Jessica Patterson on Election Integrity and the Future of Voting in California

In this episode of "The Fourscore Project," Jessica Patterson, Chair of the California Republican Party, joins Roger Clark to discuss the current state of election integrity and public trust in the electoral process. Patterson, who made history as the first Latina elected to her position, shares her experiences and insights on the challenges of ensuring fair elections in California. The conversation covers the controversial practice of ballot harvesting, the importance of voter ID laws, and the strategies implemented by the California GOP to monitor elections closely. Patterson also reflects on the broader implications of declining public confidence in elections, the role of early voting, and how voters can adapt to changing electoral landscapes. The episode provides a detailed exploration of the strategies used to restore faith in the voting process while navigating the complexities of California's political environment​​​.

Episode Transcript

(00:34):
My name is Roger Clark
and I'm your host.
On this episode,Fourscore and seven Project.
You may ask, why do we call it that?
Well, Fourscoreand seven refers to Abraham Lincoln's
favorite and famous address in Gettysburg.
87 years.

(00:55):
We believe that anything worthwhiletakes a long time
to achieve with a lot of hard work.
The Fourscore and seven project
is production of New Majority Foundation
and Majority Foundationas a public charity that is dedicated
to the enhancement and improvementof American representative democracy.

(01:18):
How do we do that?
Well, we educate and we search for waysto inform the people
on the criticaland profound issues of our time.
We're about education and we want to learnabout these issues, pros and cons,
so that we can help the American peoplemake informed decisions on their own

(01:39):
and reach common sense solutions
that respect the rights and dignitiesof all Americans.
Today,
our issue is crisisin the faith of American democracy.
And we're very fortunateto have as our guest, Jessica Patterson.
Thank you, Jessica.
Happy to be here, Roger.

(02:00):
Well, let me tell a little bit about you.
I think many of our listeners and watchersknow who you are.
You're well knownon the national stage as well, but
not intending to embarrass you too much.
You are the chair of the CaliforniaRepublican Party.
You are the first elected

(02:21):
Latina to hold that position.
And you were just reelected
to a third term, which is very rare.
And on top of that, you were reelected
with a resounding 66, 67, 68% of the vote.
I believe, which is the highestmargin you've ever had.
You're doing a wonderful job.

(02:41):
Thank you. Roger.
And that's reflected in the supportthat you have in the party
now during your leadership.
California has switched
five congressional seats from blue to red,
which kind of gets overlooked in the washof the national political debate.
But this is California.That's a big change.

(03:04):
Now, that five seat switchjust happens to be
the margin of majorityin the House of Representatives and hence,
Kevin McCarthy, the speaker of the House,probably owes you
a tremendous amount of things.
Well, job well done. Thank you.
All right.
So let me let me just startof the conversation.

(03:24):
Recent Gallup poll indicated that
55 56% of Republicans
have lost confidence and faithin the American electoral process.
36% of independents have lost faith
and 25 or 26% of Democratshave lost faith.
So you roll that all together.

(03:45):
It seems like maybe one out of three,maybe four out of ten people
no longer have faithin the election process.
Your thoughts?
What can we do about that?
It's certainly a challenge and it'sdepending on when you take a poll,
which party feels more affected by it.
Right.
We think back to the 2016 election cycle

(04:08):
where,you know, people like Secretary Clinton,
Stacey Abrams, the conversation
is about quote unquote, election fraud.
We're mostlycoming from the Democrat side. Right.
We heard about Russian hoaxand interference
and so it really is affected,not just Republicans.

(04:28):
You know, you hear about it right nowa lot in the mainstream
media following the 2020 election cyclebecause of
President Trump'scomments about the election.
So you see that on both sides.
And it just depends on who won or lost.
One of the challenge that we have

(04:48):
is to make sure that peopledo have confidence in their vote.
Right.
So what are the what are some of thethings that we do to work on that?
And that's election integrity.
If you say in one breaththat your vote doesn't count
or that the it's fixed and it's baked inand it's already decided,
and in the same breath you're askingsomeone to turn out the vote,

(05:12):
how much confidenceare they going to have that that ballot
is going to mean something.
And so we worked really hard here inCalifornia to pursue election integrity.
And it didn't start post 2020 electioncycle.
In fact, we were very engaged in electionintegrity in the 2020 cycle.

(05:33):
My first cycle as chair with
about 60% of all ballotsbeing watched by lawyers, staff
and volunteers, that was mostly focusedin our targeted congressional seats.
In 2020, we had four targeted seats.
We played in all four of those seats.
We won all four of those seats.
It was the first time we had flippedfrom blue to red since 1994.

(05:58):
A little bit of context.
I was 14 years oldthe last time we had done that.
But it was critical.
It was critical to make surethat we had people on the ground.
Do I have faith and confidencein our elections here in California?
Absolutely, I do.
But it's the Ronald Reagan old saying.
Right. Trust but verify.

(06:20):
We went from the 2020 electioncycle to the 22 cycle from 60% of ballots
being watched to about 93% of ballotsbeing watched.
We had a statewide election integritychair from 2021 when we did the recall.
We recruited volunteersfrom all over our state.
We had an electionintegrity chair in every single county.

(06:43):
We had a lawyerassigned to every single county.
We went and trained over2100 poll watchers.
And then we also helped people
get jobs within the county clerk's officesall around our state.
So we had people on the inside.
And, you know, one of the bestparts of my job, win or lose,

(07:05):
is to call people upfollowing the election and thank them
for whether it was being a major donoror one of our stellar volunteers.
Some of my best conversations camefrom our election integrity volunteers.
You know,each one of them really got into it
because they had plannedon, you know, uncovering

(07:26):
some massive irregularities.
And you know, what all of them said waswe developed
a relationship with our county clerkwhen we had a question.
They gave us an answer.
And if something looked funny to usand they didn't have an answer,
they went and found an answer.
Now, sometimes there was incompetence,of course, but
it didn't seem like anythingnefarious was happening.

