The former U.S. attorney general during the Obama administration, Eric Holder, is in the queue offering all he has to know about the political process and the presidential race.

Our lead story, the second U.S. Senate debate is in the history books.

Elissa Slotkin and Mike Rogers now are headed towards the finish line around the OTR table.

Craig Mauger Simon Schuster and Bill Ballenger sit in with us as we get the inside out.

Off the record production of Off the Record is made possible, in part by Martin Waymire, a full service strategic communications agency, partnering with clients through public relations, digital marketing and public policy engagement.

Learn more at martinwaymire.com And now this edition of Off the Record with Tim Skubick.

thank you very much.

Welcome, to off the record, to underscore how crazy this campaign is with everybody, and his uncl taking up residence, virtually the entire Capitol press corps, including all of the female reporters, are out on the streets.

But yet we've cobbled together a great panel.

And thank you all for showing up.

You got the C team here today.

Don't go there.

Anyway.

So we had the US Senat debate, the second and final one between Ms. Slotkin and Mr. Rogers.

What did you make of it?

Mr. Ballenger.

Actually I was really impressed by both those debates.

I thought both candidates really came off well.

I think these were the bes debates anywhere in the country.

between two U.S. Senate candidates, I thin they were on top of their game.

They were articulate, they were fast.

They didn't back down from each other.

They got some barbs in, bu they were mutually respectful.

They weren't quite as deferential at one point, he said, you're just honest and you aren't.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Well, it wasn't exactly a pat on the head.

They got some barbs in, but they also, you know, were fairly respectful.

Remember these two were once friends and, you know, admirers of each other in a way.

Mike Rogers was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

She was the acting assistant secretary of defense, testified before him.

And they had very similar views.

Actually, she worked in the Obama administration.

He was in a Republican controlled House.

And so this has been a painful experience, I think, for both of them to go through this campaign and have to get into the back and forth that they've gotten into.

Yeah.

I think that this i one of those Senate campaigns, like you were saying, how these candidates I mean, I think she originally said you know, she's running in 2018, that if Mike Rogers was stil there, she wouldn't be running.

Right.

And she's like to walk that back.

Yeah, absolutely.

And but this shows like sort of the modern era of campaigning where you're really looking at sort of pull out that surgeon's scalpel and cleanly and cleave the electorate awa from the opponent's candidate.

And so that's what we're seeing from the messagin in these people, hammering on, you know, voting with Joe Biden's record, talking about electric vehicles.

This is a way for them to sort of hone in on separate from one another.

But and I think, you know, this is something where Mike Rogers has a lot more to gain from these debates than Elissa Slotkin does, mainly because of the financial imbalance between the two of them.

Yeah, it's a fascinating thing to watc because it's such a close race.

And Elissa Slotkin, what has been her strength in past elections?

She's been able to separate herself from the top of the ticket and win votes that a Democrat would traditionally not be able to win in those districts.

Now she's getting engulfed in what is a top of the ticket battle across the state of Michigan.

And she's got to stand there in this tidal wave where everyone's focused on Trump v Harris, and she's got to try to find some way to grasp what was happening before.

And it' just such a difficult maneuver.

She seems to have been successful in the polls.

We'v always shown her outperforming.

Harris and he's underperforming.

Trump.

He's behind.

The rate of that has changed.

Befor she was winning by a lot more.

And there is a difference, a more significant difference than there is now.

And that's This gets into money for he and you want to talk about that.

I mean, she has had a big financial advantage over Rogers up to this point.

But now supposedly, based on these super PACs coming in for Rogers, maybe he's got as much or more committed both in spending already an in what is committed to be spent between now and November 5t than she does, like 84 million to 80 million.

Right.

And so much of her personal brand, as Craig was saying, is being above this partisan fray.

But that's totally contingent on her ability to, you know, be such a prodigious fundraiser and have the money to get that message out there that she's beyond these partisan.

You know, ally fight politics.

But if you don't have the money to do that, it becomes a lot more difficult to.

I thought this was a textbook example of what they teach you in school, which is stay on message.

Right.

Okay.

Regardless of what you're asked, you talk about you want to talk about.

I thought on that point, Mr. Rogers kept coming back to this, tying her to Joe Biden.

Inflation was all her and she never responded.

There is an answer there.

The answer was the rescue package did contribute some inflation, but it was the the the stockpile.

It was the delivery chai that caused the high inflation.

That's the answer that she never gave it.

By the same token, she was good.

