TURNOUT Episode 5: ‘More rhetoric than reality’

text and so much more. I have been known to read my literal diary entries on my show, and sometimes I do interviews with my crazy group of friends. So if you guys want to tune in, you can hear new episodes of Too Much to Say every Wednesday on the National Podcast Network, available on the I Heart Radio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you listen to him. Make sure to check out Drink Chance, your number one music podcast

on the Black Effect Podcast Network. Host n O r E and d J E f N sat down with artists and icon Ya, which Vulture called one most significant interviews. I literally had to go like Danos and I don't want to have to be the villain. But when I went and did the Donda thing, he returned and anybody

had to sit back and watch the real leader. Check out Drink Champ's conversation with Yea and many more legendary artists each and every Friday on the Heart Radio app, Apple podcast, or where ever you listen to your favorite shows. We've always said that this series is about so much

more than just this election. As we've shown in our first four episodes, the voting issues of our past and how our country responds to them paved the way forward shaping future elections, including the history making moment we're living in today. But now here we are just days away from the presidential election, and I don't know about you, but I have severe asset indigestion. So before getting into our main interview today, I wanted to dive into some

of this week's big election stories. So the good news, particularly for a show called Turnout, is that people are turning out to vote in droves. By this recording, Americans have cast over seventy one million early ballots, which is more than half of all ballots cast and the two thousand sixteen election people are mailing them in voting early making a plan for election day. It's so inspiring, I, for one called a lot of my friends to make

sure they were getting their asses to the polls. I'm calling to see if you voted or you have a voting plan, Katherine, Yeah, calling to see if you voted already submitted by a mailing ballot. Good. But the rules about how and when those votes will be counted are the subject of a political tug of war in some key states, states like Wisconsin, where the Supreme Court had to step in with the decision on October in another major blow to Democrats, Wisconsin can't count mailed in ballots

received after election day if it's not close. In Wisconsin, it doesn't matter. If it comes down like it did last time to tens of thousands of votes. This could very easily make up the difference between who ends up winning this election. The Wisconsin ruling is just the latest in a flurry of election year decisions that, rather than grant leeway because of the pandemic is Democrats argue, have

mostly sided with Republicans keeping voting restrictions in place. Texas Supreme Court just issued a ruling essentially shutting the door on allowing all Texans to vote by mail during the coronavirus pandemic and the US Supreme Court blocked a lower court from allowing curbside voting in Alabama. Another change in the witness signature debate for South Carolina absentee ballot. There

has been so much back and forth. Finally the Supreme Court ruled that those signatures are required, and there are more cases like these that could be affected by Judge Amy Coney Barrett's swift assent to the highest court in the land. This was a rigorous confirmation process, and I thank all of you, especially Leader McConnell and Chairman Graham, for helping me to navigate it. It's a privilege to be asked to serve my country in this office, and

I stand here tonight truly honored and humbled. While it's true that this political tug of war has always happened as each party vised for power every election, this year is different. Mail in voting has surged this year as Americans seek to avoid crowds at polling places, even as Trump repeatedly claimed without evidence that it leads to voter fraud. Because the President of the United States has taken fears of voter fraud to a new level, a level that

questions the integrity of the entire election process. This is going to be a fraud like you've never seen. Thousands of votes are gathered and they come in and they dumped in a location, and then all of a sudden you lose elections that you think you're gonna win. You know, so many years I've been watching elections and they say

the projected winner or the winner of the election. I don't want to see that take place in a week after November third, or a month or frankly, with litigation and everything else, that can happen years, years, or you never even know who won the election. I'm Katie Kuric, and this is turnout. Can you or the White House staff where you camp anervide any evidence to back up your claim? The mail in voting is wife with fraud, like the example you gave the people work in your

rooms filling out a false balance. And where's the evidence? I think there's a lot of evidence, but will provide you with some, Okay, and there's evidence that's being compiled today on the podcast. An interview with an unlikely critic of President Trump. The president's rhetoric, unproven rhetoric, the fact that there is not sufficient evidence to show systemic fraud did flip the switch, because that's where your responsibility comes in.

Benjamin Ginsburg is a top Republican election lawyer who just retired in August after thirty eight years and the GOP trenches. Now he's spending his time writing op eds, and one that got my attention back in September was a surprisingly blunt rebuke of the president's baseless claims that the electoral system is rigged. The sanctity of elections and making sure they're done properly should be of deep concern to everyone.