(07:48):
And so their confidencewithin the election system was restored.
But again, I can't let them walk awayfrom the work that they're doing,
because when you win a seatlike we did with Mike Garcia
in 2020 by 333 votes
or now Congressman John Doherty,
who won by 565 votes in 2022,

(08:10):
we even had one race down in Palm Springson the assembly side.
Now, Assemblyman Greg Wallace.
He won by 85 votes.
Trust me, if there are placeswhere just a few votes being pushed in
or pushed out would make a differencein those close races.
And so when you have wins on thoseand you can say,

(08:32):
I have confidence in these elections,it makes a difference.
But we need people on the ground to makesure that nothing funny happens soon.
We take our foot off the gas.
That's when funny business will happen.
Well, that's very encouraging.
And you're restoring a lot of my faith.
There is a lot of chatter, you know,in the national media in particular,

(08:52):
that is very confusingon this particular subject.
Well, one thing I learned early onas a youngster is when you get into
a discussion, it's really helpful to havethe terms of your discussion defined.
So when we say voter integrity, to me,that's a defined term,
which is probably narrower than the bigger

(09:12):
media discourse or, you know.
Well, let me come back to you.
And what is your definitionwhen you say voter integrity?
What does that encompass?
Yeah, I think that as Republicans,we hold our ballots sacred.
And so having the confidencethat that vote is being counted
and it's being counted properlyand that there aren't any improper votes

(09:36):
being counted on the Republican side,what I say is that we believe
every legal vote should be counted.
And that is very definite.
Well, can you can you take us
through the process?
Everybody in every voter in California
receives a ballot by mail now, I believe.

(09:59):
Correct me if I'm wrong on this,but I think it's every registered voter
and then that ballot is
physically filled outand it needs to be mailed in or taken
to a polling stationor someone could take it
on the day of the electionand actually cast it as well.
Can you take us through that processfrom the beginning to end?
Because I think there's a lot of

(10:20):
people out there that are confusedabout how their vote gets counted.
They're worried about,
you know, voting early because somethingmight happen in the ether to the ballot
and then it's never lost inthe vote is never counted.
And hence, I think that was partof your reference to people.
Why should I vote?Because it's not going to be counted.
Can you walk us through that process?
Yeah, and I think we need to start

(10:40):
with the evolution of what has takenplace here in California.
We used to haveyou could request an absentee ballot,
and when you requestedthat absentee ballot, either
you or a family membercould return that ballot, but no one else.
Then in 2016, despite Republican

(11:03):
objections, the California Democrats
passed a legislative billthat allowed for ballot harvesting,
which essentially allowed any individualto collect ballots and return them.
You and I talked about thisa little bit earlier,
but as Republicans,we really hold our ballots sacred.

(11:23):
And so if a Boy Scout showed upat my house asking for my ballot,
I would tell the kid to beat itright in so.
It wouldn't make any difference.
He said, as part of my Eagle Scout projectin collecting ballots,
although not just to. Get out of here.
So it was really hard for Republicans,particularly in that 2018 election cycle,
where ballot harvesting was first legalfor us to get our head around it

(11:46):
and really put together a processand a strategy
where we could be successfullike Democrats were.
Well,there's a big switch in Orange County
that year, wasn't there,
where a lot of the Republicanevery Republican seats,
which the Democrats in Orange County.
Every single seat. Yes.
And it was it was a challenge.
We we lost half of ourRepublican delegation statewide.
We went from 14 seats to 70 seatsin the congressional delegation.

(12:11):
It was a tough year on CaliforniaRepublicans is a dark time.
When I ran for chair in February of 2019,this is actually something that I ran on.
I believe that California Democratshave legalized and normalized
what would be considered
fraud in any other part of our country,most parts of our country.
But until we get more Republicans

(12:32):
elected to go change those laws,we have to play on the same field
as they dowith the same rules that they did.
So we put together our ballot harvestingoperations throughout the state,
and we did a lot of active
and passive ballot harvesting.

(12:53):
So on the active side, we have ourneighborhood Team leader program.
And generally speaking,it's your neighborhood, but you're not
showing up five weeks before an electionasking someone for their ballot.
We have peoplethat are developing relationships
and going throughout the yearand a half before an election

(13:14):
and making sure that they get to knowtheir neighbors,
talk to them about the issuesthat are important.
It doesn't always have to beyour neighborhood, though.
It could be your book club.
It could be your men's club,it could be your golf club.
Wherever you get together with people.
And you talk about the issues
that are facing Californiansand what's going on in their real lives.

(13:35):
That's where you build trust.
And then you have in,you know, ballot parties at your house.
People can fill things out.
You can give information.
Organizations like the New MajorityFoundation that focus on education
can talk about the issuesin a really intelligent way.
And this is the way that we get outthe vote.
Now, in during COVID time,

(13:57):
we had a executive order
first that went to made it legalfor all individuals
to receive a mail ballotthat are registered in California.
And this was going to be a huge concernfor people.
How successful would we bewith all of these ballots out there,

(14:17):
getting those ballotsin, making sure that they were filled out
correctly,because so many people for decades
had showed up at their polling locationAnd now we have these
mail centers or excuse me,voting centers throughout the state.
How is this going to affect us?
And so that was one of the real focusesfor our neighborhood team leader program.

(14:40):
But it was also a focus on our past
side of collecting ballots.
We had seen I had worked with SenateRepublican leader Shannon Grove,
and there is no one that worked harder
in developing programs to make sure
that our believers throughout the statewere turning out to vote.

(15:03):
We would work with the churches.
We put ballot boxes in these churches.
This is a placewhere you feel comfortable.
This is a place where you knowthat the people that you're
talking to, their values align with you.
We got actually so good at this.
We put these ballot boxes inside

(15:23):
churches, inside gun shops.
We had themat every Republican headquarters.
We got so good at itthat the Democrats actually came after us,
then secretary of stateand our attorney general,
then attorney general both came after us.
They took they took us to courtand we actually ended up winning.

(15:44):
They weren't mad because we were doingsomething nefarious or illegal.
They knewwe were following their own rules,
but we were getting better at itthan they were.
And so the ballot harvesting side of it
as well has to be a componentof what we're doing.
Until we can change those rules.
No, I didn't.

(16:05):
No, go ahead.
Well, you mentioned something
that there was a phrase,if I quote this correctly,
what the process in Californiawould be considered.
I think you said legalized fraud
in the in much of the rest of the country
and wanted to come back to thatthat phrase, because it kind of
I think this may be part of the perceptionnationally is that California

(16:27):
what's happened herewith with the ballot harvesting
is that we are out of
step with many of the other statesin the nation.
So that your reference to legalized fraud,if it was let's say, if it was in
pit pick, pick ups,whatever state you want to pick.
Can you explain why it would be considered
fraud and say one of these other statesthat you had a reference.

(16:49):
To for the same reason it would have beenfraud in California ten years ago
before you had to requestan absentee ballot and either you
or someone within your familywould have to return that ballot.
Now, anyone can pick up that ballot.
So in many states, it is illegalfor someone else to pick up your ballot.
And that's why.

