What Does it Look like for the Midterms (Community Matters)

[music] Welcome to Community Matters on Think Tech Hawaii. I'm your host, Jay Fidel. This episode is called What does it look like for the midterms? Trump's maneuvers to derail them and what might happen to the country and to Hawaii. Our guest for the show is Professor Dr. Colin Moore, director of the uh Public Policy Center. So nice to see you Colin. Welcome to the show. >> Thanks Jay. Good to be here. >> You know in the way of introduction you know we really need to stay engaged and informed. This is a very important issue. Your vote remains the most powerful check on power when institutions are under strain and they are. They say verify your registration early. Know your state's voting deadlines. rely on legitimate updates from local election officials, not rumors. Courts, state governments, and Congress, not any single president, uh, hold authority over federal elections. So, you should support the judges, secretaries of state, watchdog groups defending that structure. So they say you should follow credible nonpartisan reporting over social media speculation and talk openly with neighbors about what you learn. They say we don't talk to each other enough about these things. They say voting and holding leaders accountable afterward is how democratic systems endure pressure and resist attempts to bend them. Oh, lots to discuss. So Colin, what should it be like in normal times? Let's look at normal times just for a second. What should happen in November? >> Sure. I mean, a normal midterm election like this with a president with very low approval ratings, which Donald Trump certainly has. I mean, they're somewhere between, you know, 32 and 38% depending on which poll you believe. Um, they would almost certainly lose control of of Congress. Um, that's often what happens in um in midterm elections with unpopular presidents. um these elections should go relatively smoothly. I mean, until very recently, concerns about election security um were really not things that were discussed much in the United States. Um and so this should be a pretty straightforward midterm election and you would expect that the Republicans would lose control of Congress because they already only control it by a relatively thin margin. And what you'd expect to be hearing from the parties is a lot of discussion on their about their policies. I mean, probably a lot of defensiveness about inflation and the state of the economy from Republicans, fairly traditional attacks from the Democrats about policy issues, not attacks on, you know, generally the character of the candidate, certainly not attacks or wild accusations about the security of the elections or or um, you know, trying to seow doubt among the American people about um, you know, whether or not our elections are fair, whether or not non-citizens are voting and all of these things that have been demonstrated again and again not to be true. You would never expect that um coming from the White House. I mean the the most interesting thing and terrifying thing that has happened during [clears throat] the two Trump administrations but particularly the second Trump administration is the demonization of the opposition. We all know that for a democracy to function well, you need as the British would call the the loyal opposition. um you know that you can condemn their policy positions and argue that they're wrong, but at the same time, healthy democracies usually also emphasize that they have every right to be there. They're a legitimate um part of the functioning of democracy. Um and you know, in in past years that was, you know, decades that has been considered extremely poor form um by virtually everyone in every advanced democracy. trying to attack the legitimacy of the opposition is what happens in declining democracies and that's what you see again and again and again in the same way attacking the institutions just trying to seow doubt um and uh confuse people it was not something we've seen in the past I mean I would challenge anyone to go back a few decades ago and compare the rhetoric I mean it could sometimes get hot but it was usually about policies or maybe particular candidates almost never about you know the the opposition party itself and certainly almost never about attacking the the the institutional security of of elections or even the um you know the the notion of of democracy. So in this case though Trump is trying to change all that. Although I thought the states were in charge of election procedures, he's trying to be in charge of election procedures everywhere, state and federal. That's that's a change. And he has a plan. We've seen a fair amount of press on his plan. Um, and although we know some of the things he's doing and will do to derail this midterm season, um, you know, maybe there are other things he's going to do that he's not telling us about because he doesn't tell us everything he wants to do. So, one of the things that comes to mind first, there are several things, is called for a midterm convention. That's that's quite unusual, isn't it? What's the purpose? It's extremely unusual. I mean, I can't recall anything like this in the past. And you know, the purpose seems to be that that Trump seems to think that he is uniquely able to to rally his base. I mean, to have these authoritarian political rallies. I mean, there's no other way to really describe them because they're not like traditional political rallies in this country. um and and to um I [clears throat] mean to to convince all of his supporters to show up would be the most mild way to term this, but you know, we we've seen this at the end of his first term that led to the January um attempted insurrection. Um and so I think you can imagine something similar to that. I mean, it would it would not shock me if he insinuates in the way he often does that some kind of violence is necessary without maybe saying those exact words, but I expect this this uh rally or convention or whatever they're calling it um to come very close to the line there. And there's a lot of I mean, we've already heard from many congressional Republicans, particularly those who