tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg November 10, 2016 10:00pm-11:01pm EST
announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: in a stunning victory, donald trump has been elected the 45th president of the united states. trump defied poll predictions winning battleground states of florida, pennsylvania, ohio and north carolina. he spoke to supporters at approximately 3:00 a.m. wednesday morning at a new york city rally after receiving a call from hillary clinton conceding the presidency. president-elect trump: every single american will have the opportunity to realize his or her fullest potential. the forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.
we are going to fix our inner cities and rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals. we're going to rebuild our infrastructure. which will become by the way second to none. and we will put millions of our people to work as we rebuild it. charlie: in an emotional speech, clinton addressed the nation earlier this morning. secretary clinton: this is painful and will be for a long time. i want you to remember this. our campaign was never about one person or even one election. it was about the country we love and about building an america that's hopeful, inclusive, and big hearted. we have seen that our nation is more deeply divided than we thought.
but i still believe in america, and i always will. charlie: president obama made a statement from the white house calling on americans to unite. president obama: i have instructed my team to follow the example that president bush's team set eight years ago and work as hard as we can to make sure that this is a successful transition for the president-elect. because we are now all rooting for his success. and uniting and leading the country. charlie: republicans maintain control of the senate and the house of representatives. speaker of the house paul ryan also spoke to the country this morning. >> donald trump heard a voice out in this country that no one else heard. he connected with -- he connected in ways with people no one else did. he turned politics on its head. and now donald trump will lead a unified republican government. charlie: trump's selection has sent shock waves around the world. highlighting the populist tide sweeping the globe.
financial markets dropped sharply overnight. but regained some ground by the morning. from washington, dan balz of "the washington post." carl hulse of "the new york times." from cbs news headquarters in new york, john dickerson of "face the nation." and here in new york, maureen dowd of "the new york times." joining us later is lionel barber of "the financial times." i'm pleased to have all of them on this program. dan, tell me how he did it. did he as speaker ryan said hear voices that no one else heard? >> he certainly did, charlie. i mean, i think we have to give him a lot of credit. he started out this campaign with a very clear and simple message. that talked about the state of the country. talked about immigration. talked about national identity in ways that most candidates, most politicians were not willing to talk about. and he found and had an instinct that there was an audience out in america that was hungering for that kind of -- that kind of message.
you know, there are a lot of people who feel as though the political elites have abandoned them and looked down on them who feel that the federal government has done nothing for them. and who think that washington doesn't work. and he understood that better than all of the experts did. and he built a movement that turned out in bigger numbers on tuesday than anybody had predicted. charlie: john dickerson, how was he able to address the them in a way that resonated with them better than anybody else? because everybody, including hillary clinton, knew that the middle class in america was upset, the middle class in america did not believe that their life was as good as it had been and that the life for their children would not be as good as it was for them. john: that's right. he talked not to them but for them. and i think that was the key is that he made a gut level emotional connection to those voters who felt they had been ignored and betrayed, betrayal being a big part of it. and he -- he -- he got them.
he understood them. and we know -- it's funny. i was about to say this we know this about politics and after this campaign i think that kind of sentence has to probably be banished. but we -- we think we know that candidates make a connection with voters when -- it's a very strong connection when it's emotional. and once a voter grants a politician that emotional connection, they're willing to forgive them a bunch of things and they sort of -- they believe them on a whole other range of issues without necessarily having to hear the details of it. and that bond that he made, which was emotional, was a very strong one. hillary clinton talked a great deal about the middle class not only explaining how she understood what they were going through but then offering a series of detailed plans from the minute she announced her candicacy on how to fix the various challenges that people in the middle class face.