(17:10):
Well, there was.
If my memory serves right,it may have been the 2018 election.
There was a I believe it was the ninthCongressional District in North Carolina
where the election
had to be held a second timebecause someone was collecting
ballots, doing a ballot, harvesting thing,but actually was changing the vote.

(17:33):
And it was a close election of maybe twoor 300 difference in the election.
Was that Dan Bishop special that year?
I believe it was, yes.
Yes, yes, vaguely. Remember that. So
but in California, wehave a lot of safeguards to prevent that.
Yeah, absolutely.
And like I said, you know, when we have 93and a half percent of our ballots

(17:54):
being watched by Republican lawyers,staff and volunteers,
I have confidence in those elections.
We couldn'twin a race by 85 votes in Palm Springs
if we didn't have a fair system in place.
So if we have a situation
where someone fills out their ballot

(18:15):
and then they put it in an envelopeand they sign the outside of the envelope,
I believe,and then when that ballot is received
with with the people who are reviewing it,they have to compare the signature
on the on the outside of the envelopeto the signature that's on file
to make
sure that it's the same signature,basically.

(18:36):
Can you talk a little bitabout that? Yeah.
And in fact,
this is something that CaliforniaRepublicans have gotten really good about.
There's another term
that you and I are going to use,and it's called curing of ballots.
And so when we have these really closeraces,
we can go back and see
how many Republican votes were rejected.

(18:59):
Usually it is for signature reasons.
Sometimes they forget to sign the outsideof the envelope, sometimes the signature.
In many of us,our signature changes over the years.
And if you've been registered to voteand haven't filled out a voter
registration card in some time,that signature will change over the years.
Well, if anybody is like me,I can read my own signature in a more so.

(19:21):
Probably half the doctors in California.
But, you know,I first started doing ballot clearing
back when Katherine Baker was runningfor the assembly in 2014 and 2016.
We did it with Assemblyman Tom Lackey.
These are places where it madea huge difference in those races.
I truly believe that as a partywe really perfected it

(19:43):
in the 2020 cyclewith Congressman Mike Garcia race
333 ballots,and we had to cure everything.
And we did.
We had 100% cure rate for the Republicanballots in that district in 2020.
And what it is is volunteersgetting an affidavit

(20:04):
signed by the individualsaying that they did intend to vote.
That was their signature.
And getting that back to the countyclerk's office
to cure the ballot, the ballot with thenbe reopened or would be opened and counted
towards that election this past yeargoing into Thanksgiving weekend.
And we had teams on the groundwith lawyers, with with Greg Wallace's

(20:27):
assembly race or DavidSheppard's Senate race.
We had up in Congressman John towardhis district, where he won by 565 votes.
We had teams, Josh Hoover, who was runningfor the assembly and switched
that seat from blue to red againsta ten year incumbent on the assembly side.
We had teams all over.

(20:48):
And in that last Thanksgiving weekend,one of our closest races
hadn't been called yet.
We had about 500 ballots that wereour voters that had not been cured yet.
And the Assembly caucus came downunder the leadership
of Assemblyman James Gallagher.
And they had teams on the ground.
And in that weekend alone,they cured 300 ballots.

(21:10):
So 300 ballotswhen your margin of victory was 85.
You can look every single
one of those volunteers in the eyeand say, you made a difference.
Yeah, I'm laughing a little bitbecause when I was a young lawyer,
one of the very first cases.
Was still a young lawyer.
Roger. Well, thank you very much.
You've made my day. Thank you, Jessica.
The judge would say to the panel,

(21:32):
give a patriotic speech and would say that
there's only three timeswhen when a citizen can serve the country.
One is when you serve in the military.
Two is when you vote in an election,and three is when you serve on a jury.
And he said of all those three,it's the service on the jury
that has the most profound impacton your sense of democracy,

(21:54):
because you can see your vote in action.
So you're looking at youryou know, whether they're six or nine
or 12 on the jury, you're deliberatingand everybody sees their vote.
And so you can see the direct impact.
But I'm laughing because now
when we talk about 85 vote electionsand commercial does how's the vote count?
So, so
so now maybe it should be
the close elections morethan the jury deliberation than voting.

(22:18):
Yeah, And I will saywhen it comes to process, because you and
I have been talking about process a lotand when to vote, I have
I have been a permanent absenteeballot voter
before I was before we had mail in voting.
And so I never knew why, because I workedin campaigns for the last 20 years.
I never knew where I was going to beon Election Day.

(22:39):
So this was a safeguardfor me to make sure that my vote got in.
And let me tell you, I have the bestpolling location in the country
at the Ronald Reagan Library.
So if I could get to the libraryon Election Day, I was there.
I get to walk rightpast the Gipper before I cast my vote.
But what's important iswhen you have the confidence in your vote,

(23:00):
as soon as you know how you're goingto vote, as soon as you receive
your ballot, in my opinion,is to get it back in.
And the reason for that is more economic
than altruistic and the reason for it
is because we can save money
on contacting youand moving on to a less likely voter.

(23:22):
So as long as you hold on to your ballot,
I am going to be spending money on mail.
I am going to be spending resources,whether it's volunteer hours
on getting your vote in via phones,precinct walking.
As soon as you send that ballot in aI will stop bothering you.

(23:43):
You will no longer get phone calls or notsend me pieces from me.
But the resourcesthat would have been spent on you,
someone who is very likely to vote.
And that's why we need to make surethat your vote is getting in.
And I can spend those resources on turningsomeone else out in those close races.
It makes a huge difference.
So so a part of the caring process.

(24:03):
And if if if a ballot is rejected,
then the envelope stays with the ballot.
And so you can do.
Signatures on the outsideand the. Outside.
But if it's accepted, then the envelopeand the ballot are separated.
Correct.
And then the ballot has no way to trace itback to the voter.
Correct. At that point.
That's a you have a secret ballot. Right.

(24:25):
Which is paramount in our system. Sure.
Sure. And well,let me let me ask you this.
In terms of voter ID, a
huge issue nationally,
I think that most countries in the world
requirement all but most require
some type of positive identificationwhen they vote.

(24:47):
Many states, the United States do.
But but but California does not.
And there's a lot of and the response,of course, is that, well,
requiring some type of voterID is some type of voter suppression.
What do youwhat do you have to say about that debate?
Yeah, I think it's insulting, right?
Because generally speaking,they're talking to people of color

(25:09):
when they are sayingthose types of things.
And I can tell you as a person of color,
it was never confusing to mehow I went and got an I.D.
or a license.
And it's just I think it's insulting.
Well, you look at, you know,
the vote process,because what would be the motive?

