The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - One Week To Go -- Is It Really That Close?

Episode Date: October 29, 2024

Going into the final days of the 2024 US election campaign and if you believe the polls, a big if, then things are so close smart analysts aren't picking a winner.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You're just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. One week today, the most consequential election of our time in the U.S. Keith Bogue is here, coming right up. And hello there, welcome to Tuesday. Peter Ransbridge here. The bridge for this Tuesday. Yes, sir. One week today is the U.S. election.

One week tonight, many of us will be sitting in front of our televisions, watching our smartphones, trying to determine what's going to happen. Is it going to be a long, drawn-out night that'll stretch into the next day and perhaps days after? Or will we be surprised and it'll be a blowout one way or the other and it'll be all over that night? You know, I think it was 2012, I remember.

I was anchoring the coverage on CBC of the U.S. election. And that last week or so, everyone assumed this was going to be a nail-biter, right down to the last vote counted. And it would drag on well into the next day or days. As it turned out, it was over by 10 o'clock that night. We knew who the winner was. In that case, it was Barack Obama over Mitt Romney. But what will happen this time?

We don't know. And we certainly don't know one week out. But we're going to get the latest, you know, discussion about where things stand with Keith Bogue in a couple of moments' time. Keith, of course, the former Washington correspondent for the CBC and the chief political correspondent for the CBC based in Ottawa. Keith has been with us throughout this year, off and on at different critical times on the U.S. election process

and has helped us get a sense of the campaign and where things stood. Keith loves U.S. politics and studies it like very few people I know. So I've been lucky enough to gain some of his knowledge over the years and have continued to throughout the life of the bridge. So Keith will be by in just a couple of minutes' time.

But housekeeping. Question of the week this week. For Thursday's your turn. The question is, and you can go one of two ways here, but you can't go both ways. You've got to pick one. You've got to pick a lane. What do you fear most about AI, artificial intelligence?

What do you fear most? Or what excites you most about AI, about artificial intelligence? You have a choice. You can go either way. Try to sum up your argument in a paragraph or so. Not much more than that. Include your name and the location you're writing from. Send it to themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com.

themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com. And have it this way before 6 p.m. Eastern time tomorrow, because that's the cutoff. After that, doesn't make it. We've already had a lot of suggestions. And, you know, I would guess at this point it's kind of evenly split between those who fear it and those who are excited by it. We'll see where that ends up when everything's tallied. But that's kind of sort of where we are at the moment.

Okay. Tomorrow is an encore edition. Thursday is your turn and the Random Ranter, of course. And Friday is a good talk with Bruce and Chantal. All right, let's get to today's discussion with my good friend, Keith Boak. All right, Keith, why don't we start the way we normally start, which is sort of your assessment of where we are now, just seven days from the actual election date. Where are we?

We're about where we were last week and the week before, probably the week before that. The race has not changed very much at all. There have been little blips in it that don't seem to have any meaning to them, because all of them could be accounted for by modeling errors or polling errors. But it looks like the race is in tie. In some probability models, Trump has a slight edge over Harris, but it really doesn't matter. It could go either way. I think what we're seeing now, because we expect to see the closing arguments at this stage of the campaign, I think what we're seeing now, which is of interest to me, is the way in which the Harris campaign is really doubling down on women voters. Anyone who watched the speech from Michelle Obama on Saturday night,

I mean, she could not have made that clearer. If you look at the numbers, the Harris campaign has almost exactly the same lead with women that the Trump campaign has with men. And so I don't think it's wrong to summarize that the race is coming down to that kind of a battle, whether men turn out the way women turn out. Historically, they do not. Historically, the advantage has gone to the candidate who can appeal to women. Women are more reliable voters. And in the Trump era, since 2016, women have been motivated to vote against Trump like probably no other group in American politics. And that has been heightened only when the particular subgroup of women that

is Black women are motivated as they have been in some local elections. So I think that's where we are going into next week. It's all about who gets out to vote. And there are reasons to think that the Harris vote is more likely to come out than the Trump vote, but I wouldn't bet on it either way. When you watched Michelle Obama the other day, you know, she's a great speaker.

And we've known that since, well, since 2008, when she first started speaking on behalf of her husband, and people were, like, beside themselves. They couldn't believe how great she was in terms of a speaker. I mean, he was pretty good, but she was really good.