are in um purple districts, saying that they won't show up to this. They're, you know, behind the scenes they've said they think this is a very bad idea because for those members of Congress, particularly in the House, who are trying to protect their seats, they don't really want to be associated with Donald Trump that much right now. I mean, MAGA is in a weak spot outside of the core MAGA districts and core MAGA supporters. They I mean the the movement has seen it hemorrhaged support from independents, from Latino voters, from a lot of people who came over to support Trump for his second run, primarily responding to, you know, economic concerns. They have fled that movement. And so I don't think these congressional Republicans really want to be associated with the president in a general election. I mean, this is always what puts them in such a bind to win their primary. They often need the president's blessing, but then they don't really want him too close um in the general, particularly if they're running in competitive districts like a fair number of House members um this time are. I mean, I think the last report I read put um 21 races in the tossup category. So, that's significant. And if we believe the fundamentals, it's very very likely that many of those Republicans will lose in November despite the fact that the Republicans had ha have had a lot of success in redistricting um and creating much safer districts for for themselves. But even with that, I I expect that um the Democrats will manage to take control of the House. Part of his plan, as I understand it, includes, and this is this is only a few things, but Jerry mandering is one, having brown shirts appear at the polls to intimidate people. Um, as you say, uh, make statements and insults that confuse and intimidate, and of course, male balloting. So, that's the that's those are some of the elements that are being revealed about his plan. Uh, can you talk to those things? Are they legal? Will they be hap will be happening? Um, and how how much effect will they have? >> Well, um, I mean I I do think they're going to have an effect. I think the thing I'm most worried So, let me start with the things I'm a little less worried about. Um, although um, maybe I should be more worried. I mean, we've heard in recent uh days about uh the Department of Homeland Security is going to start what I see as largely a witch hunt to find non-citizen voters, but this will allow them to have probably an on the ground presence around election time that could intimidate um voters um you know, people who are legal voters but might not want to be anywhere near um a place where there's likely to be Homeland Security present. Um, so that that that's that's a concern. Um, you know, be because there are almost no non-citizens voting, but we're they're going to dispatch probably these federal officials through what I see is largely an effort at intimidation. The thing I'm much more worried about is this US Postal Service mail voting controversy. So on March 31st, Trump p I mean signed an executive order that directed the postal service to provide these uniform procedures for federal mail ballots. I mean it requires an official election envelope. a lot of other stuff um that um requires somehow the creation of this vetted verified voter list that states don't really have that they haven't many including Hawaii haven't been willing to share this information with the federal government. Um and the the argument is is that the postal service won't send out ballots if it doesn't meet these requirements. And this is a requirement Hawaii right now is unable to meet. Um, you know, a lot of this if if this were a genuine effort, and I don't think I mean, I think it's trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, but if it really were a genuine effort, this is a sort of thing that would be in the works for years. Um what I see this is a way to create to seow confusion to create opportunities for litigation after the election. um to confuse voters, to just I mean this is often from the Trump playbook which is to just throw as much uh [snorts] sand in the gears as you can um to try to um to to create chaos and then you know that is a place once you create that chaos and misunderstanding that is a place where the president can often assert a lot of executive power um because something needs to be decided quickly. this is where the institution of the presidency is most able to act and I think that's what Trump is trying to set something up like that. I mean, you know, it's extraordinary because several years ago, I never I never would have thought something like this was possible. I don't think I even would have um attributed a motivation like this to Trump during his first term. But this time, it seems very clear that that's exactly [clears throat] what's going on. There's no reason to do this. We don't have an election security problem in this country. um to the extent that there are errors, they are administrative errors. I mean, there probably are ways we could clean up different aspects of the election, but it's simply not the case that there's a lot of fraud or that there's a lot of non-citizens voting. So, all of this, for my opinion, is to intimidate people who Trump fears will not support him. um and just generally create enough doubt and misinformation and chaos uh that they will be able to justify potentially an intervention um after the election if the results don't go the way they they think they are. So that's what I see this as doing is just beginning to put this in um in place. Um and so there'll probably be a lot of litigation right after the election if it's not a clean result. There'll be of course a lot of claims about illegal votes or defective mail ballots. Um, and that's going to create a real mess. But what I will say is that this is a place where the decentralized US system provides a very important safeguard. I mean, as you suggested, Congress and the states manage elections and elections are administered by thousands of local jurisdictions. There isn't a single federal authority. I mean, this is a sort of thing that Trump is in various [clears throat] ways trying