(25:31):
What is what we're really talking about?
A Democrat Republican divide, I think.
Are we not Republicans?
And I thinkmany probably most Democrats as well.
I I think most polling data, to the extentthat we can trust, you know, the polls
suggest that there's 7080% of Americans are in favor of voter ID,
which would have to include a lotof Democrats and independents as well.

(25:52):
But yet there'sthis strong influential group
that say voter suppressionit or it's racist.
Is the argument.
And it has a lot of traction inin a lot of places.
Why is that?
Well, I think when you see this, it'smostly elected officials, right.
Anything that what you've seen herein California, that it's very rare

(26:14):
that we see moderate Democratsbe elected to the legislature
and even if they are, quote unquote,moderate Democrats,
they're really situationalor issue moderate Democrats.
So it's not like they're across the boardsomewhere left of center
and you get the extremes on it.
And particularly with this

(26:35):
I call the Progressive Caucus,they call them I call them
the regressive Caucus,because I think their policies
have actually regressedmany things here in California.
And so I think if we wanted to get
something passed like voter I.D.,
and I haven't seen the polls herespecifically in California,
it would most definitely have to gothrough ballot initiative

(27:00):
versus the legislature, becauseyou get those extremes up in Sacramento.
And and we see it on the policy sidewith our statewide ballot initiatives.
Right.
So in the last two cycles, the CaliforniaRepublican Party has really played
in this space, and we have done,
you know, $8.2 million on ballotinitiatives in 2020, about 5 million.

(27:23):
There was a lot less in 2022.
But California voters are actuallywith the California Republican Party's
position about between 63%
in 2020 and up to 67% in 2020.
I support voter ID.
Not voter ID, I'm sorry, the ballotinitiatives that were on the ballot.

(27:47):
So this is good news for us.
They're with us on the ideas.
What we need to do is make surethat we have the right messengers
in each one of these districtsto to bring that message.
Right.
And we've seen the absolute disregardfor the people's voice
when it comes to the ideas,whether it's George Gascon in Los Angeles,

(28:09):
who after no cash bail,
failingstatewide in failing specifically in L.A.
County, wanted to continue a policyof no cash bail in Los Angeles.
Right.
And this is why we have to hold themaccountable with these policies.
So we think the ballot initiativewould probably be the best route to go

(28:30):
when it comes to somethinglike voter I.D.,
I'd probably have to do some type
of polling on it first to seeif it was something that was viable here.
Well, you.
Know, as you were talking,
you know, this comes back to the faithand confidence, you know, in the system.
I think that
humans have a
natural instinctfor when they're being fooled

(28:53):
or when someone is tryingto pull the wool over their eyes.
And I think there'sa lot of people out there
that say, well,there must be a reason why there's
such serious opposition to voter ID,because
maybe people are against voter IDbecause they're trying to vote,
sneak in illegal votes and hints that
putting aside the voter integrityin the counting process, look,

(29:14):
looking at just the suspect person
that that raises may account
for some of the loss of the faithin the election process.
Is that something that you agreeor disagree with?
Yeah, I think that that could definitelyand I think probably
the best example of, you know,
showing how it looks inaction was Georgia, right?

(29:35):
They went and passed all of these laws
that would create more confidencein their elections.
And what did the Democrat Party say downthere?
This is voter suppression, right?
Jim Crow 2.0, I think was the.
Exact words that they used.
And then when we saw a similar showthat the MLB pulled the All-Star Game,

(29:57):
which affected revenuesgoing into Atlanta and Georgia.
And so then we saw what it looked likein practice.
And voter participation was actually up.
They had more days where they could vote.
And so I think that it's our jobin organizations

(30:18):
like the New Majority Foundationthat spends time on the education
to point to those success storiesand what we're seeing in action.
Just because there are rulesto how you vote
doesn't meanthere's going to be less participation.
It actually meanspeople will have more confidence
in those votes and be more likely to vote.

(30:40):
Well, you know, it's a it's a great pointthat a wonderful thing
about a federal systemlike we have we have 50 test labs
and, you know, California is one.
Of three U.S. territories.
Plus the U.S. territories.
So so
we have a lot of other places to look atand maybe part of the educational process,
which you just highlighted, islet's get the information

(31:03):
about what's going on in these other areaswhich have different systems.
Is the voting participation down
or is it up or is it roughly, roughly,roughly the same?
Well, let me ask you about early votingand not that
I'm really much of a historianon this, but, you know, this morning
I'm just looking at the historyof early voting

(31:23):
and it seems to have started.
I think it actually started with Floridasometime after the 2000, the famous
or infamous 2000 election and the chadvoting controversy down there.
Hanging chads, dimpled chads, hangingchads.
And I think it's 22, 23somewhere in there.
Florida started early voting, and thenmost other states followed now and then.

(31:46):
And now we have, I think some
states allow early voting up to 42,43, 44 days before Election Day.
And let me draw back once againon my my trial lawyer experience.
Anyone who's ever tried a lawsuit
knows that one of the most commoninstructions
that the judge gives to the jury
every time

(32:08):
the trial day begins, or when they breakfor the day or for the lunch or whatever
is, do not draw any conclusions
until all the evidence is in.
You got to listento the very last witness.
You've got to look at the last document.
Don't draw any conclusions prematurely.
Wait to get back to the jury room.
So putting that background that I am,I just wanted to share that

(32:30):
because that's my bias.
So I'd say now we've got votingthat occurs a month and a half in advance.
But yeah,we don't have all the evidence in.
And I think in the election
with 100 Biden laptop
controversy, which is a wholenother subject to conversation,
maybe we can touch baseabout that today as well.

(32:51):
But but here's somethingthat was significantly a big issue
with people at the time.
Supposedly, as I was a 51
retired intelligence agent, said,it was all Russian disinformation.
And of course, now we know it's not.
And so it never got out.
But if it had gotten out,it could have had it in back,
not because of Hunter,but because of his dad.

(33:13):
Yeah,but yet this information is coming out
sometimeafter the 42nd day prior to the election.
Thoughts on early voting.
Good, bad, indifferent. What do you think?
So the number one indicator of how
you are going to voteis what your party affiliation is.

(33:34):
And certainlythere's that group in the middle
that, you know, probably 10%that are persuadable.
And I expect those individuals
that are persuadableto hold on to their ballots longer.
Generally speaking,people have made up their mind.
They may not have all of the informationthat they need.
And I need to figure outwho I'm going to vote on these judges.