It really is the foundation of the democracy. And for the forty years that I'd been working in Republican politics, I was either in a precinct or part of a sort of a roving lawyer team in a state for running a nationwide program where we were talking to people in polling places to see what the problems were. Republicans mean, probably back since the days of Tammany Hall and the big city machines have been suspicious of fraudulent elections in

vote rating, so we've always looked for it. And every state law has provisions for poll watchers or election observers, and both parties should take full advantage of that, because it's very important to have your people in a polling place to look for problems, and so we've we've done that.

Now there were sort of sporadic instances of fraud that came to light, but never nothing that would justify a president of the United States, really any candidate saying our elections are fraudulent and they're rigged and the only way I can lose is if they cheat, because they're simply is not evidence to support that, and so to say

otherwise is completely destructive. So I think that this has brought us into new and in dangerous territory, and the fact that I had been a part of those programs for so many years meant that I thought I had

a perspective on it. And what concerns you the most about the rhetoric we're hearing undermining our electoral process from the President of the United States himself, Well, you see it reflected in the polls this cycle, where a dangerously and shocking the high number of people say they're not sure that the election is going to be valid and the results accurate. And that's really a product of presidential

rhetoric and certainly not a product of of any real evidence. Well, let me ask you this, to play devil's advocate, We've never had an election quite like this, obviously been in the midst of a of a pandemic with really unprecedented number of mail in ballots, and I'm curious if you think that that might provide fertile ground for the kind of election fraud that some people in the specifically in

the Republican Party or warning us of. Well, first of all, I think there are two sides to the coin, and we should we should talk about that. So there is a huge difference between a rhetorical fusillade that elections are fraudulent or rigged and actually being able to show that in a way that would taint the results of an election. And rather than than talking at a rally or UH making threats in a tweet, you will really have to go precinct by precinct and find specific instances of fraud.

They can find specific instances of fraud. It should be rooted out and UH and corrected. But to be able to actually throw the results of the election in doubt, there will have to be ballots that are called into questions. Now, I don't believe that there will be a specific number of individual ballots that can be called into question, and mass challenges have always been frowned upon in as a matter of law and in legal proceedings. So I think that UM feelings have been rebbed up to a much

higher degree in this election. But I think the results in the casting and counting of it's themselves will will be done in a way that there will be verifiable results of the election. How can you assure listeners of that that the systems are in fact in place that will prevent and penalize any kind of voter fraud, even it's if it is in fact very sporadic. Well, I think that's I think it's true on a number of levels. First of all is that you can go back and

look at instances of fraud that have been uncovered and prosecuted. UM. Rarely is it enough to overturn the results of the election, but sometimes. There was a congressional race in North Carolina in two thousand eighteen where there were illegalities found, so

a new election was held. There have been elections in Paterson, New Jersey, UH in this past year where there was found to be systemic fraud, and that was correct that UM, but at the end of the day, I think people can take a degree of certitude knowing that their ballots are going to be counted in their community by their neighbors. The US system has over ten thousand five jurisdictions with with some degree of authority for the casting and counting

of ballots. UH. In a normal year, over a million people will volunteer to be poll watchers. They are all people from your communities. And um I was co chair of a presidential commission, bipartisan commission back in two thousand, thirteen and fourteen, where we got to spend an extraordinary amount of time meeting the actual people from the communities on the state, county, UH and local levels who are

responsible for conducting elections. And I take a great amount of solitude in in knowing how good those people are and how much they do care. Having said that, what was your reaction, Ben, when you started hearing Donald Trump, President Donald Trump and other high ranking Republicans start laying the groundwork for an all out assault on our democratic process. Well, I'm not sure that they laid the groundwork for an all out assault. I think they used irresponsible and regrettable rhetoric.

