tv With All Due Respect Bloomberg May 1, 2016 3:00pm-4:01pm EDT
♪ john: welcome to this edition of the best of "with all due respect." it was a we do it hillary clinton and donald trump inched closer to becoming the nominees while the remaining rivals through everything but the kitchen sink right at them. mark: ted cruz and john kasich try teaming up to put wins on the board in the upcoming contest. cruz also took the unusual step of naming a running mate before the convention, hoping to promise and put it carly fiorina will tantalize voters to join team ted. john: and bernie sanders talking tough about hillary clinton, even though he is laying off staffers.
mark: will any of these candidates work? we were here from the best political strategists from both parties in the business, starting with the campaign advisor steve. john: we are inaugurating a brand-new branded segment of "with all due respect." that is called schmidt happens. we are here with steve schmidt, the star of the ongoing series, schmidt happens. mr. schmidt, you have some experience with vice president on rollouts, famously 2008. tell us what you think, the hypothetical presidential roll out of carly fiorina. steve schmidt: she is fine, but it will not make much of a difference. it is momentum in the campaign is stalled. it is what it is. he is tried to change the story line from trumps domination of
these contests. trying to get some energy in a head of indiana. it went fine, but carly fiorina is not a surprise. we talked about, we are going to unveil the running mate. a lot of people who thought this stuff with not very long odds, it was likely to be carly fiorina. she had been tested over the last month. the net effect as a practical matter is nothing for her as we wrap up this week and go into next week. mark: one of the biggest things of the week, so much overshadowed tuesday night when tom trump asked if he was the presumptive nominee, and he said yeah. he wants them out. if he wins indiana and they don't get out, which i think is possible, what can he do? are the people that can endorse? what are steps you can take to pressure them? steve schmidt: the title of presumptive nominee is one that needs to be bestowed typically by the titular head of the party.
2008 was clear john mccain was going to be the presumptive nominee. he had a meeting with the president of the united states at the white house. in this case, the titular head of the party is either mitt romney, the past many, or is paul ryan, the ranking elected republican in the country. or perhaps it could be reince priebus, but some combination saying donald trump is going to be the first valid nomination of the republican party. mark: this tension, is it possible any of those three guys could or would say that or sense that signal until trump actually goes numerically over? steve schmidt: reince priebus, there is no upside for the speaker wanted to control the house and certainly mcconnell in the senate to net which test to damage the unnecessarily the
person who will be the nominee of the party. denying the obvious, when he is on the precipice of hitting that magic number of 1237 serves nobody's purpose. mark: so he wins indiana. can you imagine where donald trump would call reince priebus, send a signal, this thing is over. steve schmidt: it would be totally appropriate for him to do that. reince priebus would check with his constituency. if you look at donald trump, let's say to make the math, he is at 1000 delegates. he will win new jersey winner take all. let's be stingy in the allocation in california, we will say he gets 150 out of 172 in california. he is at 1200 free indiana. if he wins indiana, he is clearly going to be the nominee
on the first ballot in cleveland. the party will bestow the trappings that it would on any nominee. john: last time, you talked about the fact that republicans say that trump is unqualified, etc. so whether he gets this 1237, there are people who are in the never trump movement. they will never vote for him. you are donald trump, mitt romney does not show up to the convention. john mccain says he will not, but he will change his mind. so the past two nominees hard on going to go. they have made it clear they will not ever vote for him let alone indoors him. -- endorse him. how do you manage that? some people will endorse him, he will get that. some of the party will acquiesce and capitulate. what do you do about that?
steve schmidt: once you become the nominee, we will see the dissonance with what people have been saying, never trump, i will never support trump, but i tend to support the nominee in my party. that moment is quickly arriving. i think you will see some republicans who say no, i will not be able to support the nominee of the party. i think he is unfit. but i don't think that is going to be a majority. the prominent members of the elected leadership of the republican party, numbers that will not support him, is going to be few and far between, because they will be -- you have an elected class in washington that is terrified of the tea party movement. it wasn't a exactly profiles encouraged standing up to the people in the last year. and the notion these were elected public and congressman and senators are going to take on the trump constituency by attacking donald trump when he
is trying to get the nomination, after he becomes the clear nominee is fanciful? it will not happen. john: so mitt romney goes to the election? steve schmidt: no. john: how do you manage that piece of dissonance? if the past presidents, george w. bush will not be there, what do you do? mark: bush and cheney always seem to be busy. if trump wins on tuesday, we all go back to these people that said, i am not going to vote for trump, but he will not be the nominee. i think they will go about 80-20. they will say the former party chairman, what is he going to do? not vote for the party? once he gets this, which will happen after trump is the nominee, they will lose people. if they don't show up in cleveland and protest, what does it really matter?