Yeah. When you watched that speech the other day, what did it tell you beyond that simple fact that they are now putting all their money behind the women vote uh to make this happen for uh for kamala harris one of the things i thought was that you know we're late in the fourth quarter the uh game is on the line the score is tied and they give her the ball and the reason they do that is because they believe that's their best bet. They saved her till the end of the campaign. Barack Obama has spoken

frequently in the last two weeks. Michelle Obama, I mean, she doesn't like to do this, but she clearly does it out of a sense of obligation and duty. And she brings it all. And I think that's that, you know, if you think of her as a card to play, or my other metaphor, it doesn't matter. We're late in the game and they think that she's the one who should have the ball at this point. And again, I mean, it plays to those things that I talked about in my first answer to the question, that she speaks to an audience that is vital to the Democrats if they want to win this election. If there's an emotional reason to vote, you know, beyond the candidates, but in terms of an issue, if there's an emotional issue, it seems to play more to women because of the Supreme Court decision, because of all the debates surrounding the abortion issue. It seems to play more to women than to men, and therefore this would seem like a very

smart strategy. Absolutely. I mean, it's also a bipartisan issue. Sure, there are more Republican women who might describe themselves as pro-life, but there are an awful lot of Republican women who might describe themselves as pro-life. But there are an awful lot of Republican women who don't. And there are Republican women who are pro-life, but in their own circumstances, but are pro-choice in terms of whether the government should have any role in a woman's decision about how to manage her own body. It is a galvanizing issue that crosses the aisle and that is extremely motivating. I say that because we've seen that

in previous elections where abortion has been on the ballot, where through a referendum or some other mechanism, it drives turnout. And when it has been on the ballot, whether through a referendum or some other mechanism, it drives turnout. And when it has been on the ballot, even in red states, the protection of women's right to choose wins, hands down, wins, not even close. I tend to agree with one of your, well, not tend to, I do agree with one of your early remarks that every other issue that comes up and, you know, the media, including us, tend to say, wow, this could really change things. And it doesn't, right? Like it sort of moves on and a week later you kind of forget about whatever it was that you thought was really going to have a huge impact. Nevertheless, I want to talk about some of them, the ones of late, because they're great discussion points beyond the impact they may have

on the election itself. Sunday night in New York, Trump held a rally in Madison Square Gardens. And, you know, it was obvious that people were going to compare it to a 1939 rally that happened in Madison Square Gardens. And, you know, it was obvious that people were going to compare it to a 1939 rally that happened in Madison Square Gardens, which was on behalf of basically the Nazi party of the United States. This was before the war had started in Europe and a couple of years before Pearl Harbor. So anyway, there were comparisons to that going in,

and then there were comparisons to it on the night of, because there were, you know, two nights ago. Because there were, you know, some speeches that occurred in Madison Square Gardens, which were, well, they were insulting, they were racist, they were, you know, apply whatever name you want to to some of them. Does it have an impact? Does that night have an impact?

I kind of think it's been priced in, that even though you have such a vivid metaphor for the 1930s in the rally at Madison Square Garden last night, I think we've been talking about this for so long that if people don't really understand how to join the dots, how to use historical perspective to evaluate this moment, then it's just not going to happen. So I guess in a sense, no, I don't think it matters. I think it should matter, but I just look at this and I see that people have been making these comparisons. You know, the very first story I did on Donald Trump in 2015 was driven by the fact that the Nazi party of the United States, which had been

politically agnostic through its whole history, because it just didn't think there was anything in American politics for it to get interested in, came out and endorsed Donald Trump. That was my whole introduction to whether something important is going on here that is below the radar of the mainstream media. So, I mean, sorry for that tangent, but I actually think that's important, that it has been evident from the very beginning that, you know, as friends of mine say, you know, not all Trump supporters are Nazis, but all Nazis are Trump supporters in America. What about the F word? And I'm talking about the F word that we can use on air, which is fascist. I talked to Janice Stein a little bit about this yesterday,

who's, you know, as you know, does a lot of foreign policy stuff for us in terms of the Middle East and Russia, Ukraine and everything. And, but I wanted to get her sense of,

of how common that word is being used now to describe some of the discussions and positions and policy positions of Donald Trump in the campaign and whether it was fair that that word was being used in the way it was being used. She tended to think it was, that it should be used. Do you have any particular feeling on that? Well, can I be self-referential again? My first story that mentioned the fact that there were Republicans who were concerned about the party electing someone they might,

nominating a candidate who might be considered by some a fascist was in 2016, before the 2016 election. This has been around for quite a while. And people try to bat it down and they say it's unfair, or they say things like there is an agreed upon definition of fascism, those kinds of things. Or they don't like the comparison that is intended by that, which is to Hitler and Europe in the 1930s. But, you know, it's 2024 now. Trump's longest serving chief of staff, a military general, John Kelly, says Trump is a fascist.

