including the new hampshire senate race. they are seeing record amounts of spending this year. that brings us to today's question. do political ads sway your vote? if they definitely do call (202) 748-8000. if you were somewhat swayed by political ads, call (202) 748-8001. if you are not sway at all, call (202) 748-8002. you can also reach us on social media, on twitter @cspanwj, or on facebook. the political ad wars are underway in the presidential race. nbc reports clinton is maintaining -- over donald trump in ad spending. trump and his allies are spending more and more over airwaves, but the amount is not enough to overcome hillary clinton's four to one ad spending advantage. through this week the clinton campaign has spent $113 million on ads versus $27 million for the trump campaign. those ads are currently on the airwaves. i'm sure many of you have seen them. let's take a look at some of the ads we have seen. this one from priorities usa, a pro-clinton super pac called "his words." [video clip] ♪ >> priorities usa action has responsible for the content of this advertising. host: that is running against democratic candidate donald trump. goingis pro-trump ads after his opponent. this was an ad from the trump campaign called "dangerous," and it features hillary clinton's stumbles on questions about stamina. [video clip] >> our next president faces daunting challenges. iran promoting terrorism, north korea threatening, isis on the rise, libya and north africa in chaos. hillary clinton failed every single time as secretary of state. now she wants to be president. hillary clinton does not have the fortitude, strength or stamina to lead in our world. she failed the secretary of state. don't let her fail us again. donald trump: i am donald trump and i approve this message. host: we are talking about how much these political ads sway you. definitely swayed, (202) 748-8000. somewhat, (202) 748-8001. if these ads have no effect on you at all, (202) 748-8002. eric from cedartown, georgia. you are swayed by these ads. which do you find the most effective? caller: i find the most ad effective is stuff that is documented and backed up by news articles and legitimate sources such as donald trump's -- i have something to say and i want people to understand. it's the truth. donald trump and his wife, they are russian. there is no country such as a white country. and donald trump has russian ties. i saw an article about the serbian invasion. host: let me ask you this. we are talking about political ads today. do you prefer ads that tell negative information about candidates, or ads about the candidates talking about what they are for? caller: there is really not know negative ads. donald trump is russia, his wife is from russia. dof, his understand ma campaign manager had russian ties. he has loans from overseas. no american banquet load him money. host: we have christopher calling in from south amboy, new jersey. you say the ads do not sway you at all? caller: they don't and thank you for -- they don't tell the whole story. host: what would you like to see? are there certain kinds of ads you would like to see? maybe candidates talking more about their policy platforms? caller: i would like to see them talk about their policy platforms, about real social issues, domestic issues. these one-liners against each other that make no sense in this day and age or any day and age. posts that political advertising is well underway this year. the estimates for them are lower. it says local tv stations will see 15% fewer political advertising dollars in 2016 than expected, with other tv media also getting lower revenues. tvising earlier estimates, stations will get $2.8 billion for political advertising. that is down about half $1 billion from the $3.3 billion 2016.te made in july of despite a flurry of ads, it is less than expected. tom from florida. you are somewhat swayed. which ads are less persuasive to you? caller: from the can't unring i guess itandpoint, is of being in your brain in the background. doubtnybody ever really what the ad is going to say before they say it now? people are tired of these ads. is i haderns me more some hope for this country. even if the democrats were elected. but something came out with the wiki leaks that really cast of dark spell in my outlook for the united states. john podesta is in the middle of this. the democratic party is at the center of creating groups to subvert the catholic religion. host: our discussion today is the political ads. would you like to see more information that is in some of bese wikileaks emails featured in political ads? caller: nobody's talking about subversion of the catholic church that the democratic party is at the center of. host: the wall street journal talks about how facebook is having an impact on advertising this year. citigroup projects that spending on political ads on facebook will surpass spending on google this year, reversing the historic pattern. this is no small accomplishment considering how powerful advertising remains and a conduit for motivated donors and volunteers. this reflects both facebook's master each and the tools it off -- vast reach and the tools it offers to target ever narrowing segments of its users. facebook is emerging as a major player in the ad wars this year. up next we have nancy calling in from minnesota. you are not swayed by these ads, why not? caller: i am not swayed because there is enough on television as is in the debates or whatever. one of the things that greatly bothers me are the ads sent through the mail. when they don't identify themselves as a republican or democrat. that thelly think amount of money that is spent on ads is a waste of money. host: let me ask you this, as particularly negative ads -- studies show they are effective. that's why candidates rely on them so much. do you think they are -- caller: negative ads are effective. totally sick of negatives. as american citizens need some positive things. not the squabbling and the bickering going back and forth between the candidates. when the issues are not even being addressed. host: marianne's calling in from winfield, alabama. you are swayed by these ads. what do you find persuasive about them? caller: well, only the one i wrote. trump plus hence the -- pence equals common sense. that is as positive as i can get. host: tim from atlanta, you are not swayed. caller: i am not swayed by these ads because to me these two candidates bring absolutely nothing to the table. i don't know where either one stands when it comes to my well-being, my grandson's well-being and the future of this country. to me they are using these ads to cover up the fact that they don't have a plan to make this country better. host: you say you are not hearing what you want to hear. if there were more ads that had a positive spin, without the more persuasive to you? -- would that be more persuasive do you? caller: most of the time i listen to what they are about. say about tax cuts or health care. i will go back and google what they actually voted for or what they actually have done to show what they are about. then that decides what i'm going to do in the voting booth. with these two, i can do it. it's always negative, always negative about each other. calling names and all that stuff. host: the candidates do have some ads that are on the positive side. let's take a look at one from hillary clinton titled "show up." [video clip] >> what does showing up when it time to vote actually mean? you care about protecting his legacy and our progress. each year about moving forward, united as one. forcee show up in full and when we refuse to stand by quietly we show what it means to be stronger together. [applause] mom.love being a no matter how hard we work we cannot get ahead. childcare costs have us stuck. donald trump is listening. donald trump: mike plan allows for every family in america to deduct their childcare expenses from their income taxes. >> his childcare plan makes a difference for working families. more money, more freedom. he is helping americans just like us. donald trump: i'm donald trump and i approve this message. host: a positive ad from donald trump called "listening." lorraine is calling in from california. what kind of ads do you find the most persuasive? you said you are swayed by ads. caller: i find ads persuasive because i think that gives you a know at leastto to a certain degree the person you are voting for. we have more than just one person on the ballot besides president. we have judges, we have senators, we have congress. area i would not know what judge a was voting for unless i saw different ads. host: what information do you like to see in these ads? deeper for the positive ones where the candidates talk about themselves, or do you find negative ads persuasive? caller: i will not say i find negative ads persuasive because i take that with a grain of salt. people want to say the worst -- see the worst and someone else. i really would find the positive ads more persuasive. said, i would not know who is running for nothing if i did not see these ads. host: you were not swayed by these ads, betty. tell us why not. caller: i do not like the negative ads, the one hillary is using with the children. she claims to love the children and yet she is using these ads with children in negative ways. that does not impress me at all. thank you for taking my call. host: some other headlines in today's newspapers. the new york times reports justice ruth bader ginsburg has expressed regret at chastising san francisco 49ers quarterback colin kaepernick for his protests during the national anthem. in an interview monday justice ginsburg had called the player's decision to neil dominant disrespectful. on friday she said she said of hell her tongue. "some of you have inquired about a book interview in which i was asked how it felt back colin kaepernick and other nfl players who refuse to stand for the national anthem. barely aware of the incident over its purpose, my comment or inappropriately dismissive and harsh. i should have declined to respond." calling --have jen ken calling in from new york city. you are somewhat swayed by political ads. what kind you find persuasive? -- do you find persuasive? caller: good morning and thanks for taking my call. i find some of the ads persuasive and influencing. made theke me have not decision -- not yet made up their minds for who they should vote for. be that someone helpful. i'm thinking to vote for someone like donald trump. i find his ads much better and use better designed to show the reality of him on the ground. host: are there specific things about these ads that you remember that resonated with you? ads thatome of the talk about our security and the dangers this country will face , they are really important for me. the country is going to a direction that i cannot really understand. they don't want to stop some of these threats that are making our lives here in the u.s. less secure. my knowledgeable we are going to face in the future -- how can we stop them from happening? host: barbara is calling in from sweet valley, pennsylvania. you are not swayed by these ads at all. tell us why. caller: i am not. i'm a great reader of information. i like to research. i have done both. i have listened carefully to both candidates and i feel that there is more concern coming out of donald trump as far as the future of the country. job-related, security, holding down illegal immigrants. is out of context a lot of times by people when they say he wants to stop everyone. he really wants to screen carefully. these people are vile. --y go over there and they host: let me ask you this. our political ads in place for a candidate to give his or her being -- from the own point of view as opposed to taken from the point of view of a particular newspaper or tv station? caller: i think it is a disgrace with the tv stations and newspapers are doing. they should be nonbiased. they should not have a total opinion to one candidate. i'm sorry, if you want to be honest, there is a lot more toward hillary and downplaying donald. everything is picked up and played over and over again. first silliness. it has nothing to do with running this country. host: kerry is coming from new jersey. you are not swayed by these ads at all? where do you get your political information? caller: i research. i will get many things on the computer and all kinds of things. i am more interested in the issues. the supreme court justices which are vitally important and people should realize that. these are people appointed forever, and where they lean is where you are going. and what restrictions on your life you're going to have. we can handle that kind of stuff. we have our own people out of work. our own people that are suffering. there is no more middle-class. there is only the working poor. we are trying to do things with two or three jobs. we don't need the whole world coming here. it's not logical. as the seizure of our constitution. the first and second amendment. you will not be allowed to say anything. host: elizabeth is calling from wilmette, illinois. you are swayed by these ads. tell us which kind of answer most persuasive to you. caller: i like the ads that bring up things other people would be afraid to touch. the comment i want to make is i am puerto rican. i love this country. as a puerto rican you were born an american citizen, which a lot of people don't know. they ask if i need a passport to go here or there. i really, really down deep in my heart believe that ever since president obama got and office the racial tension has gotten worse. to me, if you go back to that beer summit, that was so unnecessary. host: our discussion today is about political ads. is this a topic you want to see in a political ad? caller: this is the first time i'm watching your show and it's great. i'm excited i got through, i'm sorry. the political ads, some of them are good but some of them are over the top. truthg as they have the that is what counts. trail,n the campaign donald trump had a memorable moment yesterday during a stop in north carolina. the hill reports the candidate dismantled his teleprompter at a friday night rally in north carolina and told the audience he would not pay the company that provided the faulty equipment. he says here is the way government works. it doesn't work, that is the company in the back did not do a good job so i will not pay them. tomorrow i will have a story in the newspaper -- donald trump did not pay a contractor who put up the teleprompter. why should i? they don't work. next in our conversation about political ads. eddie is calling in from los angeles. caller: not at all. forcandidate i was rooting that is supposed to be legitimate was not fair at all. bernie sanders did not get a fair deal. into either one of those candidates. party.vote for a third host: you have your mind made up at the top of the ticket. do you find the ads for a lot of the down ballot races, your local races, the you find those to be persuasive? , iler: to be honest with you have voted democrat to the fullest. i have never missed a vote. i have three family members in --house that have also been it is so sad to see