at the border to prevent someone from bringing the virus into the united states? of january,e end the u.s. implemented travel restrictions basically cominging certain people from china from getting visas to come to the united states, and implementing quarantines for americans returning from wuhan and broader china. this is not something a number of countries have also done, but the best effort suggests these will not likely be effective in keeping the virus out. many countries are now reporting ongoing epidemics of this virus and are not on our list for travel restrictions, and it would be difficult to keep adding countries to the list because resource requirements for screening people and implementing the quarantines that have been implemented to date have been burdensome. my great worry about this is that health department officials monitor monitorng to and care for individuals under quarantine, it is the same people we would want to prepare communities to think about how we would reduce the impacts of the virus. there is only so much bandwidth. i am deeply concerned it has diverted resources from that important community level work that needs to happen. i would also point out a number of countries experiencing large epidemicsepidemic -- implemented travel restrictions and that did not prevent the epidemics they are experiencing. host: what mistakes did china make in the beginning of this, and when they reacted later by andting down wuhan province restricting travel, did that help? guest: there was an initial lack of understanding of how far the , and i thinkd grow there was not as much information being shared in terms of initial health care workers infected. that would have been important to know. i often study outbreaks like this and i often see that countries make mistakes in the beginning before they know what is happening, so i never truly like to criticize or say, you zould have done x, y, and because it is not productive going forward. there is always missteps. there were certainly mistakes. i think all countries are probably looking back and looking at things they could i do -- they could do differently. in terms of the restrictions and the lockdowns that china has implemented, i have been deeply worried about these measures. themugh many are crediting with potentially slowing the incidents of new cases, the number of new cases china is reporting seems to have slowed, i am a bit, first of all, skeptical whether those trends are true. i think there has been some challenges with diagnostic in that country too, but even if you assume they have worked, it is likely those impacts are going to be temporary and when they get back to work, frankly the world needs china to get back to work. it is an important producer of equipment and medicine and supplies the world will need in order to manage the situation. it is important the country does get back to work, but when they do, we would expect to see an increase in the number of cases again. when we think about whether or not a country should do this, we have to examine what are the benefits from a public health perspective? are these benefits sustainable? at what cost do they come? i have been worried about whether there have been additional harms imposed on the people subjected to those restrictions. has in many places focus its efforts on controlling the virus and that means people with other medical conditions like cancer and hiv have not been able to get the treatments they need. we need to balance the effect of the overall measures and particularly if other countries are looking to china and saying, this is something we should do, it is important to know that china has incredible resources to pull this off, government that may not be effective in other places. host: damascus, maryland, sue, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. died of thesister flu epidemic in 1918. she was two years old. when i started hearing about this, i took this very seriously and i think your guest is being a bit disingenuous with the public, because the communist party in china, i don't think is telling the truth to the world. i don't think that the real truth -- and i know this because i have someone at nih i am close to that as a molecular biologist in infectious diseases. when i first heard about this pandemic, i was listening to steve bannon's podcast, and he is having a lot of experts. smuggled out being of china where the crematorium's thebeing run 24/7, communist party was trying to keep this a secret because they did not want the western world about it. not to tell the american public, i think this is going to be much more serious than anyone is letting on, and i think your guest really ought to talk about the fact that there is evidence coming forward that this virus lab 20 milese p-4 outside of wuhan. this virus is not what the media is saying. it is not just a couple of people who have it in the united states. the test kit is not even the right test kit. the nih says they are using test kits for the sars virus. you do not have any clue what is going on with this virus, where it originated, what we are supposed to do. to tell people not to wash best to tell people to wash their hands and not touch their face and eyes -- host: maybe we can take the p-4 lab. guest: i am not eva rolla just, but all credible know it people who have looked at the genetic sequence unanalyzed the genetic tree, the kind of evolution of the virus, have essentially ruled that out. they don't believe that that is a credible hypothesis. know when i know who studies these issues seriously believes it originated anywhere other than from some animals. in terms of measures that one can take to protect oneself, i completely understand that when i say wash her hands, that feels very underwhelming. i have elderly relatives and they have asked me the same thing. i want to be able to say more than that. but i can't. there aren't. masks,s of stockpiling that is something that is not recommended. you need to be fit tested for a mask to be sure it is actually going to work for you. that is not people can just do themselves, generally. just to know that you may think you are protected by something that is actually not going to protect you. that false sense of confidence you get from it may actually put you in more harm. the other way you may be more harmed is if everybody goes out and gets those and they are not there for the health care workers who are going to be responsible for saving your life, that puts all of us at risk. i just want to point that out that we will be better served if we make sure that the health care professionals, that are going to be putting their lives on the line to save people's lives, we need to make sure that they have the tools they need to be able to do that safely. wes in gainesville, texas. caller: we have an epidemic going on in the united states and the u.s. has done absolutely nothing. 