They kept hammering them.

You had five times to vote on this prescription stuff for the federal government.

And you voted no.

He never responded to that.

So I think on staying o message, they fought to a draw.

But the fact that more money i coming in is a sign that what, this is really going to be close.

Yeah, I mean, the Senate Republicans are looking for a place to try to flip one of these in at the 11th hour unless they got a chance.

I think it's the trend in the polls.

This was a race she was winnin in some polls by eight points.

Now she's winning it by three or maybe two, depending on the polls say it's a dead heat.

Some say it's a dead heat.

So that trend, I mean remember from 2016, what was it the polls showed Hillary Clinton winning the polls continually as Election Day got closer.

Drop, drop, drop.

And it's that trend that can kill you if you're the early favorite in a race.

And I think that's what Republicans are looking at nationally.

Hey, this is a race that's kind of turning in our favor in Ohio with Sherrod Brown.

That's a race where the polls have been kind of, you know, constant Brown has a lead.

So I think that's what they're looking at.

The question is, you know, the concern is if you're Republicans, a Republican has not won a US Senate race in this state in 30 years, and that's what you're bumping up against here.

And we have close to a million absentee vote already returned at this point.

And so when you look at the 2020 race by comparison between Gary Peters and John James, there was a lot more money coming in for John James, a lot mor a lot earlier on in the cycle.

And now that you know, we're not in Election Day anymore, we're in election month.

The question is whether it's going to be too little, too late, do you think?

Ready to second most expensive to that James Peters race in 2020 and it could surpass that, the fifth most expensiv Senate campaign in the country this year.

I continue to be amazed at how what happened to Dick DeVo continues to happen in politics, which is the word China.

Isn't this amazing that in Michigan, China keeps coming up ove and it's like China was Canada?

Yeah well obviously this things work or they wouldn't be bringing it up or am I wrong?

Well yes I mean it has I mean well, I don't think it works so well in the past.

When you look back to 2012, Hoekstra's Senate campaign, ther was that infamous ad, remember?

But, you know I think that this is an issue.

That's the time is now, because it's not just about China in the abstract.

It's about China not as like a foreign military power, but it's about a country that's dominating us in terms of electric vehicle production.

And so Democrats are saying this is the future.

You know, there's all these different factors in terms of domestic industrialization that are factoring in that make the issue a whole lot more complex.

I think it's xenophobia to a great extent.

And, you know, I think it's fear of economically what China can do to this country.

I mean, it's the futur of the auto industry, I think.

I mean, that's what I think all of this is code for.

And that's going to be the question voters in the state are faced with.

Do they believe that the United States and Michigan more specifically, can win the battle for the future of automobiles, go into electric vehicles if they believe that the US can do that and needs to invest in that to try to compete with China, it's probably you're probably voting Democratic if you believe that, hey, EVs are a risk and it' going to hurt the auto industry and we can't compete with China, you're probably going to vote for Donald Trump because those are th two messages they're laying out.

And that's becoming the crux of this race.

Remember that said, 54% of the people said, no, let's not compete with the Chinese.

Let's cede them this market.

How about I mean those people are a lot of them are probably voting Republican, right?

Yeah.

I mean, so I mean, this is that turning point issue in this state.

That's why both candidates are talking about it.

Trump has been more outright and fron facing talking about this issue.

You can tell that Democrats don't really know exactly how to respond to this.

They've grasped the idea that, hey, if you start pulling back on these investments, it's going to cost jobs, real jobs in the state of Michigan, like at the Lansing Grand River Assembly plant, where the federal government is investing $500 million to transition it to produce electric vehicles.

That's on the line in this discussion.

There are real world implications of this discussion in Michigan and this is going to continue.

I would almost guarantee you'll hear both candidates talk about this at length today in Michigan.

Remember also, China is communism.

Okay.

So you got a communist foreign power.

Asiatic Americans, always a convenient whipping boy in elections in this country.

Remember Japan back in the 1980s?

Remember the fear of Japanese to the Japanese?

Jim Blanchard, exactly.

But that kind of faded away because Japan is not seen as a real threat to us economically anymore.

Now you've got a nation much bigger Asiatic and Communist, and they're eating our lunch.

Of the two candidates Donald Trump has the easier sell on this issue to exploit it.

Okay the Democrats have to explain.

There was a study out this week that said actually there would be job growth under the EV's.

Okay.

I would like got lost in the ether, right?

Yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, there is there's so many different financial angles of this.

