We recommend turning off all apps but Zoom for an optimal experience. We also recommend having a strong internet connection. If you don't have one by now, I'm not sure you're going to be able to correct that during the course of this particular meeting. And again, welcome and thank you for being here. I'd like to introduce AED's president and CEO, Brian Maguire. Thank you, Daniel. It is my pleasure also to welcome you all to our virtual Washington policy briefing. Who would have thought that instead of doing our annual fly-in, that we would all be meeting over Zoom to catch up on the latest information out of Washington. But one thing is for certain, even with the pandemic, the need to engage our officials in Washington has never been higher. Currently, AED has been very active on a grassroots campaign, which you will hear more about later. But I'm happy to report that just under 70% of our dealers have participated in our grassroots efforts, reaching out to the Senate, urging them to take action on an infrastructure or highway bill soon. I do want to thank Daniel Fisher for all of his work in pulling this together, as well as our OEM partners who will participate in this upcoming session, as we've all pivoted to providing you a high valuable experience through virtual technology. Once again, it is our pleasure to have you here. Before I turn it back over, I do want to thank our sponsors, Century Insurance, Keiko Isom. Thank you for supporting today's event. Daniel? Thank you, Brian. So let's, we got a pretty jam-packed agenda here, so let's go ahead and introduce our first panel. We're honored to be joined by government affairs representatives from several of our OEMs this morning. AED works hand in hand with these companies joining us today, as well as others. We're in regular contact constantly with our OEMs, making sure that we're on the same page. I know we've talked frequently, particularly during under the tax reform, but as well as when COVID-19 first hit, and I think we've got a great partnership and a great friendship as well. So with that, I'd like to introduce those joining us. We are joined by Daryl Baukamp, Senior Director of International Business Development and Government Affairs at Vermeer Corporation. Katie Hayes, Director at Caterpillar. Steve Natterney, Vice President of Government Affairs at CNH Industrial. Carlos Jones, Vice President of U.S. Policy and Strategy at Deere and Company. And I know they're all, I guess, kind of arriving here virtually. Carlos, you're going to join us? There you go. All right. Well, why don't I kick it off? So everyone's kind of focused on the November election, obviously, and there's a lot to be focused on there, but there's still quite a bit of legislating that should get done, although it's far from certain what will actually happen here. The Senate returned this week to D.C. The House returns next week. What are your thoughts on what Congress can actually accomplish in September, with the government set to shut down on September 30th, the highway program authorization expiring that same day, and the talks of the possibility, albeit waning, of another COVID-19 relief package? So with that, why don't we start off with you, Daryl, coming to us from beautiful Pella, Iowa, right? Yeah, thank you, Dan. Thank you to you and to Brian for putting this on. And, you know, good morning to everyone that's on the line this morning. You know, it is, I think, important to kind of look at key dates rolling forward. You know, obviously, the end of this month with the fiscal close of the U.S. government, that is one big one, and then we've got November 3, and then lame duck, and then obviously Q1 of 2021. Really key dates or segments of time that I think the administration and Congress are certainly focused on as they try to do whatever they're going to do. Those things really weigh importantly into their thinking. So I think, you know, as we look at what could be accomplished this month yet, and thereafter for the next couple months, you know, to be honest, I've had to kind of continue to lower my expectations. But I do think, you know, obviously, number one focus for the government and for Congress is going to be funding and the 12 appropriations bills, getting those passed or somehow funding government so we don't have a shutdown. I think that's first on the agenda in terms of taking up portions of debate time and vote time this month. And I'm not sure if that's going to be successful or not. I think if anything succeeds, it will be a continuing resolution, funding government at continuing levels through at least elections. I think if we're able to conclude that, that allows time for focusing on COVID relief. And as a matter of fact, I think there may be a vote in the Senate tomorrow, just a more of a test vote to see if a bill probably what's being called a skinny bill could pass. And that's a scaled down Republican written bill somewhere between the 500 to $700 billion dollar dollar range. That includes several items, but not certainly large state funds, not checks to people. It won't include infrastructure or broadband. It is focused on a narrow set of things that perhaps some Democrats can agree upon. And McConnell will try to get that done. I think the other thing this month that is possible, and I'm purposely not going into too much detail here so that my friends and colleagues have some detail they can add and color commentary to these things, but is at least getting a continuance of the FAST Act that we need an extension to that. I don't know how long they'll look at, but probably towards the end of this year, perhaps into the lame duck or perhaps into Q1 as well on that to at least give some certainty to the funding on infrastructure, but certainly do not anticipate any new reauthorization or new MOVES Act or anything else of the sort in the infrastructure space, but certainly expect some sort of extension. And with that, I'll turn it over to some of the others for additional comments on it. Thanks. Yeah. So thanks, Daryl. Katie, why don't we turn it over to you? Thanks, Daniel. Thanks, Daryl, for setting that up. Thank you all for joining us today. It's great to be with you all. And it's been great to have the opportunity to be in regular contact with a number of our Caterpillar dealers throughout COVID on weekly, bi-weekly calls. So we appreciate everything you're doing and the insights we've received from you. I would just add that on the government funding side, there is talk. I feel somewhat optimistic that they are going to get some sort of CR put together. The question is, how big is it? How much of a package comes together? We already mentioned the surface highway bill has to be reauthorized by September 30th. Flood insurance also expires. There's a number of other things that are attached to that September 30th deadline. But the question is, can you put them all in one package with different dates attached to them? It does sound like the CR itself may go through probably mid-December to give them opportunity to come back during lame duck to do so, depending on the outcomes of the election. There has been some talk that it could go through late January. And that's, I'd say, some members being optimistic of a change in the White House coming that way and whether or not that would give them time to have an administration set up even by the end of January. But I think most common thinking is mid-December is likely to be that date. We did mention the push for at least a one-year extension of the highway bill, something very important to us. And I know from your perspectives as small and medium-sized businesses, some sort of additional COVID relief, whether it's adding additional extensions of the PPP or whether it's liability protections, there's a number of issues we're watching as those COVID relief bills develop in Congress, and hopefully we'll get something done. The last thing I'm going to throw out before I turn it over is another year-end item that's on our agenda is the miscellaneous tariff bill. That's a bill that allows companies to petition for tariff relief on products that are not available in the U.S. It's in the past been fairly non-controversial. It's become a little more controversial over the last couple of years. But the process has been pretty much completed from the government side, and now it's up to Congress to pass it by the end of the year, and then the President to sign it. So thanks, Daniel. Thank you, Katie. Why don't we go over to Collis Jones there. Thank you, Daniel. Appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and welcome to the Giant Deer dealers and all the dealers on the line. Really appreciate the partnership we have with AED working on federal and state issues together. As my colleagues mentioned, there's probably three big ticket items we see happening before the end of the year. Obviously a continuing resolution to fund the government, probably see a CR through again through December, maybe through Q1, get them to March, and we'll see what that looks like by the government. Our government obviously leads with conviction when we face deadlines, and obviously we're facing some significant deadlines coming here at the end of the month. The COVID relief slash stimulus package, however you want to cache that, the fact that since July 31st that program has expired and we've actually done nothing for our citizens out there. So obviously some type of relief package tied to a CR is probably what I foresee in the future there. Extension of a surface transportation reauthorization, as we've heard, obviously very critical to a lot of the businesses that are participating in this conference today. But probably what we are hearing and what we're going to see potentially is that we see a clean bill running at least through the next 12 months. So that obviously gives us some optimism for some certainty in the business world here coming at the end of September. And probably just another issue that's on our radar that hasn't been mentioned is actually China and China sanctions. So what is the government going to do actually with respect to China and actually forced labor opportunities out there? How does that impact our trade, our imports, and actually the business opportunities we have in interacting with China? So kind of what we'll see on the short-term horizon from a deer perspective in the next 55-60 days, or actually the next 30 days at the end of the year. But obviously when we start talking about being 55 days from elections and what happens next, this is probably what's on our short-term horizon and radar. Great, Carlos. And then Steve, you have the, I guess, unfortunate or a little, or maybe fortunate opportunity to go last. Do you have any additional thoughts? Well, as John McLaughlin used to say, and the answer is, but first I'd like to thank you, Daniel, and Brian, AD, for this opportunity. Welcome all the Case and or New Holland dealers that are that are on the line as well. But that being said, I don't really disagree with any of the comments that my colleagues have made. I would just offer a slight variation or twist. You'll have the extensions of, say, like the highway trust fund, etc. You'll get a CR. Hopefully, I'm pretty, I feel confident that that will happen through mid-December. And that will really only be the only legislative activity that gets done for the year, in my opinion, besides extensions. However, the twist, new upside is that because there will not be another, if you will, coronavirus relief package being able to get past this year, whoever president is next year, I believe will take, you know, infrastructure as kind of, quote unquote, the stimulus package. So I would anticipate whether it's still President Trump or President Biden, that sometime late January into February, we start seeing, or even before that, you'll start hearing talk about infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure, and it'll be basically your jobs package to get people back to work. So that's my one unique twist to everything else that has been said. Well, Steve, you kind of, I guess, brought it up then. So now let's look toward next year a little bit. Obviously, we don't know who will be in control after November 3rd. We might not know for several weeks after that even. We'll be diving into more of what's, what we anticipate happening with the election with our keynote speaker. But why don't, Steve, why don't you give us, what do you think can be accomplished next year that will be beneficial or possibly concerning to the industry? And you mentioned infrastructure. What other items are there? Yeah, I was gonna say infrastructure, I think, is going to be the big ticket right out of the gate, which will be beneficial to our dealers, your members, and kind