how he was pushed and shoved away. i could understand ernie -- bernie. he will not go back on his word. so many people downplay it that he will have to go ahead and go with her the matter with. host: senator sanders, former presidential candidate is still making headlines despite the fact he is no longer a candidate for president. tweet senteports a by the vermont senator caused a drugmaker's stock to plummet, caustic it nearly $400 million yesterday. a 140 character tweet from bernie sanders's twitter account investors as much as $387 million on friday afternoon. "drug corporation's greed is unbelievable. a raise the price of a leukemia drug to almost $199,000 a year." it was linked to an article about the drugmaker. the shares slumped as much as 15%, the biggest intraday decline in more than a year. up next in our discussion on political ads we have gail from fort wayne, indiana. you are swayed by these ads. good morning, thank you for calling. caller: yes, i think sometimes we are swayed by the information because we don't have the opportunity to do the research. most people really are swayed by the information even if they do not want to say that. when you look at the information that is given to you, people are only complaining this year because of the information that is given on trump. they are upset because people are getting information that is telling the truth on trump, and that is why they are complaining. equally byou swayed more negative ads but you are the positive ones? caller: i think i'm a little bit more swayed by the positive ads. i am more hillary person regardless. host: ok. let's take a look at some ads that have been running in the new hampshire race, the senate race between senator ellie ayotte and new hampshire governer hassan. it's called "absolutely." [video clip] >> widepoint the donald trump is a role model? >> absolutely i would do that. donald trump: she gained a massive amount of weight and it was a real problem. >> donald trump called you miss piggy. how did that make you feel? >> so sad. donald trump: here is a woman and she can't make it 15 feet to her car. you can see he suffers from a chronic condition that impairs movement of his arms. donald trump: i don't know what i said, i don't remember. i would look at her fat, ugly face. blood coming out of her wherever. >> would you tell a child to aspire to be like donald trump? >> absolutely i would do that. >> let's be honest, both donald trump and hillary clinton are far from perfect. i am not perfect either. when partisan politicians shut down the government, i led the fight to reopen it. i have crossed the aisle to protect new hampshire's clean water. ivan called a problem solver by independent groups and rank as one of them was bipartisan senators. becausee this message whether i'm working with republicans, democrats or independents, i'm standing up for new hampshire. host: a couple of ads from the new hampshire senate race. we will have more about that and other down ticket contests in our next segment. tyler from hampton, new hampshire. you are somewhat swayed by these ads? what you think about the ads from the governor and senator ayotte? caller: i think the ad you just ran is very effective. i think most of the ads that are run kind of explain donald trump's views on women and ethnic groups. they are very effective because it shows his true colors. i think the negative ads definitely sway me more than the positive ads because any candidate can say, i'm going to do this, i'm going to do that. by the negative ones really show, in this example, their true colors. host: let me ask you this. ads, from the presidential have ads running in the senate race helped you make a decision? that race is a tossup. caller: definitely, yes. i will tell you what. -- why. the ads against kelly ayotte put on display how she is all about the special interests. and lighting her pockets she is not really out for her people. they really have done a good job at putting that on full display. i will be voting for maggie hassan. host: mark is calling in from los angeles. good early morning to you, mark. what do you find persuasive about political ads? caller: thank you for having me on. i have never been on the show. i think political ads can be extremely effective if they are timed right and done right. if you look to the 64 goldwater campaign, very effective at. it was very well-timed. you look at the john kerry ad that bush ran. dukakis in the tank. if a time the right and do the right, they can be extremely effective. i think in this particular election hillary and donald both have ample opportunity to attack each other. whathe problem i see of can happen is when they both go negative and they try to knock the legs out of each other a lot of times it could almost turn against them. both of them being negative. the voters can say wait a minute, i am almost disgusted because the ads are going so low. host: year after year research shows even the people maybe dislike negative ads they are effective. they find they move voters, they move thought and research groups. caller: i think that is very true. i think it's very true. clearly a negative ad will have more of an effect on someone. my wife just cheated on me. -- that is horrible news that is more effective than she brought me a cake. in politics that is life in the big city. i think this year it's having an effect because i've noticed the third-party candidates have gained tremendously. johnson went from 1% to 8%. i wonder if hillary and donald, if they keep running these negative ads and don't start going positive, if they will get to the 270 electoral votes. they are pushing voters all over the place. it is hard to see with the votes are going to land this year. host: a little bit more about the ad spending in politico. the republican national committee has spent exactly zero dollars so far in campaign dollars supporting donald trump. insists it's doing everything they can do in its powers to elect donald trump. as he gets clobbered on tv airwaves by his well-funded democratic rival, the rnc has been conspicuously absent. analysis of campaign finance records reveals that the committee has not been anything on commercials boosting trump since he emerged as the party's likely nominee. cullen we have michael from imperial beach, california. you say you are not swayed by the ads? caller: thank you, c-span. the political ads, both democratic and republican, they are all written by the yes men who surround the actual person. i am voting down ticket and up ticket for the democrats because donald trump scares me so much. the people that surround donald trump, they are just looking out for their own best interests, to make a name for themselves, etc. i just think anybody voting for donald trump, you are not voting for donald trump. you were voting for the people who surround him. have fun reaping the whirlwind --he gets elected because again, i'm voting for hillary clinton because this man scares me and we have all seen this in history. i hate to use the hitler analogy. hilter was a buffoon and donald trump is a buffoon. the people around him are the ones that really control the ads. host: eddie is calling in from tampa, florida. you are swayed by these ads. what kind you find the most persuasive? caller: the donald trump ad is so negative. it really sways me to go out and talk to young people. it's amazing that a lot of young people out there really don't take it seriously. hillary is the one really using -- whatever comes out of his mouth, she uses that against him. host: would it be more helpful in your view see both candidates talk more about what they want to do? we have seen both the positive and negative ads in the presidential candidates today. which one do you think is better? caller: even on the debate i have seen hillary talk about the issues and i have seen donald trump talk about hillary's family. it is a night and day. i have seen hillary talk about all the issues. trump can say one thing about an issue, i would do a flip. host: spokane, washington. you are somewhat swayed by these ads. tell us which ones you find more persuasive. caller: the information i pick up on the computer and i wasn't to the debates -- listened to the debates. i have never really been into politics until this year. the more i learn the more i think neither are perfect without a doubt. obama's you have the backing hillary. eight years ago have nothing negative to say about her -- nothing but negative to say about her. i can't understand that. just like bernie sanders when he had nothing to say about hillary, but now he can't do anything but praise her. that isn't right. i think because of the wishy-washy stance of the obamas on hillary clinton it just made his legacy look horrible. host: our discussion about political ads, is that something you would like to see the trump campaign point out a political ads? thatr: it is something everything needs to be looked into. the good and the bad. what they are going to do for the country. hillary, when she says what she is going to do for the country, it is after a lot of bad jabs she will put on trump and before he can respond to her negative responses. she will bring up an issue. you have trump on the debate saying can intervene and tell you what i want to say? thinkt isn't -- i don't the media is giving trump a good shake. let's look at some of the ads running in the down ballot races. this one from missouri, between incumbent senator roy blunt and his democratic challenger jason kantor. [video clip] >> you have seen how liberal jason can't or is supporting obamacare and tax dollars for illegal immigrants. city, heson getty -- voted against cutting income taxes are families and against tax relief for small businesses that create jobs. jefferson city career politician jason kantor. he is too liberal to trust in washington. i am jason kander. sen. blunt: and attacking me on guns. in the army i learned how to use in respect to arrival. in afghanistan i volunteered to be annexed or gun in a convoy. in the state legislature i supported the second amendment. i also believe in background checks so terrorists. can get their hands on one of these i approve this message because i would like to see sen. blunt: this -- do this. host: did i say your name correct? caller: michaelina. host: you are not swayed at all by these ads? negativityber one, doesn't actually let the people know what is really going on. it is like bullying each other. both candidates do not qualify to represent our beautiful country. and it is sad. all theye negative ads are doing -- other countries are watching. it makes us look funny. host: would you like to see a more positive message? caller: very much so. you can listen to the ads. each one will say they will do this and they will do that. then with the other one gets a bad negative, there is no proof. like the women that are saying -- coming out about what trump did. i am a woman. why did they wait so long? neither candidate is qualified. there is a waste of time when there are other good candidates that ran and they did not make it. host: gwendolyn is calling from lakeside, arizona. you are swayed by these ads. which ones do you find the most persuasive? the positive ones with the ones that point out the flaws in opponents? caller: i think the negative ones are more effective in making people actually want to vote for the people the ads are against. to example, the effort made go against donald trump's campaign make people want to vote for him more. it's basically a desperate attempt to sabotage donald trump. it's a desperate attempt to sabotage their opponent. i think that is pretty sickening. host: is there something you wish you could see more of in ads you are not seeing this year? thing ii think the best would like to be able to see is truth. i think that would be even more effective in swaying people to vote. host: joyce from waverley, nevada. you are definitely swayed by political ads. tell us why. caller: this is new york. z.t: sorry, i saw the y as a caller: you are perfect. good morning and have a wonderful day. this is a lot of pressure for you, too. the ads are so crazy. stepped to the vet baby.e -- mat with a unite be up for more child care services and more deductions for the child. i raised seven kids and i did not have to have that. the government did not give me all that. we raise our kids a good old-fashioned way. why does donald have these of baby to promote his profession? host: what would you like to see more of in the ads in the next 24 days? caller: i would like to see him show he has more in his head between his years -- ears than air. i wanted to talk about the army and navy. defendow he would really this country. host: fort myers, florida. you are somewhat swayed by the ads, chris. what would you prefer to see? caller: like a lovely lady said before, the truth. that is all we want. is the truth we are tired of the politics and media. we are tired of it all. host: let me ask you this. you have ads running in florida for presidential race and the contested senate race. seen in those ads help you make your decision about who you are voting for? caller: mr. rubio has a pretty good ads. helping inner cities and things of that nature. mrs.uentin, digests -- , they are just bombarding with negative things about mr. trump and vice versa. when the truth is there i will be more than happy to listen. i change the channel. i can't stand to listen to them because it's all lies. you look at mr. clinton when he was president. he went to south america and he let a guys die and get dragged into the streets. you listen to mrs. clinton. about benghazi nothing to help those guys. host: donna from florida. you are not persuaded? caller: no. we have known hillary forever. as far as strong, there is no way in the world i would ever consider voting for him. i like some of the ads that the clintons have done where they have children watching. i think a lot of the stuff that has been going on, we don't want our kids seeing or hearing. it is so ugly and nasty. and discussing. -- disgusting. host: coming up we will be talking with the washington examiner's brian lovelace. he will be talking about the divided the gop over donald trump's candidates. and then mark mauer will be here to talk about the push to restore voting rights for convicted felons. we will be right back. ♪ >> this weekend on american history tv on c-span 3, this evening at 6:00 eastern historian chris michalski on the battle of spotsylvania courthouse. wilderness, the armies fought for a couple of days. they came to stalemates. grant moved left and south. they have been of spotsylvania for a couple of days. they fought to a stalemate. another are reports of the federals moving left and self. ready -- what you think of puts in lee's mind? i am being flanked again. >> duke university professor gunther peck talks about america's cold war policy towards refugees. >> they were defined not just as political refugees, but anti-communists who are our allies. prototypical americans as they fight communist oppression abroad. we have an obligation to let the men because they are anti-communist. >> sunday afternoon at 4:30, bob former senators