And you can look at what the Biden administration has done.

And Michigan has been one of the top victors in terms of winning money from some of the investments in the future economy that the Biden administration has made.

However, Joe Biden and Kamal Harris have not been very good at selling thi in the state of Michigan so far.

I think she has started to hone her message a little bit better.

But they have not met Trump on this battlefield.

Well there six months behind.

the pitfalls of incumbency, too, because, you know, domestic industrialization has been such a pillar of Joe Biden's domestic agend that when you look at, you know, they're getting attacked for this, but it's because they're trying to facilitate a sector pivot that, you know, takes some really, you know, takes years and years to make this happen from, you know, manufacturing facilities to supply chains.

You're completely changing the way cars are designed and built.

And can take billions and billions of dollar to facilitate this transition.

It's not going to happen overnight.

But even as Republicans are attacking them about it, Democrats have not attacked back.

They haven't said, well, Republicans, you've said, you know, essentially, you know, your plan is so far in term of what I've heard articulated to keep doing what we're doing.

And they can't necessarily say ho well is that going for Michigan, because at the same time, they've got to boost what's happened over the past four years and talk about all these manufacturing jobs that have been built.

You have to talk about something coming long term in this current age of instant gratification.

That argument don't hold squat.

It's also what Trump is so good at, though.

I mean, if you remember back to when Trump was in the White House, any project, any economic development project, anywhere, he was out there putting out a press release, taking credit for it.

He'd go there, Hey, this is all because of my trade policies all because of what I've done.

And, you know, you can laugh at it, right?

But it is it's a strength that he has to be able to connect these developments to what he's doing, whether that is warranted or not.

And Biden and Harris have not always exercised that same strength.

And it's coming back to hurt them a little bit.

He has a bigger strength at knowin what plays with the electorate.

All right.

I mean, give this guy, even Governor Whitmer has acknowledged his ability to sense where that middle ground is and go after it.

And he was way ahea of the curve on this EV story.

That's why the D's are behind.

I mean he might be ahead of the curve.

I mean, he found an issu that he could try to turn into this point of division.

The question is whether he is goin to ultimately win this argument.

If Democrats continue to hit him on these plants that are getting, you know large investments in Michigan, bringing jobs to the state and saying, hey, this is not going to happen in Lansing, this is not going to happen.

And Marshall, if Trump wins again, you know, that that could ultimately come back to hinder him a bit here.

And I think it's not an issu that we know the answer to yet.

Simon you mentioned earlier the absentee vote.

It's a 944,000, clos enough, let's call it a million, but it's behind where we were in 2020.

Is that a danger sign for the Dems or not?

I think there's a couple of significant factors in play here.

One is that in 2020, we're i the midst of a global pandemic.

And so I think people that would otherwise much prefer to vote in person are, you know, going to were voting absentee at that time.

And then, two, we also have this is the first high turnout election we've seen with early in-person voting in the state.

And I'm really interested to see, you know, this kicking in.

Early in-person voting is kicking off this Saturday in Detroit.

What kind of turnout we're going to see there.

It hasn't been very successful in February or in August, but I'm curious to see if there's going to be more demand this time around.

And this has been my point of argument on this, is that in 2020, you have to remember everyone got an absentee ballot application sent to their house.

That system has bee that did not happen this time.

So to compare these numbers it's a little bit challenging.

Let's compare to 2022.

It was not a presidential election.

It was still a high turnout election.

4.5 million people approximately vote in that gubernatorial election.

The absente ballot returns are pacing well, well above what was happening in 2022, which signals our turnout overall is going to be well above 4.5 million.

Republicans have never we've had two of these Republicans have not won an election in this state at the top of the ticket, where more than 5 million people voted.

I've been anxious to ask you gentlemen this question.

Mr. Trump has spent two years telling people in Michigan, don't vote absentee.

The system is rigged.

Now Wa-la, we see a spot on TV.

That says vote is secure and safe.

Is it possible that he's contaminated that well so much that even when you tell the people as safe and secure they won't do it?

No, he did contaminate it.

But I don't think enoug to stop people from turning out now early, including Republicans who I'm not sure I think it's coming back.

I think this is one avenue where for some of these low intensity, hardcore Trump supporting voters, where early in-person voting is going to be really advantageous for them because it provides that level of convenience because you have a nine day span.

Although in rural counties a lot of these places only have 15% of the Trump voters still don't believe and have confidence in the system right.