to establish. But, you know, in the past, I think people have complained about this that this is a weakness of the American system. I think we're seeing in this case that this this is a real strength because there's so many different county clerks and election officials um who um are administering their elections in slightly different ways. I think this is why you've seen and and in one of the statements that came out of this original executive order in March, one of the things I found most shocking was a claim that state level election officials could be held criminally liable, personally liable um if they don't follow these rules. In other words, they would threaten, the federal government, Department of Justice would threaten to prosecute, for example, Scott Nago um for not following these rules, which is I mean, which is a shocking thing to imagine. Um, completely unheard of in any other era in this country or at least recent era. Um, and that's the kind of intimidation tactics they're using because they understand that these local officials do still exercise a lot of control. And I think from, you know, Trump's repeated claims of the election, um, after his first term was stolen from him, he sees that this this was one thing he wasn't able to control that, you know, despite trying to intimidate state election officials, ultimately they they followed the law. Um, and he lost. And I think he sees this from his perspective as a weakness because it's something he can't control. He doesn't have constitutional authority to control. Um, and so this attempt to centralize and then intimidate officials is all part of this plan. >> So there are lawsuits pending already on some of the tools, some of the devices that he's he's come up with in order to derail the midterms before they ever happen. Um, and h how are the u, you know, the the civil rights people doing on that? How how are those cases going? uh what what has the Supreme Court done to either help or hinder the uh democratic process? We would expect >> I mean I I think like a lot of people I've been disappointed with the role the Supreme Court has has played in this um is certainly the recent decision about the USPS issue. I mean even John Roberts dissented from from that. Um you know they they have been uniquely permissive in ways even in ways where it seems very clear to me that a conservative court would [clears throat] uh would not sanction. I mean a originalist court would see that this is printed in black and white um about Congress and the states managing elections. And so where this executive authority comes from is somewhat mysterious to me. And you know, they they've done it in a a variety of ways, saying they're delaying the decision to see what ultimately comes out of it. I mean, I I think that probably if there's, you know, an attempt to radically take over elections, the court would would block it. But um the um you know it is it's not been a robust defense um in in an area where I think that it should have been a very clear bright line from the court that this is completely outside of the uh powers of the president and it should stop and you haven't seen that and you've seen I mean I'm I'm not an attorney you are so you can probably speak to this more directly than I can but it seems like a lot of decisions kind of around the margins allowing various things to go forward. Um but they have seemed to be the court has seemed to be afraid to speak very clearly and draw some very bright lines and um I think that has only encouraged the Trump administration um to find various ways around it to just keep proceeding. Um and um and and none of that has provided much much confidence to the to the public. So um I don't think you can look for the courts necessarily to save us. I mean, I think that the some of the um federal district courts have been very aggressive and very good. Um but the Supreme Court has not. And I think that just encourages uh encourages Trump to to to move forward. I mean, as far as he's concerned, you know, just like famously he showed that most of these norms we had thought were sort of sacred around presidential power didn't matter. I think he's perfectly happy to to push as hard as he can until the court says absolutely not. You can go no further and you haven't really gotten that clear message from them. >> Well, the stakes are very high. As we discussed before the show, the stakes are critical to the continuation of our democracy. Um, and if Trump's uh devices work, um, and he gains votes he shouldn't have gained or depresses votes he shouldn't have depressed, um, we will have a, according to his view of it, we will have a continuation of Republican control of both houses. What does that mean for the future of his administration and for the country? Well, it it mean I mean if the Democrats at least take the House, which we expect, it means that um it it means that there won't be any room to move federal legislation forward. If if they don't, then I'm very concerned because if Republicans maintain control of Congress, they have shown in every way that they're willing to give Trump essentially a blank check to do whatever he would like. Um there's been almost no evidence from Republicans in Congress that they're willing to check um his power. Um you know, which is an extraordinary thing to witness because they are undermining the power of their own separate equal branch of of government. I think this is this is one of the most interesting things to have witnessed in the rise of Donald Trump because the constitution as you well know assumes that the branches will will jealously guard their powers. I mean that they will struggle against each other but that even if you are a co-partisan you will also work to protect the power of your own branch of government. What you've seen recently in recent years is the the collapse of that has been shown that the the way we thought the Constitution was working and was and certainly is the way it's supposed to work is is failing. That Republicans, as long as a president is in office, are willing to provide essentially a free pass to allow him to do whatever he wants. And so what we're creating in