talk about a time in congress. >> we were in the senate 18 years together. bob was leader for six of those years. >> 10. >> when i was there. [laughter] >> i saw you both really work with your committee chairmen. he made sure you were working together. i think that is what we need to instill again. >> at 6:30 on road to the white house rewind, the 1984 presidential debate between president ronald reagan and former vice president walter mondale. >> we were warned five days before the explosives were on their way. the terrorists have won each time. the president told the terrorists he was going to retaliate. he did not. >> we are not going to simply kill some people to say look, we got even. we want to know when we retaliate we are retaliating with those who are responsible for the terrorist acts. they are sets of power united states capitol in washington has been bombed twice. >> for our complete schedule, go to c-span.org. washington journal continues. host: joining us now is ryan lovelace, campaign reporter for the washington examiner. he is here to discuss the latest development in campaign 2016 and the growing divide between republican party and donald trump. thank you so much for joining us today. guest: good to be here. host: how would you describe the relationship between donald trump and the gop right now? guest: this week we really saw the kind of cold war heat up to full on civil war at this point. between republican leadership in congress, republicans down ballot, the so-called republican establishment and donald trump and his campaign. we have seen trump tweet about he is unshackled, he's gone after paul ryan, gone after john mccain in arizona. this is starting to boil over which is something republicans don't want to see happening 24 days before election day. host: has anybody been benefiting from this? who benefits the most and who was hurt the most by this? guest: it remains to be seen. in the initial polling we are seeing some trump supporters turning away from some of these other republicans that they are mad at for turning against trump. it is interesting to watch some of these pro-trump delegates that were with him all the way to the convention now urging other republicans to vote out some of these candidates. there was a committeewoman in nevada who is pushing a traders to trump list. ors to trump list. host: you wrote about that in the examiner this week. you wrote a republican national committee member in nevada is urging republicans to vote out elected gop officials who oppose donald trump. rnc committeewoman who serves on the gop's 2016 rules committee sheted a list of "gop rats" wanted republicans to vote out in november. "here is a list of gop rats that have abandoned donald trump. vote them out." she is linked to a website, tra itorstotrump.com. guest: it makes the divide even wider. this list was created by democrat hoping to see this fracture expand. now someone who is a part of the republican leadership who has been involved in the process the whole way is trying to fracture even further and get rid of some of those people. they can't help the republicans. host: we are talking with ryan presidentialt the race and the effect down ticket, particularly for the gop. if you support hillary clinton, you can call (202) 748-8000. donald trump supporters can call (202) 748-8001. third-party supporters can call (202) 748-8002. undecided voters, (202) 748-8003 . let's take a look at another pc wrote about, the colorado race. you wrote this week colorado senate candidate darrell glenn is reconsidering voting for donald trump just three days after withdrawing his endorsement and urging trump to quit. he was one of the republicans that call for that after the release of the video last week. at thee that he said time as a father, christian, and a republican i believe we simply cannot tolerate a nominee who speaks this way about women. three days later after his combination of trump -- nation ofon -- condem trump he was reconsidering. the prospect of a clinton presidency is also unacceptable. i believe strongly that her liberal policies would be disastrous for colorado in the united states." tell us a little bit about this. are you seeing more that among the three dozen or so republicans who backed out of their support for trump? guest: we are. in darrell glenn in colorado, his struggle is representative of the struggle that's only republicans are facing down ballot. they are trying to decide how to maneuver with respect to trump. they're all the stores but his relationships with women. his disparaging remarks about women. that is changing republican support for him. some of these candidates don't know whether their republican base that they need to keep them close is still with trump or not. i think that is part of what is going on here. enderle glenn's case -- enderle glenn's-- in darryl case he is back saying he's willing to consider it again. this sort of thing can keep happening and recycle several times over even before election day. host: jenny from lancaster, ohio, a trump supporter. good morning. caller: good morning. trump thursday. trump is not a politician. that's why he doesn't act like a politician. he is just a regular person. host: ok. up next we have kathy from cherokee, north carolina. undecided voter. you are on with ryan lovelace of the washington examiner. guest: caller: what are they going to do with the elderly people? everybody talks about the immigrants and all this stuff. our older people are getting abused every day in nursing homes. what are they going to do by the native americans? i've heard them talk about every race but native americans. south dakota, the pipeline. nobody is saying nothing about that. host: let's talk about what messaging you have seen from the presidential candidates and the down ballot candidates this election season. with respect to the point about not hearing about issues that are important to elderly people, that is one of the things that has gotten lost in recent days. especially at the debates -- as the debates have come and gone. it's been about personality. it is been about character. it has not been as much about issues. the things that are getting attention from both of them are things that more have to do with the way they are approaching the election. donald trump dismantling his teleprompters on stage. those kind of things are distracting from the actual issues that undecided voters are trying to weigh right now. they are choosing between clinton and trump and not just choosing to vote for the republican or democrats or stay home entirely. host: let's talk about a senate race. we talked about the new hampshire senate race in the issue of vote splitting in the financial -- a piece of the financial times talks about the race in new hampshire. ideological --f mr. trump has left them no place to hide. as mr. trump slumps in the polls, their hope is to benefit from the increasingly rare practice of split ticket voting." how much do you expect to see this year? guest: i think we will see more than we have seen in the last two election cycles. there is the potential for all kinds of different split ballot voting we had not seen before. with respect to kelly ayotte, during the recent debate she had received was talking about trump and whether or not he was a role model and saying he was, then all these revelations coming out, the audio of trump talking about women, it has complicated things for her. in some ways the split ticket voting is not ideological so much as it is personality and character driven. people have disagreements along this character lines. theseay still vote for candidates down ballot while choosing to go independent, right someone in or even go for hillary clinton. host: bob from new jersey. good morning. you are on with ryan lovelace of the washington examiner. caller: how are you doing? i have been listening to these things on c-span. i find it unbelievable that these things are done by the clinton administration and the fact that she is a criminal. there is nobody in this world that can ever think she can't be indicted on at least one or two or three or five things. i can't believe this country and what they are doing and listening to clinton. they will decimate this country. they are giving immunity to all these people. they hide this stuff. i can't understand how people actually believe that hillary clinton actually can be elected. host: let's give ryan a chance to respond. frustrationnk bob's is representative of a lot of republicans and people they consider themselves to be never hillary. there are so many things right now that are features of both candidates' campaigns that are overlooked because of the sort of unusual campaign issues. there are things in e-mails at elite i wikileaks regarding mrs. clinton and her campaign. statements ranging from things about the attorney general to their views on catholicism that in an ordinary election would be bombshells. i think there are things of the other side of the aisle for trump that are very similar. but because of what has gone on in the unusual vitriolic nature of this campaign, i think a lot of this is being for the time byng crowd out about discussion about trump's relationship with women. cnbc'set's look at what jake novak said about the gop civil war. what republicans like john mccain and house speaker paul ryan have had so much trouble accepting is that the voters in the primaries flocked to trump. it doesn't matter if trump deserved it or not. it doesn't matter if he has the best chances to win the general election. if a political party works to undermine what is voters want, it is dead." what is your reaction? guest: that is a point we have been hearing a lot lately. a lot of times we hear trump supporters talk about donald trump won more votes in the republican primary been any nominee ever, they leave out he also had more people voting against him. part of that is because there were 17 candidates. everyone had a candidate they wanted to see. one of the things we have seen that is different from republicans versus democrats in this cycle is democrats have united. bernie sanders is with hillary clinton despite all of their many differences. republicans have not done that in the same way. democrats were more effective at doing that, and because they have been able to do that their host: kathy, a clinton supporter. good morning. caller: good morning. i just would like to say this. i can see why the g.o.p. is split, because donald trump has a serious problem. what he said about john mccain was the words of an idiot because he has never been in war. maybe he thinks if he was a prisonner of war that if he got in there and was locked up and threw one of his classic tantrums and jumped up and down they would have let him go. the things that donald trump says out of his mouth is ridiculous. that's why i'm supporting hillary clinton. host: let's give ryan a chance to respond to that. guest: i think it's interesting that donald trump's feud with john mccain, they seem more personal than his remarks about other republicans. i remember being there in iowa in the summer of 2015 when he first went after senator mccain talking about he likes war heroes that rnt captured. and it's going on since then. in his tweets directed at republicans, the the ones directed at individual republicans, how speaker paul ryan, senator john mccain, they come from an android device which some analysis have shown appear to be trump himself as opposed to his campaign staff. so it's interesting he's kind of elevating these personal feuds at this crucial time when ordinarily the republican nominee would be focused on the democratic nominee. host: let's see what donald trump said about the lack of support he is receiving from the republican party. >> already the republican nominee has a massive disadvantage. and especially when you have the leaders not putting their weight behind the people. they're not putting their weight behind the people. instead of calling me and saying congratulations you did a great job, you absolutely destroyed her in the debate like everybody said, wouldn't you think that paul ryan would say, good going? in front of just about the largest audience for a second night debate in the history of the country. so you think that they would say great going, done, let's go. let's beat this crook. we've got to stop her. no. he doesn't do that. there's a whole deal going on there. there's a whole deal going on. we'll figure it out. i always figure things out. but there's a whole deal going on. host: what's your reaction to that? guest: i think those remarks are fascinating. in some ways they've even rankled people within his own cam pace. newt gingrich was out there saying there's a big trump and a little trump. and little trump is pathetic. trump wants a phone call from paul ryan when he should be focusing on hillary clinton. and i think this trump's comments looking ahead are after the election. i think he's just as interested in maintaining his base of support in deciding not only where this election, how it turns out but also where the party goes. i think that's a lot of what he is saying there. ryan, also written for the weekly standard and the daley caller. next conrad calling from from philadelphia. good morning. caller: i would like to ask two questions. one is if you're doing you were ld your neighbor groped you, would you be in attack mode or what trump is doing? est: my personal response to that, i wouldn't say one way or the other try to -- what i would do personally. but i recognize this is a very contentious issue. i recognize that this is a very controversial issue. and i think we've seen donald trump's reaction to a lot of these sexual harassment and assault allegations against him has been interesting. it's been different from the way other candidates approached it. he seemed to imply that one of the women who had accused him, he sort of suggested just look at her then you would know that it couldn't have possibly been true. as if there was something in her looks that would reveal whether or not the allegations were true. it's an interesting tactic. it's an interesting approach. it's going to be interesting to see how he combats some of these more allegations continuing to tumble out. host: hillary clinton supporter. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm going to respond on something i heard a couple days ago. he was saying that we should be able to forgive donald trump because what he did was five years ago. but then i thought about well if you can forgive him, then how come you can't forgive bill clinton for his transgressions that happened many more years ago? so as a christian i'm thinking so certain people can be forgiven and other people can't. but when i read the bible in matthew it does not say that. host: let's let ryan respond to this what do you think about the differences between the accusations against trump and what bill clinton has been accused of? guest: i think there's a lot of equating of both of them from each candidate, their respective campaigns. it's interesting to see with regards to the idea of forgiveness, of forgiving actions that happened some time ago. this has been an issue that both candidates and their campaigns have tried to leverage individually for them. hillary clinton's remarks about the deplorables are something that republicans have been hammering her with for some time now, the idea that half of trump supporters are not able to be forgiven in the same way. it's something that hillary clinton has also attacked donald trump with. as it appears that he was intending to try to have some of these accusers of bill clinton approach him physically at the debate. i think this as we go into the final days of the campaign, the next debate, this is certainly going to be something that just gets even more combative. there's no sign that it's going to turn back up and kind of get away from the low-bro commentary. host: let's talk more about potential split ticket voting. you wrote a piece about the nevada race there. you said a new poll shows g.o.p. senate candidate joe eck leaning 3-point lead while hillary clinton trails hillary clinton by 6 points. another poll. what makes a difference in situations where the decision to back away from trump can help a candidate verssuss those that it seems to hurt guest: there's some candidates that it hasn't hurt him just yet. it's hurting trump but not having huge coat tale effect. this is something we saw throughout the primaries is that his weren't so long. it will be interesting to see whether people apply trump's statements to the republican party writ large or not. at this point that hasn't happened. it's interesting also to watch some of this polling especially out of indiana that showed kind of before these comments and revelations and accusations by women were made public. he was still ahead by a few points. but after, hillary clinton was starting to pull ahead. i think there's certain states where there's going to be key race that is will determine the balance of the senate may turn on this issue, but down ballot it will be interesting to watch whether or not it has any effect. host: david, donald trump supporter. caller: i have a few brief comments to make about this. anybody that knows donald trump as i used to know him back in atlantic city, i knew him, he didn't know me, would know that donald walks down the boardwalks from point a to point b he has 15 or 16 girls at his coat tails bike like a bunch of groupies. he never needed to aggress a woman. so that about what he did is in my opinion a lie. the second point i would like to make is his campaign against nafta i'm a designer here in detroit, michigan. i designed -- helped design many factories that left this nation. 70,000 businesses left this nation during the clinton and bush era. 70,000. i designed many of those factories. the automation and the high-tech. went down there. and then the factories shut down here in america. under the clinton administration. but the one conversation, i was talking to people in buick. i said, why are you doing this? you're going to turn flint into a land fill because that's all they have. and he said the the country of mexico is paying the u haul truck to move them down and the government of america is giving them carrots to move. host: let's let ryan respond. guest: i think those two points are very important. i think it's interesting to watch with respect to donald trump's relationships with women and you're kind of talking about how he had women around him all the time. throughout much of his career as a reality television star, even businessman and promoter, donald trump cultivated the image of a playboy, somebody people want to be around. now trying to dispute that or go on the offensive donald trump has gone after republicans this week, paul ryan, john mccain, and the party writ large. in that way, regardless of whether or not the accusations are true, the political ramifications for them are being felt for that reason. with respect to the issue of trade and donald trump's positions talking about fair trade as opposed to free trade. he says he wants free trade if it's fair. it will be interesting to watch how this shakes out. it's a thing that the republican base, the pop list voters are going to want to see continued but the republican establishment, so-called republican leadership, that kind of nexus of people there's a divide there. there's more open free trade and that will be a big fight, especially into 2017. host: today's "new york times" focuses on ten close house races. new jersey, arizona, florida, virginia, and some others. nancy pelosi predict that had donald trump will help democrats retake the house. what do you think the chance of that are? guest: i think we're seeing republicans concerned about that. and when they're showing public signs of frustration then it would seem to suggest that when they're going out there and doing that, then it's actually time for people to start considering this possibility. paul ryan kind of instructing in some ways hinting that other congressional people that are in tough races can kind of distance themselves from trump would lead you to believe that republicans are concerned about this possibility, the possibility of a wave election. now, the election cycle, everything kind of turns on the how now as opposed to the day and the week and there's a possibility that all this could reset itself several times over. and the landscape will look completely different. but if they don't, republicans to appear to be concerned about the possibility that if the house does flip, which was something while it still remains a long shot, is something that wasn't even on the horizon just a few months ago. host: the time reports in a story focusing on one of those races between virginia's barbara comtack and bennett. how about that? talk about the fear that voter turnout could be depressed here. guest: the potential for voters to stay home, particularly republican voters, the threat is greater than it has been before. it's greater than it has been in recent years. and really, the way we've seen candidates that are down ballot disassociate themselves from trump and run local races, the candidates that have done the most effective jobs of doing that, rob portman is up for reelection, has run a campaign far outpacing donald trump in ohio even where trump had a lead there albeit slight and back and forth now, rob portman has made that race a local race. he hasn't gone out and talked about trump so much. he has been able to block and pivot away from questions about trump. so it's going to be incumbent upon the republican party and these local races to say come out for me if you don't vote for the top of the ticket, you've just got to come out for me. whether or not they have the infrastructure to do that will be tested this time in a presidential year. host: don from georgia. clinton supporter. caller: my only problem is that if donald trump is elected we've got a lot of world leaders who wouldn't bring their wives or daughters to the white house because of the sexual predator mentality. that's one of the reasons why the republican party doesn't want to support trump because e's a world embarrassment. guest: i think that this speaks to the issue of personality and character and the kind of person that voters want to see as their president. i think this election both candidates have made it just as much about the other candidate's fitness for office. hillary clinton wants to make it a referendum on trump, trump a referendum on clinton. one topic of the debate will be fitness. this issue will be chief among them and that's been driven by the voters. voters are more concerned with the individual candidates' personalities. we heard from a gentleman saying hillary clinton is a criminal. donald trump's a sexual predator. these aren't campaign issues. this isn't trade, economy, jobs. i think that's going to be reflected in the debate in the final 24 days. host: paul ryan talked about what republicans need to win in congress in order to counter what he calls hillary clinton's liberal progressive policy. >> in america they want the driving force is the state. a place where government is taken away from the people, where we e are ruled by a cold and unfeeling bureaucracy that replaces overagele things where the government twists the the law in the constitution itself to suit its purposes. it's a place where liberty is always under assault. where passion, the very stuff of life is extinguished. that is the america hillary clinton wants. and if given control of washington, if given control of congress it is the kind of america she will stop at nothing to have. host: talk a little bit about that. we've seen speaker ryan distance himself a bit from donald trump. at the same time, he's speaking in a very dark and ominous tones about hillary clinton something that donald trump does too. talk about that line. guest: he's still making the case against clinton but not going to the make the case about trump. he didn't mention trump in that speech. it's going to be interesting to see the way republicans talk about the supreme court as this animating issue to get people to turn out for voters, candidates down ticket because that's really something that is going to be determined by the next president. there's a potential in the luck session depending on -- lame duck session for something to happen there. but i would expect that to be a crucial animating factor that kind of separate from the presidential campaign this issue of how this election is going to turn out. now, paul ryan i think is also concerned with it appears anyway, making sure that he is still doing everything within his power to go against hillary clinton so that after the recriminations are being flung around, all republicans for what they did or didn't do he will still be able to say i fought against hillary clinton day after day, whether the republican primary voters who voted for donald trump believe that doesn't seem to be likely. host: and donald trump is not staying out of these states that have some of these close down ticket races. today he will be back in new hampshire in portsmouth today. donald trump is pushing hard to win new hampshire's critical our elect ral votes. you can see his address in new hampshire at noon. you can catch that on c-span as well as on line at c-span.org and on c-span radio through the c-span radio app. mark an undecided voter calling from boston. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i think this is the only place where i actually get to see or hear excerpts of speeches by donald trump. i see many times a very highly choreographed effort by the media to really take him down. "washington post" hired 50 journalists with the sole mission of digging up dirt on donald trump. and wickie leaks thing that is have come out have completely shown the media working hand in glove with the clinton campaign to take him down. it's unbelievable. so that i thank c-span for that because i've never seen such a cor graphed bit of propaganda in my life. host: do you have a question for ryan? caller: what do you think of jill stine's comments that came out yesterday with regards to nuclear war and how she fears hillary clinton will set a nuclear war with russia by instituting a new fly zone over syria? guest: two points. with regard to your question about jill stine, you know, her canned dancey at this point is something that has been a problem for hillary clinton all along. now, the level and degree to which it's a problem for her, hillary clinton is not having to deal with it as much as some might have thought. and kind of a contested election that a third party candidate would have gotten more traction. jill stine is going to rail against hillary clinton. she will continue to do so. she is pulling away some of those bernie sanders voters. with regard to your other point about the media i think it's been fascinating to watch republican politicians, republicans who were working on the campaigns of other candidates throughout the primary kind of lament the way the media has treated this general election. they're disappointed with the vetting of donald trump now as opposed to earlier. people are complaining about the way the media is kind of covering trump and the trump campaign. there was nothing stopping the media from doing this in the republican primary. a lot of conservative media organizations had just as much capability of uncovering some of these things and they didn't. and i think there's going to be a lot of hindsight is 20/20 but after the election when people are looking back at how he we got here there's going to be a lot of conservative organizations will have to look at themselves and see why they didn't discover these thing that is the "washington post," "new york times" and others have. host: we have ann calling in, hillary clinton supporter. good morning. aller: good morning. i'm really concerned about the lack of real information that people have. i think you can't believe half of what you read, see, or hear during this crazy presidential election. one person has scorned thealing takehillry down. and when you look at the e-mails being drawn by him, we know that at least one of them was totally a forgery because it was taken from a newsweek article and placed directly into that email. and therefore, i don't see how we can really trust any of the e-mails that he has brought into this campaign. host: can you talk a little bit bout the e-mails robbed from wikileaks? guest: this is something we've seen the clinton campaign push back saying some of these could be made up. it's interesting that they have not specifically identified e-mails this these drops that they're saying this batch of them or the ones made up, these aren't, these are, that sort of thing. it's the same kind of thing that donald trump has done trying to rebut some of these claims about women. putting forth this man saying i saw him and nothing happened. in both instances it's kind of asking voters to take just them at face value and trust them. i think that's what your question was speaking to as well, which was you don't believe what you see and what you hear. distrust at this point it's going to be hard for people to kind of break through that. you know talking about donald trump going to new hampshire later today. he has said that he is going to take a more personalable approach to campaigning, go around the media more so than he already has. i think what that means is he's not going to places that he considers to be friendly any more. looks that he canceled an interview with -- appearance with john hanty earlier in the week. a conservative radio host. this looks to be a different style of campaigning and whether or not it fosters any trust in the media, candidates, it doesn't look like it. host: ron from north carolina a donald trump supporter. you're on with ryan. caller: good morning. first of all, the media is so -- i mean, they are for hillary 80% of the media is for hillary. as far as the wikileaks stuff, you won't hear that anywhere but fox is the only place i've heard anything. d cnn, this is just -- nothing about these women. i mean, it's just every 24 hours a day. it's all -- they pulled the same thing on herman cain and it's a funny thing all these women that are supposed to