(33:55):
Right.
I'm sure people give you a lot of callsabout that, too, Roger.
So, generally speaking,they know how they're going to vote.
They know on the ballot initiativeswhat policies are important to them.
And so then it doesn't matterwhat's going to come out.
That vote is not going to change.
And so if you are one of those peoplethat these are the values that you have

(34:19):
one candidate and this set of issuesfollow those values. Get
your ballot in early.
There is no reasonto hold on to that ballot.
Now, on the
other side, ifyou are part of that group of persuadables
you may want to wait longerand maybe you haven't reached a decision.
Generally speaking,your party affiliation is going

(34:42):
to dictate the way that ballotis going to be filled out.
And if you know what your values are,it doesn't matter what comes out.
It's probably not going to changewhat your vote is.
Interesting.
So I think coming back to the 50 different
laboratories of democracy,
there's still a couple of statesthat do not allow early voting.

(35:05):
I think Alabama's won.
I think Mississippi,I think New Hampshire,
Connecticut, I think although,I think they just changed.
So the next cycle,there will be early voting
with those statesthat don't allow early voting.
And I realize part of the argumentis that without early voting,
you're suppressing the vote.

(35:25):
And again, comparing the voter turnoutin those states compared to, say,
those states that do have early voting,do we do know are there any differences
in terms of voter participationthat we can identify?
I haven't looked at it.
So the short answer isI don't know the answer to it.
Right.
But certainlyyou don't hear a lot of calls for voter
suppression in those areas.

(35:46):
Right?
That's very true.
Well, how is there a limit
to how early is too early?
Right now, some states that, like I said,in the 40 days before the Election Day,
I mean, how early can we go before itreally starts to shock our sensitivities
more than it does?I think that's a good question.

(36:08):
You know, certainly there's timelineswithin each state and sometimes counties
on information that has to come infiling for these particular races.
You have to have primary races,and some of them are incredibly
late, like Hawaii, right?
It's just a couple of monthsright before the general election.
And so that's certainly somethingthat I think is a buffer for us.

(36:30):
But I think that if you get beyondthat one month
to five weeks before
you are taking away, because I don't think
necessarily we've seen debatesthat the candidates might have
and then there may besomething that happens
that affects policythat is going on right now.

(36:51):
And you know,whether it was in 2008, you know, we had
Senator McCain
who suspended his campaignbecause he wanted to help
as a US senator with the financial crisisthat was going on.
Right.
So playing those types of of issues
and having to lead as an elected official,I think definitely affects it.

(37:14):
So I think if you go much furtherthan that one month, five week period
before the election, I think you're doinga disservice to voters.
So if I if I gather, thenyou're generally in favor of early voting.
But there has to be some type of limit
to how early that is, maybe a month,maybe five weeks, somewhere in that time.
Any way that I can spend less moneyon turning out voters,

(37:37):
I am in favor of one.
Coming back to this perceptionthat people have lost
in the integrity of the election processis that I'll you an example.
So in 2020
and this was still very much
obviously the COVID covered year,

(37:58):
my wife and I were driving across
the United States.
We did a couple of cross-country drivesand so we were driving through
much of the Southwest in the South,maybe the Midwest.
And the amount of visible support
for Donald Trump was huge in every town.

(38:19):
We'd see billboards, we'd see people,you know, marching,
you know, with their placardsand everything.
You'd see boat paradeswith huge Trump turnouts,
but nothing for Joe Biden
and a very silent
Biden support out there.
And then comes the 2020 election.
And you have Trump gets more votesthan he did the first time.

(38:43):
And, you know, the general ruletraditionally has been that
if you get more voteswhen you're running for the second time,
there's never been a presidentas long as well, then he lost.
But then you have these threeor four states where he's leading,
you know,
during the day, during the election,and then during the night, these votes
start to shift.
And and I think from from my perspective,you know, you know,

(39:04):
this seems kind of surprising to peopleand maybe this contributes to the general
loss of faith in the system.
But but but I guess that,you know, two things.
One, the on one hand, we're talking aboutthe traditional measures
of the election processthat we draw from a couple hundred years
of experience

(39:25):
versus we had very unusual circumstancesbecause of COVID.
We had an unusual President
Trump at that time, and Rubiounusual campaign being run by Joe Biden,
which basically was to campaignby not campaigning to a large extent.
But your thoughts on on what impactthis may have on the perception
that people have in the fairnessof the election process? Yeah.

(39:47):
So you and I aren't strangersto this, right?
This was essentially Jerry Brown's2010 election strategy.
And you had Meg Whitman,who is traveling up and down the state
and engagedall over the state, and Jerry Brown,
who basically stayed inside his bunkerduring that entire campaign.
And the strategy was there was nothingthat he could do to help.

(40:11):
And the numbers were thereas long as he didn't hurt himself.
I think that was PresidentBiden's as well.
There wasn't anything that he could go outand do to help him get more,
but he could definitely hurt his campaignand his chances
if he was out there doing things.
So they took a gamble that that would beenough to get them across the finish line.

(40:32):
And I think, you know,obviously the gamble for them worked.
I do think that for individualsit's very difficult.
And we also also get into our ownlittle bubbles.
I remember in 2004, my husband
and I were driving to an election nightparty is about 9:00 at night.
And they're calling

(40:52):
you know, they're talking about Ohioand what's going to happen in Ohio.
And I was just like,
I just feel like the supportso much more there this time around.
Like I would I just can't even imagine
a worldwhere President Bush isn't reelected.
And, you know, my husband,who works in education,
he was like, you are so far in the bubble.

(41:15):
Of course you can't see around that.
He was like, I can tell you,
there is a very real possibilitythat he doesn't get reelected tonight.
And of course, thankfully, he did.
But I think sometimeswe get in that bubble
and it's it's helpfulto get outside of it.
Right. Can you imagine if your
your road
trip took you throughthe northeastern part of our country?

(41:38):
It might be very differentthan driving through those southern states
of the United States.
You know, it's a very interesting commentabout the bubble, the bubble comment.
It occurred to me that we maybe that's
a basic problemthat we have now in this country.
Hence, the challenge to our maintainingfaith in the integrity of the process

(41:59):
is because we're all in a bubble
that we can attribute to a large extentto these algorithms. So.
So every time we're getting onthe Internet, the Internet pays attention
to an article we read last week,and therefore we get fed more of the same.
And we get to the pointwhere all we're doing is having the prior

(42:22):
articles reinforced
to reinforce, regardless of whatend of the political spectrum you're on.
So if you're to the far left, all you'rehearing is about far left stuff.
And people can understandhow people on the
they can understandhow people on the right think that way.
Therefore, they must be bador evil or wrong or whatever.
And it goes the other way, too.
How do.