this country is an electated dictator. I mean, there's there's really no other way to put it. I think that's very close to what we have right now. And the the federal courts have provided some checks on those powers, but um you know, as as Trump himself famously said many years ago, if I wanted, I can go out and shoot someone on Fifth Avenue. And I think that I think that's true. Um I I mean I it's hard to imagine how far you would have to go before you get push back from Congress. you're maybe seeming seeing glimmers of this with the things they realize are the most unpopular around foreign uh foreign policy and that has been I think one of the most obvious at least political errors Trump has made is to get involved in in Iran um because he thought he could exit quickly. What what I'm not sure about I mean if you if you want to think about what could happen between now and election day um I'm not sure if there will be another foreign policy intervention. I don't actually think that would help Trump's chances, but it may give him more justification for trying to interfere in elections with some um creative national security justification. Um I I don't know how that would look. It wouldn't surprise me if there is some kind of invasion of Cuba before November. I mean, I think they're they're teeing that up to happen. that would be hard to justify as a national security issue, but it may be used to try to inject some very small rally around the flag effect to um to protect the congressional Rep Republicans control of the House. Um, so I um I think I think we're in a very dangerous time and I think that if we don't get a if Democrats don't provide the kind of congressional check Trump needs um and and gain control of at least one branch of Congress um in November, then I think we are dangerously close to >> I certainly agree with you and I certainly agree with you about um the way the Supreme Court has been handling it. And furthermore, I'd like to add that after the election is over, whatever happens, that's a whole new chapter in litigation. And uh we could have continuing litigation on these issues, these devices, and other issues, um that would leave it all ball in the air and all in confusion as to the result and the effect and so forth. And so what you could have um is is such confusion, such legal confusion uh that the Congress isn't really seated right away. And I think that's what one of the things he might be um you know trying to achieve. So if you have a confusion in litigation or otherwise at the time of the election, uh there's a possibility that he would say, well, this isn't really settled, so we have to wait. We have to defer um you know counting the votes. We have to defer uh seating those who we think were elected or not elected and then we have a continuation of the status quo. Do you see that as a threat? >> Absolutely. I mean, I think you're going to see after this election a lot of actions to refuse to certify votes. Um, that they can eventually be compelled to do that through state boards or courts, but that will delay things considerably. Congress itself is the final judge of its members elections and qualifications. And usually that is, you know, not discretionary. It's just a legal duty that happens automatically. But a really narrowly divided House um or Senate, I could see a lot of contested election and seeding disputes um that would involve what I think would end up being explosive fights in in Congress. Um but that is and it's something we have almost never seen in this country. Um but it's something that I think could very well happen. Um because even if the congressional Republicans understand that this is not I mean the the the claims are not true, they're going to be under tremendous pressure to deliver for Trump and there's a large segment of them that I think would follow President Trump virtually everywhere and and the rest are are cowards um you know that that are too intimidated to try to resist. I mean there every election we get fewer and fewer people who are willing to at least do the right thing legally like famously Vice President Mike Pence was after the first Trump um administration. I have le less faith in the people in Congress today. Um, and I think that increasingly Trump himself and some of his allies are ska personally concerned for their own protecting their own illotten gains or protecting themselves from potential prosecution or certainly um being um compelled to testify in front of congressional committees. Um, and so they have every incentive both political and personal to try to block this for as long as they can. Um, and you know, and I said this when we we saw the beginning of the second Trump administration, and I think it's an important point worth repeating that if you ever thought you would be out of power, you would not be doing the things that Trump and Congress are doing right now. I mean, often parties and presidents have been disciplined by the fear that I'm going to, you know, in a few years I'm going to be a loser. I'm going to be on the losing side. Um, and that's why, you know, for example, as much criticism as the filibuster has gotten, you've often seen that protected by both parties who still understood that it's it's a useful tool when you're in the minority, and you probably will be in the minority. But some of the things Trump has done and the congressional Republicans have done seem to assume that they'll never be in that position again. Um, and that that really concerns me. And I think that they've reached a point where so many of what so much of what they've done seems very clearly illegal to me. certainly will be investigated by Democrats if they um regain control of the House that now I think that there's a combination of of you know uh their their political careers um concern concern about their political careers but also for some concern about their personal liability for some of some of the things that have gone on. you know, in uh in the discussions we've had here on ThinkTech, um uh a lot of our speakers have said, "Well, everybody got to go out there and vote. Make sure to vote. Do all the things you can to exercise your vote as as