250,000 hospitalized. we had 15 million who have had the influenza virus. i would like her to address that, that the u.s. has done absolutely nothing. as far as your referral to the coronavirus, you are saying it only happens in the elderly. that is 100% false. the first doctor who revealed the coronavirus in china died, he was 34 years old. i think it is very disingenuous to come on here and tell us to wash our hands when we should be isolating everybody who has this virus and we should corn time schools -- quarantine schools just like they did in china. i am a physician, by the way. also just wanted to say one more thing. host: let's have jennifer nuzzo respond. guest: i agree with your concerns about influenza. it is a really important cause of death and illness in the united states each year. with your assessment that the united states is doing nothing. we have learned so much about influenza in the last 10 years because of enhanced surveillance. we also have diagnostic tools and health facilities, doctors offices and in hospitals. vaccine.it is not perfect, but it seems to be fairly good at preventing severe illness and death. i think we have a lot of tools. i wish we had a better one. i wish we had universal flu vaccine so you only had to be vaccinated once. i wish we did a better job of making sure people get vaccinated, particularly kids. there has been a high number of children that have died this year. as a health professional and mother, i think that is a travesty. believe say i don't that this virus only affects the elderly and immunocompromised. 80,000 cases reported to date, and many of those individuals are young, healthy people. as she rightly pointed out, young and previously healthy people have died at this virus. that said, all of the data we have suggest that most of the people who are likely to die are those over the age of 80 with health conditions. i don't want to undersell that. that thinkinggree about washing your hands is probably one of the best ways to protect yourselves at this point is underwhelming, and i think that is one of the reasons communities will be talking about what measures we should be taking to protect those people most at risk. that largely includes the elderly and immunocompromised people with underlying health conditions. it may include others. i think it is important for us to have the conversations about what measures are likely to work, and also understand what consequences these measures can cause. reaten't want to c a situation where you can't get to the hospital if you need to our health care workers can't show up to care for sick patients. we want to make sure we keep the lights on, water running and stores stocked with food because we don't want to create a situation where we implement measures that are worse for our communities than the virus itself. host: arlington, virginia. linda. caller: hi. i have two questions. one of which is regarding the innate immune system. i'm glad that you were talking about preventative measures because i all about prevention. i'm in my mid-70's, so i also realize that even though i have no underlying health conditions, i need to take special care. washing hands, etc., and i have actually bought myself a mask, i am planning on getting things that would help boost my innate union system like vitamin c, garlic, turmeric, ginger, oranges, etc., etc.. i want your comments on that. host: let's let her respond. guest: i just want to re-emphasize what i said to the earlier caller about it depends on what mask you are using. it is possible they can give you a false sense of security and possibly put you more at risk. it is not recommended that people in the general public use masks. in particular, there is limited evidence -- we believe that a healthy person wearing a mask is not how mask can protect you. it is potentially better for people who are sick to wear a mask so they don't expel the virus. we don't want to create a situation in which people go out and get masks and we don't have them for our health care workers. in terms of your suggestions for the other things, i don't think there is really strong evidence that they are going to help. i am a mom and i meant a lot of moms groups on the i was talk about garlic and elderberry. i just don't think there is great evidence that they are going to protect. host: did you have a follow-up? caller: i did. i did see one report, and i have no idea whether it is accurate or not. if it is, it gives me some scarce. -- scares. inre is at least one person china who recovered supposedly from this virus, and then later tested positive and came down with it again. thenat is indeed true, that tells me that your immune system did not learn and you are not immune to that same virus on a more. if that is the case, then it tells me that there is a big question as to whether or not a vaccine can be developed. guest: i know about that report. i think it is hard to make sense. i think we are going to need more evidence before we understand what that means and whether that was a truly accurate observation or if there were testing issues. that will be an important consideration in the ongoing efforts to develop vaccines. i am heartened that governments and organizations have announced intentions to conduct clinical trials. those are going to be really important for providing the evidence that these measures protect and don't do more harm in the long run. nebraskave from omaha, texted us. is the human race a weaker species because of overuse of antibiotics? guest: i don't know that we are a weaker species. i will say that overuse of anabiotic's is an important health threat and we have to be in concern about the rise we are seeing in antimicrobial resistance and want to make sure we are reserving antibiotics for appropriate uses so that we retain these tools in our fight against bacteria. host: bill in albany, georgia. if you are on antibiotics and you test for coronavirus and you show hardly any symptoms, are you more likely to be contagious for a longer period of time and spread it, able to go from place to place and still be able to go from different places and spread the virus? two, do you think that withholding these sanctions to these countries that need medical care, like drugs very badly, are they killing people and a lot of these places that need these drugs that would help them to fight this? oxygen, withare on a