(42:42):
Is there any way to address that issue?
Well, I think it's the dehumanization.
Right.
And it's important for us to continueto have conversations in my opinion,
in a respectful and compassionate way
with people who have different valuesand viewpoints than we do.
And I think that we have gotten to a placewhere so much of it is

(43:03):
spent on time online, whether it's Twitteror your Instagram feed.
And again, you have this algorithmthat's being fed to you.
And so I think it's very importantto sometimes put that stuff down
and continue to have conversations,real life conversations with, people
that may not always agree with youbut can be respectful while you do it.

(43:25):
There are some philosophers out therefrom ancient times
I think would be very happy to hearwhat you just said, because I think
the theoryis that the problem with the with
how do you addressa bad idea is another idea.
Meaning, if you don't like the speech,the solution is not to sort of suppress

(43:46):
that speech, but is more speechwhich which we seem to be getting away
that in this countrythere seems to be a significant
loss of faith in the First Amendment.
You're people talking about how it's
irrelevantor maybe it's being used here improperly.
Any thoughts onhow that affects the election process?
Yeah, I would say that, you know,I went from a very background place

(44:10):
and in politics to a foreground position.
And I would say that, you know, in private
I was probably a little lessconsiderate of my words.
And in public, you know,
I think I was alwayssomeone who is disciplined, so to speak.
But I think that
when you
take time to think about the wordsthat you're saying

(44:33):
and making sure that it'snot that they don't
you know, you want to make sureyou're authentic and that they align
with your values,but also being understanding
and compassionate,that people have other viewpoints.
I think that that goes a long way in.
I think what we've seenis that it is too easy to be anonymous

(44:55):
in a digital world.
And so people can say thingswithout consequence
and other people can view thatvery publicly and think that it's okay.
There are many things that are said online
that people would never sayto someone's face.
And so oftentimeswhen I'm looking at something

(45:17):
and I think to comment,I usually hold back and don't comment.
And then I think about,would you say that to this person's face?
And I think that's one of the challengesthat we're seeing
in this new digital world that we live in.
Newer and well,you know, it kind of brings to mind the

(45:39):
what Section230 of the Communications Decency Act.
And of course, it treats the onlineproviders
essentially as newspapers, meaningthat they had the First Amendment rights
and therefore they can eliminate voicesthey don't agree with.
And that's being perceived by
certain people in the processas as censorship and suppression.

(46:03):
And and I think that a lot of peopleto the right of center
or maybe even the centerlook at it and say, why is it always
the voices on the right of centerthat are getting suppressed
and hence
contributing to the loss of faith,you know, faith in the system.
Is there any thought on ratherthan treating these online

(46:26):
resources as being in the newspaper model,but instead
treating them as a public square?
Like if you go to Hyde Park in London,right.
They've got this, quote, Speaker's corner.
You can go therefamously for hundreds of years.
You know, there's anything you want to sayand it's not going to be censored
in any
any thought on on on whether or notwe should start treating the Internet

(46:48):
sources as public squares as opposedto just traditional newspaper form.
So I think that the issuethat most Americans and this is my opinion
has, is that there seems to betwo different tiers, right?
When you accusesomeone of pushing misinformation
and then it's found out a couple of yearslater that, in fact, they were right.

(47:12):
We talked about the Hunter Bidenlaptop a little bit earlier.
Right.
When people were talking about this,You know,
we were told you'repushing out misinformation.
We had a letter from 51intelligence officers telling individuals
that this looks exactlylike Russian disinformation.

(47:33):
So we think one ofthe policies needs to be
is that there needs to be a fair and equal
dissemination of.
If this is.
Why is it always seem to be conservativespeech that is being suppressed?
And so I think that if people felt thatthe playing field was a little more equal,

(47:54):
it would be a lot easierto have that free speech
truly be seen as free speech.
Well, you know, even here in California,
which the legislature recently passedand the governor signed into
law a rule that would censor
medical doctors

(48:15):
if they gave, quote, misinformationabout COVID.
And that I think the that particular lawhas been stayed
the enforcement has been stayedby the federal district court
in Sacramento, but for the time being, onvagueness grounds and that kind of thing.
But I was just thinking that, you know,
if you had that kind of suppressionof dissenting medical opinion,

(48:39):
we may very well in the year2023 still be putting leeches on people
who have an infectionthe way that George Washington had
because you never have a chanceto grow and develop.
And there's a, you know, significant partof the medical community that disagrees
with that, because if they say,first of all, what is consensus?

(49:00):
If you always have a consensus,you're never going to grow.
And you come to a greater understandingof the more subtle issues.
But they also say that whywhy have that law?
Because if we're giving misinformation,there's protections already in place
where you can be sued for malpractice,that kind of thing.
But the thing that's shocking to meis why even pass the law?

(49:21):
Right. And so what what's going on now?
What is it that
people feel that they can actually tryto suppress this kind of speech?
It's this radical, regressive policiesthat we talked about.
This is an absolute disserviceto our medical community,
our scientific community,and by extension,
the people of Californiaand the rest of the country.

(49:44):
We have been at the forefrontwhen it comes to so many of our medical
advancements and to not be in a positionwhere you can look at the data
and talk aboutwhere you think the data is pointing.
What a disservice to the medical communityand Americans at large

(50:04):
when they do something like this.
And you know what's just very fascinating?
Well, you know, it seems to me that
people
feel much more at liberty to suppress.
And I always was raised on a principle,
and I suspect you probably were, as well
and is probably very old fashionedin many people's point of view now.

(50:25):
But I may not agree with what you say,
but I will fight for your right to say it.
And are we still in that worldor have we passed that now?
And and do we not have that same sentimentin this country?
Yeah.
So my version of suppressing speech thatI don't like is turning off the channel.

