tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg February 11, 2016 10:00pm-11:01pm EST
the battle now shifts to south carolina. and nevada. maggie haberman of the new york times is here. annie carney and nate silver. i'm pleased to have them at this table. coming out of new hampshire. bernie sanders has proven that he is for real. in close inhe came iowa and one decisively in new hampshire. that means he's going to be well-funded going forward. he is not a member of the democratic party. but he can say that he has the energy and enthusiasm. i want across demographics.
the only demographic she won was 65 and over. you had a lot of people voting against the status quo. if he wins in the nevada caucuses. that starts become something of a ripple effect. and i think it is a problem for hillary clinton. she has a lot to do. she can't go to her muscle memory which is to immediately want to shake up and change everything about her campaign. that is partly where she is going to go. the matter how many different staffers you have if they can't provide you a clear central rationale for why you are running she has not done that. she gave a sharper speech last night. when she was conceding that i
have seen her do before. but isa bit tighter still very much all about her. she needs to start talking about the voters much more. it is way too much i end my experience. maggie: you can make the case she is over prepared. she gets many inputs and they tend to become overwhelming. she does not have a sense of politics. she does not get the inherent rhythms, which i'm sort of regretting saying it, because we compare her to her husband, which is not fair. she is different. there are certain skills he had said in terms of -- charlie: or has had. maggie: what he has never been good about, he has been a good surrogate for other people. as for her, she knows what she wants to do in office.
she is not good at articulating that. she likes to talk about the past a lot. charlie: is it she still the favorite? maggie: she is because bernie sanders has negatives that would make it hard for him. he has to pass the commander in chief test. foreign policy discussion was challenging for him. that is a major -- charlie: i was right on iraq judgment. maggie: sounding like he is talking off of a briefing look. you can compare the difference to her. she is also the favorite because there is no one else running. if there was someone else, it might be different? there is speculation somebody could parachute into the race. i find that hard to believe. i still think she will likely be the nominee. she will go into the general election damaged, which is problematic.
democrats, with the edge they have, should be able to nominate a cardboard cutout and have them win. ironically, the person who cleared the field of all other democrats who could have challenged her is now seeming like a week candidate. at least for the immediate future. charlie: what would you add? annie: the message think is definitely her problem. they were trying to shake it up. the new ideas, talking about race, african american voters, but still she faces a problem that bernie sanders is preaching a message of revolution and she is preaching a continuation of obama, incremental change. that is harder to sell to the young people. it is not inspirational.
that is what is exciting these young people. how she figures how to sell something like that is the message problem. we are hearing about a staff shakeup. it helped her win in iowa by a tiny margin. you new hampshire is a test of the message. it did not resonate. it showed that is a problem more than the ground organization. charlie: young people, what are they looking for? nate: part of it has to do with hillary's theory of change. you have to work hard for change within the system and you have to pay your dues and make incremental progress. if you are 22 years old and has seen big progress for gay rights, obamacare pass, you actually think this approach works a little bit better instead.
if you go to their websites, hillary's is a laundry list of issues. in new hampshire, where she spoke, it is this same thing. she has an impressive knowledge of 50 years of american political history whereas bernie, his issues are income inequality and free college tuition. young people are underrepresented and he figured out i can make 18 to 29-year-olds a constituency. obama won two thirds of that. bernie has 85%.