respiratory virus, is the oxygen making it worse for you by being in an oxygen-rich environment? guest: i think a few points there, just to be clear, antibiotics don't have any. thatu are on antibiotics, should not affect your ability to get the virus or transmit it. he also had a question in there about sanctions. unfortunately, right now, we don't have specific medicines to treat this virus. there are clinical trials the role thatmine some existing drugs are used for other things may have in terms of treating people with the virus. i think the general premise to your point about how we respond and politics in terms of different places, it is in the globe's best interest to respond to this collectively, share our resources as needed and as appropriate. countries have to protect their own, but it is also in our best interest to enable other countries that may have fewer resources to be able to respond to this such that they can reduce the impacts. as we see, something that starts in one part of the globe, i virus like this that spreads silently and rapidly, can be anywhere. it is also important for us to know what is going on in other countries so that we can understand this virus. ofhink there have been a lot question so far about china and what is happening in china. part of the challenge is that we don't have a really good window into what is going on there. we are relying on what others are saying and we don't have a direct line into seeing that. the extent to which we can engage in a collaborative manner so we can understand what is happening and understand this virus and its impacts on whether or not they are changing over time, that will clearly be in our best interest. host: bonnie, montauk, new york. caller: i have a couple of questions. i was reading regarding the amount of ards in the initial cohort of 41 people that they looked at, specifically in wuhan, and that 29% of them annd up with ards, which is incredibly dangerous occurrence and a lot of people die from it. i wanted to find out because they said overall, it is about a 3% death rate. however, in this article, about 10% did die. i'm curious as to what is being looked at specifically regarding that, but also, i know you talked about the and 95 masks and they have to be fit. they did a too, study supposedly about one of those labs. it is obviously a wet market. it is pretty understandable to understand how that got into the general public. but there is supposedly a lab that was studying specifically that type of that coronavirus, and there was an article that got yanked two weeks ago by the actual researchers. do you have any information about any of that? thank you very much advance. host: can you first explain ards? guest: that is acute respiratory distress syndrome. it is important for us to understand the pathology of this disease and what proportion developed this and what proportion are ultimately able to survive it. it is also important to understand a challenge in fully extrapolating from wuhan, is that that is where the start of this situation was. there was some time before maybe it was fully appreciated that this could spread between people and fully appreciated what it was. as of the open questions is, knowledge has improved, and as our understanding of the need to clinically manage these cases, would we see better outcomes in patients who are hospitalized just as the system trains and learns about it? another question is whether resource constraints at all play a role in the proportion of people who develop severe illness and ultimately die. how early in the course of somebody's illness people see care can also play a role. we often talk about proportions of patients who develop severe illness or death as though it affects parameter of a disease pathogen.cular these numbers aren't always fixed. for instance, when we talk about ebola and the places where we have seen epidemics of ebola, it is a fairly fatal disease with 60%-70% of people affected ultimately dying. when we see patients treated outside of settings where there are more medical resources available, many more people are able to survive their infections. it is really important when we think about these numbers to think about what medical resources are being brought to bear to help people come through their infection and survive. we probably know in some cases some of those patients who may have benefited from things like mechanical ventilation, may not have gotten it and so we need to understand what that role of those tools are. there was another question about the lab. again, talked about that earlier. i know they have done various analyses to show that is the origin of the virus. that is not my area of expertise, but there are very thoughtful people who have given careful thought to this. we don't really, not only do we not have evidence, but i think there is very strong evidence to the contrary. i am wondering how trump can say we don't have a problem with the virus if we are not it, and how other countries like iran can test for it but we can't? guest: those are great questions. i think it is important for us to do enhanced testing so that we can understand whether it is here already and to what extent. if it is not here, so that we are ready to find it when it is. it sounds like there have been technical problems with the test the u.s. is using. don't fully understand where they are in terms of working that out. they have found it optimistic for a few weeks now. i know state health laboratories fda requested from the permission to develop their own test because they very much want to do increased testing. that is somewhat of an extraordinary step, but i think it reflects the degree to which they want to lean in and be forward leaning on these issues. host: conrad, rockledge, pennsylvania. good morning. your question or comment? caller: hi. my comment is, i'm on my computer right now and i am looking at a front cover of a bestseller's book from back about 40 years ago by dean kootz. the topic is the eyes of darkness. it describes some kind of a bacterium smuggled out of the country, i guess and taken to china by a guy name lee chen. i'm just -- and it went to whuan in -- wuhan in china. i'm wondering if anybody knows about this book. it is a bestseller. guest: i don't know about the book, but thank you for the recommendation. host: this is a question from stephen who wants to know why it doesn't seem like children have been greatly affected by the virus. guest: that is a really great question and i think one people are wondering about. we saw this during sars, but it is possible children do get infected, but that their illnesses are more