When people are making the comparisons between Trump and the 1930s, obviously people don't mean Hitler during the war. They don't mean to draw comparisons to the Holocaust. What they're drawing attention to is the path that Germany followed towards the Holocaust and where it began. And it began in the early 1930s when people began to regard Trump and the media and scapegoating in the same way that we see a lot of Americans, almost half of Americans, regarding Trump and immigrants and the media right now. I think the comparisons are appropriate, apt, right on, important, and people should pay attention to them

because that is the history of movements like this, whether they like it or not. Do you think it bothers him that these comparisons are being made? Because, I mean, he's not stupid. He's known, I've got to believe, going into all this, including even the rally in Madison Square Garden the other night. He's got to have assumed that these comparisons were going to come up. Do you think it bothers him, or does it play into what he wants?

The latter. I mean, I don't know. I can't read his mind, but my gut tells me that he likes this, that he encourages this. And for a number of reasons. First of all, he just genuinely seems to admire authoritarian figures at the present moment and in history. He says things, apparently, according again to General John Kelly, like, you know, Hitler did some good things too. But more important than all of that is his love for the red light and the camera to be on, and the camera pointing at him. And he will do, it seems, just about anything to ensure that that

happens. And he knows that these comparisons or the language that he uses that invite these comparisons is outrageous. But I mean, that's been his brand for such a long time. He doesn't seem to have any feeling for the obscenity of it at all. To him, it's a device, works for him. And let's move on to the next thing. I don't think that, that, I don't think it bothers him at all. I do think it's more likely that he enjoys it. I want to move on to another issue. And this one, you know, it's, it's a political issue, and it's a media issue. and it's a public issue. And this is the question of newspaper endorsements and in particular the endorsements of two major U.S. papers, the Washington Post and the L.A. Times.

And most of the attention is being placed on the Washington Post and for good reason. I mean, the Washington Post means something for anybody who follows politics, not just in the U.S., but anywhere, because of its history, because of Watergate, because of Woodward and Bernstein, because of their, you know, their acknowledged really solid journalism on the political front, especially. Now, what's the issue? Well, the issue is newspapers have historically, by an election time, same thing happens in Canada or has happened in Canada, is a newspaper by the time the election comes around in the last usually week or so of the campaigns

declares who they support, who they endorse in terms of the candidacy of one of the two parties in the U.S. or one of the many parties in Canada. So here we go, waiting on the Washington Post, the assumption being that it was going to be supportive of Kamala Harris. But as it gets to the crunch, the Post announces through its executive editor and owner that they're not going to endorse anybody. And now there's this huge uproar about that decision.

And it comes from many of the journalists who work at the Post, including Woodward, who's still there, Bernstein, who isn't at the Post anymore. But they did a joint thing the other day saying that this is outrageous, this should never have happened. I read a piece yesterday from Ben Smith, who does Semaphore Media, and one of the things he included in his discussion about this is that this whole endorsement thing is kind of a relic of the past, you know, and that it's kind of proven that it doesn't really make a difference one way or the other.

So what's all the fuss about? Now, I know you feel strongly about this issue. You've written about it. What is all the fuss about? I haven't read Ben Smith, but if he thinks that the the whole issue is around whether people uh will have the benefit of the washington post opinion about who to win before they decide on who to vote that's not the issue at all um i think we probably agree that the influence of editorial endorsements on voter preference is negligible, maybe even zero. In this particular issue, though, there is something else at stake. It is the decision by the owner, and this was made by the owner, Jeff Bezos,

who owns Amazon, who has vast wealth, some of it supported by government contracts and who has a vast array of interests that could be affected by who the next president is by deciding to withdraw uh an endorsement of kamala harris and that's what it was they had drafted the thing already. It was supposed to go to press, and he intervened and said, we're not doing this anymore. What that leads to is what the Yale historian Timothy Snyder lists in his book on tyranny among a collection of things

to bear in mind when resisting authoritarianism. At the very top of that list is do not obey in advance. What Bezos has done is obey in advance. Instead of waiting to see what Trump's reaction might be to an editorial, he has anticipated it and responded in a way to please Trump. And what that does is first of all, it gives Trump that victory,

but it also signals to Trump that Bezos is willing to obey in future, that he has signaled he can be bullied and he doesn't even need to wait to be bullied before he surrenders. And that is why it is vitally important. There are all kinds of things that go into building the framework that will embrace authoritarianism. And this kind of thing is one of them. So again, it doesn't have any impact, I think, on people's voter choice, but it is a chilling indication of how an important player in American media and in the American economy is already anticipating a Trump victory

and adjusting to it in a way that accommodates it. So there's two questions out of this. What it says about the American newspaper industry at its highest levels right now, and what it says about journalists, say, at the Washington Post, and also we've seen a similar reaction at the LA Times, what it says about them. So let's deal with what it says about the industry, first of all.