(50:45):
Right.
If I am not interested
in what you have to say,then I am not going to listen to it.
And so I think that we are not necessarilyin that same place.
I think most people can get to that place.
But for
some andI do believe that it's a small minority,
it is more important for themto make sure that those words

(51:07):
are never said versus turning it offand not giving an audience.
I wasn't feeling energetic.
I will go on a six or seven mile walk,
a little run, mostly walk
with a friend who's very left of center,
and it's one of the most entertaining

(51:29):
Sunday mornings that that I have
because he'll make a propositionand I'll respond and we go back and forth.
It kind of reminded me of this
when I took my younger sonto begin at Boston College.
The there was a wonderful professorwho talked about
having, quote, intellectual conversations,whatever that means.
And he said the hallmark of anintellectual conversation is someone says

(51:54):
son, so on and so on.
And the other person say, yes, but
and then has the exceptionand then the person on the other side.
Well, yes,
but and they go back and forth, you know,
and it's like a little bit like a tennismatch as opposed to just saying
and shutting down said,I don't want to listen to that,
You know, Andso this is part of the educational process

(52:14):
that we're interested in here,is that we like to encourage the.
Yes, but whether you're on the left,
a center, right, a center,we need more people listening.
And I think you agree with thisvery strongly.
Wholeheartedly, is thatwe need to have people say, yes,
but and we go back and forth and we allget better for the process, I believe.
And the best part of doing itthe way you do it is when you're done,
you can just run a little faster.

(52:37):
Yes, I can do that.
I can do that.
I can probably eke outa very small victory.
Well, let me interpret the voter.
Let me just expand this just just a bit.
And this is on the issue ofwho do you trust, Right.
So a few years ago,
Adam Schiff,the congressman, you know, from the L.A.

(53:00):
area, who's heading up the house,I guess it was the intelligence Committee,
He was coming out of these closed doorsession and said there's absolute proof
of Russian collusionand Russian collusion.
And I said, well, one,what amazing What where is it?
And, of course, you know, it's all behindclosed door, never comes out.
Now, the Durham report is out, Right.
Who basically saidthere was never any proper basis to launch

(53:22):
a full scale investigationto the so-called Russian collusion thing.
Anyway,
Schiff never
retracts anything, just keeps going on.
And we pour.
Americans are left regardlessof whether you're left or right.
Who do we believe? Right.
And and we have all this informationthat's out there.

(53:44):
Who do you believe?
How do we correct that?
So I think one of the things that was mostsignificant during that period of time
was having someone like CongressmanDevin Nunes in the role of ranking member.
Right.
So he was out there and, you know,
singing a very different tunefrom what Congressman Schiff was saying

(54:04):
and all of them,
you know, being respectful ofof what they were saying on intelligence,
because the Intelligence Committeegets more information than any of us do.
Right.
It's important that we have consequences
to these types of actionslike we saw with Congressman Schiff.
Right. He lied about Russian collusion.

(54:25):
He lied about the Hunter Biden laptop.
We have now in placea speaker of the House
who takes our intelligence communityincredibly seriously.
Adam Schiffpoliticized the intelligence committee.
Him and along with Congressman Swalwellup in the bay area

(54:46):
who was connected with a communist Chineseparty spy,
are not allowed to beon the Intelligence Committee,
and that is because of the leadershipof Speaker McCarthy.
Now, any of the other Democratshave the ability to be on that committee.
He said those two couldn'tbecause of those situations.

(55:07):
I think it's really importantthat the American people
want to see the consequences to actionslike that, because if you're going to be
spending time in Congress and many of themdo for a long time, right,
we need to make sure that stufflike that doesn't happen.
And when it does,there are consequences to it.
But it's also important and we'reseeing this on multiple committees

(55:29):
now that we have a Republican Housemajority, we have the opportunity
to investigate the investigationsand get both sides of it right.
And I think that that is somethingthat we didn't see from
Democrat Party leadership.
It was incredibly political.
And Speaker McCarthy,I truly believe, is going to be

(55:51):
a transformative speaker of the House.
You know, just last month,
we had him up at the Reagan Librarymeeting with the president of Taiwan
with a bipartisan selectcommittee on China.
This is critical.
And to see and and they hadthe opportunity on both sides.
Democrats, Republicans,to be able to address the press.

(56:16):
And all of themtalked about being a united front
when it came to the threatof the Chinese Communist Party.
They did it with the backdropof the Berlin Wall at the Reagan Library.
It was absolutely amazing to watch.
But this doesn't happen by accident.
You know, SpeakerMcCarthy was very clear on how important

(56:39):
this select Committee on Chinawas going to be,
and he wanted to keep the numbersclose on Democrat and Republican side.
And so when he went to LeaderJeffries and said, let's talk
about who's going to be on this committeeand let's make sure
we're getting the best possible group,because to the rest of the world,
the United States has to be unitedwhen you're coming for us.

(57:03):
And that'swhat they've done on this committee.
And so having theseinvestigative committees that we have,
whether it's oversight or intelligence,where they can perform
these investigations, I think it's goingto be important to the American people.
So they feel likethere are some consequences.
But more importantly,we know the truth about what happened.

(57:24):
That's what gives you confidenceis the transparency and all of that.
The term consequences, I believe that with
Schiff, there's
already been a motionintroduced in the House
to disqualify himfrom his seat in the House.
The odds are of itsucceeding are probably negligible,

(57:46):
I think, than in the entire history.
There's only been fivepeople removed from their house
because the House can judgethe qualifications of its own members.
And I think three of thosewere confederates
and they got disqualifiedbecause they were
holding arms and marchingagainst the guy against the union.
So the two others were convictedof criminal misconduct of various kinds.

(58:07):
And of course, now Schiff is runningfor Senate California, I believe.
And so consequences,
what can we do?
What kind of consequencesdo you think would have some teeth?
Well,I think that we have the most powerful
consequences,and that's in our electoral process.
Right?
Fortunately, our Housemembers are running every two years.

(58:29):
And so we have the opportunitythat if you are doing something wrong,
if what you are doingdoes not align with our values,
we have the opportunity to replace you.
And that is greater than many systemsin the entire world.
You know.
You know, focusing withwith this issue of education,
we now live in a have a world,for lack of a better description.

(58:51):
I call itthe 7 seconds in swipe left world. So
you look at a very.
Immediate.
And that's it.
So so so many of usnow are getting our news from a headline.
And when you really pay close attentionto the headline
and the headline, you're getting fatter.
The ones that reinforcewhatever you looked

(59:11):
at last week or the month beforeand that kind of thing.
But they're very stylized headlines like.
That.
And it's just clickbaitthat that's a challenge all in its own.
How do we get people to do more than 7seconds and swipe but instead click,
but actually read downto the fifth paragraph
to find out what's really going onin the subject of the article?
Right.