mild. more in adultsit because their immune systems react more strongly to the virus. we don't know, but that said, there have now been, just in the data reported at the cases, not many children. also, there was a study looking at infants hospitalized in china. they didn't find much infection either. to me, that is encouraging as a mom, but i also think it is important for us to talk about when we talk about things like closing schools. one of the reasons why we talk about closing schools, it is something we did for influenza in the 2009 pandemic. the theory behind that was that children potentially could be at risk of having severe outcomes from the flu, but two, children are known to be important drivers of overall community transmission of influenza. kids get sick and then they give it to their parents and grandparents. so, the thought was, if you could reduce the congregation of children and the ability of children to give the virus to each other, but you could reduce overall transmission and the community. not clear to me that we are going to have the same benefits from school closures with the virus given that so few children have been reported among cases. ul, charles town, west virginia. caller: hello. host: hi. caller: i am a 70-year-old er nurse that is not working. i have been watching this morning and ics dancing around dancing around a disease that only has 1% or 2% fatality. i am curious what you think would happen and how to proceed transmission and fatality rates that say occurred 1349, and 1350 in europe. guest: is that the plague? i don't think we are worried about that at this point. i think the highest estimates of fatality that have come out are from wuhan, that is around slightly more than 4% of patients. as i said, that is very high in the modern context. that 1918 influenza pandemic, which is one of the deadliest disease events in modern history, dot had about a 2% case fatality ratio -- that had about a 2% case fatality ratio. if we think that many, many people on the planet could get this virus because of the way it spreads and the lack of a pre-existing immunity and you apply 2% to those numbers, those are very high numbers. those are very high numbers. as i said, i don't believe that 2% is probably an accurate statistic. i think it could potentially be lower, but we need more evidence. our understanding of the virus could change as we gather more evidence. another reason why i think the 2% might be wrong is that often when we see these events, we moreto bias findings severe cases because it is harder to find the mild cases. nonetheless, i think we have to prepare given the uncertainty. even if it were 1% or in the order of the seasonal flu, theing that on top of struggle to already keep up with the seasonal flu, think about additional patients coming in seeking care and potentially needing intensive care, that will just be very challenging. that is why this virus is getting the attention that it is. host: the president says we will hear more from him on this topic this evening at 6:00 p.m. eastern time. he said this morning he plans to hold a news conference with cdc officials. in just a few minutes, at 930 : -- 9:30, alex a star on capitol hill. -- alex azar on capitol hill. atwill also be testifying 1:00 p.m. eastern time on the budget in the coronavirus. todaylso is on c-span 2 along with our website and radio app. if you want to learn more about johns hopkins center for health security, you can go to centerforhealthsecurity.org. jennifer nuzzo, thank you for your time. appreciate it. we are going to take a break. when they come back, we will be joined by alina from the center for european policy analysis and talk about new reports that russia may be meddling in the 2020 election. >> sunday, "book tv" features america as a superpower. a live conversation with author and white house correspondent, april ryan. >> i study for this at morgan state university just down the road. this is my vocation, not knowing that i would be under fire by asking questions. questions of each president, the same question, except for one, of each president over the last 21 years. asking questions now has me fearing for my life. >> her latest book is "under fire." her others include "at momma's presidency in black and white." at 9:00 p.m. eastern on "afterwards," in his latest book, cal thomas explores the rise and fall of nations, historically and america's role as a superpower. he is interviewed by author and cnn contributor amanda carpenter. >> we are not each other's enemies, as lincoln said. if we don't make this great experiment called democracy or constitutional republic work for preceding generations, we are going to expire. things are looking great, but when they are looking great, it is time to shore up the foundations. authors april ryan and cal thomas sunday on "book tv" on c-span 2. >> c-span, your unfiltered view of government. created by cable in 1979 and brought to you today by your television provider. >> "washington journal" continues. host: alina polyakova at our table. she is here to talk about russian influence. i want to share two headlines with uni reviewers. intel officials -- you and our viewers. you have the washington post with the headline "bernie sanders briefed by u.s. officials that russia is trying to help his presidential campaign." what do we know about what russia is doing? guest: we know one thing for certain and that is that the russian government is once again interfering in our elections in various ways from disinformation attacks, likely through cyber breaches that they are probably planning. other than that, we know very little because all of these briefings with u.s. intelligence agencies are happening in a classified format. what we have heard through reporting and link information is that the russians are trying to support through their information operations on social media, both president trump and bernie sanders. we learned from the mueller report exactly what the russians were doing with facebook and twitter, etc. still exist on those platforms and the volume they did leading up to the 2016 campaign? polyakova that seems -- guest: that seems like a very straightforward question, but not an answer because what we know is that social media companies have gotten much better at identifying and taking down what they call an effective coordinated behavior. that means instances -- russia and also iran in china and others are trying to manipulate the social media platforms to push a certain message. they have gotten very good at this, but as a result, adversaries have also adapted. one of the things we learn from the reporting of the