The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - How Tomorrow's US Election Result Will Impact The World

Episode Date: November 4, 2024

Janice Stein from the Munk school at the University of Toronto with her take on what a Trump or Harris victory would mean.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You're just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. U.S. Election Day tomorrow. A Trump victory or a Harris victory? What would either one mean to the world? Janice Stein coming right up. And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. Yes, it's Monday, that means Janice Stein, and what a topic for today. It's single focus, as it is for many people around the world right now. What is going to happen when Americans go to the polls tomorrow? Who will the next president of the United States be? Will it be a repeat of Donald Trump or will it be Kamala Harris? And

depending on which one wins, what will it mean to the world? Well, our Monday expert, Dr. Janice Stein from the Munk School at the University of Toronto, is with us today to answer that very question. And we'll go into some detail on that. That's coming up. But first, housekeeping, as we say. I know that many of you spent the last few days thinking about that question of the week that I offered up a little early this time around for this Thursday's edition of Your Turn.

And the question of the week is basically to have you give us something about your Remembrance Day memories. You know, maybe it has been as a child. Maybe it's been as a parent. There's any number of things it could be. But does your memory go back to thinking of a grandfather or a grandmother, mother or father, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, you name it. Or just simply something about your community.

So what is your Remembrance Day memory? Though you will hold true when we get to Remembrance Day on November 11th. We're doing this a couple of days early. This Thursday is your turn. We did this last year, and it was extremely successful. We had some wonderful letters that came in, emotional letters talking about that very fact. Something about your own personal past

or your community's past or your family's past that ties you in some fashion to Remembrance Day. Basically the normal rules apply. You write to themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com and you can start releasing those letters today. themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com Include your name and the location you're writing from. Try to keep your memories relatively short.

It won't be as hard-edged as we have been for many of the questions we've asked in the last couple of months. But still, at this, keep in mind, the longer you write, the less likely others are going to get in. So give us your thoughts. Look forward to reading them very much. You have until 6 p.m. Wednesday to get your answers in. So you've got three full days there. Okay, the other thing to keep in mind is, at this moment anyway, we're planning to do a new show on Wednesday.

Wednesdays is Encore Wednesdays. But this Wednesday, given the fact that the U.S. may have made its decision by Wednesday, we'll do a new edition. We'll bring Keith Bogue back and we'll bring Bruce Anderson back. And Bruce, remember, if you go back was it the 2022 elections? You know, the story south of the border.

We talked a lot to Bruce on a kind of a continuing basis every week on Wednesdays. So we'll bring Bruce and Keith Bogue in for our Wednesday show. Tomorrow, more Buttss conversation number 18. Guess what the topic will be? It'll be about the U.S. election. But in that case, we still won't know the election result, but we're going to talk about what happens in Ottawa

at the highest levels of government on the day of an election when you're trying to prep for what might happen. So that's tomorrow's conversation. So today, Janice Stein coming up in just a few seconds. Tomorrow, more about conversation number 18. And Wednesday at this moment, the plan is to do a new show on the results of the U.S. election. Thursday, it's your turn, and you've heard what it's going to be about.

It's going to be about Remembrance Day and your memories. And then Friday, of course, good talk with Bruce and Chantel. Okay, that's it. So why don't we get organized here and get to the topic at hand, which is what difference to the world would it make in terms of who wins the U.S. election tomorrow? Here's our guest, Dr. Janice Stein from the Munk School at the University of Toronto. You know, Janice, the word that most people use to describe,

certainly most Americans use to describe this election is it's the most consequential election of our lifetimes. I tend to think that I agree with that, but it goes way beyond Americans. It sort of, to me, it goes to the world. It's consequential for the world. And that's kind of what we want to talk about here tonight. Before we get into particulars, though, on what each candidate could mean, do you agree with the premise, the consequential use of that word yes and um you know we don't

want to hype this peter because there's a little hard to say we can't hype this you and i don't hype things but i have to say um in my long life and I've had a long one, I can't remember an election where which candidate to win would not only make an enormous difference to the United States, but to the world. I think that's a function that just to go back to 2016, the last time Trump was running, the world was a quieter place. It hadn't yet begun its meltdown that we're living through right now. So who wins tomorrow night in the United States? Huge consequences. Well, let's talk about Trump, first of all.