she was not unattentive to this but it was a different relationship with the voter than the one that donald trump had with his base. charlie: carl? carl: i would say he was able to really to play on his outsider status. that resonated. hillary clinton the ultimate insider and trump said she had experience and all the bad kind. what stuck out in the senate faces, evan bayh and russ feingold, two names in politics running for their old seats and totally expected to win. and were thoroughly rejected. i think that shows that trump has tapped into this idea. people want something new here. they don't want to try the same old stuff. and it worked for him. charlie: i was also truck, and maureen, i'm bringing this up, the idea that he described what he was about as a movement. not that he created it. maureen: well, he's an egotist and he really enjoyed being out there talking to the crowd and feeding off the energy of the crowd. in a way it's similar to bill clinton where they had a hard time getting him off stage. and as the great maggy haberman
of "the new york times" pointed out today hillary on the other hand made it clear she didn't like campaigning. she was just kind of tapping her foot. and the subtext of her campaign wasn't a great vision. it was it's my turn. damn it. so that's not an attractive vision. charlie: ok. lionel, barbara has joined us, lionel, how did it look from europe and from london? lionel: the whole metropolitan -- the press, the media, they wrote off the euro skeptics and never said britain would leave the e.u. and similarly people never said -- never predicted or hardly ever predicted that donald trump, a real estate mogul, with no experience in government whatsoever, no policies to speak of, we don't know who his team is and yet he can win the white house. and absolutely thump hillary clinton, the ultimate establishment candidate. and the reason, and many of your commentators have put their finger on it.
is that he had a really clever slogan. simple, stripped down. change. we want to make america great. which appeals both to people who feel that they've been left behind, marginalized by globalization and also appealing to a kind of cultural nostalgia about a better america, a non-p.c. america. and boy. it wasn't just noncollege degrees that turned out for trump. there were many others, educated, people above $70,000 a year. and you know, his movement, we have to see of course what -- whether he can translate this anger and frustration into concrete policies of change working with congress within the constitution, within the separation of powers, to achieve the kind of change that ronald reagan did in 1980 onward. charlie: he made a lot of mistakes. he said things we thought would be unpardonable by the electorate.
you quoted maureen selena zito who wrote the press takes trump literally but not seriously. his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. maureen: yeah. i think his supporters decided that it takes a thief to catch a thief. so they were willing to forgive a lot. and, you know, the question all along was did they want to use trump, even though they knew he was a very flawed candidate, as a baseball bat to smash washington apart? we just didn't know how many people wanted to do that. >> maureen is right about his -- his core support. i think one of the things that was an open question and now has been solved is that that is what won him the primary in a crowded field with a bunch of different people. but then the question was when he got into the general election, how many of those republicans who don't participate in the primary or if they did, they participated in one of the 16 other candidates, how many would follow to him just because he wore the red jersey? he was just a republican?
and it turns out a lot of them did. and particularly in the late period, they came back to him after expressing some skepticism. it's that difference between his core group and then those who are republicans and a polarized electorate and particularly when you have hillary clinton as the opponent and you have the historical situation where you would have had three democratic terms in a row which has only been done once since 1947. you had a situation in which a lot of those voters may not have signed up for the whole explode the system in washington. but were just signing up as good old republicans. and determining the size of both parts is one of the things that will be -- that's one of the tricks about figuring out exactly what his coalition is. because i don't think all 60 million are on for, you know, just sort of shaking up
washington at the level some of them are which is to basically shake it up really right down to the foundation. >> i was going to add this. my colleague, phil rucker, and i spent most of the last two weeks of the campaign doing very deep interviews with about 50 people, most of them inside the two campaigns. and some of them who were close to the campaigns for an oral history project that we've just published at the post. and one of the most important things that came out of those interviews was described by mandy grunwald, one of the senior advisors. and she said they knew that this was a change election, that there was a hunger for change in the electorate and they knew that that was a huge problem for hillary clinton because she could never be the change candidate. and they prepared a strategy that was designed to raise the risk factor. what they wanted to do was make people believe that the risk of electing donald trump was greater than the benefit of the change that he might bring. and their hope was that on
election day, their view of that question would prevail over his view of the question. and clearly they were wrong. >> yeah. i think what we saw was that there was way more people than we thought that there were willing to roll the dice on donald trump. charlie: roll the dice. >> and go for change in washington. and if you want to shake up washington, just walk around the streets today and people have this stunned look on their face. and they're giving out free hugs in farragut park. the republicans were as surprised at the result as we were. talking to republicans friday night, they expected to lose the senate. they expected trump to lose. today, they're waking up and they've got unified government. and they're happy. but they're also like, well, now we got to deliver. right? this is their big chance. and i think that where we go from here is going to take some sorting out. donald trump and the republicans in congress aren't on the same page on a lot of issues. they want to work on certain things. but they're going to have some