intelligence briefing is that they are using things to make that much more difficult to detect when is a twitter account a russian troll or bought, when is it an american citizen which is free speech protected by the first amendment. i think it is very difficult to know now. we are seeing is protected free speech or foreign interference. host: what do the russians and iranians and chinese feel is the most effective way to interfere? guest: it is a good question. i think the incentives are very different. for the russians, their intent andalways been to sew chaos division and amplify the kinds of devices that we naturally have. i think it is no secret that we have lots of things that divide us. theoperations in 2016 and ones we are hearing about now are not inventing social divisions, but are really trying to push on those hot button issues, immigrations, economic inequality, to try to make us feel more and more divided. i think the reason that they have been supporting sanders and trump, as we have learned, is because they see these two candidates as potentially divisive for the united states. they want to sew that kind of chaos and division. host: we want to get our viewers involved in the conversation as well. your questions and comments about these new stories. also text us with your first name, city and state. for one you watching russian interference? guest: i am actually much more concerned about cyber breaches and cyber attacks, more so the information operations. i have no doubt they are happening as we speak. they have been happening since 2016 in the lead up to 2020. they are increasingly difficult to detect for some of the reasons i mentioned. i am much more concerned about a theft of information, a breach into our security systems, whether they be government security systems, election machines, the actual infrastructure of the voting apparatus in this country. we know from 2016 and when some of the intelligence reports were made public, that the russians were breaching and playing around in our voter databases. vote.we register to you can easily imagine a situation where just one small town, one municipality, you show up to vote and you are not registered, and you are turned away. just that little drop of concern, that the elections have somehow not been free and fair would really do a lot of damage to our democratic process. host: why does it concern you? is that because of the way the government has responded to the 2016 interference? guest: i think our response has really been understated and much, much lower than the actual threat. for example, the united states government still does not have what we call a coordinated strategy to respond to information operations. we know it is not just the russians playing in this now. the russian playbook is now global and we have the iranians and the chinese. i am much more concerned about 2020 because it is not just as dealing with one bad actor, the russians. now, it is us dealing with russia and iran and china, and may be all kinds of other groups that are interested in either or undermining our process. because of our political climate, our response has really been not at all efficient or enough. host: scott's will, virginia. what is your question -- scottsville, virginia. what is your question or comment on this? caller: i was wondering if the the deep could explain domestic tranquility and democracy and the way it lies with our president's deconstruction of the administrative process of our republic. it is all about deconstruction democracies. thank you. host: were you following? guest: if i understood the question correctly, there is a concern that there is a desire think, toin, i undermine our democracy and lead to chaos. that is certainly at the top of my concern and it should be at the top of policymaker's concerns as well. host: what should they be doing then? guest: i have written a couple of papers over the years that have quite a few recommendations as to what policymakers can do. first and foremost, we need to set up a government response. the u.s. government is huge, and we're not coordinating between all the different agencies. i will give you one example. department of homeland security is responsible for everything that happens in the homeland, but our response center for dealing and responding to disinformation attacks is at the state department, which has no mandate to deal with anything that is happening in the homeland. a new agency or a unit or task force, which many european countries have set up, to really help us craft a proper, strategic response and raise awareness among americans. not every troll or bought on twitter is something we should care about, but americans also need to be aware of one is there an information operation happening and when is there not? the only people that have access to that information our intelligence agencies. host: tom in ohio, republican. caller: i would like to have howbody explain to me russia can possibly predict how i'm going to vote. can russia influence or change how he plans to vote? guest: they can't. there is actually no evidence from 2016 that the russian disinformation operation, which reached millions and millions of people on facebook and twitter, changed somebody's behavior. we have no way of showing that. if i see on my social media feed or go on facebook and i see an ad that says "trump is great," is not going to change my vote? it is really hard to show that. their intention was not necessarily to change choices, but shift a narrative and try to sew chaos and division. i think in that sense, they have been successful at amplifying those divisions. host: matt, maryland. caller: how do you feel about electronic voting companies like running the voting process and getting donations for people like pete buttigieg? can't to be honest, i speak to the kinds of donations you are referring to from candidate buttigieg or others. i think my concern when it comes to voting in general is that these machines are very vulnerable. prepared to respond to a massive cyberattack, but a very well sophisticated -- by a very well sophisticated adversary. some of our machines are from the year 2000 when we had the almost contested election between bush and gore. if you think about how far technology has come in the last 20 years, it is very easy to see why those machines are very vulnerable to interference and cyber breaches. host: russell, maryland, democratic caller. caller: how are you? host: morning. caller: we have to stop this at up point where it went wrong. the democracy in this country is broken. if it wasn't, what is going on would not be going on. we forget time changes