steve schmidt: once you have a nominee of your party, typically you indict all that is wrong in the world and america completely on the other party. history begins for republicans in this scenario on the moment barack obama took office. donald trump is not like that. he will indict the failures of both parties, multiple administrations, going back to the 19, the 1980's. i think the last and arguably successful president we had was ronald reagan in this country. he will indict both parties, the leadership of both parties, and he will say there is an upside to doing that with the millions of democratic voters who are as upset as republican voters, they could cross over as reagan democrats. john: so for him, by his calculation, party unity in the overrated. you play that game, that is the
way they alienate the republican party. steve schmidt: it is a bipartisan thing that attacks both sides. a lot of people will not rally to that message. i think they will say welcome aboard, we want everyone to be on the team, but he will not go out of his way to make concessions. one thing he would be smart to do is reach out to paul ryan upon winning indiana, if he does that, and say, what does the legislative package i signed up to the congress on january 21 look like? what is the first 100 days of legislation that you can pass, i would like you to partner with me in drafting this legislative package. that is how we does the reach out to establishment republicans, through paul ryan, through the policy operation. granting the favor of washington, getting the lobbying class, the political establishment such as it is. not really important.
mark: i thought he would get bush 41. and if you are trump, follow romney's course and say i will look for hillary or someone else. they might follow romney's path, what would you be concerned about? steve schmidt: when he was to avoid is a critical mass of national security figures were respected. mark: petraeus. steve schmidt: general petraeus or stan mcchrystal. the generals of our most recent wars. but going back, henry kissinger, foreign policy doyens of the last generation, if they raise the temperance issue. mark: in brooklyn, they are going hard for many of the people on the list that steve mentioned. the clinton campaign will try to get endorsements on the very kind of people you are talking
about early on to break trump. john: is it imperative that trump but someone on the ticket that has national security experience? steve schmidt: it is not imperative, but he could send an important signal with who he picks to be the vice president. and i think it is absolutely blue skies, open space about who or what credentials that person is going to have that is on the ticket. we have no idea. is it going to be a governor, someone outside of politics, the military? john: that is the one thing he does not have in his portfolio. it will be important. mark: there will be defections. steve schmidt: the key will be the debates in the fall. they will be the most watched global television programs, probably since the moon landing, and we will, those will be determined who the president is. john: still ahead, the state of the democratic race with
♪ bernie sanders: would be a great idea to have a woman as ice president, something i would give very much thought to. mark: any women would be qualified for that? bernie sanders: yes, many. mark: can you name any? [laughter] bernie sanders: no, it is too early. but their people, elizabeth warren has been a real champion taking on wall street. mark: that was senator bernie sanders on the morning joe. we are back with james carville in new orleans and joining us
from washington, former white house communications director in the obama administration anita dunn, not affiliated with either campaigns this year. if you are advising the hillary clinton campaign, and she called and said what is the best proper role for bernie sanders and my convention, assuming she gets the majority, what would that role should be? anita: i would tell her, let him make his primetime speech, to talk directly to the country about differences between the two parties. mark, as you know, their parting are about laying out the direction of the party, but general elections are fighting for the entire nation. but his primary speech let him
lay out the indictment of the republicans and the difference between the political parties and speak to wrigley to his supporters in the people attracted to his message. mark: what about you? james: it will be her convention, but generally candidates will be allowed to speak. it can be all negotiated going into the convention. but i would not discount the possibility sanders would have a speech at a important time during the convention. he has a lot of voters. they need to be spoken to. i don't have a problem with that. john: james, you are for hillary clinton. one thing that is clear is senator sanders has spoken to young democrats, young voters, much more clearly. what can she take from bernie sanders? what does she have to do to get the affection, the enthusiasm of those voters? james: i am around young people a lot, i am a college professor now. i think sanders has a critique of the system that, in my opinion and a lot of other
people, is kind of superficial. it is appealing to people. they are coming in the party and have enthusiasm. any political party wants people like this. they don't have a huge advantage with people under 35, he will make it better. so he will -- she wanted to incorporate these people and have enthusiastic members of the democratic party, which i think she can do if it requires some political skill. it will require dexterity, patients. -- patience. all of those things she has demonstrated she has. mark: and we talked in the past about the issues that matter to millennial voters. what can hillary clinton do while staying true to herself on policy in terms of temperament and tenor to connect those voters? anita: it is interesting because the instances bernie sanders are
that bernies sanders are talking about our issues i think hillary clinton is very comfortable talking about. she has 30 years of experience of what happens when you have money interests ganging up against progressive issues like health care, for example. she can talk to that as well as anybody. she can speak to education about as well as anybody. she did education reform when she was the first lady of arkansas. what hillary clinton has a lot of areas of agreement with bernie sanders, and she also has a passion for a lot of things he has been talking about in terms of making lives better regular people. that is what needs to come through. that and what james was saying is absolutely right. he needs to talk to them, but he has a lot to say. -- she needs to talk to them, but at the same time, i think she has a lot to say.