charlie: what does he have to do to win more and do better in the african-american community? nate: that is the one major caveat about iowa and new hampshire, they are extremely white states. we have not seen much support for sanders in north carolina. nevada should be a fairly good test. there is not a lot of polling. i'm not sure i trust it. if clinton loses in nevada, that is a diverse state. people come from all over the country. you have union workers. hispanic, african-american populations. >> if he shows, it used to be talked about as a firewall and all of a sudden they are talking about it saying among them credit caucus-goers it is 80% white. so even if he does well, it makes it looks like he is viable. nate: it is hard to know. 2008, you can kind of say i get
why obama did well in iowa and hillary did well in new hampshire. right now we only have two data points and we don't know how the map will fill in. i'm fascinating by, can bernie do well in appalachia? west virginia? very working class. they would not typically vote for a vermont socialist. we have seen change is that bernie's support has become downscale. voters who have an interest in voting for him economically. can't that translate into winning votes in appalachia, the south, the midwest and not just in the states that border canada? >> in terms of why clinton is
struggling, she has made a lot of her own missteps. this does not exist in a vacuum. you are talking about sanders becoming downscale on the economic spectrum. donald trump and bernie sanders, despite being a plutocrat, the other is a vermont socialist, they share a lot of messaging points. they are both focused on trade, anti-wall street, focused on the working man. some semblance of a pitchfork brigade. there are these strange forces at play that are making it harder for clinton. it is not a static election. there is a huge desire for change. trump has changed the landscape on both sides in ways we don't totally understand that will become clearer now that he has
won something. charlie: because of his appeal? maggie: he is something we have never seen before. i mentioned he is a plutocrat, we have never seen that before. mitt romney was vilified for his business record. combined with his command of media attention, it is hard for other people. he always says i am good for ratings. there is something to that. charlie: we can document that.
there was a line in the movie about howard stern where there was a study done in the people who liked howard stern said they wanted to see what he was going to say next. there is something to that. charlie: when you think about bernie sanders, as a general election candidate and electability, does he have an argument he has to make? nate: the further you are away from the center, the worst you do. it would cost him a couple of points. that is probably right, whereas clinton is receiving fire from all sides, progressive democrats, republicans, and probably gets harsher media coverage, sanders is a viral media sensation. it would be different if you go on to march and april and he is still viable and is being attacked. annie: people feel like they were disproportionately impacted by the recession and have been negatively affected by the slow
recovery. all of those forces combined are creating the sense of turmoil that we see. there was some suspicion that maybe the polls were misreading this or the media was overstating it. new hampshire would suggest otherwise. charlie: it plays out in different ways. immigration, economic issues. maggie: i think that is right. annie: it's a problem for hillary. with the paid speeches, she has a tougher plan to crackdown on wall street and she quotes paul krugman is saying she has one. the bottom line, bernie sanders says she did speeches to goldman sachs and made $600,000. she has trouble looking like the honest messenger of someone who is going to fight wall street.
nate: hillary clinton is extremely well-liked by most democrats. in new hampshire, where she lost, two thirds said she would be an acceptable nominee whereas donald trump, half republican said he would not be. so far, it is a friendly contest. it is interesting. i was wondering a few years ago by we did not see more upheaval in the united states. some people are getting a again. others are not. >> right now the economy is doing well. barack obama is popular. why are people acting like it is 1929? i guess because there is a delay. charlie: we have donald trump leading the country almost everywhere you go. you've got bush and ted cruz, marco rubio. where is the race going?
everything i hear is it is going for a long time. maggie: it definitely is. it reminds me of the end of the movie "the candidate where robert redford says "what happens now"? trump has a solid lead in all public opinion polls. ted cruz faces a tough choice of who he is going to attack. and you have this sort of three-man other race for who is going to become the non-trump and that is jeb bush, john kasich, marco rubio. i would put jeb bush in the lead, which is amazing. right to rise, his super pac, has some money and they are buying a lot of ads in south carolina.