as best you can." Um but others have said, "Wait a minute. Vote in what? Uh vote in the midterms." What midterms? You talked about war, additional wars, the possibility of additional national emergencies. um is not beyond the possibility uh that um that Trump will say sometime close to the election uh that there is an such an emergency here that he must issue a proclamation deferring um or cancelling cancelling the election. Now, I don't know if that would work. I don't know what the Supreme Court would say about that, but that would really throw some sand in the gears, wouldn't it? Um, and will people go down and vote or will we not have midterms because of some kind of artifice [clears throat] uh that he achieves in in the in the short term before the scheduled date for the midterms. >> I'm a little less concerned about a blanket cancellation of the midterms. I think even Trump realizes that that would be that would be too far. But that doesn't mean that the postelection efforts to slow down the process, to create doubt, to throw out results couldn't be every bit as as effective. I think deviously they understand that that is a better strategy than um something as broad as cancelling midterms, which should be pointed out. We've never canled elections in the entire history of this country. Not during the Civil War, not ever. Um and so an attempt like that would be foreign to the entire history of the United States. Um but um you know it it it doesn't mean that what happens after the elections couldn't be every bit as damaging. And so what what ought people to do? I mean obviously they should vote. I mean I always tell and it affects us a little bit less here in Hawaii at least immediately. I mean, this all affects us, but we're not likely to see those kinds of tactics be practiced at the state or local level here. But at the very same, you know, at the same time, I would say vote vote vote early. Um, so there aren't any questions about your vote. I mean, I think people should aggressively report intimidation and and tactics that um seem related to trying to intimidate voters. But, you know, the the the bigger picture here is that Trump and his allies are have largely proven to be bullies. And by that, I mean they back down when people push back. that their power seems to be to do things that are unexpected. Everyone gets confused, taken um you know um they they have reach achieved so much success by playing by different rules. The Democrats always seem like they're playing you know by uh the the uh Marquis of Queensbury rules in a boxing match and and Trump and his allies are street fighters. And and I think that what has been proven though, you've seen this from Mark Carney and the Canadians, I think you've seen this in this country most dramatically from the people of Minneapolis who pushed back against DHS, is that that sort of collective action will work and they stand down. Um they are not um they they understand that they don't have the kind of broad support for a lot of these actions. I mean, like we started this program talking about Trump's approval is maybe 33 35%. So, you know, and his disapproval is near 60%. So, the the vast majority of people in this country disapprove of what's going on and they know that. Um, and so I think that they've taken advantage of their ability to use, you know, the the the vast powers of the federal government, which we shouldn't underestimate. But at the same time, they've also shown that they back down pretty quickly uh when people have had enough. Um, and so I think that is uh an option that will still be available to all of us. Um, and it's something that we should consider. It's not something that's often happened in this country. Um, I don't think it's something a lot of Americans are comfortable with, that level of mass protest. Maybe it's something we should get a little more comfortable with. And we certainly have evidence that it works. It it definitely worked in Minneapolis. DHS would still be there. Christine Gnome would probably still be Secretary of Homeland Security if it wasn't for that level of direct action. >> All of this seems to cast a shadow on the future of of the country. uh whatever happens here, whatever happens in the election in Congress, whatever happens in the Supreme Court, uh this has been so traumatic to the democracy. I suggest to you that we will never go back to the way it was. You know, they say that everything that happens under a given administration cast a shadow on history, on the on the political science of of democracy in general. And I know this is a large question to ask you, but um you know all that we've discussed, all of these issues and problems, all of the concerns we have um how does that affect the future of these United States? >> Look, I'll give you two scenarios. I think that there is a the maybe the the scarier depressing scenario which is that uh we continue to see our democratic institutions erode uh that we see a increasing decline to authoritarianism or even more frightening some you know very large levels of political violence. I no longer think that that is impossible to imagine as I did a few years ago. Um I um and then you know this will be the world's oldest lat mass democracy is dead. Um you know that that is a a possibility. Um I think the more optimistic scenario is that people finally understand how fragile these institutions are. um begin to to speak up and defend democracy and its institutions. Um begin to reject the these um attempts to divide Americans who don't who are less divided than I than most of our political elites seem to pretend. Um and begin to work on our common problems again, which are finding housing for for everyone. um trying to get control of the US's enormous and frightening debt problems. um all of the the policy concerns that people say they they share and um you know and I think that I hope and this is the optimistic scenario that people now understand too that government does provide valuable services that if you don't have well-trained civil service servants things like the FDA like the FAA begin to fall apart and you get real world consequences that this anti-government rhetoric