james: i think the young people like a lot of people can either agree, they think the system is rigged. she has got to convince them she understands that and she is about leveling the playing field. she needs to be an advocate for point of view. people around the country and particular in young people think the system is being corrupted by money. she has got to be able to speak to that. i think she can do that, she believes that. there are going to have to do that. she will have to talk about that. that is what young people think, it is rigged, stacked, and bought off. in some extent, i can't blame them. mark: once upon a time there was a war room in little rock, arkansas. they had a sign that said change versus more of the same. don't forget health care, and the economy. one of the three things that should be taxed on the clinton war room, what are they? of theed on the wall clinton war room, what are they?
anita: i don't think they are a bad place to start. change versus more of the same, i would change that a little, change versus going backwards, more of the same versus going backwards. the way she will match up against republicans. and the second, it is the economy. it is about your life. the third, it is about them. it is about people. those three things, not similar to it james had in his war room in 1992, are really the core precepts of them forward. mark: james, what would you put up? james: i would say the change we are going to bring about, we are going to have a government that works for you. we are going to take on the people that are working against you. it is a level playing field, and i will beat them, i will be your people in the white house. and change is going back. trump wants to go back to 1958. that is not the way to go. she has got to do that and talk about how she wants to level the playing field and being an agent
♪ mark: two guys we call the purple people. they are the founding partners of purple strategies, our polling partners, and two people that know a lot about this. are you fully accepting the reality, or you are hoping people can intersect? alex: i am going for donald trump. he has this thing one in march. he nearly lost it. he has won it back. and now the price of denying trump the nomination is so clear to everyone in the party it
would be so destructive, that is part of the bandwagon effect, rattling the party around. it is not whether he has earned the nomination. it is, what it destroy the party denying it to them? mark: is there anything where he has talked about solidifying his hold, this is a guy that could win a general election. steve: i think he has gotten more depth, more presidential. and corey lewandowski, going back-and-forth paul metaphor making him more presidential, or corey lewandowski allowing him to revert to his old self. even but the flags up, he is a little presidential. you can see him maturing. but then he goes off like he did last night and seems to regress. if he runs a temper tantrum campaign, he is going to get destroyed.
if he runs a good campaign, he is going to get beat. alex: i think hillary clinton has never run against anyone with 10 arms at eight legs by donald trump. in winning the general election, the odds are better than 50-50. john: to me about what happened today with ted cruz and carly fiorina. alex: it was a clear strategy by ted cruz to get her delegates. she doesn't have any, i have no idea. it makes no sense. this guy has asked a girl to the prom, she said no, he is still making dinner reservations. it doesn't do anything. it demonstrates how irrelevant he has become. ted cruz had value, he was an alternative to donald trump. nobody actually wanted him. it turns that when donald trump either succeeds or fails, you don't need ted cruz.