rubio was very damaged by that debate performance. he did have a bar he had to pass which was that i can do something better than just be the first-term senator who gives a good speech. that is what he looks like. he could give a good speech and pay the same line over and over again. charlie: what was it obama had at the same time about him? maggie: were you callow? obama and marco rubio are not the same. it was the same argument. in terms of john kasich, one thing is i don't think he is a great fit. i don't know what his financial situation is. his consultant, john weaver, i
have to imagine because south carolina is such a hotbed of politics, that will play out in some way, for all of those reasons i give jeb bush the edge. charlie: is nikki haley going to make an endorsement? maggie: i don't leave so. annie: didn't jeb bush spend like millions of dollars compared to ted cruz? does that change? nate: we have to have some healthy disagreement. bush has the most resources. he has a good ground game. this is a product that failed upon lunch. it was new coke where right now as many republicans have a negative view of bush as a positive view. i could see him winning the semi
it was disconcerting to watch. it was one moment. i don't know. it played into an image of him. if it is true and he continues to do it, yes. if it was one messy debate performance, i don't think so. maggie: chris christie got out. on that debate stage, the other night he put on a bomb vest and ran over marco rubio. he hurt himself in the process, they was problematic for rubio. he thought rubio was his biggest obstacle and i also think chris christie is genuinely upset at the super pac adds marco rubio's group had aired in new hampshire. they were quite negative. charlie: even though it is conventional wisdom, john kasich can't come out of this new hampshire primary with a lot of momentum because a lot of people found him an attractive personality the way he campaigned and how he reacted to audiences. now he is saying, i learned a lot about listening. it's the opposite of donald trump.
maggie: absolutely. i called the trump thing wrong many months. i'm not suggesting i'm certain this is how it is going to go. nate: he is a victim of the calendar. in the final third, you have all these blue and purple states vote where he could do well and a lot of them are winner take all. to get there from here, when you're going to lose fourth or fifth everywhere else -- charlie: the calendar is his enemy.
he has a lower ceiling than a typical nominee. he has a high floor. 20%. people will turn out for him no matter what. maggie: this is what new hampshire showed. many of his voters made up their mind months ago. charlie: if john kasich does well, that is trouble for the democrats. maggie: yes. i believe anybody runs to be vice president, but he is probably running the race best suited to being picked for the ticket. he is a popular governor. why not? charlie: third party candidate? hello?
[laughter] michael bloomberg is the only one who has talked about it who has some sense of plausibility. maggie: plausibility because of the unlimited resources. charlie: he has political experience. he has a high profile. maggie: absolutely. i can make a case where bloomberg makes sense for the reasons you said and also as we saw with trump, on this populist message of anti-wall street, i don't know how mike bloomberg in 2016 makes the case -- if you think about the metric president obama won on, voters said he cares about people like me. that is going to be a challenge for mike bloomberg. he is more of a technocrat. he was a good manager of new york city. emoting was not his strong suit.
one of the things trump does is connect with people. with all the flourishes and minimal contact he did, people feel a connection. annie: last night's results is the kind of situation that would make mike bloomberg think about it. he looks at it and he sees donald trump and says, the rules don't seem to apply to anyone. i think it is true they would apply to him. charlie: it used to be said if it was sanders versus trump, that opened up a door to a third party. he would be the most logical one. nate: bloomberg is not that far removed from hillary clinton. he is more centerleft.
trump might run away to the center. if you look at what he said when he was contemplating running on the reform ticket, kind of a populist centrist. one with, bloomberg did a good job in new york, but for a national platform, a little bit more creative and clever. trump already is a third-party candidate and an effective one. charlie: i hear you that you might have gotten to the point where having watched this campaign, and you can imagine donald trump as the nominee and you can imagine him as being an effective candidate. maggie: there is a version of him that can be controlled and subdued. he did a town hall on monday in
new hampshire where there were so many i feel your pain moments. a man held up a picture of his son and trump did a lot of engaging. the day before that, he was at a large rally where he was complaining about the length of his drive. it depends on when you catch him. i will say he has hinted he will do things differently. it's funny, if you have been marinating in the new york tabloids, it was hard to see trump as the rest of the country would see him. the rest of the country does not see who we have gotten to know. the rest of the country sees this successful businessman. this famous brand everybody knows. he's been in your living room on "the apprentice" or hiring you.
i do think he is mindful there are things he will have to do differently if he is the nominee and he is prepared to do them. charlie: it's hard to argue with success. maggie: it's working for him. he beat the public polls in terms of numbers. he exceeded where the polling was showing him. charlie: coming off a loss. maggie: it is not an unwitting formula for being the nominee. charlie: back in a moment. stay with us. ♪
the guardian calls it serious and grown up television. i'm very pleased to have sir richard eyre on this program. opera is not new for you. mr. eyre: i was a slightly more than a child for my first opera, 22 years ago. i was persuaded. i was prejudiced because i felt it was all about big gestures and everything about opera was overblown. a great conductor talked me into it. i directed a production of "guys and dolls." he said i love your "guys and dolls." four years he asked me and finally i said yes to "la traviata" and since then i have come back to it and i came back to it at the met with "carmen" about seven years ago at the invitation of someone who are taken over the met. i have been a regular visitor since. "manon lescaut" is my fourth opera in seven years.