But again, the groundwork for an assault would require challenging on a local level in a very granular fashion, and the battleground states, with the exception of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, have all begun to process their absentee ballots already. The mail in votes that we've been reading are coming in in such heavy quantity. Uh. And there have not been those wide skill challenge so at least so far, that's been more rhetoric than reality. Hold that thought. We'll be

right back after this short break. My name is Hannah, I'm Dan, I'm Ben, and we are Group Love. If you're dealing with stress or anxiety, or just need some help, cal Hope is here for all Californians with free mental health resources to help you navigate this uncertain time. Go to cal Hope dot org to live chat with one of their incredible listeners, or call their warmline at one three three three seven Hope. That's one three three one

seven h O p e hopeless here in California. Adoption of teams from foster care is a topic not enough people know about, and we're here to change that. I'm April Dinuity, host of the new podcast Navigating Adoption Present to buy adopt us Kids. Each episode brings you compelling, real life adoption stories told by the families that lived them,

with commentary from experts. Visit adopt us Kids dot org, slash podcast, or subscribe to Navigating Adoption presented by adopt us Kids, brought to you by the U. S. Department of Healthy Human Services, Administration for Children and Families and the ACT Council. Introduce the Bizita You're all Things Music, business and media podcast. Join me, Joe w Leski and my co host Colin McKay every Wednesday, where we've discussed the breaking news changing the music industry and what your

favorite artists and creatives are up to. Collin, who's your favorite artist? Oh? You know? The track Factor, Demi Levado, Rana Grande, Captain be Part Snap Back to Reality eminem Style. Join music industry professionals, Joe and I as we pulled back the curtain of the successes and failures of the biz. You guys have been hanging out a while. What are they doing? Com I guess listening to an ad Sorry.

Listen to new episodes of the biz Tape every Wednesday on the Nashville Podcast Network, available on I Heart Radio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Let's return to my interview with Republican election lawyer Ben Ginsburg. Let's talk about these legal battles. The r n C and the Trump reelection campaign, as you know, have doubled their legal budget to twenty million dollars. I think you called it a torrent of voting litigation already underway. What up

with that, Ben? Well, So it's an interesting it's an interesting phenomenon, and I think you need to take a step back to appreciate. I in two thousand ten, Republicans did very well in the Obama mid terms and took control of the number of state legislators and won a number of governorships, and then increased that in in two thousand and twelve on the state and local level. That gave Republicans the ability to pass legislation that they felt gave them an advantage in the electoral context. And so

they did pass any number of laws. Uh, the the Clinton forces and really much more of the Biden forces, decided that they would go to court to try and turned back those pieces of legislation that Republicans passed. Now, before we start clicking our tongues at the bad Republicans

for doing that. Recognized that when Democrats won control of the Nevada legislature and governorship and the New Jersey legislature and governorship, they have now since two thousand and eighteen, passed the Democratic version of legislation that helps them in elections. So it's something that both parties do. The RNC sued

the Democrats after they passed that legislation. The Republicans have been more successful in this past decade in winning legislatures, and so they have passed any number of laws that the Democrats don't like, and the Democrats have gone to court, both federal and state to try and redress it. Now that the shoe is a little bit on the other foot, after the two thousand and eighteen elections, Democrats have passed

their bills and Republicans have gone to court. So the weight of the legislation is really because Republicans did better in elections earlier in the decade. Well, this seems pretty left up to me, Ben, I mean, why are these election laws so malleable depending on who's in power? Can they? I mean, I guess that's a that's our system of government. But it seems a little screwed up to me. Well, I you know, I think that they are policy choices

that get made in legislation. It happens in laws involving elections. It certainly happens in laws involving taxes or the environment or any other issue that you want to choose. There are differences between the power the parties, and when one party gets in power, they have a tendency to want to pass their agenda. I get that, but voting should be sacrosant, saying don't you think, well, I think that

there are there are disagreements in policy over elections. Republicans tend to fear fraud and Democrats tend to fear suppression. And in one of the other underlying phenomenons that's grown in the country over the last thirty years is polarization. So that uh, there are very few undecided voters at this point in an election. That means that each party's go to their base to try and energize their basis to come out and so the rhetoric and the foundational

work that gets done reflects that. And that is what I think you're saying is bad. And you know that, Um, that's a much bigger phenomenon than just elections and voted. Do you believe that concern about voter fraud can inevitably lead to voter suppression. Well, I think that they are in some ways two sides of the same coin. And I think that not all the laws that are accused of being suppression are suppression. And as I've written, I

think many of the charges about fraud or wrong. But I think unfortunately the fraud versus suppression narrative is creeped into the get out the vote plans for both parties, and as you try and energize your base with red nat rhetoric, which is what we do these days, on both sides, Republicans are gonna yell fraud, Democrats are gonna

yell suppression. That probably does energize their base. But what I think you're rightly pointing to is what about people in the middle of the spectrum who are not hard partisans, who really kind of went away the candidates and the issues and vote one way or the other. They hear the loud decibels about fraud and suppression and think, wow, that's a hassle for me to go to the polls.