he is now irrelevant. steve: he got jealous because he heard john kasich was interviewing and having president of candidates vetted. having vice presidential candidates vetted. cruz did not want to lose anything, so he went quickly. john: so does this help or hurt to watch? the help him, or is it a wash? steve: it probably hurts him a little bit because it reinforces the fact he is desperate and irrelevant. john: so you think that donald trump is going to be the nominee, no question. steve: i have been hoping this would be the case. alex: this year, the impossible is already happening, so who knows what could happen tomorrow? could he lose indiana? could a meteor hit? yeah, he could call a handful of votes short, but he still gets
the nomination. maybe the steel 200 and deny him the nomination, the party blows up. i don't think that will happen. it looks like donald trump will be the republican nominee. mark: a statement earlier read this stop trump movement, either before or after he wins, that will become the consensus view? alex: i think you are right. the governor of florida is at the leading edge of that debate. but it is beginning to sink in that the cost of denying trump the nomination, this is like political parties like the stock market. they can go up or down, but you want to avoid uncertainty. right now, the republican party is bringing uncertainty. that is the trend for the next two months. steve: i completely agree with this in terms of with the trump supporters walking out of the convention angry. on the other hand, a lot of mainstream republicans are very worried about what happens if he
is the nominee. does the senate go under, does the house of representatives democratic? i say, go donald because all of these things could happen. a lot of his friends are deeply alex: but if i were a senate candidate and i had a choice in having ted cruz above me on the ticket or donald trump, i would have a better shot of being my own person, my own candidate under donald trump. ted cruz is the narrowest possible expression of being a republican, but he is a republican. donald trump is, the circus has come to town, and i am the circus. look at me. john: did donald trump's big foreign-policy speech make the grade? a former ambassador gives us his take, next. ♪
we heard a lot from the republican front-runner about what he says is wrong with america's current foreign-policy and something dramatic about what we are doing about fixing america's standing in the world. here is a quick highlight reel of some of his ideas and positions. donald trump: the countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense, and if not, the u.s. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves. we have no choice. our president has allowed china to continue its economic assault on american jobs and wealth, refusing to enforce trade deals, and apply leverage on china necessary to rein in north korea. i believe an easing of tensions and improved relations with russia from a position of strength only is possible, absolutely possible. and then there is isis. i have a simple message for them. their days are numbered.
i won't tell them where, and i won't tell them how. we must -- [applause] we must, as a nation, be more unpredictable. mark: a little bit more from that speech, joining us to talk about what trump said today, the former u.s. ambassador for political affairs at the united nations during bush 43's administration. thank you for joining us. let's start with the last point. trump has not said it before, and the clinton people jump all over this, being unpredictable is good. trump says they are sending 50 advisors into a certain place. he says we should not be giving stuff away. is there a notion in respected foreign-policy circles that unpredictability in the commander in chief is a good idea? stuart: there is a difference between unpredictable behavior versus keeping your cards close in terms of how you carry out a certain policy. nixon surprised everybody with the normalization of relations
with china. that wasn't unpredictable in the sense that it made sense to the national interest, but it was a surprise. he is looking at vladimir putin in the way he sort of gained and got an edge on certain regional issues, seeing us from plodding along and not being nimble. john: there are a lot of people who look at trump, and their criticisms are that he is not a serious person do you hear a serious person in that speech about world affairs? stuart: i actually do. you know, i think, what i see is somebody who believes that american leadership in the world is somewhat been eroded. that is not uncommon among american republican candidates. but i also see the linkage interestingly enough between economic diplomacy and leverage, there has always been the effort to engage diplomatically over here, and then maybe you have sanctions, but but you really don't do anything to link economic consequences. and he is a negotiator.
so what i think he is thinking that you can use economic leverage to achieve political and diplomatic outcomes, which is hard. mark: some people look at what he is proposing, we will like -- make allies pay more. reagan tried to do this. clinton tried to do it. is there a reason to believe he is not beholden to the state department? actually stuff like that could change under president trump? saw underthink we president obama's cairo speech, the president is a powerful bully pulpit. if the president makes burden sharing, it is going to get a lot of attention. it is going to get a lot of leverage. the question to me is not, do you chuck somebody out of nato because they cannot pay their bill, but how do you link what they pay for to their own national security? the refugee crisis, the middle east? is there a smart way to get them over the 2%, which there are only three or four in this -- of these countries that actually pay.
john: what strikes me about the speeches that there are a lot of apparent inconsistencies where he seems restrained, hawkish. were other places where he seems to be less so. is there a rule here owner is there a worldview here? and identifiable realist? neocon? stuart: i think it is realist. he sounds like somebody who views democracy promotion and sort of idealistic, you talk about universal values versus american interest, that takes me back to the 1970's in terms of how we viewed the world. i also did hear inconsistencies. i think, you know it is tough to , have it always, be robust militarily but not intervene. i think the timeframe he laid out for prosecuting the struggle against islamic extremism indicates that, you know he has , got this view of this as the new communist threat. he used containment, the term containment, against this.