of the country, in my opinion. You know, the, to be blunt, you know, the downside, if you take a Biden administration, he's already put out, if you will, kind of highlights for his tax plan to raise the corporate rate from 21 to 28%. You know, raise taxes on anyone making over 400,000. So if you're a small business, and you know, you're an S, you know, you're running your taxes through your, if you will, your individual side, it's very easy to get over that figure. So a, you know, tax on small businesses, I think, could very well happen under a Biden administration. So that's the one, you know, big thing that I look at from a company perspective on how we support our dealers, and our end customers, that would be of concern. So I'll leave it with those two. So I leave plenty of opportunity for other folks on the panel to agree or disagree with me. All right. And just a reminder for everyone out there, the Q&A, you can ask questions via the box on the bottom, the Q&A on the bottom, and we will certainly get to those as once we get through this discussion here. So Collis, why don't we go to you on your thoughts on what a 2020, hard to believe we're already focused on 2021, but what that could look like policy wise? Absolutely, Daniel, and actually agreeing with my colleague, Steve here, infrastructure, I think is going to be the number one driver in the 2021 legislative calendar, regardless of administration, it's obviously something sorely needed. We've been talking about it more than the last four years, and actually a significant investment in our nation's infrastructure is sorely needed. So I think that's going to be the number one topic, regardless of administration. Number two is obviously going to be how we deal with COVID. We are looking, obviously, at stimulus. We're looking at, obviously, relief. We're looking at a vaccine distribution, potentially. So the next administration, regardless, again, whether it's President Trump for four more years or a Biden administration is going to have to deal with that issue right off the bat. So then we get to the point where things start to separate. So in a new administration coming in, are we seeing, obviously, corporate tax under attack here? Do we look at climate legislation? Something we've looked at a lot of regulatory relief over the last four years, but we see a lot of that be reimposed in a climate world moving forward. We start looking at immigration reform, obviously, how it impacts our workers, how it impacts visas, documentation. We start looking at DACA fixes. So I think once we get to 2021, depending on which administration is in charge, another four years of Trump or a potential Biden-Harris ticket actually taking over the White House, we probably start to look at, obviously, the path being very disparate in what we're going to be working on in 2021. As we talk about the presidential election, obviously, we need to also keep in mind that really what's in play is actually when we start looking at the House and the Senate there, will we have actually a change in the Senate, potentially, to actually embolden and bolster what the platform looks like or the agenda looks like in a Biden-Harris administration, or will we continue to have a Republican-led Senate that actually has that last level of actually blocking and protection on some of the administrative priorities that may come through in a legislative effort? So I think it could look very different depending on which administration is there, but again, probably the most important thing for the purpose of this call as we look at things that are positive is really infrastructure should be number one on everybody's ticket moving forward in 2021. All right, Katie? Thanks, and I certainly agree. I think there's already been a lot of support discussed for a large infrastructure package to come together in 2021, and that's for several reasons. First, it is a strong bipartisan issue with a lot of support, so regardless of who's in the White House, regardless of controlling the Senate or the House, it is a bipartisan issue that can rally a lot of support, and that sets good precedent for the rest of the Congress, hopefully, to be able to get something strong under their belt and achieved. We all know, though, the issue with a large infrastructure bill is how do you pay for it, and that will lead to a lot of tougher discussions, including, as has already been mentioned, defending the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that we passed a few years ago. Remember, it took us 30 years to get real significant tax reform accomplished in Congress, and the fact that a lot of it could get rolled back could be concerning to many of us. We also are looking at some of the provisions within the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act start to expire and wind down, even starting in 2022. So over the next five or six years, a lot of the provisions could be discussed. We've mentioned the corporate rate. That can also be ratcheted up and could be a sweet pay-for in a lot of folks' opinions as to just take that up just a little bit. It won't make that much of a difference, but once you open that can of worms again, we're getting the U.S. to a less competitive place in the world. I also would mention, and because it hasn't been mentioned yet, is next July, Trade Promotion Authority is up for reauthorization renewal. It will expire, and it does require a full congressional review this time around, and so depending on who is in the White House next year could have a real impact on how Congress wants to lay out that negotiating authority and their role in Congress of trade and overseeing trade. So I think that's something that a lot of us will be looking at closely as we get into next year. I'll end there. Thanks, Daniel. Thanks, Katie. Daryl, any other thoughts? Yeah, I try to back clean up on this one and think of what's not been said, but I think, you know, we too are really looking at those three quite distinct scenarios that have very different probable outcomes. You know, one is the status quo after elections. Trump administration, Senate stays Republican, and then if you have a presidential switch but Senate stays, that's another kind of middle scenario, and then a Biden presidency and Senate flip is the other one, and on a continuum, it makes quite a difference policy-wise where things may move, but first of all, I'll maybe say that regardless of the election outcome, I agree with my colleagues that infrastructure will be front and center. There's still going to be a lot of unemployment going into new year, and infrastructure is definitely seen as a longer-term stimulus and stimulating effect upon the economy and employment, and I think that sort of certainty will be very much appreciated by economists and obviously the job sector, and not least of which would be all of us in our industry sectors, but from there, I agree with my colleagues on tax. The tax scenarios could look quite differently, and obviously if you have a change of presidency and a change of Senate, I think those tax rates move very likely. One thing that maybe hasn't been mentioned so much is the regulatory sort of horizon where that has been scaled back and where we truly had achieved, you know, kind of that if you put one out, you got to bring two in sort of thing on the regulatory front. We've seen some reprieve on that over the last four years. I think that takes on a new dynamic as well in a changed scenario. In infrastructure, we talk really surface transportation quite a bit, but I do think that while in a skinny bill, a COVID relief bill here that may or may not pass soon, or if we get any legislation done, broadband is probably not in a federal package this calendar year, but I think that changes in the new year regardless of election outcome. There's been so much talk about it. Everybody wants it, and there will be a federal program, whether it's attached to an infrastructure bill or done separately, and I think that's coming out. I think you'll also see a WERDA or a water resource development bill that frees up some monies for ports and flood protection, and I think you probably see a revitalized pipeline act of some sort reauthorizing PHMSA, and really this industry has been working quite well with the regulators on that to introduce some revised and updated language to have better communication between all stakeholders and better detection of underground utilities, and I think that bodes well, and that legislation is ready to go. It just needs a vehicle, but probably won't happen until next year, so a lot coming in the next year regardless of outcome. Trade policy and foreign policy, which affects us all, I think has very different looking scenarios in those three outcomes as well. Some of our trade partners will be happy, some will be not, but I think we're looking at those three scenarios and trying to kind of make this matrix of what we believe will be coming as a result, and I can't think of an election where there's been really such a delineation of policies that are right on our horizon and pretty well telegraphed. Well, thank you for that. Thank you everyone for your insights here. So we do have some questions, and so I'll go ahead and ask those, and this one has to do more with the federal debt. So obviously it's a big issue, especially during the pandemic, and this will obviously push additional stress onto states. There's been a lot of talk about the federal government providing state and local funding or at least funding to help alleviate that stress. Assuming we don't get a COVID-19 package that has state and local money for it, what effect do you believe that will have on the industry in the short and long term? Does anyone want to raise their hand? I don't want to just call on someone on that. Does anyone have any comments? Or if not, I will have to call on someone. There you go. Daryl, there you go. I'll just lead off with maybe an easy one, in that yes, I mean, due to COVID, we're going to end up with probably around a $3.3 trillion deficit to the budget this year. We've now surpassed and going to surpass that mark where our debt is not just a little, but significantly pushed larger than the economy as a whole GDP-wise. And so, and I think it's pretty well telegraphed too that the answers to those questions by the two different types of parties, the Democrats are going to focus more on revenue gaining through a tax adjustment. And the Republicans are going to push for policies to boost growth and hope that revenue comes from that angle. So I think philosophically, you'll see two different answers to a known problem that exists largely as a result of COVID. Katie? I would just add a little bit to that. And that was a great answer, Daryl. We have seen and heard anecdotally from dealers and state governments that they are feeling stressed on their budgets. There isn't a lot of funds left from the second, I think, COVID package that is still available to states that has not been distributed yet. Perhaps more flexibility can be given in another package to those states and to municipalities to help ease some of their budget crunches. Because of course, one of the first things we're concerned that might get cut is some of the infrastructure projects. We've already seen some be placed on hold and that sort of thing. And so we want to be helpful. And I think the Congress can try to be helpful and give more flexibility to states at this point to address that issue. Thanks. All right. Steve or Carlos, have any additional thoughts before we go on to the next question? Let's take the next one and see how many questions we can answer. All right. There we go. All right. Good idea there. And you guys may or may not be able to answer this. Obviously, we'll be enlightened further on this when Nathan Gonzalez speaks. But how likely does the panel think it is that the Senate could flip to Dem control in November? Carlos, any thoughts? Yes. Actually, if you look at probably nine key states here right now, there's obviously eight Republican seats that have the potential to flip and obviously the Democrat seat in Alabama that Senator Jones holds right down. So as you look at it, is it a reality that the Senate could flip? Probably a high likelihood that it could. But obviously, this is an election like no other we've ever I've never seen in my lifetime is actually we talked about it every four years or every two years. The turnout really matters. But what type of turnout are we going to have based off how people would have an opportunity to vote? Will they vote by mail? So the Postal Service plays a role here. Will it be in person with early voting or will actually people show up on election day? And will COVID play a role in people being actually afraid to go to the polls? So