have happened years ago but they come out now before the election. that one woman sate there and read whaves supposed to have happened. they gave her a script. i don't believe any of that. host: ryan. guest: i think hatred of the media the way journalists has covered this election has been an animating issue even before trump won the nomination. i can remember being at events where this whole stable of people were going through and there would be people hollering over into the press gallery, that's continued. when trump holds a valley that happens from time to time as well. i think trump has begun to leverage that. when we saw republicans break away from him, he went on about how it was three on one. the two moderators plus hillary clinton against him. that's something definitely aimed at his base voters, at republican voters who are maybe going to walk away from him. i think the other thing that's important too with respect to how cnn and other that is you mentioned are covering this election. i'm not so sure as an industry that journalism -- journalists have done a good job explaining how they prioritize news. i think for this reason they've become demagogued. host: a donald trump supporter, dean, you're on. caller: good morning. i'm a christian. i'm a republican. and i'm 96 years old. and i want to say i want to vote for trump. i plan on voting for trump. and my daughter's going to vote for trump. i think he's the best person to vote for. and i don't believe all the junk that they tell about the women. they should have come forward before. i think -- host: talk a little bit about the demographic of folks who are supporting donald trump. guest: what we've seen traditionally is that older voters are going for donald trump in bigger numbers. that is where a large nexus of his support lies. it's interesting that there's this kind of divide with the old g.o.p. that of mitt romney in 2012. in that donald trump is performing far better with white voters that don't have a college degree, even younger ones. but ones who do are uncharacteristically going for hillary clinton this time around. it's going to be -- everyone only says it's all about turnout but this time especially there will be voters disengaged from the process entirely for years that will be coming out in larger numbers. now, if donald trump is able to leverage many, many of these years. good morning. statistics have shown that democrats for the first time are ahead in the early voting. the millenials and just younger people in general, i'm afraid that they're going to vote for hillary because of this controversy. and that's not a reason to vote for her. not a reason to vote for any candidate. there are plenty of good reasons to vote for her. host: let's let ryan respopped. guest: i think the reason that voters are choosing to vote for hillary clinton or for donald trump because they're opposed to the other candidate has been driven by the candidates themselves. we've seen hillary clinton try to make a referendum on donald trump. she has adds. she goes on the campaign trail and makes statements. in many way donald trump is polling worse than some of the third party candidates in several polls among younger voters. and fr that reason a referendum on trump. that's why we've seen hillary clinton kind of message that to those voters. think that's why millenal voters are voting for her. host: good morning, roger. caller: my point is i believe that donald trump is really for the betterment of this country. i think that his issues that he brings up about the other party is the fact that he would like to build the country and protect the country. he's not just in there for the money, because he has the money. he's out for to really help our country. host: a few seconds left to respond. guest: the interesting thing to think about there too is trump's business. and the -- the damage to his brand or the improvement of his brand among people will be something to watch even after this election is over. it's certainly something that his family has to be concerned with. it will be fun to watch and see how that shakes out. host: ryan lovelace, campaign reporter. thank you so much for joining us this morning. and coming up next we will be talking with mark from the sentencing project. he'll be talking about the push to restore voting rights to convicted felons. then later on michael schmidt of the "new york times" will be here to talk about the military strikes in yemen and what it means. first this week's c-span's nakesnakes interviewed the executive directer of emily's list. tune in tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. for the full interview. here's a little bit of it where she talked about what her pro choice group is spending in this year's campaign and the role women are playing in the senate races. >> we are for pro choice female candidates. in 2010 your group spent $24 million, in 2012 $24 million, 2014 $45 million. what will be the number this time around? >> this is the biggest cycle for women in our lifetime. we are spending at very high levels. we are supporting women candidates from the top of the ticket, hillary clinton, throughout the senate. we have an opportunity to elect historic number of women senators this year. and we are playing in these races the chances for democrats to win back the senate runs through women. so we are the big player in this and have been with most of these women from day one. host: i wanted to follow up on the battle for the senate because right now republicans have a four-seat majority and there are democratic women running in seven competitive races. so it is looking that women could be the key to take back the upper chamber. >> not only to take it back. but women are also going to be the key because they're going to decide the election this year. we have a tremendous in new hampshire with maggie, katy in pennsylvania, katherine in nevada who would be the first lat in a ever elected to the united states senate. deborah ross in north carolina where things are changing on the ground there. we were with her from day one and that race is very close. i believe deborah is going to win north carolina. stay with us following the debate for reviewer reaction. watch the debate live or on demand using your desktop phone or tab let. listen to live coverage on your phone. download it from the app store r google play. ost: joining us now is marc, the directer of the sentencing project here to talk about the rights of felons vote just weeks away from the 2016 election. good morning. thank you so much for joining us. so the sentencing project released a report earlier this month looking at felons and the right to vote. what were the overall findings? guest: the broad finding is that 6 million people will not be eligible to participate in the election next month not because they don't necessarily care about the outcome but because they have a current or previous felony conviction depending on the state in which they live they are prohibiting from voting. the largest number we've seen in any point in history. host: what are the states in which felons voting rights are most affected? guest: in two states maine and vermont no one is affected. even in prison you can vote. but in 48 states you can't vote while you're in prison and 4 of those states you also can't vote while on probation or parole. and in 12 states you may even be denied the right to vote after you've fullly completed your sentence in many cases for the rest of your life. host: the report breaks out just which states have -- which kinds of voting restrictions. in maine and vermont states that have no restriction at all. some who restrict only those currently in prison include hawaii, illinois, indiana, massachusetts, some others new hampshire pennsylvania, places where there will be key battlegrounds this year. those who are either in prison or parole who are barred from voting include california, colorado, connecticut, new york. as you said, 18 that also include probation, those on probation lose their voting rights, a great number there as well as some who even after all sentencing and probation is complete are no longer able to vote and that includes virginia. in virginia the governor there made efforts to change this. can you talk about that. guest: virginia is one of the lifetime ban states. in virginia you can be an 18--year-old you have a first-time felony drug possession conviction. you get sentenced to a treatment program which you complete success thri and yet you're prohibited from voting for the rest of your life unless you get a pardon from the governor. earlier this year the governor decided to restore voting rights to an estimated 200,000 people fully completed their sentences. he did this in a broad sweep. republicans in the state legislature challenged this. it went to the state supreme court. the court said that the governor had the right to restore rights on an individual basis but could not do it enmass. so since then governor has vowed to restore rights doing it individually. so far he's done it to about 13,000 people and he's committed to doing the remainder in the months he has in office. host: statement from the governor. hillary clinton also weighed in on this tweeting. might we see this happen in some of the other states? irgetsdz we could see this happening. florida is really the most extreme in this regard. nearly 1.5 million people are disenfrance chiesed. people who have completed their sentence but cannot vote. we saw some years ago the governor in that state has enomples power in determining what the process is for restoring rights. when governor charlie kris was republican governor six or eight years ago, he opened up the process so that people convicted of a nonviolent felony had an almost automatic restoration that was possible and he restored the rights of more than 100,000 people then. by as suck -- succeeded governor rick scott who closed that almost completely. so it's very dependent on the individual sitting in the governor seat in those states. to felon oring rights to vote and the impact of that. the numbers are on the bottom of your screen. in the report it breaks down who is affected by some of these laws. the disenfranchisement distribution across correctional populations in the united states. the majority, 51% are post sentence. the folks who have already served their sentence and are off probation with those in prison making up 22%. those on parole 8%. and 18% of those on probation. talk about the effect of that. .hese lifelong bans on voting guest: think about it when a person comes home from prison. we say to them ok you've done your time in prison. now you take on the responsibilities of any citizen. we expect that you will get a job and support yourself, pay taxes, take care of your children. and by is the the way, you're still a second-class citizen. we're not going to permit you to participate in the process. now, this is a very harmful moment. not only for the person but for society. it's in our interests when people come home from prison that they engage in productive activities in the community. we want them to feel some stake in the outcome of their community. and we say to them we don't want you to participate in the elect ral process, a fundamental element of democracy. i don't see where that helps anybody in terms of public safety issues let alone democracy. host: d.n.a. from ohio. -- dan calling in from ohio. guest: ok. caller: please -- i believe this is part of the penalty. i believe some of these people that commit felonies, they may have shot somebody, they may have robbed somebody. you give up some of your rights when you go and prosecute that kind of a crime. then they're going to be able to vote for the candidate that's easiest on criminals. that may want to let these people out of prison. the people that are the victims don't want that. we want them punished. and if they commit that kind of a crime, this is part of the punishment. host: let's let mark respond. guest: when you commit a crime, certainly a serious crime, you are punished. that frequently includes prison. we don't normally take away people's fundamental rights of citizenship also even if you're sitting in a prison cell you can get married or divorced. you can buy or sell property. you can write a letter to the editor. it's a very different story when talking rights of a citizen from what punishment is. and as for the idea of who they're going to vote for, that's pure speculation. but in terms of the candidate who is going to advocate softer punishment for people who shoot and kill and things like that, i don't see a lot of candidates running on platforms like that. so there's not much of a danger there, really. host: we saw hillary clinton's reaction to the governor's efforts to give voting rights to those who have been convicted of crimes. donald trump in august also addressed the governor's moves. let's take a look at what he said. >> hillary clinton is banking on her friend on getting ousands of -- of violent felons to the voting booths in an effort to cancel out the votes of both law enforcement and crime victims. they are letting people vote in your virginia elections that should not be allowed to vote. that is sad. so sad. host: what's your reaction to that? guest: i spend a lot of time in prisons. talking to people incars rated, some extent the guards. when you talk to people in prison i hear a broad range of opinions about all the issues americans care about. taxes, abortion, wars. the range of opinions i hear is very similar. and contrary to what mr. trump is saying and other people may believe, people in prison are not pro criminals in favor of crimes and things like that. they mostly recognize they're being punished for the harm that they did. they understand the laws of society. this is not a criminal's voting bloc as some people portray it. these are people paying a steep price in many cases for the harm they've committed. they want to come back into the community and be good citizens again. host: judy from massachusetts. against am totally people in prison voting. i think once they've served their time and they have been rehabilitated then i have no problem with them voting. i have been attacked as a female. the person did go to jail. he has served his time. he is out. i actually have seen him in my area. and i don't have a problem with it. but he has served his time. let them vote. they had time to get their -- rights back. host: massachusetts is one of the states that after release that voting rights -- guest: people get that right. we have seen united states policies in this regard are quite extreme by international standards. just as our incarceration policies are, too. if you look at other nations some of them disenfranchise people while in prison. many don't disenfranchise anyone. they certainly never think about doing it aft you serve your prison terms. so we're very much out of line with current thinking about what participation looks like. host: let's look at the report how the rates have changed over the years. in 2016 you have a map which shows the level of disenfranchisement of voters in prison with the highest concentration being in florida and