Yeah. In terms of, as you say, it's a much different situation in the world, the landscape of geopolitics in 2024 than it was in 2016. So in real terms, and with Trump it's always so hard to move sort of the BS away from the real story. But in real terms, what would be the difference if Trump was president of the United States come January? Well, the core difference to me, the heart of the difference is Trump is transactional. It's about each transaction you start over with him,

and it is, what have you done for me yesterday? And is it a good deal? So I actually, I think he summarizes himself best. He's a dealmaker, and every deal is you start new. So what does that mean? Why do we care about that? Well, being an alliance member is not like that. You make a commitment, a long-term commitment.

And some years, you know, the alliance breaks in your favor. Some years it doesn't. But you value the the alliance breaks in your favor. Some years doesn't. But you value the alliance. You value the relationship. That's what Trump does. Here's the best way to put Trump, to describe Trump. He's a speed dater. Doesn't care about the long-term relationships, right? And having a speed dater as president when the issues are so tough and so dangerous

is really difficult. It's destabilizing, Peter. There seems to be a growing fear that if he was president again, that this time he would pull out of NATO. You know, as you say say so hard to know with him when he's hyping but i think the bigger point um is the very threat to do that weakens nato um because what what makes nato valuable you know, you're Russia, you've got NATO forces on all your borders.

You look at this and what do you hear over and over and over again? An attack against one of us is an attack against all of us. That's the core message for NATO actually to be able to do its job and to succeed. Once you say, well, I'm leaving because I'm paying more than you are, that's not fair. And this isn't working for me. Whether he does it or not, he's still inflicting significant damage.

It makes NATO less credible. What would a world without NATO or with NATO without the U.S. look like? You know, if you think about the biggest impact of a weakened NATO, because that's what the United States withdrawing from NATO in any meaningful sense would be. How do we know this, Peter? We just look at the amount of military assistance that's gone to Ukraine since the Russian attack. And it's overwhelmingly been dependent on the United States to move the volumes in a timely fashion to Ukraine. Number two, it's the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, who's taken the lead in convening the allies in Germany

and leading the suppliers conference and then coordinating. So the United States has been the glue that's organized the military supply to Ukraine. Without the United States, Europe couldn't do it. They haven't invested enough either. You know, the Baltics in the northern tip are the heaviest investors in spending proportionally to their budget. They get it. And I think they get it because they've had such a troubled history. But Britain, France, Germany is, I think, in many ways, the most troubling example, because it was the most dynamic economy in Europe for so long.

It was, frankly, the end stockpiles. So if the United States were not involved and leading the others in the resupply of Ukraine, I think this war would have been over a long time ago, Peter, but not in the way that Europeans would like to see. If NATO, if the Americans pulled out of NATO, would NATO fall apart? Would it be sort of to each his own in terms of how they move forward? You know, we certainly have divisions in NATO, right? The countries that value NATO the most are in the east and the north.

They're closest to Russia. They have, I think, you know, muscle memory of what it was like to live either under Russian occupation occupation as the Baltics did, or at least with the fear, the apprehension that Russian tank forces could roll across that border and that it was the United States stood between them. That's less there in Germany, in France, and in the UK. My hunch is, though, and we're speculating here because this is the kind of question that nobody's asked about NATO for how many years now?

75 years, frankly. And it's only because there's a real possibility that Donald Trump could be elected that we're even thinking about it. My hunch is that the NATO European allies would pull together. It would be such a shock. And the value of NATO now is higher than it was, you know, after the Cold War ended in 1989.