I hesitate to say, will it flip? There's obviously a possibility every time we vote that things can change. But I think this is probably the most important turnout election probably that I've seen in my lifetime. Yeah, I'm going to say just to add on to that, I don't disagree with anything that Carla said. Yeah, just kind of the one factoid is that for people just to think about is that when the incumbent senator is up for reelection, and the president of his party, you know, carries the state, they get reelected. It's like 97% of the time. However, if the president loses the state, then it's only like 78% of the time. So, you know, it's really going to boil down to those states and, you know, how well, if you will, because being Republicans, you know, how much of a Trump effect do they have then on Senate races, and are folks going to be willing to split tickets or not? So it's, you know, anybody's guess at this moment in time, but, you know, if the president wins the state, your odds of your senator getting reelected are significantly statistically greater. I'll just quickly add that, you know, had COVID not happened this year, there's, we probably wouldn't be having this question or conversation at all. But with it, it's more in play. And even the election map this year, you know, has more Republicans defending their seats. I think it's like, you know, 35 or so, 25 seats, you know, that Republicans have to defend this year, and six are listed as a complete toss up right now. So it is different than we thought the map was going to look. And Stephen's right, you know, for the last number of elections now, as the top of the ticket goes, more and more people vote straight ticket. And so you either win or lose on the coattails of the top of the ticket. So that's different and a change in the electorate and how they vote as well. All right, let's go next question here. In the past, when discussing infrastructure spending, the discussion always comes down to obviously how to pay for it. So what do you think will be different? In January, all four of you said infrastructure will probably likely be the top item. I'm guessing that it may or may not be paid for is the issue there. But why don't Katie, you have any thoughts to kick the question off? Just to kick things off? You know, one, I do think the cost of borrowing money right now is all time low. So we should be able to do it in a fairly economic way. Two, I think that the infrastructure is going to be tied to a recovery and stimulus type of package, which was mentioned earlier, we're still in the, you know, we're still in the process of trying to just help folks get by with COVID relief and give more relief. We're not really talking about stimulus and kicking the economy back into full gear again yet. And so once we get to that conversation of what can we do to help stimulate the economy, creating those jobs, getting folks back to work, can be tied to infrastructure. And so I think that that's a positive one for this time around. All right, why don't we, we're about out of time, but we do have one last question. So why don't we get to that? Should the Democrats sweep the White House and Congress? How far and how quickly do you think they would try to implement the Green New Deal? Anyone want to take that one first? I guess I would start by just saying that first, it depends on whether or not the, if the, if the Democrats do control the Senate, do they abandon the 60 vote threshold for major. Exactly. That would be the big difference maker this time around. Yeah. Personally, I don't see the Green New Deal, actually, regardless, if you had a Democrat trifecta, I don't see the Green New Deal being implemented, obviously, and convinced you actually talk to your base out there. It was a great rallying point to talk about a Green New Deal. I think the practicality of implementing such a magnanimous program would probably be extremely difficult, especially when you start looking through the legislative and regulatory avenues. So I would probably say no, but you may see portions of it. Yeah, I'd agree with Kyle. It's not going to be a first hundred days thing. There'll be too many other issues that they have to try to solve first, rather than if you will, a wish list of Green New Deal. Could they come up with different portions, et cetera, here and there? Sure. But as a one big package, no, not the first hundred days. Well, with that, we are about out of time for this panel. Thank you, Katie, Daryl, Steve, and Collis for joining us. I know I greatly value our partnership and friendship and look forward to our continued relationship and work on behalf of your company, as well as our dealers. So really appreciate you joining and we'll get ready for the next panel here. But before we turn it over to that panel, I know they're kind of, I guess, in the real life world, they'd be shuffling chairs and all that stuff. So I guess we'll say we're shuffling screens. I did want to turn it over to AAD's 2020 Chairman, Ron Barlett, out there in beautiful California. I know he has a few words here. So, Ron. Thank you, Daniel. And thank you, everyone, for being here. Obviously, 2020 hasn't gone exactly as we anticipated when we gathered in Chicago for the AAD Summit. However, like our business, our association has had to adjust. How business is conducted in Washington has also been altered. What has always been a one-on-one, hand-shaking, back-slapping town, suddenly went virtual. And of course, a bullet's June fly-in, which is certainly one of my favorite events. And I know those attending this conference importance of us as business owners and executives advocating for the industry. COVID-19 may have changed the association's plans and lobbying techniques, but it didn't hinder its effectiveness. As soon as shutdown orders proliferated through the country, we weighed in with states, local, and federal governments to ensure our businesses could remain open. AAD has also worked together with groups representing several of which you just heard in our last panel to make the case as to why we should be deemed essential. These efforts were largely unsuccessful and allowed our manufacturers to continue to operate while many of other sectors of the economy were completely shut down. When Congress turned to legislation, AAD was right there advocating for our industry, and importantly, helping us understand new mandates and benefits and urging changes and modifications, such as the Paycheck Protection Program, to benefit more AAD members. Over the summer, the association commenced an unprecedented effort to convince the Senate to take up infrastructure legislation. In total, nearly two-thirds of AAD's dealer members have participated, delivering letters to all 100 Senate offices. For those who haven't sent letters to your U.S. Senators, it's not too late. As you've heard, it's still very much uncertain what steps we will take before the end of the month, and we need, and the country needs, infrastructure investment to be part of that discussion. Putting us, the equipment dealer, and having them visit our facilities has always been a priority of AAD. Of course, in-person visits were largely canceled. But since the pandemic started, AAD has hosted dozens of virtual town halls with lawmakers, including with some of the most powerful decision-makers in Washington, including Mitch McConnell and Steve Scalise. Finally, I know many of us are focused on a good reason. We all have our feelings on who we want to control Washington and what the impact will be if one party or the other has power. I won't get into my opinions, but I do know this. AAD has laid the groundwork to be successful in Washington, regardless of which party has control of the Congress and the White House. I feel that no matter what happens on November 3rd, the association will be a strong voice for the industry and our policy priorities. With that, thank you again for taking the time and your continued support of AAD. I'll turn it over back over to Daniel to start our next panel. Thank you. Thank you, Ron. Ron has had the unenviable task of serving as chairman during these uncertain times, and I'm sure I speak for all AAD staff in thanking you for your leadership advice and words of encouragement over the past few months. Thank you, Ron. Thank you, Daniel. With that, we'll go ahead and get our next panel queued up here. We're joined by Jimmy Christensen, Vice President of Government Relations for the Associated General Contractors of America, Dean Franks, Senior Vice President of Congressional Relations for the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, and Michelle Stanley, Vice President of Government and Regulatory Affairs for the National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association. AAD works closely with these groups on all policy issues important to the industry. AAD is a member of the Executive Committee of the Transportation Construction Coalition, which ARPA and AGC chair, and we're also an active member in the Highway Materials Group, which is led by NSSGA. Little gets done in Washington without many groups working together, and it's been great to work with AGC, ARPA, and NSSGA over the course of this very interesting year, but also many years prior to that as well, and I know we look forward to working with you going forward. So just wanted to get kind of a pulse on what your members are saying, particularly with the economic fallout of COVID-19 and how they're kind of feeling about the future. So Jimmy, why don't I start, you start things off here. Sure, Daniel, thank you for having me, and thanks for reminding my wife that I can dress up and clean up well every now and then. So we recently conducted a workforce survey of our members, and we've been doing it for about 10 years, and for the first time ever, we had well over 2,000 members actually complete the survey, and the responses made clear that the coronavirus is delivering a one-two punch to the industry. As AGC, we represent 27,000 commercial contractor members, among others, and on the one hand, the pandemic is undermining demand for construction, prompting project delays and cancellations, layoffs and furloughs, but at the same time, we're still seeing the coronavirus contributing to conditions that make it difficult for a majority of our firms to find craft workers to hire. Some stats that we've got on that, about 60% report a scheduled project has been postponed or canceled. Over the last 12 months, 41% of firms have a reduced headcount, including 30% that furloughed or terminated employees as a result of the pandemic, and it's a tale of two sides of the industry. We have the vertical and the horizontal. Highway contractors have experienced fewer project cancellations than other construction firms. We found that 53% of our highway contractors report a project having been postponed or canceled compared to 66% of building contractors, 62% of utility infrastructure contractors, and 60% of firms that are doing direct federal and heavy construction. Similarly, fewer highway contractors, just 29% reported a project underway that had been halted compared to 35% to 38% of the other contractors I mentioned. Now, not all firms have been harmed. About a fourth of our folks had responded that they've actually not only had no harm, but also that they're actually adding jobs. So it really depends on where you are, what your markets are. We had several states that shut down their state DOTs, Washington State, Penn, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and several states that took various actions on declaring certain forms of construction essential or not. So we're still trying to sort that out. And I would say that a lot of our members are still trying to figure out what do I look like in 2021? What does my backlog, when does that come to an end? So that's really the questions that are on their mind. And obviously, if they're thinking about where their backlog is, hiring or laying off people, obviously, they're also thinking about what my equipment needs will be in the future. Thanks, Jimmy. Why don't we go to Dean? Daniel, and thanks to you and Brian and AD's partnership over the years, both as members of the TCC and also just good colleagues and friends, Bartha. We, you know, Jimmy covered the workforce situation and what's going on at the state level pretty well. I think our members in the very beginning, by and large, remained active and on the job, though, as Jimmy mentioned, certain states and certain places had project shutdowns. But generally speaking, in most areas, we were deemed essential as far as surface transportation, highway construction. And so most work continued. However, we are starting to see some of the letting cancellations that have happened over the