and so building and putting , resources behind that is going to be important as well as getting everybody to foot the bill, help foot the bill. mark: less than 30 seconds, he did not take questions from us, after the event. if if you could ask him one question now about his foreign-policy, national security, what would it be? stuart: i think it is when he would decide to use military force. he left that up in the air. we talk about american national interest, our allies. we have treaty obligations, the south china sea, south korea. when would we act, and under what circumstances? that is invariably the highest responsibility of the president, and we don't know exactly where he stands on that mark: still one. ahead, crashing the two party system. we talked to investor turned political activist, peter. ♪
he wants to make it easier for third party or independent candidates to participate in presidential debates. he was also the founder of americans elect, which was fighting to get an independent ticket on the presidential ballot in 2012 the general election. we start off by asking mr. ackermann if the success of donald trump and bernie sanders this year runs counter to his argument that the two-party process is closed off to outsiders. peter: if you look at bernie sanders, you look at donald trump, the thing they don't have together is they don't represent the independent voice that is simultaneously attractive to democrats that are moderate and republicans that are moderate and independents together. that coalition is not represented in either of them. what we really need is a pathway, so people who can represent that coalition have a fair chance to compete. mark: are you sure that there is room for someone to be a distinctive voice and an important voice between the two major parties, as opposed to bernie sanders on the left and donald trump on the populist right? peter: well, i think when you
try to conceptualize the third as the ideological crease between them, you are really missing the point. the attendant today -- the independent today basically has a whole range of preferences tempered by the feeling of those preferences. when you put that all together in terms of portfolio of interest and desires, they find the two parties are really unsuitable to match one of the other, to match what they really want. this is why 80% of the country would love to see a viable third. john: people remember americans elect and what it was trying to do, get people on the ballot. talk about leveling the playing field and how it grew out of that experience, and what you are actually trying to do right now. peter: when we created americans elect, the idea was to create an internet-based voting system that would nominate a nonpartisan ticket, not republican, not democrat, that would be on the ballot in all 50
states. we got a lot of that done. we did the largest signature drive in history. we basically created the ability for 40 million people to vote. but frankly, and this is my problem as the leader, i underestimated the difficulty of getting into the debates. and so when we went to candidates and asked them to consider running, and they would go to their friends in the two parties, ask, what you think about that? they would find a finger pointed at their chest saying it would be bad. they go back and say, pete, if i put myself out, i am going to get negative blowback. if i win, i am going to be on the ballot, which is cool but , how do i get into the debates? after two years of planning, i thought it was easier than it was. what we found is there is mathematically no chance of somebody getting into the debates who wasn't democratic or republican, or a self-funded independent. even they would have huge risks of hurdling what is required to be in the debates. and so if i said to your viewers
right now, let's create a law that only democrats and republicans, independents can be president, i would say every one of your viewers would have said that is a terrible idea. it is unconstitutional. it is probably obnoxious to suggest. but mathematically, that is precisely what we are going to get. right now, we are fighting that. andright now, we are fighting that. we have a motion for summary judgment against the federal election commission to force the rules to be changed. john: so level the playing field is strictly focusing on the debate issue. peter: and the things that come before it. the logical adjunct of that the , ballot access rules and the imbalances for example and how to raise money. if you are a democrat or republican, as george clooney indicated you could raise , $834,000 a person. if you are an independent, you can raise $2700 a person. if you have to go out and get on the ballot, which republican and democratic nominees don't, every single state is $15 million. i have been through it. i know it, when it is all in. if you are really at $2700, the
reality is you are gathering. if you are four times better than bernie sanders, $100 a person. before you get any nomination, you have to sit down with people like i am right now, and you have to sit down with 150,000 people, assuming they all said yes. if half say yes, it is 300,000. that is why no individual who is not a billionaire has ever made it on the ballot for president. and that is a defect in our system that really in this day and age must be rectified. mark: i understand what you are doing. as i suggested, i have a great intellectual sympathy for it. but isn't the reality that however much progress you have, until there is a person who can actually do this, has the political ability, the issues, the matrix, the funding capacity, either self funding or like bernie sanders, nothing you do will matter. and if there is such a person, you might be paving the way for them, but they won't really need this. they will be able to, on their
own, make these things happen. peter: with the current rules, there is no chance. let's take bernie sanders. bernie sanders was asked by chuck todd, you are on independent socialist, why are you running as a democrat? he said, because you would not be interviewing me today. you have also noted that donald trump has $2 billion in free earned media. when you go through the two parties, you have a process that you follow brilliantly. the both of you. to a normal conclusion of events , any talk about it every day, and that creates media, that allows orderly subjects. mark: take trump. had trump decided last may to run as an independent and willing to spend his own money and raise money, he would be on all 50 ballots and in the debates. peter: let's see if that is true. the important take away like we are seeing now with the two parties is that we are now seeing how obscure rules that we don't see, we don't think about them until the moment we think
♪ john: donald j trump, billionaire is expected to win , the connecticut primary tomorrow. it is a democratic state, so we sent our filmmaker 135 miles north of here to a rural, economically depressed area of connecticut to learn one thing. what is it like being a donald trump supporter in connecticut these days? >> i can say what are you , hearing? birds, nice breeze. it doesn't get much better than this.