has gone far enough and we do value um good high level services run by people who are competent and well trained. So I hope I mean that's if there's any positive thing that comes out of this very dark period in American history it could be that and we've seen this before in less dramatic ways but I mean after um Watergate there was a flowering of good government reform attempts I think real concerns about trying to make the government work better for everyone a reduction in executive power so that's not impossible so I don't think we should it shouldn't necessarily assume that you know that the the the most cynical outcome is going to be the uh the final result. But that will take people pushing back and I think partially it'll take people rejecting the kind of divisive and increasingly violent politics we find um in this country. You >> know, you and I um we're more enscconced in the process in Hawaii and we look at the mainland and say, "Gee, the the sovereignty issue never looked so good. [laughter] Can can we get away from this somehow? But I I wonder what you think about how this all affects the people of Hawaii. Do they really understand what you and I have been talking about? Do they share the same concern? If you stopped somebody at the intersection of King and Bishop and said, "Do you understand how important it is for you to vote and make every effort to vote?" What would they say? If you asked them, you know, what is going on in Washington and how does it affect us? What would they say? How does all this affect, you know, life in Hawaii? >> Well, we know that people in Hawaii are extremely opposed to President Trump. He has the the almost the lowest or the lowest approval rating in this state compared to any other state. Um, so there is a broad rejection of MAGA politics here. Even among Hawaii Republicans, with a few exceptions, there's usually a lot of uh they they try to create some distance, particularly recently, from themselves and um the the MAGA movement on the mainland and from President Trump. Um I at the same time though, I think that people don't always grasp how much Hawaii is affected by these decisions in Washington. We've managed to fly a little bit below the radar. Some of that's been some clever maneuvering by our political leadership. I think that's because this place is is is beloved by many people in the United States. It is everyone's favorite state. That's a true a polling piece of polling data, not just something I'm making up. And so I think that does protect us a little bit. Um so we haven't been made an example of people haven't felt the the full force of the federal government like people in um Minnesota for example have like like California has. Um, and so we haven't quite experienced it as directly recently. I mean, of course, historically, Hawaii has certainly felt the full force of the federal government. So, I I don't want to confuse those two issues, but um, recently not, not as much. And we're also very dependent on the federal government, as everybody knows. Um, military spending is our second largest industry here. Um, and again, I think that we've managed to deafly navigate this a bit. And I think I I I think that maybe as a result of that, everyone is not seeing how vulnerable we we could become as a result of what's what's happening in Washington. But, you know, I think we should be very clear that there's a broad rejection of these politics here in Hawaii. They're not the kind of politics we're familiar with in this state. We live in a place that is, despite all of our criticisms of how the legislature operates, we live in a very non-polarized political environment. The parties here are old-fashioned Democrats and Republicans for the most part. There's a lot of working on moving to the center. Um it's not a place where there's been a lot of support for um ideological driven version of politics. It's still very pragmatic and it's working. And I think we're we're a model. I mean, we're we're a model for um a a democracy, a multi-racial democracy that still functions, in my opinion, extraordinarily well. I mean, warts and all, we don't have the fundamental problems you see um of a lot of places on the mainland. >> Ah, thank you, Colin. We're almost out of time. So, I I want to close this by asking you um to give our viewers your closing comments, a summary of you, if you will, of what we've been talking about, what you've been saying, and uh your suggestion, your advice to people uh as and when they view this uh talk show. The greatest danger around the election is not necessarily that it will be overturned, but that there's a lot of disruption, a lot of confusion. And I think it's important for people to to push back on that. Um, and to um and to not accept unverified claims of fraud. Um, but I think that the the core point is to remember the core values of democracy that everybody already knows and defends those that that democracy depends on whether or not our political leaders are still committed to resolving conflicts through through ballots through legal processes um and to demand that they continue to to do so. Um, and I think that also people have a lot of power. Um, that we have seen again and again, like we were saying during this program, that if you push back, they really do begin to stand down. And I think that trying to to to think through ways that that you could participate and begin to feel comfortable in some forms of direct action like this would be would be a great way to to to start start thinking, you know, to hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. And that may very much involve um some um some some some marches, some protests, things that we're not as comfortable with in this country as they are in Europe and things that we should get comfortable with again. >> Thank you, Colin. Thank you so much to our guest, Dr. Professor Colin Moore, director of the uh Public Policy Center. I'm Jay Fidel, host of Community Matters. The title of this episode has been, "What does it look like for the midterms?" Thanks to our viewers for watching. We'll see you again soon for the next one. Aloha. Aloha, Colin. >> Aloha. Thanks, Jay. >> [music]