last few months are starting to catch up now. Contract awards in July compared to last July for highway work was down 19%. And, you know, as we look forward here, that's probably going to be continuing. We're going to see... And the federal situation doesn't help that at all. The fact that we're looking at, not to skip ahead here, but we're looking at a highway bill, the five-year highway bill and the FAST Act that expires in 21 days, and we don't have a replacement in place yet, a highway trust fund situation that we need six and a half billion dollars just to maintain current spending levels over the next year. So we're in the midst of a lot of uncertainty here as the whole marketplace can understand and obviously the whole economy. So it is now starting to stretch to our industry as well. All right, thanks, Dean. Michelle, you have the, I guess, the either fortunate or unfortunate responsibility of going last year on this one. So you have anything else to add? The only thing that I would add to what Jimmy and Dean both said is that, you know, our members have been working a lot of backlog projects and they do have a lot of concern about what 2021 brings. Very similar to what Jimmy and Dean both said, you know, we were considered essential. And so, you know, up until about now, things have been moving along fairly well for our members. But what we're hearing is that 21 is not looking very good at the moment, especially with what Dean mentioned about the highway bill. So just with uncertainty being left out there and it seems that a lot of things are left on the edge and that's what has our members kind of unsure and, you know, looking to us to really continue to do our jobs on the Hill to ensure that we get the bills that we need to be able to do business next year. Great, so you, I think all of you were at least online during the last panel and you kind of heard some of the OEM's perspectives on what can be or might be accomplished here over the next couple of weeks. You know, it seemed like there was not, there was some confident, there was pretty good confidence that the government won't shut down September 30th. There was confidence that there'd be some sort of highway extension. There was a lot less confidence that there would be any more COVID-19 relief, it sounds like. So what are your guys' thoughts on that? And in particular, I know we've been a little, you know, obviously our industry's very focused on the highway bill situation. I'm very curious on what you guys think will happen regarding that, how long an extension might be, whether we see money, increased funding, or, you know, a part of that extension, or any state and local money as well. So, Michelle, why don't you kick things off here? Okay, I'll take a stab at the pandemic package, kind of give you what my thoughts are on that. I guess maybe I'm a little bit more optimistic that some kind of package will come together. I don't think it'll be anything as large as the ones that have passed in the past. But I do think that there is a desire, now that at least the Senate has this skinny package, that they're looking to move forward as kind of a starting point on their end. You know, so I think there's a, you know, more of a possibility for something smaller to happen on the pandemic side. I'll let the other two talk about the other. All right, the other two, go ahead, Gene. Yeah, thanks. Agree with Michelle there. I think all hope is not lost there on the pandemic side. You know, on the reauthorization and extension side of things, it's obviously clear we're not gonna get a bill enacted into law in the next 20 days here. So we, you know, the groups, and AAD's been a big help in this, and AGC, NSSGA, and others. We've started doing a bunch of lobbying on doing a year-long extension with increased funding levels. Both the House passed bill that passed in July 1, and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee bill that passed last summer, both in bipartisan manner, and the EPW bill in particular was 21 to zero. Those increased funding levels for highway programs. And so we'd like to see any extension take that step forward there. And then the other part of the ask is bolstering the state DOTs and public transit agencies with some emergency relief for foregone revenues that they've experienced during the pandemic or are anticipating will continue during the pandemic. State DOTs are asking for 37 billion. Public transit agencies are asking for 32 billion. So we'd like to see that happen. Now, if that doesn't happen as part of the COVID package, you know, I think there's still some hope that it could get wrapped into, some of that assistance could get wrapped into whatever extension we see. The House, in particular, when they passed their HR2 bill July 1, they included the first year of their highway, the service transportation reauthorization, included a year-long extension with increased funding levels and flexibility for state DOTs and public transit agencies. So even if a COVID package doesn't happen, I wouldn't throw in the towel quite yet on seeing some relief for state DOTs and transit agencies. Great, Jimmy, any further thoughts? You know, I'll take more of a Hobbesian, less optimistic view. The more I keep hearing, the more I keep feeling that they're less likely to reach some sort of agreement. You know, we see that the Senate put out a bill that was a half a trillion less than the one that they put out a month ago, or maybe a little bit more than a month ago. And rather than trying to go in the same direction or towards each other, they're actually going in opposite directions, which doesn't make me feel good, but at least there has been some agreement, unofficially or informal agreement on having a continuing resolution. And I keep thinking that the play will be more of putting funds for, as Dean mentioned, the Highway Trust Fund and or state DOTs to continue and even bolster construction funding through an appropriations play, just through a CR and some sort of separate title for that. You know, I obviously think that there's, our members are very interested in, obviously, the number one issue is infrastructure funding across the board, whether it's highways building or whatnot. But number two is liability protections. And then also because of the issue in hiring workers during this time, some sort of thing to address the unemployment insurance benefits, which the administration has carried forth, obviously from $600 a week to $300 a week. But I thought that there was no way they were going to let the unemployment insurance bonus expire on July 31st. That happened. Everyone agrees on things like more money for PPP loans, an additional draft for those folks that need it. But we haven't seen it come to fruition yet. So I'm cautiously optimistic they can find a way, but less optimistic than I would guess my colleagues are. But I'm still, if there's one thing I'm certain of, it's we will get some sort of highway extension. And I think the great thing has been how AED, ARPA, and then SSGA and AGC have all worked together throughout the month of August to just hone in the message, as Dean put forth, that we really need a one-year extension with additional funds because that's really put us ahead of the pack. And we're starting to hear that as we have meetings throughout the Hill that it's reverberating because I think we've learned nothing's a sure thing on Capitol Hill, even an extension. Certainly learned that over the last couple of years here. So let's look forward to next year. What, I guess, are your thoughts in terms of, you heard kind of, again, from the OEMs on what they predicted. They all seem unanimous that, A, we would have a pretty large infrastructure package fairly early on, regardless of who's president. But how about we talk a little bit about kind of the threats and opportunities that will be around come in January. We have a president, regardless of President Trump, President Biden, a change in the Senate. And why don't I turn it over, why don't we start with you, Dean, here, since you're kind of the middle guy. Yeah, I did catch what the last panel had to say, and I do agree. I think there are some common themes, no matter what happens here, that we have a highway bill that needs to get done, service transportation bill. And no matter what party is putting together some sort of stimulus infrastructure-related type package, that is going to, almost assuredly, be kind of the base of it. You know, where it goes from there, obviously, depends on who's in charge. But in some ways, it doesn't. The minority in the Senate has a lot of sway. And while, yeah, there's talk of getting rid of the filibuster, and maybe that happens, but there's a lot of old school, old guard senators on both sides of the aisle that, to my knowledge, haven't exactly endorsed that idea on both sides. So, you know, they're gonna need 50 votes to do that in a, let's say, it's a Democratic Senate. And, you know, I'm not sure that the votes are there for something like that. So I think that's a long shot at best to do that. And so then, you know, we're still in a place where, in a world where we're gonna need bipartisan cooperation. And I know we've said this over the last few years, in particular, numerous times, that, you know, there's only a few things that can get bipartisan support. And one of them was trade, and that happened. And then, you know, I think another one was, is infrastructure. Hasn't happened yet, but, you know, no matter who's in charge, the stars are aligning for that to happen. Well, let's go to Michelle. And by the way, just a reminder, if you do have a question, please type it into the chat box. We should have a little bit of time for Q&A during this panel. So please enter your questions in. So Michelle, sorry about that. It's okay. Definitely want questions, so that's good. I guess the one thing that I'll talk a little bit about is more of the regulatory arena. So I think, you know, all three, all four of our associations had some pretty good regulatory wins in the Trump administration. And for us, we're, you know, we're a little nervous about what a Biden administration might do to reverse some of those regulatory changes that we did see that are helping the industry. And specifically for the aggregates industry, you know, we're regulated by MSHA and we have a really good working relationship with them right now and have been working, you know, together on a couple different issues. And we're just, you know, cautious about what a Biden administration might do in that arena. I mean, for example, OSHA had a silica rule a couple of years ago that I know affects both AGC and ARPA, but since our members are regulated by MSHA, the likelihood of that rule coming out, you know, either the end of this year or potentially beginning of next year and what the difference in that rule would look like under a Trump administration versus a Biden administration are very different. So those are just a couple of the, you know, specific kind of labor and regulatory issues that we've been really watching very closely, but trying to make, you know, champions at least on the hillside so that if it is something that a, you know, Democrat House or Senate tries to move forward with that we would have friends kind of in the middle on both sides to ensure that nothing too drastic happens, at least on the legislative side. Jenny? I think the first panel addressed quite well the tax implications in a change of administration and the change in hands in Congress. I'm probably a little bit more concerned about the state of the 60 vote threshold in that I did speak to a moderate Senator, Democratic Senator before John Lewis passed and then after. Before John Lewis passed, he said he would vote against removing the filibuster. After John Lewis passed and the filibuster was labeled a racist tool, he said, there's no way I can vote for the filibuster. So I think the, it comes down to maybe a one or two Senate Democrats that keep the filibuster. And I don't know under today's rhetoric that there'll be able to withstand that sort of label, which leads me into a little bit more of a discussion of labor policy and obviously things that we would see being attached in any infrastructure bill for our members. And obviously it would also impact the larger manufacturers and then coming down the line. There was a bill that the house voted on called the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, PRO Act. Generally speaking, the more innocuous the name of a bill, the worse it probably is or the more you should pay attention to it in Washington, DC. It represents the most far reaching change in labor law policies since in 50 years. For the first time ever, there would be, unions would be able to intermittently