everything. it makes us forget. the only national -- natural youts we had -- i can tell this because i am a native american and i come from a reservation up in south dakota. we are not given those same rights as the american people. my point being is, if we haven't even established that yet, this system is broken and nobody is fixing it. we have those being held up by mitch mcconnell. all of those others are taking money from russia. we should not have interference in the one democracy that our , a lot of myers native american people have country. this we need to stand up and realize this problem needs to be fixed because it continues to get worse. guest: absolutely agree with the caller. our congress right now is the most polarized we have seen in modern history. it is also one reason why we haven't passed effective rosalie -- resolutions. it is also why we are concerned about 2020 where the russians until have an open playing field because the consequences imposed for what was a massive attack and 2016, have not been out also veer enough to deter future kinds of interference. one person tweeted us with this, can they guest please comment on ms. hill's testimony on ukraine and russia meddling? guest: the comment is referring to fiona hill, the senior director for russia at the national security council until she resigned over the summer and then testified in the house impeachment inquiry. her testimony was incredibly powerful, to my mind because she pointed out how disinformation narrative, there is this conspiracy theory, it has no proof or evidence, that somehow the server where hillary clinton's emails were kept in 2016 were captain ukraine. this really has no evidence at all. i just want to amplify that as much as i can. that lawmakers were questioning witnesses about this conspiracy theory, i think signaled how deep the conspiracy theorist campaign, that russians were amplifying this can really affect our public discourse and really get into the minds of our policymakers as well. at the time, i think i tweeted that this disinformation campaign, that the ukrainians were the ones that interfered in our elections in 2016, and not the russians, may be the greatest success of the russian intelligence agencies when it comes to disinformation operations. host: in the meantime, what has russia been doing in ukraine? guest: ukraine has always been a test lab for russian cyber attacks, interference operations. the reason i brought up cyber attacks earlier in our conversation is because if you look at what the russians have been testing and doing in ukraine, they have been testing cyber weapons, increasingly powerful ways, taking down networks, denial of service attacks. the most expensive cyber attack in history happened in ukraine and 2017. it didn't just stay in ukraine. it affected more than 64 countries and companies, cost millions and millions of dollars. these are the kinds of concerns that i have, that we see a russian attack on our critical infrastructure system, for example, on our roadways, electrical grades. the russians have managed to take down electrical grades in ukraine that basically caused a blackout right around the holidays. can you imagine that happening around the u.s.? the realities that these are all possible scenarios, and that is why i think we need to be much more aggressive in responding to these kinds of operations. j. is watching us in pennsylvania. independence. -- independents. caller: i just want to say that i think we give the russians too much credit and power. the democrats have not been able to get over the fact that trump has won. it has been four years now. it is like when you have that know,f, you advertisement, just like the whole impeachment thing. that was going on, every day they were mentioning russia. they don't influence the way people vote. they just don't. everybody metals in the in thens -- meddles elections, but ultimately, people make their own decisions based on they already have their minds made up, pretty much. host: ok. guest: i think the caller is right. there is no evidence that any russian content they spread on facebook or twitter or social media platforms and 2016 change the way of voter in michigan or pennsylvania or anywhere else really voted. i think there is a bigger reality here. when we are talking about for , we have political parties and the confrontation is part of democracy. the problem our founding fathers were concerned with is when foreign powers would try to come into our domestic politics. that is exactly what the russians did in 2016. they are set to do in 2020, it seems. i don't want to overestimate the power influence of whatever put has over our society. of course, the russians do not. to be honest, if we have a coordinated strategic approach, we could easily deter this problem from happening again. because of our internal politics and the kinds of divisions we have here, we haven't been able to do so. i think we shouldn't underestimate the reality that there was a cyber breach in 2016, data was stolen from the servers of the dnc and clinton campaign and licked out on social media. that is an -- leaked out on social media. that is not a part of democratic politics. host: we are talking with alina polyakova. she held a phd and masters in sociology from the university of california and a ba in economics and social economics. host: john from new york. independent. caller: good morning. what i'm about to say may sound like a little overreactive and there are ramifications, however, i think that since these countries are infiltrating into our networks, a little retribution. if russia is doing it, take putin's money. i understand he went from being a colonel to being worth $250 billion. you take his money, his personal bank accounts, hugh barry that money and you let him know that we will give -- you bury that money and you let him know that we will give it back if you quit interfering. the same with the iranians and chinese. when you're being bullied -- my mother always told me, you better be prepared to punch somebody in the nose. host: retaliation. guest: in some ways, i agree. we don't know how much money mr. putin has. a lot of people suspect he may be one of the wealthiest men in the world because of the amount he has basically been able to steal from the russian people. states and united coordination with european allies and close -- impose personal sanctions on quite a few russian oligarchs, which does include asset freeze is a certain nature. if we were going to take a much more aggressive step of really targeting the leader of russia, that would be a quite big step, i think in our retaliation process. i