So I'm not going to go to the polls. Can you give me an example of a Republican law, state law passed by a Republican controlled legislature regarding voting and one that might have been passed by a Democratic legislature. I well, I mean, let's let's take a look at at the date in which absentee ballots need to be received by a state. So the at least the cases that are going up to the Supreme Court are ones where Republicans voted to have all absentee ballots received in

the polling place on election day. The current Democrats have been convinced that, uh, it is better really for them to get more votes in to be able to extend the deadlines on the receipt of absentee ballots. So any ballot postmarked by election day can be received three days, six days, twelve days after an election. So a Republican legislature would pass election day receipt and a Democratic legislature

has passed some days afterwards. If there is so little fraud, why is the Republican party passing all these laws preventing fraud? If if experience tells us that there is very little fraud, so the the credibility of our elections also depends on their appearance. In other words, can voters take confidence that's that it's a system with some standards so that cheating

and fraud don't go on. In other words, the appearance of impropriety is recognized, for example, in campaign finance laws, which I'm sure you love to justify limitations on the size of contributions. That's there hasn't been a finding of impropriety, it's an appearance of impropriety. The same holds true in the election contest that you do need to put some standards on it, whether it's showing voter identification when you go into the polls or a signature match on an

absentee ballot to give voters after the election. Uh, some elements have proof that in fact, all the votes are legitimate. You outright asked Republicans to quote take a hard look before advocating laws that actually to limit the franchise of otherwise qualified voters. Yeah. I think that's important for Republicans to do. I think that's not always enough of the equation in in all these states. I think it is important to to make it easy for people to vote.

To give you an example, Republicans have all of a sudden gone negative on drop boxes, where voters can take their ballots and drop them in a box, and that's the way it gets uh. They get processed encountered, so they don't have to stand in lines either in early voting, they don't have to trust the mails by by mailing them through the postal service the drop box. Republicans for some reason have decided that drop boxes are a bad idea that to me is a barrier two voters. That

that makes little or no sense. And I don't think it's right that the Republican Party in a number of states taken that position. When we come back, being Gensberg throws water on the president's fiery claims and the democrats worst post election fears. I call the Union Hall as his amount of life and death. I think these people of planning to kill Dr. King. On April four, Dr Martin Luther King was shot and killed in Memphis. A

petty criminal named James Earl Ray was arrested. He pled guilty to the crime and spent the rest of his life in prison. Case closed right, James Hill Ray was upon for the official story. The authorities would parade all, we found a gun, the James L. Raybald in Birmingham that killed Dr King, Except it wasn't the gun that killed Dr King. One of the problems that came out when I got the ray case was that some of the evidence, as far as I was concerned, did not

match the circumstances. This is the MLK tapes. The first episodes are available now. Listen on the I Heart radio app, Apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. Give us every attention. We need everything you've got fast. Waiting on Reparations would beat the podcast. Tune in every Thursday politics and wordplay. We fight for the people because they got

us in the worst way. From the Hill Cooper, the Bomb Bay to count Game, from the Left on Clay to what the Neo kanse Every Thursday cop to head off to break us off with some break because we're waiting. Listen to Waiting on Reparations of my Heart radio app, Apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. After thirty years, it's time to return to the halls of West Beverly

High and hang out at the peach pit. On the podcast nine O two one OMG joined Jenny Garth and Tori Spelling for a rewatch of the hit series Beverly Hills nine O two one oh. From the very beginning, we get to tell the fans all of the behind the scenes stories to actually happen, so they know what happened on camera, obviously, but we can tell them all the good stuff that happened off camera. Get all the juicy details of every episode that you've been wondering about

for decades. As nine O two one oh, super fan and radio host Sissany sits in with Jenny and Tory, two reminisce, reflect and relive each moment, from Brandon and Kelly's first kiss to shouting. Donna Martin graduates, you have an amazing memory. You remember everything about the entire ten years that we filmed that show, and you remember absolutely nothing of the ten years that we filmed that show.