(59:31):
I think that you as conservative
messengers, I think what we need to dois we, you and I sitting
here, we're getting down in the weeds,We're talking very detailed stuff.
We have to also make surethat we've got something spicy
to say that gets out there in 7 seconds,that gets their interest rate.
So that's important, too.

(59:52):
Well,you know, on this misinformation issue
and in the 2016 election cycle,going back, what, seven years or
so now, and Donald Trump is talkingabout misinformation and so forth.
And, you know,I was kind of slow to the party.
So what is he talking about?
And so I said, look,I'm going to pay attention.
So he wasthis was still before the election.

(01:00:13):
He's giving a rally in Phenixand I listened closely.
He said, you know, it doesn't makeany difference what color you're with.
You're white, black or brown.
We're all Americans. I said, All right.
Well, it sounds pretty balancedand American to me.
Next morning, I picked up the L.A. Times.
It said,Trump gives racist speech in in Phenix.

(01:00:33):
And I said,now I understand what he's talking about.
So, you know, so many of us, you know,we're all busy with our lives.
We're trying to pay our bills.
We're trying to take care of our kids.
And most of us just don't have time
to really go behind that sevensecond and swipe motion.
And so if people just read the headline onThe Times, which says Trump gives racist

(01:00:56):
speech in Phenix, peoplegoing to say Trump is racist
and increases huge divide.
And maybe this is a process ofjust us becoming so busy and overwhelmed
with various things and so many mediachoices, information choices.
But it's a challenge.
Which so interesting to meis that when you know big organizations

(01:01:18):
like this, there's
a lot of conversations about equityand inclusion in these newsrooms.
You know what
affiliation is never discussed.
Party affiliation.
They're perfectly okay with having,you know, 10 to 1
liberal male to conservative journalists

(01:01:38):
or commentatorswithin their news organizations.
But they're very concerned about,you know, how many black voices are heard,
how many Latino voices are heard,how many female voices are heard.
I'd like to see the same typeof consideration given to ideology.
Right, Right. That's a very good point.
Is there any way that we can get therethat you see?

(01:02:00):
I don't know about that.
Because it's uncomfortableto hear opposing opinions, I suppose.
And it challenges each of our thoughtprocesses and our beliefs and so on.
But I was coming back to this Yes,but mentality.
It may be frustrating to hear the.
Yes, but the person who's doing the butand having an exception to your comment.

(01:02:22):
But maybe we can all go homeand cogitate it over night
and maybe tomorrow we might be broaderthinking person, possibly.
Or maybe just a little bit better person,
maybe understandingwhere other people are coming from.
Maybe.
Well, where do you see us going?
This is 2023.
We got we're going to bein another election cycle.
What we already are there, but

(01:02:44):
it really officially is 2024.
Where do you seeboth in California? Nationally?
Yeah.
So it's excitingfor California Republicans.
We have an early primary this cycle,
so we're on Super Tuesdaythat first week in March.
And so you're going to see candidatescoming through our state.
And generally speaking,we've seen over the years

(01:03:07):
we have candidates that usually come hereon the presidential level to raise money.
They'll still be doing that.
But also they're going
to be building up their organizationsbecause we're a delegate rich state
and we are a winnertake all by congressional district.
So you can really rack up those delegates
in the state of Californiaby different parts of the state

(01:03:31):
and still walk away with somethingand so a statewide poll here may not mean
as much as it would in a placethat's winner take all by state.
And you have the opportunityto see where your message works
and how you can build outyour organization.
So that's greatfor California Republicans.
But I also think that we'rein a really wonderful position

(01:03:52):
on the national levelwhen it comes to the presidency.
We have an embarrassment of richeswhen it comes to our presidential
candidates and and and Democrats acrossthe country
are stuck with a guywhose approval ratings around 36%.
I think it's a great placeHe's going to have to campaign.

(01:04:12):
And President Biden's going to have tocampaign in a way he did it in 2020.
And, you know, when you'reputting a lid on things at 3:00
in the afternoon on a regular workday,I mean, I really look forward to
what our nominee will be doingwhile he's taking a nap in the afternoon.
Well, that kind of makes me smile.
I don't mean to break out laughing,but you hate to think that the fellow

(01:04:35):
that's runningthe free world has to take a nap from 3
to 5 every day because some bad thingscan happen between three and five.
We need a prompt and attention to it. But
do you think that he'sserious about running?
Is there something
that's going to cause him to backtrackon that announcement between now.
And some time in 2024?

(01:04:57):
If I were giving odds on it,I would say there's a 75% chance
that he runs for this raceor for this for a reelection.
So and then switch the focus on just that.
He's going to have challenges,primary challenges.
What what do you think the odds are of himactually fighting those challenges back?
I think he should be fine.
So you think he'll get the nomination?

(01:05:17):
Yeah.
So, okay, predictionson the Republican side.
I think it's too soon to tell.
But I'm excited. I'm really excited.
Whether you're looking at President Trump,who we all saw,
what his policies look like. Great.
We were thriving as a countryunder his policies.
You've got GovernorDeSantis, who's obviously being rumored.
I think we'll probably see somethingpretty quickly from him.

(01:05:40):
I've heard some super PAC noiseon his particular race.
He's done a phenomenal job in Florida.
We've got our governor here in Californiawho's trying to like punch up to him.
And GovernorDeSantis isn't taking the bait.
And Governor Santos is saying thank youbecause so many Californians
are moving to my state becausethey want to see what freedom looks like.

(01:06:03):
You've got
Ambassador Nikki Haley,
who has been a leader on the world stageand also an executive in South Carolina.
You've got Senator Scott,who has been a trailblazer
in the US Senate, just an absolute
embarrass moment of richeswhen it comes to Republicans.
And I'm excited to watch this,but I do think it's too soon to tell.

(01:06:26):
So who's declared on the Republican sideso far?
Yes. So we've got
former President Trump.
You've got former U.S.
Ambassador Nikki Haley.
You've got the former governorof Arkansas, Asa Hutchinson.
You've got Vivek Swami.
I'm hope I'm saying that right.
I always feel badthat I don't get it exactly right.

(01:06:47):
And I think that might be it right now.
I know Senator Scott has announcedhis exploratory committee,
so that's basically in. Right.
So a lot of great individuals.
So we have a lot to look forward toin 2024.
Yes, absolutely.
It sounds like you're going to beextremely busy. I heard. And

(01:07:08):
Well, listen,
Jessica, thank you so much for taking timeto talk to us today.
And it's been a wonderful conversation.
I hope to have you back again soon.
I would love that, Roger.Thank you for having me. You're welcome.