Because, you know, Bezos is obviously a very influential person in the American business scene, but now he's an influential person in the American journalism field as well, and he's not alone. So what does that mean? Well, I'm not sure that I can add that much more. You know, it's a fragile industry at this moment. The country is in fragile circumstances at this moment. It's at a political crossroads.

For this to be happening now, I mean, that's like putting it mildly a little bit worrisome, right? Just when you need the media to be strong, most of all, against this kind of threat, it's kneeling. And I don't see any other way to put it. Also, I think that people need to understand that, you know, casting their subscription to the Washington Post is not the answer. I mean, first of all, it's not going to hurt Jeff Bezos at all. But second of all, these institutions need supporting more than ever now, too. I mean, the public needs them and they need the public at this moment more than in normal circumstances. The journalists there need to be supported. The Washington Post has to continue. I think it portends even more drastic steps. You know what Trump has said

about broadcast media, where the government actually has more control or the ability to exercise more control. I think all of these are warning signs and that people have to be clear eyed about their response to it and understand what's really going on here, what it means for the future. I don't know if I'm just blathering right now. Listen, I know you paused for more than a moment to think through how you wanted to answer this and wondered whether there was anything you could say. I thought you said a lot there. It does leave us all kind of wondering if you're, because I think we've all gone through this,

for those of us who are subscribed to the Washington Post, whether or not we should cancel. And I'm glad you said what you said because I agree with you. So then what do you do? Is it something you say or you write? Because the journalists themselves are not being shy about standing up and saying, we don't agree with our bosses here. This is the wrong thing to do and it's outrageous.

And it destroys part of our credibility. Yeah. So I think, first of all, we need to understand that there is not a right answer to this or there's not a good answer to this. There is a right answer, but it doesn't necessarily mean that there is a good answer. But also understand that part of Trump is about forcing bad choices on people. people like Kellyanne Conway, who was a political advisor to Trump, and who was quoted in an Ezra Klein editorial last week talking about Trump's bizarre, peculiar, and offensive and disturbing behavior. And she said, look, you know, that's who he is.

And you don't get his policies without getting that. So more or less, suck it up. Accept the bad choice. And the answer is, well, wait a sec, you know, way the bad choice. Is it really worth it to have Donald Trump inciting division in the country, encouraging racist views, isolating America on the world stage. Is it really worth all of that so they can get your tax cut? You know, I mean, those are the kinds of things that you wish people would consider before they just blindly acted on self-interest and they decided how to vote. There are self-interest is always part of it,

but there are other interests, broader interests, longer-term interests that you often wish people would consider first. But I guess to go back to the first point, the idea that there is a palatable response to what is happening and that somehow you aren't being forced to choose between two things that really is a choice of lesser evils. I mean, that's going to be the way that it is until we get through this period. We may get through it sooner than later, but we may not,

so we better get used to that. This is a really good conversation, and I'm glad you brought up the Ezra Klein piece because I want to talk about that next. But before we do that, take this quick break. And welcome back. You're listening to the Tuesday episode of The Bridge. It's our latest conversation with Keith Bogue, the former CBC Washington correspondent, former CBC chief political correspondent in Ottawa.

Keith's been around, and he loves talking U.S. politics, and all throughout this year he's been helping us understand the process that comes to a head next week, or at least it comes to its latest head. God knows what's going to happen after that. But election day a week from today. So Keith is with us to talk about that. You mentioned before the break Ezra Klein's piece in the last few days. Ezra Klein is a columnist for the New York Times.