mostly in southern states. just a few years ago, in 1980 ere was a lot fewer rates of disenfranchisement. there was no stated that had more than 10% as there is now. talk about what has driven that increase. guest: a couple things. mostly we've had an explosion in our criminal justice system in the last 40 years or so. the prison jail populations now seven times that of what it was in 1970. so as the numbers under super vision grow, so do the numbers of disenfranchised people. on top of that, particularly in the southern states, they first -- the high rates of incarceration but also more restrictive policies on disenfranchisement. so take a state like florida as the population with a felony conviction grows and those people may be done with their sentence at the stage or 30 or 35 and yet may live to 75 never being able to vote. so the numbers just keep on exploding. host: we're talking with marc mauer of the sentencing project, also formerly a consultant. about the prison population disenfranchisement of prison -- the prison population in this election. springfield, virginia on our independent line. good morning. aller: good morning. i'd like to hear mark comment on the restoration of second amendment rights. if he considers those to be as equal to the rights to restore voting rights. and if he has a sense as to how voters would vote either democrat or republicans, the ratio. guest: in terms of second amendment gun rights, i think the rationale behind depriving people of their rights to have a gun if they have felony conviction has been a public safety rationale. whether or not you agree with that in all cases the idea is that if people demonstrated they may be a risk to public safety then we should think twice before letting them have access to a firearm. when we're talking about voting rights, we're talking about citizenship, about democracy. it's not a public safety concern that people will have the right to vote. so i think there are two very different kinds of prohibition that is we're talking about. in terms of who these people would vote for, many people have speculated looking at the demographics of the prison population these tend to be lower income people, more heavily people of color, it's interesting to think about that. i think it's basically irrelevant. we should be talking about this issue based on fundamental questions of democracy and fairness. if you think about 100 years ago when women gained the right to vote the question was not would they be voting democratic or republican. the question was they were citizens of the united states. and fairness dictated that yes of course they should have the right to vote as well. so i think that's the key issue that i think we want to keep in mind. host: you mentioned the effects on particularly on african americans who had a felony convictions in the report it points out the current rate in 2016 which is greater than that of the general prison population. across the country. and in particular the report says african american disenfranchise rates in kentucky, tennessee, and virginia now exceeds 20% of the adult voting age population whereas only nine states disenfranchise at least 5% of their african american adult citizens in 198023 states do so today. what's -- 1980, 23 states do that today. guest: we're seeing the exploding population. its disproportionate effect on people of color, particularly african american. there's been a wealth of documentation about the drug war and how that's essentially targeted low income communities of color. not necessarily because there's more drug use going on, because that's what law enforcement policies and sentencing policies have brought us. in addition, we know that disparities in the justice system then translate into disenfranchisement disparities. and the implicit bias and allocation of resources, all of these add up to much higher rates for african americans. host: southern pines, north carolina on our democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. my comment on this subject is hat even though they committed a crime, they're still u.s. citizens and they -- just because they did that crime they don't lose all their rights. they should be able to still vote. host: ok. guest: just a little more on the international perspective there. there have been constitutional court decisions in a number of countries -- canada, south africa, israel -- talking about the right to vote. in south africa in the mid 19910s just after apartheid was finally done away with, one of the very first decisions that came out of there constitutional court has to do with the right to vote and the right to vote of people in prison in a very moving opinion by the court. and here's a country that certainly has understands democracy. that's very keen and very sharp. they said everyone is a citizen in this country. we sometimes punish people by putting them in prison. but they're still citizens of our country. host: up next, brad from international falls, minnesota. republican line. caller: good morning. i've got to say that our country is sick. and for anyone to be pushing this issue about felons getting to vote, there's something wrong with you. deeply wrong with you. we are a country of laws. if you don't want to abide by the laws then there is a punishment. but for people to think that we should not abide by laws, you're wrong. you are dead wrong. electing o be done by the least capable to produce. host: let's letmark respond. guest: of course we have to abide by the laws. that's how the country is founded. but when we talk about voting, when we make their conviction a character requirement, say these are bad people, i think that's a very slippery slope. when i turned 18 and stedgestered to vote nobody asked me if i was illegally drinking alcohol, nobody asked me if i was speeding when i was driving on the highway, nobody asked me if i got into fights with people in bars or anything like that. we all get to vote in democracy. and if we start imposing a character test, i think very quickly we're not going to have very many people left who pass all the high standards we might impose. so you either vote or you don't vote in democracy. i think our tradition of over 200 years increasingly says everyone should participate. host: paul from maine, democrat who has a felony conviction. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm glad that i'm allowed to speak very briefly after the last caller. i got in trouble once in my entire life, never prior and never since. it was 30 years ago. i committed a felony. the word felon tends to conjures up an image in a lot of people's minds of a violent criminal. there are a lot of felonies in the united states that are nonviolent crimes. in fact, when i was younger anything involving over 1500 as a felony. i understand that i broke the law. and i understand there should be consequences. but i've worked and paid taxes my entire life. i never got in trouble prior to that, and i never got in trouble since. i had two years probation that i sailed through. i'm a law-abiding citizen. and i would just like to say that it doesn't take as much as you think to get a felony on your record in the united states as you might think. so don't think that all felons are violent criminals with a gun in their hand or a rapist. there's a lot of good people out there that made a mistake once, a nonviolent crime, that really might not have been all that serious but the way the laws are written yes it was a felony. host: let's let marc respond to that. he's in maine. guest: thanks very much. it's obviously a very important point, too. again, there's some people who have been convicted of a felony. many people we know teen aged boys, girls, do lots of crazy things and stuff. some of them could be considered felony. taking goods out of a store, unfortunately, is rather common. driving under the influence of alcohol, unfortunately rather common. many people do those actions and don't get caught doing it. yet they could have been convicted of a felony. the vast majority of people grow out of those behaviors when they start in their 20s and 30s, they become adults, they may tour and the like. again, if we start basing voting qualifications on a character test, i don't know an awful lot of people who would meet that bar. depending on where that was set. host: do any of the states that bar either current or prior convicted felons from voting, do they differentiate between kinds of offenses that might trigger that prohibition? guest: there are a couple of states that do that. mississippi and alabama are two of them. alabama is currently under litigation because alabama says if it's a crime of, quote, moral terp tude, unquote, there's a long basically racist history behind that and who decides what a crime of moral terp tude constitutes. there's no clear definition. i think it makes the definition even murkier than it already is if we have vague definitions like that. host: jeanette from western new york. first of question is all when you're in prison i don't think the availability to vote should be yours. maybe when you're out and you haven't been convicted of another felony. that may be something that we could look at. but while you're in prison, you should not be able to vote because you're in there and the consequences are you've done something wrong. so you've got to pay the consequences for your actions. and some people don't get caught. but that doesn't mean that when you are caught that you're in the limelight there. you're the one that committed the crime. st: let's let marc address that. how do people who are allowed to vote in prison do that? guest: in the two states that permit it they do it by absentee ballot. so it's if they're a college student away from home but they vote in their home district. the prison officials in those stace report no problem when doing this. here's another way to think about the people in prison. 95% of them are coming home some day. they may be coming back in a year, 20 years, but they are coming home. it's in our interest for public safety purpose that is those people come back with good skills, attitudes, connections. if we encourage them to get involved in the elect ral process while they're in prison, that's one way of demonstrating and feeling you have a stake in your community and the outcome of what goes on and the like. it doesn't replace everything. you need a good job, a place to live. but the more that when we can get people connected with positive institutions in the community i think that makes all of us safer as well. host: carol from florida. independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you so much for taking my call. i'm reading on a bureau of statistics, it's quite interesting. three out of four prisoners are found in 30 states are arrested within five years of release. then it says the findings are based on the bauero of statistics data collection eresidivism of prisoners released, which sample of former prison inmate in 30 states for five years following their release. during five years after release the prisoners in the study were arrested about 1.2 million times across the 16th -- of 16% of released prisoners who are responsible for nearly 48% about 42% prisoners were either not arrested or no more than once in five years of release. host: all right. guest: there is a high recidivism rate for people who go to prison. whattells us a lot about happens when you go to prison. prisons have bloated in numbers. resources were always limited and become even more limited as the numbers go up. yes, we need to deal with educational deficits, substance abuse problems, mental health problems, although of which pla gue the prison system across the country. the resources to address this are very thin. it is sad, but not surprising we recidivism.ate of it tells me that people are coming back to the communities. do we want them to be more or less prepared to do so legitimatel? host: according to the sentencing project, they're just over 6 million people who cannot vote based on a felony conviction. on your website, you have an interactive page that breaks it down state-by-state see you can see how your state compares to the national average. talk a little bit about that. the laws that determine the criteria of voting are based on the states. the states are granted those rights. that is why we have states like vermont on one end -- unwarned and and other states on the other. around sinces been the country was founded. the impact has never been greater than today. can behat information found on the website. chad is calling. someone with a felony conviction. good morning. caller: how are you doing? host: good. go ahead. caller: basically, i just think all of them are not in prison for violent crimes. at the end of the day, they still have family and family members out there whose vote affects them. i think they should be able to vote in order to add on to the number of votes for the the democraticy, party or the third party. not everyone is in prison for a violent crime. even dople do not anything. host: can i ask you, are you urrently on probation or parole? caller: yes, i am on probation. host: in georgia, that is a state that bans anyone on voting.n or parole from large numbersre of people who are disenfranchised. if you think about it, voting is a communal activity. we talk about elections coming with our family members. if you have a community where large numbers of people are unable to vote, you will have .ess be ripple effects may substantial and here. -- substantial here. host: have they weighed in on folks who have conviction struggle guest: there was a that usesurt decision a thumb the conviction as criteria. the have also been challenges to laws that seem to be blatantly racist and their intent. the alabama law was one of those. some states, literacy requirements were being established. some states tinkered with laws exclude black voters. if you are convicted of killing your wife, you would not lose your right to vote. this was based on strange practices of the time. host: marvin is calling in with a felony conviction. caller: thank you for having me on. know, they would not give me housing for six wanted to seethey me work for six years. i looked at the lady and said, how is that possible? this is like days after i got out. an apartment. it is like double deputy -- jeopardy, you are paying twice for crimes you committed. not saying that you should not pay. who people vote for is still going to affect me because i'm out. let marc mauer respond. people often are followed for their lifetime. you may be denied employment based on your background. ing may have problems gett housing. some of it is societal stigma, some of it is policy. countercases, it runs host: you are on with marc mauer . caller: i think, if you are a citizen, you should be allowed to vote. not everyone in jail is guilty, and not everyone out of jail is innocent. if hillary clinton is allowed to vote, everyone should be allowed to vote. you could be sitting in a prison cell in the most maximum-security prison and write a letter to "the washington post," and might get it published. you are exercising your freedom of speech. lettery, getting