reporter: jeff lives in rural eastern connecticut. >> how are we going to retire? what is our quality of life going to be? it is tougher and tougher every year, and it is all about family. my wife and i, we babysit our grandson four to five days a a week, because my son and his wife, we work for jobs trying to stay even and get ahead. reporter: the largest town in this area is wyndham, population of 125,000. >> historically, when you look at the town, it is an old mill town. >> the mills moved out, so the population that was here just can't find jobs. >> we have high unemployment. eastern connecticut is still suffering. reporter: windham county has the lowest income level in connecticut. >> costs are going up, but their incomes are not going up. >> mark griffin you are a , documentary filmmaker. anything that surprised you about the people in the wyndham area? >> maybe i am surprised about how nice everyone is. i am already speaking on the
radio and i have only been here four minutes. [laughter] reporter: donald trump leads in connecticut by at least 20 points. >> i really think donald has the inside track on jobs, he knows what needs to be done. we need to wipe the slate clean, go back to the constitution, and rebuild this country. >> we have got conservative values. you can see it on the streets. we are quite rural. if you go to windham, they are not as conservative. they are extremely, i want to say liberal. i lean more towards john kasich , to be honest with you. because he is more middle of the line type of guy. >> right now, i am for bernie. he has actually accomplished things for climate change and has a plan. >> i think hillary clinton will do a wonderful wonderful job. , and it's about time. reporter: it doesn't feel like a political battleground. >> there are a lot of people that don't like to wear the politics on their sleeve, but they definitely are. they are worried about being harassed. one of the things i like about donald trump and what first
brought me to him is that he says what we are thinking. he says it. i really think donald trump can go down there, shake it up, and bring a revival back to washington. >> here we are down on mike rohde where i get to tell the rest of the town and the rest of the state that they are traveling down route 66, who i am interested in. >> there are a lot of people who will support, but a lot of people will not put signs in the yard. honestly i lose anywhere from , two to three signs a night. ok, i don't know whether it is the opposition or somebody that wants assigned to put in their yard. john: so, there is not that many republicans in our lifetime. who could win the mississippi primary and the connecticut primary. how is it that trump, do you think, put himself in the position where his appeal just basically crosses all the traditional red state blue state, geographic divides? mark: i think he struck a chord
with a lot of people with a message that plays across different geographical areas and different groups of people that are frustrated with the status quo. one of the reasons i like that piece so much is the media often paints trump supporters as crazy and unreasonable. like all candidates, he has some that are crazy and unreasonable. but the knowledge that. but people like that are as big a part of trump's coalition as anyone else, and that is a guy that cares about his coalition, cares about his family lives , in connecticut. you wouldn't think it is trump country, but it is a state that he is likely to win tomorrow. john: it is funny that donald trump, if he is nominee, will not win the state of connecticut. it is a blue state. but it is interesting that the republican party of connecticut, which could not be more different than the republican party in a lot of other places in the country donald trump is , the dominant figure. to a large extent, trump has a lot of appeal across a lot of different parts of the republican coalition. mark: another pivotal and
carol: welcome to "bloomberg businessweek." >> we are the magazine's headquarters in new york. yahoo! is up to sale but what's with the negative valuation? david: they are building a stadium for the atlanta braves for anyone but the atlanta brace? carol: the annual summer travel guide. that is up ahead on "bloomberg businessweek." david: we are joined by ellen, "bloomberg businessweek"'s editor. there was an article last week about amazon that is attracting attention.