Listen to nine O two one OMG on the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Why do you think President Trump is saying fraud, fraud, fraud, fraud, fraud whenever he gets a chance. No, I don't know. I'm a humble lawyer and not a psychiatrist, so I'm not sure. I really know the answer to that question. Come on, Ben, you know the answer, Well, I know, why tell me the answer. I think because he wants

to be able to delegitimize the election. Play that out for me, Katie, What would play that out for me? How does that happen? So I don't know. I mean, I think he said I'm not sure. Here, wait a second, Well, let's say what if he says, Ben, let's just let's

just play this out like you said. What if he says that there's voter fraud is everywhere, and some of these Republican legislatures, you know, agree with him, or people who he has in his pocket agree with him, and then he can hold the entire country hostage by saying this isn't legitimate. I don't know that it's honestly, It's

honestly not the way it works. That's why I said before that there's a massive difference between talking about fraud and trying to be legitimize an election and having the proof of that in a state election process. And that that's why I think the the notion that that he's somehow going to disrupt the whole country is a little

bit overblown because like you. No one can exactly say the steps that it would take to get from O G Everything's fraud joint to actually stopping the certification of a vote and the naming of a slate of electors in in any state. So it's a case of all talk.

But if you did have to hypothesize, ben, how someone might try to go about delegitimizing uh, the election results, How might one do that if one was so inclined, Well, I think I think the hypothetical that I did discussing one of those Washington Post top eds was that the campaign, the Trump campaign would quite cynically engage in mass challenges of voters as they went into polling places on grounds of registration and then in the counting of ballots on

the validity of absentees as they came in. But it would have to be mass of blunderbus challenges. So, if the polls are to be believed, um in the key battleground states, there are not enough challenges. Now, if the results are considerably closer, right, and this does hinge on the results in in any of the battleground states being really close, then it might be possible to to challenge enough ballots to hold up a certificate of election. Uh, so that so that the electoral College would would get

a little bit murky. Well, what would happen if it's close enough that you could challenge the results in these key battleground states? Um, you know, take me through that. Then what would happen? Well, I mean it depends on the state. So uh, you know, there there are so many there's so many variables and different pieces that would have to fall into place, uh, that you would be tempted to say it's impossible, except Florida happened in two thousands,

So not impossible, but it's really highly unlikely. Uh. What what would have to happen is that I guess the electoral college nobody would have two seventy votes when all the states to coun tabulate their ballots did, and there would be one, two or three states that were within the margins of closeness set by state law, which is either point two percent or point five of of the difference between the two candidates, and so there would be

a recount or a contest. And you know, when they're that closed, there are always ballots that that can be disputed. But that's also part of the legitimate process if an election is closed to go through a recounter a contest. Do you think we i get to the point where the Supreme Court decides who the next President of the United States is this go around? Well, I mean, I

think it's I think it's really really unlikely. I think the greatest chances that will have a pretty clear indication of a winner, if not election night, within a couple of days of that, I think given the all the absentees that have been found, it may take a week or two longer. I think, Uh, you know, the election has been so close and contested that it's been thrown in doubt three times out of the fifty seven that

we've had. So I'm gonna take a wild guess that there's a five point two chance of it being that. And so in that scenario, it might end up going to the to the Supreme Court. But that hasn't happened often in our history, and it's a mistake to bet against history. Let's talk about two thousand, because you were imminently involved in the recount in Florida. Bob Balaban played you in the movie Recount. Did you like that casting, by the way, Ben, Yeah, I mean, I don't know.

Somebody must have been somebody must have thought I was short and bald. Are we gonna win? Mr? Ginsburgh? By tomorrow morning? The stains of Bill Clinton will be washed away, and honor and dignity will finally be restored to the White House. Let me just point out. Let me just point out about the casting that I thought Bob Balaban was terrific, But Michael Hooley, who was by opposite on the Democratic side, is both shorter and balder than I am. And he was played by Dennis O'Leary as six ft

two inch guy with a full head of hair. So I'm just gonna throw that out as as a casting example of the film. Duly noted, duly noted, But how insane was it for you? It made by the way it made me want to rewatch recount tonight because I was covering that every day when I was at the Today Show. I mean, was that completely insane? Yes, it certainly was. Just remember when you rewatch it that we won the recount and they won the movie. Well, I guess it depends on who you were. Who are you

rooting for for president? Right? Well, I'm just saying that's a statement of fact, but you know, I mean it does show us something about the system. With this whole difference between the popular vote and the electoral college. Does it ever make you wonder if if the system needs to be rethought in the electoral college perhaps gotten gotten