a may be more influential than the vote you cast. host: the report shows how the impact on the voting population has increased over the decade. do you see, according to the laws, a continuation of the trend, placing more restrictions efforte, or is there an to rollback? states like new mexico have completed their sentence. maryland have extended rights. most of the movement has looked at a re-examination of the policies. in many cases, they are much too extreme. policy has been signed into law by democratic and republican governors. it is an encouraging sign that policies have been around. from gary is calling in indiana. good morning. caller: good morning to the united states. this, i think, is very important. i just heard on the television prison isn the state there is marijuana charges. in the state prison, 75% are there for marijuana charges. bonaparte said it was wonderful because there is no hangovers from smoking it. host: let's let marc mauer address the issue of marijuana conviction. guest: the report -- there are important issues to analyze. the figures you give are not correct. there are large numbers of people with marijuana offenses. most of them are in there for selling marijuana. we can debate whether it is a good idea or not. the numbers are nowhere close to what you are saying right now. host: david is calling with a felony conviction. good morning. i have two questions. what is the actual constitutional law that allows people to vote? second, since we are citizens, taxes, if we take this to the supreme court, with these laws be considered unconstitutional? host: there is no fundamental guarantee of the right to vote. it is not written down anywhere that says you have that. i noted before there was an challenge the disenfranchisement laws. it was a rather controversial decision. many people think it might be time to revisit that. for now, that is the current ruling from the court. host: on the republican line, kelly calling in. caller: good morning. interestingtion is this morning. i was just going to call and make a statement. let me tell you, i am going through menopause. into troublegotten until last month. i have illegal aliens living next door, they killed my dog, are robbing for me, and i went out in the street and was yelling at them, they called the cops and they gave me a fine. wake up and see what the .emocrats are doing exposing hillary clinton's corruption, and e-mails, i have not seen that. host: larry is calling in. caller: good morning. it was manipulated. i think now every state can have the same voting right law. maybe they can be a different state. i think every federal -- if you're out of prison, regardless of what, we do not cut off our hands here anymore. host: let's give marc mauer a chance to respond in the last few minutes. can you address the issue of fraud? guest: it is a very modest issue. they are trivial and members. host: marc mauer of the sentencing project, thank you for joining us today. again can be found from sentencing project.org. coming up, we will speak to mike "the new york times." first, this weekend, the c-span cities tour takes book tv and american history tv to po area, illinois -- peoria, illinois. we will feature all of our nonfiction offerings in one block. [video clip] >> they had everything going their way. there were a lot of people, obviously, prohibition passed because it wasn't being enforced. the otherials looked way. that gave rise to a resurgence of the ku klux klan in southern illinois. the clan was very serious for about 2-3 years. and wore the white robes hoods. when regular law enforcement authorities were not enforcing prohibition, they took it upon themselves in the vigilante sort of way to do it. it resulted in incredible violence, murders, and disaster situations. war between all out the clan and the bootleggers. it was like a bootlegging army. incredible encounters occurred. , join us tuesday for the white thee state dinner for entire prime minister. live coverage includes the arrival of the prime minister and his wife. dinner guest arrivals through the white house east wing. by, the dinner toast offered president obama and the prime minister. juliana schmidt will join us to , andabout food, decor protocol. we will also revisit previous state dinners. on c-span and c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is michael schmidt, a correspondent with "the new york times." usnk you so much for joining today. familiar of us not with the current situation in yemen, explain what happened earlier this week. guest: a u.s. ship was passing near the human border and hootie rebels fired missiles at it. the u.s. responded by attacking and destroying radar that they were using. it was the first time that the united states intervened in the i actually taking action. they had been sitting on the side and helping the saudi's, providing intelligence, military planning, and helping reseal the tankers. this was the fridge -- first time they actually took tangible action. host: explain what is behind this two-year internal conflict in yemen. who are the players there? gain: the houthis significant control two years ago. starting about last year, the saudis came in and were leading this coalition. in many ways, it is seen as a proxy war. they are backing them. what you have seen is the saudi-iran proxy war. they have not taken any military action until this week. they were certainly working behind the scenes providing support. host: in today's "the new york times" there is an overview of the situation in yemen. it says, americans are targeting feelinglligence and warplanes involved in bombing warplanes. they've also destroyed markets and residential neighborhoods. last saturday, airstrikes killed more than 100 people at a funeral. the threat to civilians has increased since the collapse of peace talks in august. the united states is not part of the coalition but it has been providing support. guest: they are not pulling the trigger on the battlefield. they are helping. the united states has been criticized for this. they have killed a significant number of civilians. this was -- there was this instance you referenced last week. many civilians died. critics of u.s. policy say it is time for the obama administration to evaluate its support for the saudi's. it will be interesting to see whether that changes. shortly after that, you have the u.s. taking military action to defend themselves. what analysts fear is this will draw them further into the conflict. they will continue to sell their ships-- sail their through the sea. all of a sudden, a few simple missiles that went at the ship could draw the united states much deeper into the conflict then the obama administration once it. host: we are talking to michael schmidt about the situation in yemen and the recent u.s. involvement in the situation there. , (202)ts can call 748-8001. republicans, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 745-8002. those outside the u.s., (202) 748-8003. to is what the u.s. interest is in being involved at all. i know u.s. naval ships are stationed off the coast. why are we not there? guest: there are a lot of reasons. one is to ensure free movement of the seas. as united states sees it part of its mission to make sure the seas are free and ships can move freely. you see it in the south china sea, different areas of the middle east, the persian gulf. the united states sees iran as a player that causes a lot of problems in the middle east, a power that needs to be stopped. they believe, by having a u.s. presence floating around, they can push back on that, stop iran from taking things and slowing down commerce in the area. there are a lot of strategic reasons for it. it also gives the united states the ability to quickly respond. the other thing people often forget is we are bombing several different countries in the middle east on a daily basis. from libya to iraq to syria, as far used as afghanistan. militaryus amount of assets are dedicated to it. from mike is calling in alaska. good early morning to you. you are on with michael schmidt. caller: good morning to you as well. former marine. i would like to ask mike if he knows of smith the butler -- smedley butler. he was highly decorated and highly ranked. unfamiliarhose of us with the writings, can you summarize them for us? caller: basically, he wrote a book called war is a racket. i believe that we cannot afford to spend money on balls like this and be blowing things up all over the world. we need to be at home, fixing our problems here. schmidtt's let michael respond to that. i think what you raise is a question that a lot of americans has which is should we be dedicating as much time, are to thes we middle east. i think president obama had the hopes of pulling united states as far away as possible. while the united states does not have a hundred thousand troops in iraq where again -- or afghanistan, they are still largely involved in the area. it is an issue that a lot of people have. there has not been a lot of substantive debate about this. it is something that has been raised. generally, there is a certain undercurrent in our country. host: of peace talks about the of yemen. it says, in yemen, people see the hidden hand behind the air war. for the night states, it says it was a simple retaliation, rebels filed missiles at an american warship twice, so, the united states hit back destroying facilities with missiles. strikes, the predawn were just the first public evidence of what they have long believed, that the united states had waging an extended campaign in the country. talk a more about that? guest: it confirms for people. the united states takes military action. that thems for people u.s. really wants to go after these rebels. the folks there will take into account that the u.s. sees themselves as simply defending themselves. they say, look, you come out ,ith the secretary of the navy we are coming after you. there's no more to that than what is going on here. when the u.s. takes military action in the middle east, there is often skepticism about what is going on. really believe a lot of things that the u.s. says. they think, is the u.s. just using this as an excuse to help the saudi's more. you see iran responding back sending ships into the area. the concern is another few missiles will be shot in the u.s. will get more deeply involved. the u.s. will not pull away from selling ships in the area. that is the last thing the navy would want to do. them incontinue to move that area. in onwalter is calling the democratic line. you are on with michael schmidt of "the new york times." caller: thank you for taking my call. i have been following this issue closely. i can understand that saudi arabia is a close ally. should we really be dedicating our time to these efforts. it seems we are being drawn into a possible war, especially with iran and yemen. are these efforts drawing is closer into another war with resources we really don't have. isn't this another excuse for us to provide further support for the saudi's? guest: i think there are a lot of questions about how much we should support the saudi's. there was the 9/11 legislation which they overwrote the presidential veto on to allow the families to sue the saudi's. there have been a lot of questions about whether this long-term relationship which was close under president bush but week under president obama, should we continue to support them in the ways that we have? thatink there is a real -- issue is slowly turning and changing. i think as we go forward, there will be increased pressure to look more deeply at our relationship with the saudi's and see whether we continue doing the things that we do with them. for now, we are certainly involved in helping them. host: talk a little bit about this. involvement in question about a how much iran is helping. are they really helping them in the way that the saudi's are helping those who are fighting. there are different things. people who want to see this as a proxy war and want to push the issue that iran is pushing the influence around the middle east, they will say there is significant influence. it is probably a little murkier than that. at the same time, you see iran moving the ships and and taking actions. conscious of what we do in the middle east and they do not want us to be pushing our influence further. they want to be pushing back on that as well. all of these things move slowly and it takes on a life of its own. host: all right. wayne, you are on with michael schmidt of "the new york times." >> "washington journal" continues. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. thatnk the commander of theel needs to be awarded navy cross. i'm an old navy marine from back in the 60's. inneed to restore the fear the united states navy. they are to become again one of the most powerful entities on this earth. those vessel coming down there -- host: can you respond? guest: there was some question about whether the houthis knew this was the u.s. ship. is you would want to draw the united states into this, but maybe in some cases you wouldn't. they can be really destructive. if they continue to go after u.s. ships, the u.s. will really come after them. i think they know the power of the u.s. navy and air force. these are things that we do well.ularly it is something that has really helped us in iraq and syria and helped us turn the conflict against isis. fromally sets us apart others. by doing it, it brings the u.s. and other capabilities into it. that can be very damaging. host: let's talk a little bit about the role al qaeda is playing in all of this. in abc news, there is a piece. had 100the u.s. military advisers in yemen supporting the government's fight against al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. as the war progressed, by february tway 15, the u.s. was forced to suspend operations and its embassies and yemen and evacuate the advisers out of concern for their safety. how much -- guest: this is this al qaeda affiliate in yemen. they have taken advantage of the chaos. this group has been around for a long time and is really known, they have a particularly good bomb maker who builds these whichult to detect bombs the u.s. has been concerned about for years of bringing down an airliner. this is something that does not get as much attention. ap, if you talk to him tell would say this is significant to the homeland. have not tried to take down an airliner. isis has been more focused on the targeted strike which would thing.g catastrophic isis is trying to incite any type of violence. as peopleays, as much are paying attention to that, we are paying attention to this problem. host: back to the issue of iran, a pentagon oakland was asked about iran's involvement in the attack. let's look at what he said. [video clip] inthese installations were who take control -- the houthis control. as you know, iran has played a role and has been supportive of the houthi rebels. ine broadly, in the conflict yemen. our message is that they should return to the negotiating table, consistent with where they were a few months ago. we are only responded right now to the direct threat to our forces. iran is supporting