strike. There could be something called a secondary boycott where you have a subcontractor that's in a dispute with the prime contractor, but they can also hold up other subcontractors from getting to the job or suppliers and have boycotts of them. Essentially think along the lines of the European model of a labor system. Would very much come into play as an organization that represents both union and open shop contractors. We put out, it would actually be worse for our union contractors from everything that we've heard, but it would really change the way that our members do business. And this is something that the Biden, is in the Biden platform. Pieces of it are not only in a climate change plan, but an infrastructure plan. And there were some pieces in the infrastructure bill that passed by the house. But I still have to say, whether you disagree with some of the policies or not, for the first time ever, we had a house of Congress pass a $1.5 trillion infrastructure bill. And that in itself is something to be proud of and sets the marker, hopefully for a new Congress, whatever the makeup. And I think our members are transactional. So hopefully the money makes the harder pills to swallow on the policy side worth it. Thanks, Jimmy. Let's see, we do have a question here and it involves, I guess it was similar to one that we had on the OEM panel regarding the pay-fors for this stuff. So always the holdup on infrastructure, particularly highway is how are we gonna pay for it? Everyone loves spending the money. No one wants to raise it. So assuming, I guess one for this extension, if we do get extra money, is that just gonna be out of the treasury? And then also moving forward into next year is the pay-for discussion still with low interest rates and the fact that we're already piling up trillions of dollars of debt as it is, is the pay-for really something that is a legitimate issue, I guess, in the near term for infrastructure funding? So, I don't know, Dean, why don't you wanna go ahead and start that off? Sure, I think in the short term, it is almost like definitely gonna be some sort of general fund transfer. Could be offset, the Republican, for example, the Republican bill that came out yesterday had 250 some odd billion in offsets that was repealing some of the CARES Act funding that's gone unspent. So, that's a pretty big pot of money. We take it, sure. But looking forward into next year and inevitable reauthorization bill and hopefully a much larger infrastructure package, I think we generally and hope that we will be able to have that pay-for discussion once again, in a real manner, whether that's through gas taxes or other user fees, it's long overdue for doing something there. I think the Biden plan was part of the pay-fors for that was increasing the corporate rate 5% of 28. So, there's that. We hope that maybe we can, there's ways to bridge the gap there of doing something that might be more user-based on people or companies that are using the system. So, long answer short, I think the discussion will happen, but at the end of the day, I don't think they're gonna let, no matter who's in charge, I don't think they're gonna let pay-fors stop them from moving forward. So, it could end up being a big general fund transfer also known as borrowing, yeah, deficit spending. So, there's one last question. I'll let one of us, we're about out of time, but maybe Jimmy could address this since he brought up the filibuster situation. And I think, I mean, the answer, obviously the filibuster situation had kind of bit or came back to haunt the Democrats on the judicial side of things more recently. So, the question is what would stop, I guess, isn't there a concern among the Democrats that this will come back and bite them in two years again? And I guess, I think probably the answer is more that people don't, up on the Capitol Hill, unfortunately, are looking more in two-year increments than they are in long-term consequences. And so, I don't know, Jimmy, you have any final thoughts on that before we close this out or? I think you nailed it. There's not much long-term thinking going on on Capitol Hill. It's basically, if I have an opportunity where my party controls, possibly controls the House, the Senate, and the White House, let's use that two years to jam everything we can through, and through any means possible, and we'll deal with the consequences later. So. All right, well, on that note, I'd like to thank Jimmy, thank you, Michelle, and Dean as well. I know, I appreciate us working together, and our friendship, and our kind of working together on behalf of the industry. So, it's gonna be a pretty exciting couple of months here, and obviously, we'll hit the ground running next year on all our priorities. So, thank you again for joining us and taking the time. Thank you. Thanks, everyone. I'd now like to introduce Mark Johnson from Keiko Isom to introduce our keynote speaker today. And I would just like to thank Keiko Isom and Mark as well, who have, over the course of the COVID-19 situation, we've worked very closely in providing some, I think, very informative webinars in a very timely basis. And I know I greatly value your insights and your expertise in kind of combing through what is a very, sometimes very complicated tax and accounting issue. So, with that, Mark, why don't you go ahead and introduce our guest speaker today? Thanks, Daniel. You're right, this has been kind of a strange year. I've been on more webinars than I can count at this point for with ADB and appreciate the opportunities. So, like Daniel said, I'm Mark Johnson. I'm the market champion for distributors and equipment dealerships for Keiko Isom. We're a large CPA and consulting firm spread throughout the country. And my niche here is dealers that look a lot like the people on the phone and the internet today. So, clearly I'm passionate about this industry and particularly the 50 or so dealers that are clients of ours. And as we look at 2020, I'm calling this an asterisk year, but so far it's not as bad as we heard it would be. But how to respond in a year like this, the training and the planning and the strategy you need to do to get yourself in line with improving and surviving a year like this, that's our focus. And we love partnering with ADB in that regard for sessions like today. So, today it is my pleasure to introduce Nathan Gonzalez. He's the editor and publisher of Inside Elections, a nonpartisan political publication that covers presidential politics in the House, Senate and gubernatorial campaigns. He was an editor and analyst and writer for the Rothenberg Political Report for more than 13 years before taking over that company in 2015. He's a CNN political analyst and an election analyst for Roll Call Newspaper. In fact, on election night 2016, Nathan was an on-air analyst for NewsHour on PBS after working as an off-air consultant for ABC News on their election night decision desk for 14 years. Gonzalez has also appeared on NBC's Meet the Press and NBC Nightly News, C-SPAN's Washington Journal, CNN and Fox News Channel. Previously, he worked for CNN.com and an associate producer for CNN's Capital Gang. He's been quoted in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and USA Today, as well as numerous state and regional newspapers across the country. Nathan's also appeared on FiveThirtyEight, WashingtonPost.com, NBCLatino.com and in Campaigns and Elections Magazine. He first came to Washington, D.C. as an intern in the White House Press Office and he earned his Master of Arts from George Washington University's Graduate School of Political Management. So please welcome me or help me in welcoming Nathan. Thank you, Mark. Appreciate it. Thank you for this opportunity. You didn't have to read the whole thing, but that's okay. I appreciate it. The last part of my bio did bring back a memory. If you could give me 45 seconds, when I was an intern in the White House Press Office, I was basically a West Coast kid. I grew up in Oregon, went to school in Southern California, but I did a semester in Washington, D.C., which included an internship in the press office. And one of my California friends came to visit me. And I asked my supervisor at the White House, I was in the press office, which my desk, where I just answered the phone and made copies all day, but my desk was on the, well, the table with the phones was on the other side of the White House briefing room wall, the wall that you see. I was just on the other side. But anyway, my friend from California came, I asked my supervisor if I could give him a tour. And all of this recent talk about the Rose Garden renovation that the First Lady Melania Trump did brought back this memory as well that I was giving him a tour. We're walking down in the West Wing, walking down the corridor alongside the Rose Garden. And at the time, the president was giving, was having a meeting, and I told my friend Parker, I said, if you turn around, you could see the back of the president's head. Well, my friend turned, my friend Parker turned around. He did not stop walking though. He kept walking, he turned his head back, almost hit one of the columns, and like fell into the rose bushes at the time. And the Secret Service was just giving us the stare, but anyway, that was also a long time ago, a few presidents ago to date myself. But thank you all for having me. This is an exciting time or frustrating time, depending on your outlook. But what I wanna try to do today is just give you a lay of the land about how we're seeing these upcoming elections. We'll talk about the presidential race, but also talk about the Senate and the House as well, because this is more than a presidential race. It gets almost all of the attention, but there's more on the ballot. And if you are someone who might be frustrated with your choices in the presidential race, the Senate majority is certainly on the line. The margin in the House is important when it comes to passing legislation. There are state legislative chambers that are up for grabs, which have implications not only for local policy, but for redistricting coming up in the next election, in the next election cycle. So there's more, there's more than a presidential race. I thought I would start off by just kind of big picture, and we'll kind of go a little more granular, and then we'll zoom out big picture again. But anytime I do one of these about 2020 and looking ahead, it always comes back to 2016, right? It's always about people, the vast majority of people who did not see Donald Trump being elected president of the United States. And that is factually true. Most people did not project that he was going to win. But I think we might've learned the wrong lessons from that event. I think the natural, the narrative or the natural inclination is say, well, it was, the polls were wrong and it underestimated Trump's support. And there was a little bit of that. We can come back to that. But I think the larger lesson was that there was a failure of imagination, that there was a failure of imagination that Donald Trump would ever become elected, would ever be elected president of the United States. And that led the media to deliver some incorrect analysis. I think it led the Democratic Party, the Hillary Clinton campaign, and Democrats to make some wrong strategic decisions. And it was a failure of imagination. And if we fast forward to today, I think there's a failure of imagination about that President Trump could lose this race. It's sort of the assumption like, well, he was down in the polls four years ago and he's down now, so he's gonna win. And I think that that is, we need to open our minds to a broad array of possibilities that both Joe Biden could win and that President Trump could lose. And the analysis that I wanna kind of share with you or our outlook on the presidential race, the Senate and the House, is based on data. It's based on public polling, private polling, partisan polling, nonpartisan polling. We're trying to gather as much intelligence as possible and look at what is most likely to happen. That's not to say that the other results won't happen or can't happen, but it is, I feel like I wouldn't be doing you all a, I would be doing you a disservice if I came and said, you know what, this is a toss-up race. Everything is a toss-up. We don't know anything. No one has the advantage. That's just, I don't think that that's the best way or the most accurate way to do it. What I can do is tell you, this is what we're seeing in the data without giving a definitive prediction. And I would encourage you, you'll hear me talk about, I think Vice President Biden has the advantage right now in this presidential race. That doesn't mean, I don't want you to email me in November. You can email me in November. It's