People thought there was a new era in Europe. That's no longer true. I think somehow they would find a way to hold the alliance together, but there would have to be a massive investment by the Europeans, Peter, in defense spending to compensate for this. And in some cases right now, they're pulling back on those. That's right. That's those. That's right. That's right.

That's right. Let me bring the transactional description of Trump back to the forefront again, because here's what I've never quite understood. His relationship with Putin, Trump's relationship with Putin. I understand what Putin gets out of it. Oh, yeah. And what he could get out of it if Trump is reelected. What does Trump get? It's so hard to understand, right?

It really, frankly, is. There's nothing worse than these amateur psychologists at a distance. Fortunately, we're not two of those. No, no, no, we do. But he has this attraction to tough guys. I mean, there's no other way of explaining it, right? He admires Trump. He admires Viktor Orban in Hungary.

He admires Xi Jinping. He liked Kim Jong-un. He has an attraction for what he describes as strong men who are feared, listened to, whose orders are taken seriously. I think the only way you can explain this is he sees himself, or that's what he would like to think people see him as a strong man, as a tough guy.

You know, he doesn't have relationships. These are not, these are still transactional in a sense. Who knows what started that relationship, that admiration for Putin. There's all kinds of speculation because it's so difficult to understand that we move into some of the darker reasons. Let's talk about it openly. The Russians are famous for being able to get information on people that they do business with, let me put it that way,

and then blackmailing in very subtle ways. And almost everybody who worked in the intelligence community in the United States, and this wasn't liberal spooks who were out to get Trump. These are seasoned intelligence agents. Simply had no other explanation for the persistent admiration that he had of Putin other than there must have been something that Russian agents discovered about him

in his many business transactions. And he was afraid that they would use that material. There's no evidence that ever supported that. Peter, let's say that. But it is truly puzzling to the best experts who look at this and say, because he hasn't gotten much from Putin, has he, over the years? No, I mean, it's hard to look at this relationship and try to understand what exactly it is

unless it's something that's kind of hidden from us, whether it's some illegal activity or whether it's a straightforward kind of a commercial enterprise. He likes to build big hotels in places. He's always wanted one in Moscow. So, you know, some of this stuff, it really is hard to figure out. I mean, the Russians have kind of drawn a circle around Putin for years, long before he got into politics,

back when he was basically a real estate guy in New York, right? Big real estate, but that was kind of it. So, and the Russians and Putin in particular have always looked at him as, well, you know, a mark of some kind. Yeah, vulnerable, right? Yeah, that's frankly, and that's partly often because there was a discrepancy between what Trump claimed he had as a business person and what he actually had. And there were clearly opportunities. And they saw that, you know, the Russians are professional.

Let me put it to you that way. That's the nicest word I can use, but they choose a mark. They go after that mark. They wait. They're patient. They compromise people that they want in their orbit. And it's a decades-long operation. Peter, when we know this, I mean, that is, there is plenty of evidence of the Russians

operating that way. So, you know, there's no other explanation, but look at the others, you know, Orban in Europe, who the rest of Europe looks on or, you know, absolutely looks

at Scantz and considers a real threat to democracy. Xi Jinping. But from none of these, actually, if you look at the whole cast of characters, Trump has never been able to do a deal with any of them. It's funny because we don't tend to think of it that way do we he has made no deals no of any kind no any of them no not one not with kim jong-un not with putin not with orbit so there's this deal maker this transactional politician, transactional leader, who prefers doing deals with these kinds of people.

And he hasn't done one, Peter. But destabilizing to the core i do want to get to um to kamala harris because i i'm still one and i i'm inconsistent on this for a year that i think she's going to win but uh there's were some minor polls this past weekend we all know not to attach too much significance to one but there was at least a flurry based on one poll in Iowa that was surprising that says you're right. Sometimes you can just look at the body language on the candidates and say which one looks like they're confident of a victory, that they've been told they're in a good position. Yes. And there's only one of the two that looks that way right now.