rid of well, I mean, that's an interesting point. I mean, the historical antecedents of the electoral college is that the founding fathers needed compromise between the agrarian interests and the federalists who were more more in the cities, and so the electoral college was the compromise that we've had for two hundred and forty some years. Um, it's a compromise that that's worked in the sense that campaigning for president

would be completely different. Uh. And what would happen is that candidates would go to urban areas and forget rural areas because they're just aren't enough votes. So um, that would be that would be uh shift and really an

isolation of the country um as a whole. I mean, I think that changing the electoral college and talk of that is something that comes about when Democrats don't win a series of presidential elections they think they should like yess is if Joe Biden is elected, all the talk of the electoral college will will retreat to fashionable cocktail parties on the west side of Manhattan and maybe the East side. But but I mean, it's changing the electoral college.

Those are the rules under which we play the games. The equivalent of a football team that's that gains a lot of yards but can't score, saying forget it, don't worry about what's on the scoreboard. We're not counting that anymore. The team that gains the most yards is gonna win. So you can change the rules they really want to, But changes that are done to sort of uh preordained and outcome, which is what this bout of wanting to change the electoral College is about doing that to get

to gain a specific political result. It's bad, bad reason to change an institution that's been around for two hundred forty years. On the other hand, ben if of people in this country by already five are living in cities um and far outweigh the number of people in rural areas, maybe an adjustment could be made. Well maybe if that's the way the demographic patterns really go, then I think

that's possible. Look, I also think that that part of the angst that's felt about the electoral college has really nothing to do with politics. There is a product, not a product of politics, but a product of a forty year demographic trend in this country for people to move into communities with people more like themselves. We are living in much more homogeneous communities uh than we ever did before.

And so a lot of the polarization that is a curve, which is really what you're talking about, is the root problem with the electoral college has been caused by these sort of inexorcible demographic uh trends. You know, I'm not sure changing the electoral college deals with that rude issue. Let's talk about your role specifically in two thousand. How would you describe it? What? What were you there to do? Uh? Well, I was the general council of the Bush Cheney campaign.

And um uh I had because I have worked elections and for the political party committees, done a lot of recounts on the congressional and state level, and so when we got ourselves in a recount, um, you know, I had helped prepare a lot of the basic materials that you always do four recounts, and then I went down to to Florida to help run the operations. What is your perspective on the impact that event had on our

election system? The most immediate impact was that in two thousand three, Congress actually asked the massive infusion of of money into the election systems. Almost all communities bought new machines, new technology at that point, and so it really, for a period of time upgraded the mechanics of voting in the country. And the problem is is that those machines don't have a huge long shelf life, and most jurisdictions in the country now or are running running pretty long

in the tooth on the equipment that they're using. Not only that been, but they can be hacked, and they can't be often well, I don't know. I did a documentary called I Voted, and it showed how easy it was to hack some of those systems. Some University of Michigan students did it in a couple of days. Furthermore, there's no way to verify and double check some of the results. So electronic voting is kind of problematic, don't

you think, Well, I have a pride. Do have a problem with the touch screen machines in which there's no paper trail. Yeah, I certainly agree with that. I think it's a real mistake. And and we're in a we're in a bad way with our voting systems. I mean, uh, it's really tough to get communities who have to build schools and roads and feed people to appropriate money for for elections equipment that's used every other year, maybe twice.

It's just it's just not a top priority of the state and local governments that actually do the funding for for machines. So that's that's a problematic issue. And plus the the most of the technology was put in place before there are iPads, so there are generations of improvements that could take place that really are not a top priority in state and local government funding. We started the conversation Ben, You're saying that it's that we're protected against

voter fraud. It happens very rarely. The Republican battle cry is fraud. The Democratic battle cry is suppression. So where do where do we stand in this kind of you know, yin yang world of of one side focusing on one thing and the other side focusing on another. Well, I

think it's I think it's not ideal. I think it's a function or a symptom of of the polarization that's part of the electorate and part of part of society, and it is those are messages to the base voters and not to the people in the middle who are not fierce partisans. So that's not a way that you're going to expand the electorate. How do you restore faith in democracy? In your view, that is a that is

a complicated question in this day and age. I mean, I suppose it ultimately goes to the quality of our leaders on a national level, and I think it also goes to the way we act in our local communities. In other words, the way I think you achieve the goal of restoring faith in the system is to be able to change the terms of the debate away from

really polarized rhetoric and actions. And I I think, um, although this I would be curious about other views on this, but I think that that is more likely to occur on a local level, where it strikes me that uh, people working with their neighbors are more more likely to come up with solutions to problems and folks on the national level who are retreating to their sort of polarized bunkers. And finally, do you have faith in in our election process?