He has a podcast that he does through the Times as well. He's really thoughtful. He's a great writer, smart guy, and he has a lot of followers, listeners, and readers. He's written a couple of pieces in the last little while. You can find him online quite easily, and whatever one you click on, you're going to enjoy because it will make you think. Anyway, Klein wrote a piece trying to understand,

well, I guess more than try to understand, but he pointed out that American journalists, political journalists, finally stopped shunting aside this issue of whether or not Trump is losing his marbles or whether he's in cognitive decline. You pick whatever term you want to use. And they're actually discussing it. They're discussing it at a level somewhat like

they discussed Biden months ago, but they've kind of given Trump a pass, or it has appeared to some that they've given Trump a pass on the same kind of issues. You were struck by the Klein's piece as well. Tell us why. I think, first of all, because it seemed to me that he was doing something that I thought should have been done more often, more widely and more acceptably years ago. And that is to do a layman's diagnosis of Trump's mental fitness. Now, the reaction to that is typically that you don't diagnose at a distance, that this is something that should be left to psychologists, psychiatrists, professionals, and so on. That's wrong. The reason I say that's wrong is because I think in all of our experiences, we know that all diagnosis begins with the layman's diagnosis.

The reason you take your kid to the doctor is because you think there's something wrong with him. That's all I think should have happened here long ago. We cannot say what is the nature of Trump's mental illness if he has one or what's wrong with the guy and supply a professional response. But we can at least say what it is that makes us feel something is wrong. We can at least point out the abnormal behavior and say this may not be a one-off, that there could be something more serious going on here if somebody professional were to take a look at it and diagnose it, that would help us at least to understand it, if not do something about it. There should have been nothing wrong with having that conversation all along. And I think that,

in a sense, is where Ezra Klein begins. Because clearly, no one has stepped up and, you know, no professional has stepped up and done a professional diagnosis of Trump. But there is a lot more feeling now that, I mean, listen, you heard Barack Obama just last week saying something like, you know, if that was your grandpa, you'd say, you know, granddad, give me the keys. Or you'd say to your uncle, look, I think that's exactly where we are. That's where we always have been. We've been able to see with our own eyes that something is wrong here. but for some reason we have been inhibited against talking publicly about it. And the fact that it's happening now, I think is a good thing. The fact that it's taken this long to get here,

I think is a little bit of a tragedy. There's an awful lot more to say about this, but let me hand it back to you because my mind will just wander everywhere and I think I need some guidance. Well, I guess it also goes to the heart of this kind of unevenness in the coverage. And there's always been this sense with Trump that there's an unevenness, that there's one way of covering everybody else, whether they're Democrats or Republicans, and then there's one way of covering Trump. Now, on this issue, we certainly saw much different coverage of Joe Biden than we've seen with Donald Trump on this issue of cognitive decline

or what have you. And I mean, with Biden, it was a little more obvious because he looked like he was much older. You know, he was not walking well. He had issues with walking. He had certain issues with talking. He had issues, but they were visible. With Trump, with the exception of late, they haven't been as visible.

Yeah, but, you know, I think that it's also interesting to note that no one felt the burden of trying to cover more accurately or to cover as questioningly Trump as he did Biden than Ezra Klein. It was Ezra Klein in February who wrote a really remarkable and widely read piece saying Joe Biden should go. Joe Biden is not up to this. He may be able to govern, but he can't campaign. Had a tremendous impact. But what I'm saying is that I think that Ezra Klein thought about that and said, have I actually lived up to the standard whereby I hold Trump as accountable as I just hold Biden?

And he has come to the conclusion, no, and that there are things he needs to talk about. Interesting. It's not that he doesn't think that Trump's age is a factor, but he clearly doesn't think it's the most important factor. He believes that there have been other factors evident to people who are paying attention that have been exacerbated by Trump's age, but that they have been there all along. And he begins to diagnose them in terms of personality traits that people display to various degrees in everyday life. All of us do.

And one is disinhibitionism. Disinhibitionism is off the map, says Klein, with regard to Trump. Interestingly, it's his disinhibitionism that also appeals to his supporters, that he's the kind of guy who has no qualms about saying the most outrageous things out loud. And they often turn out to be the kinds of things that people would like to say, but are afraid to say. Tremendously appealing. It creates the impression that he can go into a situation where everybody thinks they know all the answers and most of the answers are always, let's continue doing what we've always been doing. But somebody who has disinhibitionism to the degree that Trump has can look at the same situation and say, why? Why continue doing this?

It's crazy. And he gets, I think he gets some admiration from Klein on that score, but it's the way that it manifests itself in other things that, you know, I mean, talking to General Kelly and asking, you know, why do people serve? What's in it for them? Why do they give up their lives? It's probably true that Trump really doesn't understand why people would be offended by that. And someone who doesn't understand that is a soulless person. And it's the kind of thing that makes people believe, you really don't want him in the White House. We can't afford to have someone like that in the White House. And what does he think about other kinds of things? Does he actually have

feelings for anybody? I mean, there's been lots of evidence. And, you know, I've read an awful lot of books about Donald Trump and particularly about his early life and the search for an inner Trump that doesn't exist. That seems to be the conclusion that everyone who looks for it comes to once and after not very long, that there is no there there, that there is no rumbling of a soul in Donald Trump at all. And these are the kinds of things that Klein is getting at in his piece that I think have been available for people to examine all along.