Yes. But as you said, until people two that looks that way right now. Yes. But as you said, until people start marking their ballots, we're not going to know anything. A lot of people have already marked their ballots, 80 million, but they haven't been counted yet. Last question on Trump before we take a break and come back and talk about the Harris situation. And that's China and the relationship with with china because when you went through your list

there of who he hasn't made a deal with uh you didn't include china now he hasn't made a deal with china no but china is this you know they're they're a huge power and it's not just military might it's economic clout um everything everything they are what they call you know what what the biden administration that got this right peter they are the pacing threat they are the only country that can provide a really significant challenge to the united states nobody else can so what what is that relationship what happens to that relationship with Trump? Well, you know, to me, there's no good story. And why is that? Because he is fixated on tariffs.

Fixated. And honestly, this is the most bizarre understanding of tariffs. There is an economist on the right that I know who can explain why Trump thinks about tariffs the way he does. And, you know, he looked at the trade imbalance. And he considers if the United States is importing more than selling, that's a weakness. That's the category for him. In fact, it means the United States is importing more than selling, that's a weakness. That's the category for him. In fact, it means the United States has a really dynamic economy that's buying, unless it reaches really, it's so distorted that it's a problem.

There's no way forward with China if you insist on a one-to-one trade balance. There's just no way forward. And all the rhetoric in this campaign, and you're right, Peter, that it's gotten darker over the last couple of weeks, which suggests to me that doesn't portray confidence, frankly, when the rhetoric gets darker. But it's all about, we're going to essentially impose tariffs on China, 60% tariffs on China. That would fundamentally throw China's economy into a recession. It would rupture the relationship, but it would have enormously negative consequences

for the U.S. economy. You know, this is a humming economy that is the enemy of the world, the envy of the world. No other economy is as dynamic and creative and growing and innovative as the U.S. economy, despite all the preaching of the Europeans and the Canadians. They do stuff. They do stuff in a way that the rest of us can only look at and

open our eyes in amazement, frankly. You're going to put all of that at risk, as well as destabilizing the relationship with China. You know, almost break it, because for the Chinese, that would be an existential problem for Xi Jinping. What happened, just the last quick point on Trump and China, what happened to that relationship? Because in the first year of the Trump presidency, you know, after the 2016 victory, I mean, Trump was basically sucking up to Xi Jinping. Yes, Trump was basically sucking up to Xi Jinping. Yes, he was. Had him over to Mar-a-Lago, had dinners, you know, and basically let him inside the intelligence briefing area and the whole bit.

I mean, it was. Yeah. What happened? Well, he got fixated on tariffs. You know, Robert Lighthizer. He did. Who is his principal economic advisor who will be back if Trump wins? Just put these numbers in front of him, Peter, and've done real estate deals in New York, that doesn't sound good to you. And it goes fixated on tariffs. And he started and Biden has continued this process of, you know, increasing tariffs on the child.

And we're coming to the crucial phase in the relationship in a way, Peter, just to take one more minute on this one. Because originally, what was the tariffs on? You know, China was selling us shoes and toys and clothing. Every single one of us is wearing something that's made in China right now, I'm sure. But they've moved up the value chain. So now it's electric vehicles and advanced technology and solar panels. And China is investing and growing in the areas that are crucial to the global economy for the next five years. That's what Trump will grind to a halt, frankly. And you know, when he does all this, Peter, I mean, let's just it hurts Americans at home. That's the

amazing thing. That if you actually take apart his platform, what's in it for working class voters who are the bulwark of his support? There's a myth there that somehow the

Harris campaign hasn't been able to get the attention of voters. A lot of what he's doing is going to fuel inflation. It's not going to bring the price of eggs down. It's going to shove them up. The trouble with the word

tariffs is, as simple as it really is. Nobody can quite figure it out to understand it on the, you know, on, on the basic, you know, ordinary people, they go, Oh, terrorists don't talk to me about that. Talk to me about price of eggs or what have you. Okay. We're going to take a quick break and we'll come back and do the flip side of this. What would, what would a Harris presidency mean for the world?