just Nathan at insideelections.com. But don't email me if the president wins and say, you told us in September that the race was over and Trump can't win. And that's not what I'm saying. But what I am saying is that I think Vice President Biden has the advantage right now. And one of the reasons, and I'll get into the specific map, but one of the reasons why I have some confidence in saying that is that it's not just about the national polls. Joe Biden is leading in the national polling, which in some ways, it helps us with the environment, understanding the political environment. But we know from 2016 that that is not the election. We do not have a national race for president. We have an electoral college and it is state by state. And when you look at the presidential battleground, Joe Biden has the advantage in enough critical swing states, battleground states in order to win the presidency. But we're also seeing at the house level, since we evaluate house races as well, we not only ask, how is Congressman so-and-so doing against their challenger, but what is the presidential ballot in those house races? And that just confirms what we're seeing at the state and national level is that President Trump is underperforming. Underperforming what? He is not reaching his 2016 performance in almost any state or any district that I've been able to find. And so when you're looking at data at all three of those levels, that is what helps lead me to the analysis that Vice President Biden has the edge. Let's go into the presidential map. Well, before we do the map, let me address two things that I hear from Republicans most often. The first thing is that anything can happen. Anything can happen. And on one hand, I would agree, I've already called on us to be open-minded about possibilities, but I would say, let's look at what has already happened. We went through a historic impeachment process. We're still wrestling with coronavirus and COVID-19. We had close to an economic collapse. We're dealing with racism and a national conversation about racism in a way that I certainly haven't seen, and I don't think any of us have seen in our lifetime in this way. And this presidential race has remained remarkably stable. It has not changed a lot. Maybe Biden has been up or down a few points or President Trump up or down a few points, but when you look at it overall, President Biden has had a consistent advantage. And that's why when we're talking about debates or news events, even a vaccine, I just start as skeptical that an individual news event is going to fundamentally change the race until proven otherwise. For example, whenever I see a breaking news story, Trump said this or tweeted this or this happened, I just take a deep breath and say, okay, it might change a lot of voters' minds, but let's wait to see whether it indeed does because for the most part, news events have not fundamentally changed things. For example, there was a CBS News YouGov poll that came out within the last couple of days that said 86% of likely voters have already made up their mind whether they're going to support President Trump or vote for Joe Biden. We're talking about a very small number of people who are persuadable at this point. And so that's why when we have news events that happen, it makes it difficult for those numbers to change dramatically. And the other thing about news events, and I talked about the debates, I've been surprised at the number of Republicans who are convinced that Joe Biden is going to have a meltdown at the debate. Now, he could, I'm leaving that open to the possibility. But I think Republicans have lowered the bar so dramatically for Joe Biden at these debates that if he can minimally keep it together, some people will say, well, wait a minute, I thought you said he lost his marbles and he seemed like a normal politician to me. So we'll see indeed if that happens. I think the bar, Republicans have lowered the bar. The other thing that I hear from Republicans along with, well, anything can happen, is that there's still time. And the election isn't until November 3rd. And that is technically true, but I think the window of opportunity for President Trump and the Republicans is actually shorter, smaller, narrower. I'm kind of butchering that metaphor, but tens of millions of people will have already voted by November 3rd. I mean, we will blow past 100 million voters total. And it looks like at least half of Americans will vote by mail. So that means 50 plus million people will have already cast their ballot before we even get to election day. And so Republicans banking on either a debate moment or a vaccine coming to market, by the time those things, if those things happen, by the time that happens, a larger number of people have already made their choice, made their decision. So that's why there's pressure to change the trajectory now. I mean, President Trump and his team actually proposed having a, adding a fourth presidential debate earlier than the three scheduled ones, because they realized that time is running shorter than just two months, than being two months away. Let's jump to the presidential map a little bit. Senate, House, we'll leave plenty of time for Q&A. In the, on the presidential map, the easiest path to victory for Joe Biden is to carry all the states that Hillary Clinton won in 2016, adding Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. And that is, that's the ballgame right there. And according to state level polling, that is a very distinct possibility. It is not only, the even better news for Biden is that he is also competitive in a number of other states that President Trump carried in 2016. Arizona, North Carolina, state Georgia, Texas is close. Florida is close. These are states, some of them, I mean, we always expect Florida to be in the mix, but if you would have told me six months or a year ago that Georgia and Texas would be close to even, I would probably say that you're crazy. Iowa was an easy Trump win in 2016. Ohio was an easy Trump win. All of these states are close. And what we're seeing across the board is the president underperforming his own 2016 numbers by at least five to six points, if not more in some places. And so when that happens, it increases the possibilities of what states could be in play. And on the flip side, the only state I would say that we're really watching that Clinton carried that Trump might be able to flip this time is Minnesota. Hillary Clinton won it very narrowly in 2016. And there's been a buzz over the last week about Trump pushing in Minnesota. The reason why I'm a little bit skeptical about it is again, when we look at the congressional district level, we're not seeing Trump over-perform enough that would boost him across statewide. For example, we're watching Minnesota's 7th District. Most of you probably don't live in Minnesota's 7th District. It's on the Western. It's the Western. It's a huge rural district in Western Minnesota. It's represented by a Democratic Congressman, Colin Peterson, one of the kind of moderate Democrats, long-time moderate Democrats. President Trump won Minnesota's 7th by 30 points in 2016. He's gonna win it again, but what we're seeing now is he might win it by 15 or so, maybe 20. But in order to win statewide and get over the hump from where he was in 2016, he needs to either be over-performing there or over-performing elsewhere. And we're not seeing that in the Twin City suburbs or in other districts. And so that's why I'm waiting for more sort of info or intel to see whether Minnesota is indeed in play. So when you kind of boil all of this down at the presidential level, I think Joe Biden has the advantage in the Electoral College. I think he has the advantage in the race. Maybe that's not what we're supposed to say now because of 2016, but I just don't think I would be doing my job if I wasn't candid and honest with you about the data. And if you say, well, what if the data is wrong? And it's possible, but it would be multiple, it would be pollsters independent of each other, both partisan and nonpartisan, making the same methodological mistake in the same direction. Again, I've learned to be open-minded, but I don't think that that is the most likely, the most likely outcome at this stage. I'm gonna, we can come back to the presidential race in Q&A, but I'm gonna move ahead to the Senate, the House, and even pushing beyond that. So in the Senate, the bottom line is that control of the Senate is at stake or in play. I think you've heard pieces of this in your previous panels for planning purposes. I would say planning for either a Republican majority or a Democratic majority is, it would be prudent. Standing here today, sometimes I do a bad job of giving away the punchline and then going back, but I think Democrats are more likely than not to gain control of the United States Senate. Part of the reason is that if I indeed believe my own analysis that Biden has the advantage in the presidential race, a Biden victory lowers the threshold for what Democrats need to gain in the Senate in order to get control. For example, just what are the numbers? Democrats need a net gain of four Senate seats to get to a majority, but Democrats, if they have a net gain of three seats, that gets them to 50-50, and then if Biden wins, then Vice President Kamala Harris could break any 50-50 ties. So in our current projection, it's a Democratic net gain of three to five Senate seats, so it's within that range. It's not, again, not saying it's a done deal, but that is the most likely range right now. And I consistently say net gain because it's not just about how many seats Democrats will take over. For example, Doug Jones of Alabama, the Democratic senator, is the most vulnerable senator in the country. We don't think he's going to win re-election, so that means if Republicans defeat Doug Jones, then Democrats have to make up for that somewhere else. Maybe Democrats defeat Cory Gardner in Colorado, but that means Democrats have just broken even. They haven't made any net gains, so that's why I consistently say net gain of three or four seats for Democrats to control. I mentioned Gardner. I think Gardner is the most vulnerable Republican senator in the country. I would put Martha McSally of Arizona probably next, Tom Tillis of North Carolina. All of our ratings are at insideelections.com that you can check out specifically if you're wondering. But we're also watching Joni Ernst in Iowa, Montana, Steve Gaines is vulnerable. We're watching the Georgia. Georgia, two both Senate seats are up. And if we want to talk about post-election scenarios, at least one of the Georgia seats is going to go to a January 5th runoff. And actually both of them might go to a January 5th runoff. So if control of the Senate hinges on a seat or two, we may not know who controls the Senate until well into next year. And we're also watching John Cornyn in Texas. I forgot to mention Susan Collins in Maine. The open seat in Kansas, there are a lot of Republican vulnerabilities. Part of that is specific to the race, but part of it is also the president and the president overshadowing these races in kind of his depressed, not depressed from a emotional standpoint, but his underperformance is pulling races into play. For example, if President Trump were doing as well in Iowa or Georgia or Texas as he did in 2016, I don't think we would be talking as seriously about those Senate races, but that's just not where we are right now. The other challenge for Republicans is that there just aren't a lot of other takeover opportunities in order to balance out losses elsewhere. There is Doug Jones in Alabama, but the only serious takeover target right now is Michigan, where Republican John James is challenging Democratic Senator Gary Peters. And that's a serious and competitive race, but with the president lagging in Michigan compared to four years ago, that makes it more difficult for James to overcome that. And he said, well, why are you, why is the presidential race so important when it comes to these down ballot races? And in 2016, the presidential outcome and the Senate outcome matched up in every single state. In other words, the voters voted for the same party for Senate as they did for the presidential race. And I think that that isn't necessary in every state. So that's not guaranteed to happen again, but that is a, that is the continuation of a trend that ticket splitting, states splitting their tickets, I think is the exception rather than the rule. And when we drill down more specifically to a Cory Gardner or a Susan Collins, because I don't think the president's going to win Maine, that it puts Collins and Gardner in a tough spot because they need to form a coalition of voters, both voters that love the president