But they've been reluctant to do so for a variety of reasons. I want you to know that in that great answer, you used a word I don't think I've ever heard before in my long life. I'm not challenging you that it's not a word. I'm just saying I've never heard it before. I don't think I've read it before. Disinhibitionism. Yeah. That's a good one.

That's new to me. No, I mean, that was the first thing I took from Klein's essay, was that he was talking about something that, yeah, and using a word I hadn't heard before, that I immediately understood. At least I think I did. But also that I think is important to understanding the psychological makeup of Donald Trump. Okay, last question for this last show with you before we find out, well, at least where Tuesday ends and as soon as we have a clear sense of what happened

or a clear sense that we're into really deep doo-doo because we don't know what happened is likely the next time we'll talk to Keith. So the last question for this week is what will you be looking for in these next seven days? I mean, when you and I were doing Canadian elections, What we looked for was where do the leaders go in these last few days? Because that'll tell us what's actually really important for them, that they're throwing whatever their campaign is aiming to achieve into the geography of where they end up in the last few days. Is it similar here?

Is it what they say, where they go, what the television ads look like? What is it? It's all of those things. Yeah. I don't think that there's anything particularly fresh about this. I looked this morning, Harris's campaign tour will take her through all seven of the battleground states.

I imagine Trump's will as well. I think that while they tour through all of them, both will spend more time in Pennsylvania than anywhere else than Michigan. I think those are the ones they see where there's still, there's work to be done there. They're vitally important. And so I expect to see that. In messaging, we talked earlier about my feeling that the Harris campaign is doubling down

on what's important to women in an effort to make sure they get as many women to the polls as possible. And so I would expect to see confirmation of that. One of the things that has interested me in the last week is the advertising spending, particularly from Trump. You've seen probably the ads that they're doing on transgender issues. Transgender issues on a list of issues important to voters. A couple of weeks ago, they were like number 22.

Not quite sure where they are now, but on the spending, on the budget from Republicans, they fall just behind the economy and ahead of immigration and the border. They see something here, and I think I know what it is. They see transgender issues as a kind of Rorschach test for voters, that even if you don't care about this issue, this tells you something about the candidate. She's not you. And the fact they're spending so much money on that, I find, can only mean that they believe it's successful. So I'll be watching to see over the next week whether we see even more of that, or whether I'm just dead wrong and they dropped it entirely? My instinct is that they'll continue.

Okay. On that, we're going to leave it for this week. And I look forward to the next time we talk, because I have no idea what it is we'll be looking at in terms of the situation at that moment. That's next week. That's next week. Thanks, Keith. Thank you, Peter. Good talking to you.

Keith Bogue, our guest, as he has been many times throughout this year in the U.S. election process. Let me give you a sense of what to expect from the bridge in the next week. I'm sure we'll touch on the U.S. election and its impact this Friday on Good Talk. Monday, we'll do kind of a special Janus Stein program on Monday. Usually it's all about the Middle East and Russia, Ukraine. But I think we'll turn it in relation to the U.S. election and the impact it can have on the international scene. So that'll be Monday's edition of The Bridge. Tuesday, special episode of the More Buts Conversations.

I think this is number 18 this is 18 or 19 somewhere in there um and it will be related to the u.s election that is election day next tuesday so we all know what will be happening this will be an opportunity to listen to two two guys on the inside butts of course the of course, the former principal secretary to Justin Trudeau. Moore, of course, the former conservative cabinet minister for Stephen Harper. Both have been heavily involved at different times with dealing with the United States from the Canadian perspective. And so they're going to kind of take us inside that bubble and talk about the stakes on Tuesday

and how it will be seen from the inside in a variety of different ways. And what happens after that? Well, who knows? We'll see what the votes are when they're counted on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning. So there we go. That's a snapshot of not only today but the next few days right here on the bridge. Tomorrow will be an encore edition.

Tuesday, it's our question of the week. You heard about it in terms of artificial intelligence at the top of the program. And then the random renter as well on your turn. Friday is a good talk with Chantel and Bruce. Okay, that's it for this day. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening. Great to talk to you as always.

And we'll talk to you again in less than 24 hours.