Back right after this. Wasn't that cute? A little hail to the chief music as we get ready for the U.S. election tomorrow. You're listening to Sirius XM Channel 167 Canada Talks or your favourite podcast platform all to hear Janice Stein here on Stein Mondays as we like to call them here at the Bridge. Glad to have you with us. And Janice, the Director of course of the Munk School at the University of Toronto. So Janice, let's talk about Kamala Harris here.

How different is the picture for the world of a Harris presidency versus the Trump? It really is, Peter. This is one of these elections where there is a real difference. What do we know about her? She didn't have a big voice in the Biden White House on foreign policy, frankly. She was in all the meetings, and that's a good thing if she becomes president, because she's not coming to this with a huge learning curve out of the gate. But she wasn't a strong voice. I think the easiest way to describe her, we described Trump as transactional.

Harris is a lawyer. She's a rule follower. She believes in rules, and you have to follow the rules. So what does that mean? One, she's tougher than people think. She's a prosecutor. She's tougher than people think. And you got prosecutor. She's tougher than people think. And you got a glimpse of that during the campaign.

She's steely-eyed sometimes when she was interrupted in the middle of a speech. If you watch the body language, as you said earlier, Peter, you got a glimpse. Secondly, she doesn't like governments that violate the law. That's where I think she's going to start, frankly. So where will this make a difference? I think there will be a significant difference in tone, both from the Biden administration and from a Trump administration on Israel, because this matters to her.

And you could already hear it in her campaign. a Trump administration on Israel because this matters to her. And you could already hear it in her campaign. So I think that it'll be a much tougher line on what Israel is doing than either Biden or Trump. I don't think... How tough? I mean, tough in the sense of, okay, we're going to stop funding some of the military equipment that you want? That's where the rubber hits the road.

And, you know, you're already hearing that even from the Biden people, that if there isn't, for the first time, and so, you know, everybody is waiting for this election to be over, Peter. Everybody. Everybody. You know, Netanyahu is waiting. Biden's waiting. I think Hamas is waiting.

You know, Iran is waiting. Everybody's waiting. But even the Biden people have said that if there isn't a significant increase in aid that gets into northern Gaza, they're going to hold up military supplies. So I think yes. I think that under Harris, it would be a much tougher negotiation. There's no question about it. I think it would be tough on Hamas, too, because she, I mean, and that's why she always distinguishes between defense and offense.

She's no time whatsoever for an organization that does the things that Hamas did that started this cycle of violence. So I think there will be a toughness and there will be an insistence that you meet your obligations, that you don't break the law. You look around the Middle East, we have quite a few lawbreakers sprinkled over that part of the world. Is there any talk of who,

I mean, whether Blinken would be reappointed or whether there'd be a new Blinken? There's a new Blinken. You know, she has her own team that have been with her for four years now. Interestingly enough, we're going to play a little bit of Washington geography here. You know, there was somebody in the State Department that mentored Jake Sullivan and the people who work with Jake Sullivan, which is in many ways some of the best people Washington has had in a long, long time.

Well, Kamala Harris, her national security advisor is Philip Gordon, and Rachel Lisser is now her national security advisor. Philip Gordon was. These people were all mentored by Jake Sullivan. Okay, so you get the picture. There's a community here of people. If you look at what both those two have written, much less emphasis on the United States as the enforcer. Much more emphasis on partnering and sharing responsibility.

But no emphasis at all on pulling back. So for Ukraine, this is a night and day election, frankly. Absolutely. For NATO, this is a night and day election. Yes, you know, aris team would ask for more um but not in the kind of brutalist way that trump so the whole of europe is fixated on this election frankly as are the japanese and the South Koreans. Yeah, explain that. So both of them, Philip Gordon and Rebecca Lister,