charlie: help me pronounce it. not "mannan," "ma non." mr. eyre: of course it is in italian. they don't say it the french way. please don't ask me the correct italian pronunciation. charlie: you find opera fascinating because -- mr. eyre: first of all, it is music theater. music theater i understand. secondly, the music is so ambitious. the whole enterprise is ambitious. at the met, i get to work with the best singers in the world. that is not propaganda. i get to work with the best singers in the world, the best conductors, the best opera orchestra, the best opera
chorus. plus this extraordinary institution that manages, in some bewildering way, to produce these operas of great quality and conditions, if you go backstage come you think, i don't know how this works, but it does. charlie: peter likes to reach out for motion picture directors. mr. eyre: yes. the first production was directed by the late anthony minghella. that is revived it now. he goes into theater looking for people with an experience of
musical, music drama. anthony was somebody, music was stronger in his movies. i'm lucky he came to me. i think what peter has done, and i think it is a virtuous decision, is to say, let's thin the division between broadway musical theater and opera musical theater and say it is about putting drama. telling the story. using music and the human voice.
charlie: did you need to acquire special skills to do this as well as you wanted to? mr. eyre: the special skill is it requires me to study the school for about two years. i read music like a dyslexic. i have to follow with my finger and listen to it and eventually i decipher the hieroglyphics. it takes me about two years to really get on top of a musical score. charlie: does that mean you can talk to the stars with the same authority you could talk to a brilliant shakespearean actor? mr. eyre: i would not say quite the same authority. i can have a conversation. and they are willing to listen. it's a matter of mutual respect. i have something to offer them and they have everything to
the challenge is irresistible. when you work with those fingers, they are like the great artists and athletes. they live the dangerous lives of athletes because they are like high jumpers and they are expected to be able to jump eight foot. and then one day they do 7'11". charlie: they set the standard. mr. eyre: and so the sense of danger, it is gladiatorial. the audience are not ungenerous. i don't say they come along, but there is a sense of "show us something special." when they do do it, i find it found me moving. charlie: would you like to make a musical on film? mr. eyre: no because it is live. film, i love film. i love movies. i like watching movies. the kind i've made are very small budget and about small stories. for me, the thing about theater and opera is at the center is a human being. the human being is roughly the same size, between 6'5", you know, five foot. it is the human voice. the unamplified human voice.
you can create -- charlie: the tools are so much more. mr. eyre: i find the one thing that distinguishes movies which are truly successful and live on our ones in which the human values are more important than the mechanical ones. i have seen a lot of movies recently where that is not the case and i come out feeling bombarded for an inordinate length of time by special effects and noise that has no dynamic at all. it is just allowed or louder. loudest. there is no nuance about it. charlie: this was in germany? mr. eyre: "manon lescaut," i first did it nearly two years ago with berlin. fantastic. it is a coproduction and it is a great opportunity to do it in germany. charlie: the germans love opera. mr. eyre: the german states are
charlie: if you had your career to do over, and you started as an actor -- mr. eyre: a bad actor. charlie: and you knew that? mr. eyre: i was not sufficiently confident when i started and when i finished for my intelligence to be suppressed by my talent. that is to say my self-monitoring won out over my ability. i became paralyzed. because if you start -- i am sure in your job -- if you hear yourself talking in the way an actor starts to see themselves moving and hear themselves speaking, self-censorship becomes so extreme, you become paralyzed. charlie: when you became a director, did you know, this was for me? the talents i have are applicable to this?