But then turn on the latest poll.

Right.

But then when the leader of their party says vote anyway, they're still going to do it, I think it's a huge risk what Trump has done.

I mean, obviously on this matter, I mean, it looks like Democratic areas are returning their ballots more quickly than the Republican areas.

There's going to be.

11%.

Republicans, All of the all of the polling indicate the Republicans are still very hesitant to vote absentee.

I highly doubt they're going to vote.

I mean I think the early voting numbers are going to be relatively low because this is the first time that people have done it.

And I don't think you'll se a lot of Republicans doing this, even though this is a means of voting that Republicans should be very excited about putting your ballot directly into the tabulator there.

The Trump path to victory in Michigan is turning out low propensity voters.

They all tell you that.

And you nailed that a mont and a half ago on this program, you were way ahead of the curve on that.

Appreciate that.

That's okay.

But if you give those low propensity voters one more reason for caution to turn out, hey, maybe my vote doesn't matter.

That is a massive risk to your strategy.

If you don't believe the system, if you believe the system is rigged, why would you vote?

Well, you wouldn't.

But again, I think Trump and the Republican Party, not just in this state, but nationally, they are trying to walk back that early message from Trump, that early voting is fixed and against, you know, common sense and ethics in elections.

And he is, that was his message.

That's a lot of walking.

but that was eight years ag and four years ago now is now.

And he's changed his tune.

And I think it's actually helping the Republicans comparatively.

I would disagree with that a little bit because, you know, we've seen in rallies, we've seen videos.

He's rarely wrong, but he's wrong on this.

We've seen videos play again where Trump is speaking like t into a camera and he's saying, you know, catch you like early, you know, absentee and early in-person voting.

It's all good options.

But then when he gets up ther on stage in front of the podium, he doesn't really say that now with the same level of gusto.

But there is one message that I thought was interesting from Elon Musk super PAC called America PAC.

And there they said, cast your vote early before the Democrats do it for you and their use it.

They're pivoting toward absentee voting by bringing up the specter of election.

We have in the can an intervie with Eric Holder that was done.

Our thanks to folks to Channel six for providing this.

And here's what Mr. Holder had to say.

It's an interesting interview.

I'm in London.

That's where I am.

London, England or London, France.

England.

What are you doing in London?

Just some farm work and trying to get some citizens abroad to vote.

Let's star with the easy questions first.

Okay.

Does President Obama have it right?

Are black men a little ants about having a female president?

Yeah, I'm not sure about that.

I mean, you know, just the statistics give us some basis to be concerned about that.

But I think if black men look at the two candidates understand remember the history of Donald Trump, the guy who wanted to execute the Central Park five, the one who started the whole birther racist conspiracy about President Obama, who sued by the Justice Department.

Donald Trump was to have his company sued because it was not renting to African-Americans.

If you remember that part of Donald Trump.

And then also look at, you know, what Kamala Harris has done in her career and the agenda that she has put together for African-American men that deals with economic opportunity, with health initiative, a whole variety of things that she has put together for African-American men.

You know, small busines loans, a million small business loans that you forgive $20,000 of those loans.

There's a whole variety of things that she has an a black economic agenda for African-American men.

So the comparison between the proposals that she has and she will put in place and Donald Trump's history makes the choice, it seems to me, a black man, a very easy one.

When I run this soundbite, I'm going to guess some people are going to be surprised that right off the bat, you didn't say President Obama's got it right, that there is that there is a cultural concern about a female president.

You didn't say that.

Yeah.

You know, I can't get int everybody's minds and figure out exactly what it is that drives them one way or the other.

I think that what President Obama talked about is certainly something that's relevant for for some people.

But I want to try to make sure that people in making their decision about who they're going to vote for use their intellectual capacity to understand the history of the two people and understand where these two candidates want to take the country.

And I think if you do all those kinds of things, whatever concerns African-American men have, be they emotional abou having to follow a black woman or just a lack of knowledge that takes you in the wrong direction, If you do the if you do the the work, if you study these candidates, she'll d just fine with all demographics.

Well, is there a chance that that his comment to African-American me may have been offensive to some and therefor the lecture doesn't really work?

No, I don't think so.

I mean, I think that Barack Obama has a special resonance with African-American men.

And I think tha what might be seen as critical will actually be something that will be welcomed by the large the vast majority of people in the black male community.

He's basically calling on people to think, to compare and to make a decision based on facts as opposed to, you know, feelings that we live in a society that sometimes is is is sexist in nature.