their view is the relationship for the next 30 years is in Asia. That's what really will matter to the United States. And in some sense, you know, the Middle East is a Asia. That's what really will matter to the United States. And in some sense, you know, the Middle East is a distraction. You know, there's a saying in Washington, you want to get out of the Middle East, but the Middle East won't leave you alone. And that's essentially the view of this team. Europe, they, I mean, they're mindful of the Russian threat, but they see it as a threat to Europe, not as a fundamental challenge to the United States. So this is a team that I think will double down on the pivot to Asia, will invest with Japan, with South Korea, with the Philippines, will want military assets deployed in Asia in advance

because they see the one big challenge is China going forward. Very focused on advanced technology, which is where they see the real competition coming. They will continue to invest, as the Biden team did, in advanced domestic manufacturing, but they'll partner. I would describe this team, if I were looking for the best word, they're partners. That's their view. Where does Russia fit into this?

I mean, obviously, the Ukraine situation and the support of Ukraine will upset Putin. But more generally, where is that relationship going to be with Harris and the Oval Office? I think it'll be a frostier one, certainly than it would be with Trump, because Russia's the ultimate rule breaker as far as she's concerned.

Broke the rule. You don't do this. If you're a sovereign country, you don't invade somebody else's territory. In her view, we stopped doing that. In 1945, that's over. That world is gone. There's no sense that the United

States would, under under her would diminish support for ukraine but i think ukraine and the middle east are in the rear view mirror and they're looking forward in a much more focused way to asia um we haven't talked about canada and its reaction to either of these two. And I'm going to take you off the hook on that because I'm going to deal with Jerry Butts and James Moore tomorrow. Oh, they're the best. They are very good at it. But here's my last question, and it's about Harris.

I mean, we talked about Trump. We know Trump pretty well, obviously, because we've seen him before and we all have our opinions on him. But your description of him is very much a transactional guy. I want to try and understand, you touched on it a little bit, but I want to try and understand what Harris would be like. We know that for four years she has certainly had the training that a vice president would have, but she's also been there. She apparently hasn't missed a single meeting in terms of, you know, the high-stakes security meetings.

She's had her daily briefing, all of that. So, like, she knows stuff. Yeah. But my question is, what do we know about her at the table? We know that Trump, blowhard that he is, kind of runs things when he's chairman of the board, when he's sitting at the table. What do we know what she's like, or do we? We know something, Peter.

We know something because she was a prosecutor and she and then she was a district attorney. You run teams that way. And then she was a candidate twice. So very demanding, very, very demanding. Some members of her staff have complained about how demanding she is, right? Reads. Now, that's a big one, whether you read or not. You can hear the bias in my voice. If you don't read a binder, a briefing binder, it's, for me, a big problem, right?

She reads. She does not. She reads. And, you know, again, we've had prime ministers who read and prime ministers who don't, and it makes a real difference. She puts detailed notes and commentary on everything she reads and sends it back with questions for more. And that really fits the characters, you know, of a prosecutor, because when you're a prosecutor or a defense attorney, you can't miss a single piece of evidence, because if you miss a piece of evidence, the trial can hang on that.

And I think that's a way to think about her, that she wants the best evidence, she wants to hear the arguments, and she wants to be armed with the best arguments. And she is a 18 hour a day CEO when it comes to her staff. You know, we know having watched Trump all this time, we know who sort of the key people around him are in terms of where he draws his advice. If he draws any advice from anybody, it's probably family more than anybody else. Yeah. What about Kamala Harris?

Do we know who the important person or persons are who are close to her? You know, she, her senior staff have a very good relationship with her. Very good relationship with her. And they've stayed with her. So the national security team that I talked about,

they've been with her and they've stayed, Peter, which is always a good indicator, right? Do they last? And they're very loyal to her. And these are smart people. Let me put it that way.

These are tough-minded, smart people. And these are deep relationships. They will go with her to the White House. So there'll be a new team in the White House. Although they're friends of all the people who are currently in the White House and they all know each other. Outside of her staff, you know, there seem to be a few people in her life and they're friends and family

that are with you. Lorraine Jobs has been a longtime friend. People that supported her early on, the Obamas, there's a good relationship with the Obamas, largely because she came out and endorsed Barack Obama rather than Hillary Clinton way back when and was one of the few to do so.