mr. eyre: i did. i was very lucky. everybody who has some sort of patron in their life is lucky. often a parent or a teacher, or a sibling. there was another director, i was acting in a company and i asked if i could put together a production for a sunday night in the show i was in. i did this show and he said you have to choose whether to be a director or an actor. i did not know i had a choice. he took me on as his assistant and gave me productions.
julian barnes. when christopher died, they came here to talk about christopher. it was amazing. ian was here. something about british writers. mr. eyre: they are the same generation. they are not all oxford and cambridge at all. they have a similar sensibility and they have become very distinct and the remarkable thing is they remained the top of their game. that is extraordinary for a
generation of novelists. charlie: somebody made a film of one of ian's books. mr. eyre: i made a film in 1984 which was about thatcherism, the politics of the right, and the kind of slow corruption of the media. there was a character, very strongly based on christopher hitchens. charlie: who was a political journalist?
charlie: you just worked with him. mr. eyre: with ian mckellen. it was hannibal lecter and gandalf together, feeding off each other. they had known each other. i have worked with at ian mckellen. i had never worked with tony hopkins. i have known them a long time. charlie: sir richard, sir anthony. mr. eyre: i anticipated it might be awkward having these giants
working together. they fell in love. it was perfect. you could see both of them sitting back and thinking, how clever, they have chosen to do the line that way. there was this wonderful generosity between them. this was for bbc2. we rehearsed for two weeks, mostly sitting around the table. there should have been a fly on the wall. charlie: they have little cameras that can record everything that is happening. mr. eyre: we should have done that. charlie: it's about aging. mr. eyre: it is set in a theater with a star actor who sees him through the performance they have worked together for years and years. it is not exclusively about theater. obviously they are doing a production of "king lear" and the tension is will anthony hopkins get on stage? he's had a breakdown. gradually it becomes a story about mortality. and more about the relationships that build up in the workplace.
it could be a newspaper, television station, it could even be a small business. they are mutually dependent and gradually you see the old man is on the way out. he has an awareness of time is coming to an end. he is trying to settle his debts. charlie: who was attached to this before? mr. eyre: it was done as a movie with albert finney. tom courtney had done it in the theater. it started as a play. a terrific playwright and oscar-winning screenwriter wrote this play, 1980, so a long time ago. it has the trappings of a classic precisely because it is not exclusively about the theater. it is about aging.
charlie: a producer tells the story that as you approached anthony hopkins, a he shouted out, i'm not doing it on stage. mr. eyre: that's true and he meant it. he tells, movingly, tony hopkins, the story of being on stage with judy dench and he said i was wearing this armor and i thought, i look good in this. i thought, there is judy dench. i'm not half as good as her. he said my nerve went and had to be coaxed back on the states. he stood outside himself. we were talking about it earlier, when the third eye looks down and thinks, i can't do it. there is no way back.
charlie: is it because you don't know where you are going or work brings you so much purpose the next day you have no focus? mr. eyre: it's a mixture of that. a mixture of needing your identity to be validated. it is also, there is a wonderful poem by an american poet called "the end of the war." the last line is i could hear the dust falling between the walls. that is what it is like for me, when the noise stops. the silence is frightening and depressing. charlie: how did you come to deal with it?
charlie: do you have to have medication the rest of your life? mr. eyre: no, no. i got better. charlie: it does not stop you from working. we just did, a couple of young people talking about bipolar. the number of people who have had bipolar depression and who have been enormously creative and used it in bursts of creativity. mr. eyre: we give it a name. i'm not sure it is a virtue we give all these conditions names and we say bipolar where we used to say a bit up today. there is a difference. there is a clinical difference. anybody who has experienced real depression, it is a miserable condition. it is different from just feeling blue. i've never felt that.
charlie: on the other hand, a lot of people in this world are in unimagined pain. i would not judge someone who had pain i could not appreciate or understand. mr. eyre: that is one of the things, one of the functions of art, if not the central function. empathy. the most difficult thing to imagine what somebody else is going through, to actually really empathize, to see with their eyes and hear with their ears, understand with their mind and understand some else's pain is the most extraordinary gift. charlie: thank you. a pleasure as always. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