and some voters that at least don't like the president. And they have to get them together in order to put them over the top. Because if they, if Cory Gardner only gets all of the Trump voters in Colorado and no one else, then he's not gonna win President Trump is not gonna win in Colorado. So that is, that's the challenge that these Republicans down the ballot, down the ballot have. In the, but the margins matter as well. Montana, for example, where Republican Steve Daines is being challenged by Democratic Governor Steve Bullock, I guarantee you that a Steve is going to win in Montana, is that the president won Montana by 20 points in 2016. And according to current polling, his lead in Montana ranges from the mid single digits to the upper, to the high single digits. That could be, that could make the difference in the Senate race, meaning Democrats believe that Steve Bullock can overperform Joe Biden by a little bit, maybe he can win if Biden loses Montana by five points or so. But if Biden loses Montana by eight, nine, 10 points, then that's probably too much for him to overcome and Steve Daines will likely be likely be reelected. So again, for planning purposes, planning for either a Democratic or Republican majority, I know that sounds like I'm waffling, that's just the honest analysis, but I would be at this stage, I think Democrats are more likely than not to gain control of the Senate. I think I forgot to mention Joni Ernst, I apologize. She is definitely in the mix of those races as well. Let's move to the House, then I'll look ahead and then we'll do Q&A. In the House, it's a little bit of a shorter story. Democrats have the majority obviously, Republicans need a net gain of 17 seats to get back to the majority. And I have a hard time envisioning a scenario today where Republicans get the majority back. I think the bigger question in the House, more relevant question in the House is whether Democrats can expand their majority. And that's what we're actively looking for. There are places where Democrats came just short in 2018, they gained 40 seats in 2018 and got the majority, but they also fell just short in a few districts that are still very much in play and many of them are suburban districts. Suburban districts in Texas specifically are in play. But overall, when the president is underperforming, that opens the door for a lot of different possibilities. Because Texas, we have to get past the idea that Texas is a giant red state. And when you look at it colored on a map, because of how it has voted in recent elections, it is a giant red state. But really it is a red state that has these growing pockets of blue urban and suburban areas that is balancing, that is counterbalancing the rural red Republican areas. So Democrats can still have potentially a handful of House seats in Texas that they can pick up. Democrats are also going to, we know they're going to pick up two seats in North Carolina because there's a new congressional map that was drawn that is more favorable to Democratic candidates and they're already going to gain two seats. And what Republicans are facing beyond that pressure from President Trump kind of pushing from the top of the ballot is that the Democratic freshmen that were elected in 2018 have proven to be not only tough candidates, but great fundraisers. And money is not the be all end all of races, but it helps you dictate and define the terms of the debate. So Republicans are not only, some of these Republican challengers not only need to get split ticket voters because of President Trump at the top, but they also are probably going to be doing it by being outspent in these races. So I think a key for planning purposes, I would plan on a Democratic majority in the House. The margins are what matters. The margins are what matters in this case. Governors, I don't want to, I'm not going to spend as much time on governors unless you want to come back to it in Q&A. It's actually kind of a light cycle for governors. Only 11 states are electing a governor. Just a few of them are competitive. We're watching Montana and North Carolina, Missouri. But governors are important because as we go into the redistricting cycle after the 2020 elections, in most states, the state legislature draws the lines and in most states, the governor has a veto or approval power of those lines. So that's why it is important. Parties want to have those pieces in place in order to be, have the pen or they're drawing it on computers, but to have the power of the redistricting process moving forward. I want to try to look ahead a little bit to not only the, to November, but even into next year and a little bit beyond, and then we'll do Q&A. I think you all know if you can drop your questions into the chat so Daniel can read them and we can have a conversation. Let's talk about November, first of all. November, I would encourage you to start practicing your patience because there's a very distinct possibility that we don't have conclusive results on an evening of November 3rd or even the morning of November 4th. A big piece of that is because of that large number of mail-in ballots that we're going to see. In most states, ballots only have to be postmarked by election day, not even received or counted by election day. And even in states where, even if the ballots come in before election day, some of them aren't even going to start counting until after election day. So when you're talking about tens of millions of ballots nationwide, that is going to take some time, particularly when we only have five states that are, I think, used to dealing, well, are basically conduct their elections, have been conducting their elections by mail already, and they're used to that influx. Some other states haven't been all by mail, but are used to large numbers of mail-in ballots, such as Florida. But some of these other states are just not, they have been moving so quickly to adapt to voting in the COVID-19 era that they are not equipped to count as fast as some of these other states. So I'm trying to encourage you to be cautious about your expectations. And also to remember that a ballot cast in person on election day is as legitimate as a ballot that was cast by mail before the election. These are, but how and when those are counted is going to be a, I'll just say, I think a messy and somewhat chaotic process. The patience piece will also have to do with litigation. There have been a lot of stories about what I just talked about, how long it's gonna take to count. I don't know if there've been enough stories about the expectations about litigation, because there will be a lot of lawsuits from both parties, depending on the state and the locality, about which ballots should be counted or not be counted. There is going to be litigation, and so that process will take a while as well. I'm not yet predicting a Bush v. Gore 2000 on the steps of the Supreme Court moment, but there will be litigation that happens that we'll need to sort out before we get conclusive results. And the one thing that I think we can all agree on, we should all be rooting for one thing on this fall, and that is decisive results. And I hate to sound all doom and gloom, I'm just trying to be honest with you, but I think that we should all be rooting for decisive results, whether you're on the winning end of that or the losing end, because if this presidential race comes down to a few states, a few thousand votes in a couple of states, or if control of the Senate comes down to a few thousand votes in a state or two, that has the potential to do, say, damage to the country. And I mean that if we have nearly half the country that views our elected officials as illegitimate or even illegal, then that is gonna be difficult to have a significant legislative agenda and to move forward to the next chapter as a country. And so that's why I'm not rooting for a specific candidate or party in any race. I am sort of rooting that we will have, we will know a clear winner and a clear loser, so that the winning party can move on with their agenda, and the losing party can lick their wounds and move on to fight the next battle. Along those lines, when we do have final election results, I would encourage you to listen carefully to what the politicians, how they talk about the election. I mean, I hope you'll read what we do and listen to what we do, but what matters most in terms of behavior is what the politicians think happened. For example, let's play out a couple scenarios. If President Trump loses reelection, and particularly if Democrats also control the Senate, so this is the scenario of a great night for Democrats. Republicans are gonna have a choice about what lesson they learned. They could look at it and say, wow, we liked President Trump, but his style or his politics just did not set well with enough Americans, and the party needs to go a different direction. That could be one lesson, but the other thing could be, you know what, the Republicans could say, we lost that election, it was fraudulent, mail-in balloting was a scam, it was illegitimate. China, you know, if China hadn't inflicted coronavirus on our country, this would have been different, and if that is the lesson the Republicans learned, then there will be no incentive to, that's not gonna incentivize their behavior to change what the party stands for or who the party stands behind. So Republicans are gonna have a decision to make. Democrats are gonna have a decision to make too, or listen to how Democrats talk about the outcome of these elections, because in this scenario, again, this is the good Democratic scenario, Democrats could say, you know what, voters love us. They love us, they love everything we're talking about, they love all of our policies, and it could instill, they'll claim a mandate, and that could lead Democrats next year to push to the left legislatively. And then what I will maybe make an early projection about what will happen is that voters will say, no, no, no, no, no, we didn't vote for you because we loved you or we loved all your policies, we were just tired of the president. We're tired of Republicans answering for the president. We didn't want you to do all of these things that you've been talking about, and if Democrats push too far legislatively, then they risk a backlash from voters in the 2022 midterm elections. And I will virtually guarantee that if President Trump loses the election, the media will declare the end of the Republican Party. They'll say, President Trump, you destroyed America, you destroyed the Republican Party, Republicans will never be in control again. And I think that will be premature because depending on how Democrats react to their own victories, then Republicans could come roaring back. Because I feel like I've seen part of this movie before where in 2008, when Republicans won, or Democrats won the White House, they then had the House, the Senate, and the White House, and we were declaring the end of the Republican Party. And I would argue Democrats went too far, they pushed a polarizing piece of healthcare legislation, the rollout was a disaster, and Republicans came roaring back in the 2010 midterm elections. So just when we declare the end of a party, then the other side comes roaring back. I think I'm gonna pause. I have a feeling, Daniel, that we might have some questions. I have plenty of things I can talk about, but I would prefer, we could turn this into a conversation. Sure, well, I appreciate your insights. I think, I don't know, that everyone's very happy with them, but I will tell you, that's certainly appreciated. So I know people are submitting questions, so I'll kind of just kick it off with one question that I have, and that is, for those of us who kind of follow these things pretty closely, you obviously follow it a lot closer than I do, but I'm in this world as well, so I kind of keep track. And usually there's kind of that, what they call like that bellwether congressional district, or that bellwether county in this country, where on election night, if that, if that goes to President Trump, or that goes to Biden, or that district flips, that you know it's gonna be a bad night, or a bad, as you said, couple days, I guess, for one party or the other. Is there a particular state, particular district, particular county that, as those of us watching can say, you know, that maybe, okay, if this goes that way, this thing could be over, even though we might not necessarily know the final results for several weeks. This is like asking me to choose between my children. What's my favorite child? I, just from a viewer's standpoint, let's start on the East Coast, and see what clues we might be able to gain early on in election night, right? So if we look at Florida, particularly Florida at