So there's a longstanding, deep relationship there. And there were a few others like that. They don't tend to be, you know, they're not high-profile business people and there's no Elon Musk in her life. You know, you might argue that's a good thing. We don't know. Oh, yeah.

We would definitely argue that. Yeah. But there's none of that in her life. And, you know, she doesn't have these close relationships in the Senate that some presidents have. LBJ had those when he came in and everybody was on speed dial. That's not who she is. She's very orderly. You could describe this election, Peter, the difference between order and chaos.

Oh, yeah. Yep. That's certainly the way it looks at this moment. On Wednesday morning, let's assume for a minute there's a result. Many people think it's going to take longer than Wednesday morning, but let's assume there's a result. I think we'll know something, don't you, Peter, that we exit poor? Yeah. I think it's going to be all over tomorrow night.

I've been wrong before many times. But assuming it's over, when the major American allies, and who are we talking about? Britain, France, Germany. Germany, Canada, Australia, South Korea, Japan. Yeah. Yeah. Is there going to be an audible reaction? Oh, if there's no question.

I've never seen a climate like this. I mean, all of this is all people want to talk about. You know, people are hanging on by their fingernails. They literally put off doing most things until Wednesday morning until they get a clear sense of where they're going. I think there will be more hungover people in these capitals if Harris wins than we've ever seen collectively at any other point is all I can say. The feelings are so strong, Peter.

The champagne corks will be popping everywhere if there's any ground for optimism by late tomorrow night. All right. We'll leave it at that, and by next week we'll know. Oh, yeah, which world we're in. We'll be dealing with the aftermath. Thanks for this, Janice, as always. Pleasure, pleasure.

Talk to you in seven days. Okay, have a good one, Peter, and you and I will text tomorrow night. We certainly will. Cheers. Yeah, I'm cautiously optimistic. He's so dark, Peter. He's so dark. He must be getting back.

You know, his advisor said to him this for the weekend, you can't say this. You can't say this. And he said, why not? You can't say this, one of his more. And he said, I'm saying it anyway. Yeah. Well, that's certainly the way things look. Yeah.

Yeah. Especially in the last couple of weeks. You know, I'm convinced that they took him aside at some point in the last week and said, you're going to lose. And it may not even be close. Yeah, that's what I'm hoping. It'll make a huge difference, Peter. Bye.

Have a good one. Have a good trip. We shouldn't do this anymore. We shouldn't do these day things anymore after you get off the transatlantic flight. Okay, take care. take care bye-bye there we have it janice stein uh from the monk school the university of toronto um janice referring there in those last few moments to uh the fact that i've been doing a bit of flying here uh of late last night I flew back from Scotland to Canada and to Toronto, and in another hour or so, I'm going to get on a plane

and fly to Edmonton because I've got a commitment out in Edmonton tomorrow morning, and then I'm flying back to Toronto, hopefully in time to watch the U.S. election coverage. And, you know, those flights you used to do when you were just a young hustler didn't take too much out of you. They do at this age. There's no doubt about that.

So we'll try and sleep on the plane. As tricky as that can be at times okay that's going to wrap it up for today thanks so much for joining us fascinating conversation we're so lucky here at the bridge to get people like Janice Stein tomorrow we'll have Jerry Butts and James Moore

once again talking about the US election and it just keeps on going through the week so you're a big part of it as well especially on Thursday Once again, talking about the U.S. election. And it just keeps on going through the week. So you're a big part of it as well, especially on Thursday. So get scribbling in terms of your Remembrance Day thoughts. I want to hear what your biggest memory of Remembrance Day is. So perhaps jot that down. Send it in to the Mansbridge podcast at gmail.com. Get it in before Wednesday at 6 p.m. Eastern Time. And make sure you include your name and the location you're writing from.

That's it for today's program. Thanks so much for listening. I'm Peter Mansbridge and we we'll talk to you again in a mere almost 24 hours.