think the idea that we need to have a stronger, coordinated response to deter these kinds of activities in the future is right on point and we have not done that. that is why we. are talking about 2020 righthad reacted in 2017, after the interference came to light from the intelligence reports, and in the mueller report, we would not be where we are today. host: why not? guest: because i think we would have sent a stronger message. if we had actually imposed stricter sanctions on russia, if we had gone on the cyber offensive, and these are very controversial topics. once you go on the cyber offensive, you have to be ready for the retaliation. you punch somebody in the nose, they are going to push you right back. we could have taken much stronger steps to send a message that you do not interfere, this does not happen again, and we have certainly not done so. host: eva, california. caller: i have another question, a comment. ,hen we start impeaching trump i was expecting my representative to fight. a screen comes to my ipad that says " impeach adam schiff." i close it. i was wondering if that is the way they tried to get us on certain things and make them false or something? guest: -- host: it's not the way the russians or other countries try to get to people like eva, by these pop up polls. if she clicks on yes, now they have her information or etc.? guest: it is really hard to tell who is doing what because the reality is, there are all kinds of domestic groups interested in wanting the local views. same.olkit is the with the russians did in 2016 not anything sophisticated. the tools where they are facebook to target individuals, to deliver specific content memes, whatever, directly to your newsfeed. advertisers do this all the time . when you are on your social media and you see an ad for something you might like, the reason you are seeing that is because the networks are tracking your behavior. advertisers know exactly, they want to hit a specific demographic. nike wants to sell a new sneaker to young boys ages 16-20 in the suburbs of chicago. level.n target at that that is exactly what the russians did and what others do. the reality is the toolkit is the same, it is easy to use, it as easy to deliver whatever information to whatever people you like. that is also why it is so difficult to know, is this a russian operation or another kind of deliberate manipulation, or is it a local group trying to express its views and interests? host: we will go to john in manchester, connecticut. a republican. caller: good morning, ladies and c-span. thank you for taking my call. as far as i am concerned, this business of russia interference is irrelevant. there isn't proof that whatever they try to do to influence americans changed anybody's vote. it wasn't because of the russian interference that hillary clinton skipped three states that she could have easily, she could have won in the 2016 election. the only real interest here is in our elections comes from the american media. the media is all over people laughing off donald trump, saying that it didn't -- he didn't have a chance, they were assuring us that trump won not -- would never get elected. ever since he got elected, it is the same thing. negativity on top of negativity. msnbc, even fox news got into the act. "the newington post" york times," it is all negativity against trump. nobody deserves to be treated that way. they are at it again. now, they are even going after sanders. the media are the ones that are really shaping or could shape public opinion. thank you. guest: i think the caller brings up a question others have also asked. just to be clear, we do have proof some social media companies from multiple u.s. intelligence agencies and also independent researchers, that there was a targeted attack carried out by the russian government on the united states in 2016. that attack consisted of disinformation campaigns on social media and also the theft and leak of information from the dnc and clinton campaign. the call is also righte that whatr we don't have proof of -- the caller is also right that we don't have proof that at changed voters minds on who to vote for. that information is very difficult to get our hands on, but there is a reality that the russians did attack our democracy and all of these various ways. again, i think if we don't really pay attention and leave the door open -- we leave the door open for others to do the same. host: rick, council bluffs, iowa, republican. caller: good morning. host: good morning, rick. caller: good morning. i think there are two people, the democrats and the news media , i think the ones that we really have to worry about are the ones we can see is the mexican neighbors. they are bringing them all in and letting these illegals vote in all of these local elections on stuff. and they are getting their foots and the doors. that is what i really think are getting into our elections. host: sorry, i thought you were done. we will go to george in new jersey. democratic caller. caller: hi. i want to talk about the three states, the 76,000 votes. myself, when i was on twitter, i would witness people that were making the sanders voters seem aggrieved that they were harmed by mrs. clinton and they should transfer their vote to joe stein. there is no proof. of course, there is never going to be proof unless maybe you can get out there and try to go back and sample this. in my mind, 76,000 votes, there is 150,000 votes in my little town here in new jersey. there is a thing called circumstantial evidence that enough people weren't influenced , this no proof thing is giving the narrative that it will never be proven, therefore, it never was. polin --sh that ms. alina could speak to that. this continuing ongoing thing with mr. sanders as well. guest: again, this is why it is such a difficult issue. we are talking about how other foreign actors try to shape our political discourse. that feels just not very clear. we say, ok, we have no proof that person x voted differently because of something they saw on facebook. i think it is a slow drip. it is a slow drip of a certain kind of narrative around individuals, a certain kind of libel around a specific political figure.i just want to make it clear, this is not new. we are experiencing a new kind of moment in our politics, but the soviet union carried out these kinds of character assassinations in u.s. elections against specific candidates for decades. they tried to spread all kinds of nasty stuff about martin , jackson, a candidate running for president in the 1970's. they planted the entire conspiracy theory that hiv was a virus created in a lab in the united