And we that's why we have these tendencies that we might not realize.

And I think that's what he was asking, you know, African-American men to examine in themselves and try to determine what is it that it is holding you up, what is holding you up for support from supporting.

Kamala Harris.

Yeah.

He did warn them that they should be happy that Michelle wasn't at that meeting.

That's right.

I suspect that she migh have been a little more direct.

If you say that I'm not as direct as him.

I suspect that she'd be a lot more direct than him.

But then he was, you know, the news media we have a tendency to overblow storie and make them bigger than what they are on a scale of 1 to 10.

As you look at this race towards the finish line here in this African-American men issue, is it a one or is it a 10.

1 being absolutely catastrophic?

Oh, you know, I think it's about a 4, 3, something like that.

I mean, it's not something that I think can be dismissed given some of the numbers that we have seen.

And we're still, you know, a couple of weeks away from from the election.

And I think we'll get to a good place, But I don't think it should be overblown.

I think that I have great faith in men in the African-American community that they will do the work, understand Donald Trump's history, understand the proposals that Kamala Harris has put on the table, and make a decision that's consistent with them, their best interests and the best interests of the African-American community, as well as in the best interests of the of the nation.

Is this as a student of politics, can you get your arms around why the Trump people are so loyal to Mr. Trump?

Does it does it just give you pause?

Yeah, it is in some ways sometimes hard to understand when his program is all about him.

His concerns are all about him as opposed to his supporters.

You know, as President Obama has said on any number of occasions, you know, he just whines all the time, you know, the election was stolen from him.

The other concerns about he's treated unfairly by, you know, you know, fill in the blank.

And it is sometimes hard to understand why there is the level of support that he has.

And I would urge all people, you know not just African American men, all people, to look at them, that what he has proposed.

And ask yourself if you are a Trump supporter, what is the basis for that support?

What is it that I can crystallize and say to myself and to others and explain others?

This is why I support Donald Trump.

These are the program, programmatic reasons why I support Donald Trump.

These are the policy reasons why I think that he should b president of the United States.

I don't see any good answers to those questions.

Okay.

I think my time may be up.

One quick question.

If you were U.S. attorney general right no and you look at the possibility of quote violence, end quote, after the election, what would you be doing?

Well, I'd be doing, I'm sure, what they're doing at the Justice Department right now that is not really talked about an awful lot.

We have the voting rights section in the Civil rights Division monitoring the elections.

We put together a task force in Washington, D.C. that has components of U.S. attorney's offices around the country.

You also have the FBI ready to be mobilized to look at allegations of inappropriate conduct at polling places or people who are trying to vote.

These are the kinds of things that happen in the Justice Department before every election.

But again not particularly talked about.

But they will come out from the Justice Department, a memo relatively shortly that talks about this, at least in broad details.

So that's where I would be doing.

In fact, that's what I did when I was attorney general.

And I'm confident that this attorney general will be doing the same thing.

The federal government will be will be ready and out there to help protect people as they attempt to cast a vote and be participants in our democracy.

Would you be ready to send in the military?

No, there's no going to be the need for that.

You know, I think that we have local authorities who can handle any issues that arise.

We've got federal components civil components that can help handle these these issues as well.

And the talk of using th military in a domestic setting is something that should giv every American citizen on pause.

That' not how we run our government.

That's how other countries, other authoritarian nations run their systems.

That's not what the Unite States of America is all about.

Now, sir, who is your football team in the NFL?

I'm a long suffering New York Giants and New York Jets fan.

I'm born and raised in New York.

And, you know, I it's neve I don't have many good things, although I've got two teams in the in the playoffs.

I'm on the baseball side.

We'd love to send you a Honolulu blue Jersey.

All right.

I'm there, man.

I'm open.

I need a team.

I need some help.

Help me.

Alright man, it's good to see you.

Have fun in London.

Okay?

When are you coming back?

Shortly.

Yeah.

I'll be on a plane tomorrow.

Back where I love to be United States of America.

thanks for tuning in and hope you enjoyed that interview with Mr. Holder and thanks to our grea panel for another great program.

More of the same next week right here.

For more off the record, see you then.

Production of Off the Record is made possible in part by Martin Waymire, a full service strategic communications agency, partnering with clients through public relations, digital marketing and public policy engagement.

Learn more at martinwaymire.com For more off the record, visit WKAR.org.

Michigan public television stations have contributed to the production costs of off the record.