the presidential level, if Joe Biden wins Florida, the race is over. He doesn't have to win Florida, but if he does, then the race is probably over. But let's say President Trump wins Florida, then we're in for a, I would say, competitive race. That doesn't mean that Trump is gonna win, but then if we stay on the East Coast, let's look at, I know I'm giving multiple answers, but I'm trying to give a, let's look at Pennsylvania. If Joe Biden wins Pennsylvania handily, then I think that would be good news for the former vice president. If Pennsylvania ends up being a squeaker, then that may mean things are closer, and the Michigans, Wisconsin, maybe Minnesota ends up being close, and that could tell us something. For a specific congressional district, I would watch, I'll be watching all of them, but if we watch Brian Fitzpatrick in the Philadelphia suburbs, Pennsylvania's first district, you know, he survived the 2018 Democratic wave. I wouldn't say that Democrats have a stellar candidate, but President Trump is getting swamped in the Philadelphia suburbs, and if Brian Fitzpatrick gets dragged down by that, then that is, you know, that's not a good sign for the Republican Party in any form, because Fitzpatrick is regarded as a good member, who's doing all the right things, has the advantage, you know, except for what's happening at the top of the ballot. And the last one I'll throw in to give 10 answers to your question is North Carolina. If you told me, if Tom Tillis loses reelection in North Carolina, that is a pretty darn good indicator that Democrats are gonna control the Senate. It's not a guarantee, but that's, that would be a key piece of evidence. All right, a couple, so we've got a couple questions, and they kind of involve, I guess, what I would consider to be, I guess, the main, you know, political debate right now that's going on, which is law and order versus the protesting and, you know, the racial justice kind of thing. Not verse, but, you know, just that kind of broader discussion. And so I think the question comes down to how, I mean, how are you seeing that each side playing? You know, are people pretty locked in on you're either supporting one or the other, or what, you know, how is that impacting what potentially the possible results? Yeah, no, it's a great and current, great and current question. If I could go back even two years ago, because I think this is relevant. What's happening today even applies. Two years ago, remember President Trump was talking a lot about the caravan. Remember the caravan coming from Central America up to the border, the US border of Mexico, and it was law and order. It was a little bit different, but it was the threat of, it was this outside threat of lawbreakers potentially coming to the country. And I would argue that that, I think, was net turned off voters in the suburbs. It was not the right message for the Republican Party. But I think the President and the White House, because Republicans gained a couple seats in the Senate, viewed it as a, it wasn't a bad thing. And the reason why Republicans did so well in the Senate in 2018 was because of the map, and they had favorable states, not because I think the message is working. So how does that apply to now? I think that President Trump is a little bit emboldened by law and order, but what we're seeing in the polling is that when you ask voters about the law and order question, his advantage, the President's advantage in handling those issues is not tremendous. He has the advantage over Joe Biden, but it's not by an overwhelming margin. Those are national numbers, and when we're looking at individual congressional districts, we don't have enough data yet that would lead me to believe that it is a kind of a silver bullet, silver bullet issue. I've been checking in on the Twin Cities suburbs, like Angie Craig, who is a Democratic member in the Minneapolis-St. Paul suburbs, second district. That race, if anywhere, right, you would think the Minneapolis suburbs would be a place where this is resonating, and she is not yet on the cusp of losing, right? It is not a surefire winning issue for the Republican Party. That could change, the last thing, and I won't filibuster every question, but the last thing that comes to mind is the President has a tough time staying on message, right? We might get bipartisan agreement on that, and even if he were to find a one issue that really drives it home, he's always in three or four other places, and that's a challenge. I think in polling, there's agreement that the lawlessness, the looting, the rioting is not good. There is less agreement on who that benefits, if I can boil down my actual answer. Let's see, any other, please do submit your questions here. There is a question, and I don't know if you can necessarily answer this as you're not, I don't think your expertise is more policy, but what do you foresee the first 90 days if it were to be Democratic control? And I guess it kind of might come down to the mandate or the perceived mandate that one has, but if we do a full complete control of the Democrats in Congress, I mean, what do you kind of foresee that 90 days looking like? Yeah, I don't have the specifics. I think that it will, part of it will be undoing. Some Democrats will feel like there are a number of things that they want to undo from the Trump administration. We'll see where we are with the global, with the pandemic, right? I mean, I think we all hope that we are in a much different place in January, a much different and better place as a country in terms of getting back to normal, but I would presume that Democrats would rush to put out as much relief or help assistance as possible, depending on where we are at that stage. And I would agree, though, also with the previous panel that I think the time in our country where big things, big bipartisan things get done might be over, at least temporarily over. I think that we're gonna see parties shift to that. When we have a chance to make change and enact change, we better go for it. I think that's gonna be more of the mandated, and as I said, and as the previous panel has said, that could lead to pushing farther ideologically than what they might have in previous Congresses. Because the left, I didn't really talk a lot about the, the left is gonna have significant, there's gonna be significant pressure on Democratic leadership, which tends to be more moderate or centrist than the left wing of the party. And they're gonna be pushed and say, hey, now is the time to get things done. And you have an increasing number of Democratic members who are nervous about primary challenges. Is AOC targeting them? Are they, so they're always kind of looking over their shoulder, their left shoulder specifically, saying who might be coming? And that's gonna, I think you're gonna filter into the policymaking mindset. So this next question that kinda, I know it's been getting a lot of buzz on the social media among some of your colleagues, and that is how Trump is polling among minorities. Particularly in Florida, it seems like he's actually over performing, I guess it seems like, versus, in minority blacks and Hispanics primarily, and how that's impacting the race. And I guess Biden is making up for that somewhat in the over 65 white category. I mean, so is that what you're seeing too, is Trump over-performing among minorities? On a specific race level, I mean, there's Florida statewide, but there's also the 26th district, represented by Democratic Congresswoman, Debbie Mercarsol-Powell. Republicans are very excited about their candidate, Mayor Carlos Jimenez. But one of the, and Clinton won that district, but that's a place where Trump has not kind of cratered or bottomed out, I think because of his appeal with not with the Cuban Hispanic population. But in general, if we zoom out, and I talked about the president's numbers being down, but it's not from minority populations or voters of color. He's actually doing okay there. It's hemorrhaging some white voters, seniors, hemorrhaging more women with a college degree. He's also down from where he was before with men with a college degree, white voters. And so that is, we might end up looking back at this election and maybe President Trump overperforms among black voters. His team has been beating that drum for years that they're gonna do it. And it's possible that he overperforms a bit, but also loses the election because he's losing so much support among other demographics. All right, well, that's all the questions. Oh, one more question just came through actually. And that's about how the whole, I guess the handling of the pandemic and how that's playing in the voters' minds as well. Yeah, what do I think about this? Okay, yeah, yeah, yeah. It's like a Chuck Todd question, Daniel. Like, and go. So I, man, I've never written this or said this on a Zoom call. So you'll be the first. I'm gonna test it right here. I wonder what would the election look like if the president in March had just said, everyone wear a mask. Like, he wears a mask, everyone wear a mask. I think we would be looking at a very different election. I think we'd be looking at a very different economy. I don't think it would have been as drastic of lockdowns as what we've seen. And I just, I think the president got in his head, it's always a dangerous place to be inside the president's head, but I'm gonna go that he, from the outset, once he blamed China, not taking any responsibility for what happened after that. I don't think, maybe there are people who blame the president for the inception of it. I don't think that that's really the vast majority. Now, once it got here, and like, how are we dealing with it, I think has become a problem for the president and its economic impact. And so if he had changed things a little bit in how we handle it, make robust testing, and I think the economy wouldn't have suffered as much, and that would have been, that has always, the economy has always been the president's key thing, right, he can always go back to, you may not like this, you may not like that, but it always comes back to the economy, and now the economy isn't doing as well as what it was, and his advantage on the economy, in terms of who handles it better, is not as great as what it was, and that is a key piece of this. And I, with the vaccine, the president, or the Republicans kind of consistently bring up, and the president himself brings up the idea of a vaccine, and I just don't know, it's certainly not gonna be administered in a significant way before the election, if a safe one comes up, and so just the idea of a vaccine being done, is that enough to change enough minds? I don't know. But the president, I think, sometimes the president is his own worst enemy. I'll just say that if he had handled it differently, approached it differently, he could be a clear favorite in the race right now. I'll say I think a lot is hinged on that early, and early and continuous decision-making process. All right, well, with that, we're about out of time, so. I'll say one, can I add one more thing that's just a little bit lighter? I would just encourage everyone to not just vote, but make sure you know, decide how you're going to vote, not the person, but mechanically. Are you gonna vote by mail? Are you gonna vote in person? Because even if you're planning to vote in person, that location may have changed. Maybe you're used to voting at a school or a senior center that is not gonna be open. It's being shifted to another place. So I just, I would encourage you to not only continue to be involved, and you all have a lot at stake in these elections, but just don't take things for granted. Make sure you know how to be involved, and leave yourself time if you have to make adjustments on what that looks like. Well, that's great advice. Thank you, Nathan. Thank you to Keiko Isom for sponsoring this discussion, as well as thank you to Century Insurance for underwriting this event. So with that, we obviously heard there's a lot going on, both in DC as well as out there at the, you know, with the polls and the elections and stuff like that. I'd encourage everyone to stay engaged with AED. We'll have the latest and greatest on the information, and I guess I'd say a buckle up would probably be what it sounds like, because it's gonna be a pretty, I think, wild ride, something most of us probably have never seen before over the next few months here. So with that, thank you everyone for joining, and stay safe, and we'll talk soon. Bye-bye.

COVID-19

construction industry

project delays

skilled worker availability

political landscape

policy outcomes

COVID-19 relief

infrastructure

highway bill

regulatory changes

labor policy

US elections

presidential race

polling data

pandemic impact