states in order to kill off african-americans and africans in africa and gay and lesbian minorities. all of this was conspiracy theory, but it was so effective, it started to undermine u.s. diplomatic efforts in africa, for example, and even got to that point in the 1980's were president reagan was having the talks with then-president or chair of the communist party, gorbachev, actually brought it to his attention in a one-on-one meeting. it is well-documented that he said, cut the stuff out or we are not to have a deal. why did he say that, because it was hurting the perception of the united states across the world, hurting our interest with our allies and partners. again, we have to understand that it is not about the individual, what the individual did. it is about shaping a narrative of global events. in the long term, it will have very dr. mental effects on the united states. host: is this primarily what the center for european policy analysis does is focus on russia? guest: yes. we focus on russian influence but we mainly try to understand where the relationship is going. i mention partners allies quite -- partners and allies quite a few times. the realities that they not his states cannot go at it alone and we need our european partners and allies to help us respond, to help us deter and to help ensure our national security. russia is one of the key threats that we do focus on when it comes to understanding what is at stake for the transatlantic alliance. host: who funds your group? guest: i want to make it clear, we are nonpartisan. we are nonprofit. we do not take any political stance. everything i say does not represent the views of the organization, which takes no views on anything. these are my views as an expert on some of these issues. we have funding from some u.s. government funding, individuals have been very generous, private foundations, and some corporate funding. host: crescent city, florida, michael, independents. caller: you are always talking about russian influence in our elections. how about when we influence countries that we don't agree with, like venezuela. it was never a national security to us, but we imposed sanctions on them because we are the big kid on the block. now, we are down in bolivia. how do you explain that? please. guest: u.s. interference in elections. i will be the first want to say the u.s. does not have a clean record on some of our foreign policy decisions. the caller brought up countries and south korea -- south america, we can always bring up the war in iraq. many say that was not a great idea in hindsight. i think the difference is that in a democracy like the united states, we eventually talk about those errors and those mistakes. we usually do hold people accountable when these kinds of blunders happen. we don't have a clean record, by any means, but we acknowledge our mistakes. i hope we learn from them and that is really not the case in russia and china where there is no public debate about what the chinese government might be doing to its own people or what the russian government might be doing to its own people and elsewhere across the world. host: dearborn heights, michigan, republican. caller: alina, can you hear me? guest: yes. caller: alina, you wrote this article concerning the tackled disinformation. you mentioned the atlantic council, is that right? guest: yes, i used to work on the atlantic council, and my co-author of the article is still with them. caller: the atlantic council is a globalist organization that is really tryingco-author of the as still with them. [indiscernible] let talk about they don't -- these are the people getting censored by the atlantic council, which is now working with facebook. i think this whole thing about russian interference is just a big joke. i been around the stuff on them and i talk about ig, which is a threat to our health, privacy, and our freedom, we are just silenced right and left. there are many organizations that are trying to censor this stuff. [indiscernible] host: bruce, apologies, but you are breaking up. just to be clear, i don't have an affiliation with the atlantic council. i did work there at one point. all of its funding sources are public, you can go on their website and check it out, you can go on our website and check it out. -- the colorhows may be thinking of a different organization -- caller may be thinking of a different organization because my supportce is that they open-source investigative journalism. another organization, for example. host: we have to leave it there. thank you sova, much for the conversation. the house is coming into session this morning. they are considering 8 bills including designating lynching as a hate crime under federal law. live coverage here on c-span. the eaker pro tempore: house willer. the chair lays before the house a communication from the peaker. the cler: the speaker's room, 26, ngton, d.c., february 2020. hereby a honorable shawn casten to act s speaker pro tepore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi,peaker of the house of repreentatives. the speaker pro tempoe: of thet to the order house of j2020, the chair will now recognizemembers from lists submitted b majority and minority leaders for morning ho the chair will al% recognition between he parti

Related Keywords

Middletown , California , United States , Charleston , South Carolina , Nevada , Alabama , San Diego , Syria , Dearborn Heights , Michigan , Nicaragua , Connecticut , San Francisco , Arizona , Montauk , New York , Massachusetts , Iowa , Charles Town , Pennsylvania , Chicago , Illinois , Miami , Florida , Damascus , Dimashq , Missouri , Washington , Bolivia , Philadelphia , Indiana , Virginia , Guatemala , Iraq , New Jersey , Idaho , Scottsville , Saudi Arabia , Maryland , Capitol Hill , District Of Columbia , France , Arlington , Texas , United Kingdom , Vermont , China , Wallstreet , Russia , Ukraine , Rockledge , Italy , Wuhan , Hubei , South Korea , Georgia , Charleston County , North Carolina , Iran , Kentucky , Rhode Island , Cuba , Wisconsin , Rosalie , Canada , Mississippi , Germany , Oklahoma , South Dakota , Crescent City , Phoenix , Ohio , Venezuela , Americans , America , Iranians , Russians , American , Chinese , Russian , Syrians , Britain , Soviet , Joe Stein , Elizabeth Warren , Nancy Pelosi , Bernie Sander , Joe Biden , Vladimir Putin , Adam Schiff , Michael Bloomberg , Johns Hopkins , Hill Alex Azar , Amy Klobuchar , Tom Steyer , Tommy , Barack Obama , Al Qaeda , Lindsey Graham , Alex Cesar , Pete Buttigieg , Fiona Hill , Mitch Mcconnell , Eva Rolla , April Ryan , Hillary Clinton , Hugh Barry , Bernie Sanders , Kamala Harris ,