and backing the houthis. any information that the missiles that were launched were iranian made, for example? >> we do not have specific .nformation what we know is where they originated from. we have responded to the source of those strikes. host: what is your reaction to that? guest: it takes the pentagon some time to figure out what is going on. at one point we heard they may have thought it was an egyptian ship. in the streets, things can get very confusing. there are a lot of things moving through. the u.s. had an incident in the votean gulf where the u.s. tailed to closely in the gulf. it led to u.s. sailors being taken. in these areas of the world, vast oceans, things can become very small and very confusing very quickly. off largers can set things. we have seen that time and again. my guess is there tend to be more more ships in the region, and there will be more incidents. host: good morning, cynthia. you are on with mike schmidt. ahead. caller: i just wanted to ask the question, what the thought of russia is in all of this. i see it through a different view, through the bible view. kings of the east, i think china will come in, and we will be altogether. i want your thoughts on that. have a nice day. this we do not see conflict turning into a world .ar conflict yet the u.s. and russian disagreements about who should be backed and the types of rebels and the best ways of fighting isis. that is where the u.s. and russia have really struggled. they are no longer working together. the u.s. relationship with russia continues to deteriorate. peter cook also talked about whether these attacks would trigger further involvement in the region. let's take a look at what he said. [video clip] threats,se to direct we responded to that threat. we will be prepared to respond again. pose a threat to the .rew as a result, we took action. we do not take it lightly. again, we do not take threats lightly. we responded accordingly. guest: there is nothing more serious than force protection. be paintednts it to as a force protection issue. they do not want it to be seen yemen.er involvement in the obama administration does not want to be seen as any more deeply involved in the conflict. ships, wet our don't want to shoot back at you. oft: talk about the impact this on the middle east more broadly. where might we see a ripple affect? guest: it is complicated for us. we have a lot going on in the region. kurds in thehe last major city in iraq that isis controls. they are helping advise and provide assistance, also overhead. that is where much of the resources have been focused at this point. that is something we will see move along quickly as we go along here. the invasion of most of his expected to begin in the coming weeks. it will probably be the most difficult fight up until this point in the fight against isis. it will probably involve the most u.s. troops. the iraqis. helping is what we sort of built to over the past few years. it is the culmination and iraq. every majorly give iraqis iraq back to the and u.s. can then focus on destroying the remnants of the islamic state in syria. host: marcus calling in from oklahoma on the democratic line. you are on with michael schmidt. what i would like to doing? what is the u.n. number one. the number two question i have is has anyone talked about theng a saison for keeping peacekeeping forces in the area? like training them in firefighting and giving them more opportunity for better opportunities? sure about the stuff going on in iraq. the u.s. has struggled .hroughout they had this program that started a few years ago that worked to train rebels. they were seeing which ones would be most aligned with u.s. interests. the program largely failed. the u.s. has failed to train rebels who want to be trained by the u.s. that oftenhing sounds good. we have trained rebels elsewhere. we often don't have a lot of control over the weapons we give them. i think there is a lot of skepticism about training rebels. it makes a lot of sense. host: talk a little about the peace talks that broke down. are the prospects of those being started in yemen? guest: the problem is, when the u.s. take action like it does, and gets involved in things, it heightens the temperature on things and probably moves us further away from peace talks. get very houthis skeptical about what the united states is doing and they wonder to tip they are trying the scales here or get involved. as you saw peter cook saying, everybody should get back to the negotiating table and work to resolve this. these kind of things do not help. host: sheila is calling in. caller: good morning. good morning, mr. schmidt. it is very concerning to me, the countries in the middle east, including saudi arabia which has made tens of millions of dollars to the secretary of state, probably future president. you stated that the future president would have to take a firm stance on saudi arabia. i wonder what is the probability of that after taking these donations? guest: well, i don't know. republicans have raised questions about donations to the clinton foundation and what that means that the clintons, if mrs. clinton were to become president . that is something that has gone some attention. , asuess is going forward the rhetoric of the campaign continues to heat up, we will continue to hear more about it. news.more from abc you mentioned protecting shipping lines going through. a stabletates that government in yemen is important .o gulf countries it says the u.s. have contributed more than $327 million in humanitarian assistance to yemen according to the state department. the state estimates that over 3.1 million yemenis have been displaced. talk a little more about that. one thing that is , it does to put here all the they resolved issues. they basically dealt with that issue but did not deal with other differences that they had .n the region that is why you continue to see the sailors. they continue to play the games throughout the middle east against each other, and they will continue. i think there are some concerns concernstheir huge about the impact this has had civilians. in the incident last week and, in which the funeral was struck, it resurrected this issue and puts more pressure on the administration. why are you doing that when the saudi's are killing so many civilians? they are basically doing that with u.s. help. act thathe balancing the obama administration has now . some say they wanted to support the saudi's initially on this. host: leah is calling in. you are on with michael schmidt. good morning. caller: i was wondering, is the u.s. involvement really necessary? what would happen if they withdrew entirely? host: from the middle east? caller: yes. host: maybe start with yemen and talk or broadly. guest: we are not there. if the u.s. was not to help the saudi's, does that mean they would hit more civilians because we are not able to provide them with intelligence? argument. make that if u.s. were to withdraw more frumpy middle east, it is a larger question about u.s. .eopolitical power my guess is the islamic state would probably still controlled significant parts of the country. the u.s. has helped to hollow out the islamic state through airstrikes and other things on the ground. my guess is that iraqi forces .ould have pushed back this is a larger question that you hear more and more about. is it worth us for our strategic goals and what we have? that is something we will continue to see. host: elsewhere, you also write about this situation in iraq. can you give us the latest there. guest: it seems the u.s. has really helped to turn the conflict against the united states. the united states has not taken any new territory since they .ook the city of ramadi significant parts of anbar province has been taken. northerna, this very city, the iraqis do not have the theity to sort of run conflict. the u.s. is really helping with that, providing support. it will be heavily involved. that will be the last big fight in iraq. just because the iraqis retake mosul does not mean that they are gone in iraq. they will have to go in and try to find them and to them. that can go on for a long time. have full will control. eddie.ood morning, caller: good morning. i really don't understand obama. he knows that the sunnis are responsible for isis, they know yemen.e bombing the shiites now, would you go against it? thank you. guest: this is something you hear more and more, skepticism of the u.s. relationship with the saudi's. looking back to 9/11, we have this piece of legislation that the president just overrode them on. -- the congress just over read president on. the support in congress for the 9/11 legislation that allowed the families to sue was really substantial. substantial enough to override the presidential veto. that really, to me, you think back to the bush years. they spent an enormous amount of time dealing with the saudi's. there was obviously a clear relationship there. even though the obama administration is involved in helping the saudi's and yemen, i still find deeper skepticism over the relationship with the saudi's. that if president obama were present for four more years, we would see a distancing of the relationship with saudi arabia. in "the new york times" this morning, a little more on that. the united states has been using drones to strike against the .ranch for years host: talk about the role of yemen in this broader fight. that inhere is a lot of yemen. ine of that in iraq, some afghanistan. the u.s., attended of their views is we have to make sure there are no ungoverned spaces like libya. isis popped up there. you have limits of isis in al qaeda and yemen that can flourish there. been will say, these libya cannotnnot -- keep down the u.s. state on their own, so we will get involved and pushed back. you see that sprouting up across the middle east. we are going after these ungoverned spaces where groups thrive. even in afghanistan, there are areas where the islamic state in the u.s. goes in there and start launching airstrikes. host: sean is calling in from summerland, florida. you are on with mike schmidt of "the new york times." caller: the actions in the middle east now are a direct result of our going into afghanistan and iraq. those mistakes have led to what is happening now. what we are doing is making further mistakes that will lead in the future to further mistakes. our programsvisit and what we are doing. createdhe ones who this. we need to stop it. that: there is a feeling after more than 15 years of being involved in afghanistan , what we should continue to be doing. the problem is you have enormous problems in iraq with the iraqi government lost the country. i think the united states feels some responsibility for that. that is why we found ourselves back involved there. that are fair questions all these years after 9/11 and all we have done since then continue to persist, and probably will, going forward. calling from is minnesota on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. i guess my question would be, i understand we are there in part two protect and watch and act as necessary. on the candidates briefed what is going on? if so, how often. guest: they have received classified briefings on u.s. national security issues. receivedey have both at least one. they may have been more. i know they have received at least one. beyond that, they are following the issues very closely. we have not seen a lot of talk about these issues. i would be surprised if on wednesday there was a yemen question that comes up. it would be pretty interesting if there was. host: good morning, joe. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: thank you. republicans have caused so much trouble in our administration, but yet, the president tried to explain on the 911 bill, and now, they will build aas likely to suez that. if we put them through the same system as justice -- of justice as we have. some of the republican people in the senate stood up after he andd to explain it to them said, we wish you would have expunged this before. guest: this is the legislation that came up. one of the arguments made is that if we allow some of these families to sue the saudi's, it allows foreign countries to do that to us. that was one of the basis for the reasons for vetoing the legislation. ultimately, it was overrode. the most significant thing was the amount of support it had, to the point it was able to override the president. you rarely see things that have strong bipartisan support on capitol hill. certainly in the air of -- er a of obama, in the eighth year, we saw something that overrode him. they showed a broadening of arabia. on saudi host: michael schmidt, correspondent for "the new york times," thank you for joining us this morning. a reminder for our viewers, today, you can see donald trump's address in new hampshire live at noon eastern time as also, ac-span.org .review of tomorrow show our guest will include nathan gonzales where he will be talking about the 2016 house and o'neill ofs, terry the national organization of ongoingll talk about controversies about donald trump's comments towards women. newt gingrich will be here as well to discuss the latest developments in campaign 2016 including growing republican divide and the impact on down ballot races. have a good saturday. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

Related Keywords

Nevada , United States , Alabama , Syria , Anbar , Al Ma Wit , Yemen , South China Sea , Brunei General , Brunei , Connecticut , San Francisco , California , Mexico , Arizona , Egypt , Atlantic City , New Jersey , Massachusetts , Iowa , Libya , Hampshire , New York , Fort Myers , Florida , United States Capitol , District Of Columbia , Canada , Southern Pines , North Carolina , Missouri , Afghanistan , Washington , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Indiana , Virginia , Ramadi , Al Anbar , Iraq , Michigan , Saudi Arabia , Maryland , North Korea , Capitol Hill , Jefferson City , Hawaii , Chad , Vermont , Alaska , Springfield , China , Minnesota , New Mexico , Russia , South Amboy , Duke University , South Africa , Georgia , , New Hampshire , Tampa , Iran , Boston , Illinois , Puerto Rico , Mississippi , Oklahoma , Maine , Fort Wayne , Arabian Peninsula , Saudi Arabia General , Tennessee , Israel , South Dakota , Colorado , Ohio , Americans , Saudi , Iranian , Iraqi , Serbian , American , Puerto Rican , Russian , Iraqis , Egyptian , Saudis , Juliana Schmidt , Napoleon Bonaparte , Maggie Hassan , Mike Schmidt , Brian Lovelace , Bernie Bernie , Darryl Glenn , Gunther Peck , Nancy Pelosi , Ronald Reagan , Jason Kander , Chris Michalski , Walter Mondale , Marc Mauer , Darrell Glenn , John Kerry , Paul Ryan John Mccain , Michael Cullen , Mitt Romney , Al Qaeda , Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Herman Cain , America Hillary Clinton , Charlie Kris , Newt Gingrich , Butler Smedley , Ellie Ayotte , Rick Scott , John Mccain , Paul Ryan , Michael Schmidt , Ryan Lovelace , Bernie Sanders , Kelly Ayotte , Jason Kantor , Los Angeles , Nathan Gonzales , Bob Dole , Cnbc Jake Novak , Klux Klan , Jill Stine , Peter Cook , Deborah Ross , Enderle Glenn , John Podesta , Hillary Clinton ,