Do you feel like it will withstand any potential challenges from the president to others if the election doesn't go their way. Well, I mean, I ultimately do. I think it can be a difficult period uh post election if it's closed, to be sure, But I do take faith in having known so many of the officials on a local level and a state level who actually are the

election system in this country. And uh, while when you have ten thousand five jurisdictions in a million volunteers, there will be mistakes, but I certainly do have faith in their good intents to to get this done in in a really professional, in good way. And I suppose it's also important to remember every state's law does have proceedings to allow for recounts and contests, especially when the results are closed, and every candidate, whether you like him or not,

has the right to or like her or not. Because I was going to get to that, remember that Hillary Clinton's campaign UH intervened in Jill Stein's recounts in three states Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin last year at the end of November, so that contesting elections is permitted by state law is one of those things candidates are allowed to do. Hillary Clinton did it. Stacy Abrams has not yet conceded the Georgia governor's race. Never conceded, so that when impliciting

your question is that Donald Trump won't concede. That's been done before two and uh, you know, the system moves on. You know. After talking with Ben, I was inspired to rewatch recount, which I'm actually in for a nano second, and I have to say, given the times we're in, it was pretty weird. There was actually one moment that stood out that I had to share. Johnny Apples says that we have a week to resolve this before the

American people will lose that patient. In this scene, al Gore's team is debating how to conduct the recount, whether they should go into Democratic friendly counties and Hank count the paper ballots, and Warren Christopher, who was the Democratic face of the recount and a former Secretary of State played in the movie by John Hurt, says they need to be careful about how they proceed because the world

is watching. We are theoretically it's last great democracy. We cannot resolve this in a way that is worthy of the office we seek. What kind of hope do we give other countries wish to share our values? We all know how that turned out, But an important reminder come Tuesday. Okay, everyone,

My final plea, do make a plan. Whether you're dropping your mail in ballot off at an official location, make sure it's not past the deadline in your state to actually put it in the mail, voting early in person, or heading to the polls on November three, Bring a sandwich or the snack of your choice, listen to a podcast, and if you have any lingering questions, go to vote dot org for voting details specific to your state. For

election coverage and interesting and fund non political items. To sign up for my morning newsletter wake up Call by going to Katie Couric dot com. Oh and one last thing, some advice to calm those election night nerves from our friend Jesse Littlewood at Common Cause. It's important to remember that election night is not results night. It's when we count every vote that we decide the results of the election.

We would all like to know the results of the election as soon as possible, and we should strive to do that, but it's more important to be accurate than it is to be fast. Okay, listeners, Good luck out there. I'll see you next week. On the other side. Turnout is a production of I Heart Media and Katie Curreic Media. The executive producers are Katie Curic and Courtney Littz. Supervising producers Lauren Hansen. Associate producers Derek Clements, Eliza Costas and

Emily Pento. Editing by Derrick Clements and Lauren Hansen, Mixing by Derrick Clements. Our researcher is Gabriel Loser and special thanks to my right hand woman, Adriana Fasio. You can follow me all my election coverage at Katie Correct. Meanwhile, yes, I'm Katie Correct. Thanks so much for listening everyone. We'll see you next time. Kenny jameson here Bread Time, All Star in Wolf series champ Hope Vida in California. Mama, what does the chicken say? Gratte draffe, giraffe, giraffe. You're

not gonna get it all right. Just make sure you know the big stuff, like making sure your kids are buckled correctly in the right seat for their agent's eyes. Get it right visits n h S a dot gov slash The Right Seat brought to you by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the ad Council. After thirty years, it's time to return to the halls of West Beverly

High and hang out at the peach pit. On the podcast nine O two one o MG, visit Jenny Garth and Tory Spelling for a rewatch of the hit series Beverly Hills nine O two one oh. From the very beginning, we get to tell the fans all of the behind the scenes stories to actually happen, so they know what happened on camera obviously, but we can tell them all the good stuff that happened off camera. Listen to nine O two one o MG on the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.