problems to work out including, you know, his relationship with paul ryan. mr. ryan said, though, in his remarks, there today, that everything is great. >> let me jump in here to just give a bit of a perspective from outside. i know that we in europe and the japan allies, we don't have a vote, we didn't have a vote in this election. we certainly didn't sign up to donald trump's foreign policy agenda. and if he means even half of what he says, the world is going to be in for a very, very rough ride. i mean, i'll start with repudiating the iran nuclear deal, the words he said about the nato alliance. loose words about maybe japan and south korea could go nuclear in response to the security problems with china in asia. and i could go on. and this is a huge question for america's place in the world. is america going to turn back on essentially the post world order
and put america first in such a way that the traditional alliance system frays? this at a moment of great peril for the world as china rises in the middle east looking at just a shattered system. so some very, very big questions being asked in paris, in london, in tokyo, and just lastly, does this mean we get la pen in france? tell me. >> we will spend the next few months trying to figure out how much of what mr. trump said he really meant. he laid out a very ambitious agenda. and things he will do immediately and we're already talking about repealing the health care bill. but -- and as maureen knows going through this campaign, it's like is he respond to the crowd or does he really mean this stuff? and his speech last night was pretty conciliatory. so there's still some things to uncover about the trump agenda. charlie: john, did he mean what he said or was this simply about
end justifies the means? john: i think yes. and i think it will -- he'll mean what he says the minute he says it even if it contradicts what he said during the campaign when he becomes president. i think that's one of his skills. is that he is constantly changing and yet comes across as if he constantly held that position his whole life. one of the things that was interesting in paul ryan's news conference today was not only that the man who said he wouldn't campaign or defend donald trump couldn't stop mentioning his name and when he heralded the new voices that donald trump heard, he didn't mention that those voices are the ones that were calling for his head, paul ryan's head and think he's a capitulator and sellout for the party's principles. so what you saw there was the -- the speaker rushing to embrace donald trump. that's smart politics. and also he believes that for example on health care, there is
legislation that they have sent to president obama and president obama vetoed. this was the story of paul ryan told today, and what was -- his expectation is that legislation is there. send it on up to president trump. he'll sign it. and we'll move on. so check one item off the list of promises which is repealing and replacing obamacare. that is in talking to members of congress over the last several months. republicans who were nervous but supporting donald trump. what gave them hope was that paul ryan's plan and his agenda was something that he could put just in front of donald trump and donald trump who would want to have achievements and accomplishments would basically sign on to it. charlie: john, dan balz, you be said as i referred earlier, what kind of president will he be and what kind of country will he lead? the oval office they say is a sobering place for the person who steps in there. and fills the full weight of leading the country. it's likely that at least in some ways, donald trump will be
influenced by that. yes? dan: i think we all believe that that is likely to be the case. and he will be surrounded by at least in part by people who will be urging him to do that. just as they were urging him in the final weeks of the campaign to be more disciplined as he expressed on the campaign trail. take it easy, donald. be careful, donald. and so there will be a lot of pressure on him to do that. but everything we witnessed during the campaign is that he doesn't always listen to the people around him. that he does what he wants to do and he says what he wants to say at opportune moments. a lot of his agenda will be fungible or flexible as john said. that one thing he says today won't be necessarily what he said the day before. i do think there are a couple of core things about him. one of them obviously is trade. and i think one of the things that he was able to do in this campaign and lionel touched on this in terms of kind of what
this means for the future. and the brexit comparison. in some ways, the issue of globalization and trade has been defined by the elites which is that yes, there are winners and losers. but on balance, it is good for countries and good for the world. i think donald trump turned that on its head which was to say yes, there are winners and losers and the losers have not gotten enough attention and we have given too much to the winners. i don't know what he has in terms of an agenda to deal with that. but i think that because he feels so strongly and has talked not just through the campaign but for many years about the trade issue, that that will in one way or another become essential to what he does. ♪
charlie: maureen, my impression is that we understood he had his finger on something. we saw the rallies and saw the response he got. we just didn't believe they were as large of group as we now see. in the election. maureen: right. well, i think that trump is more surprised than anyone to find himself where he is. i'm sure he's sitting up in trump tower with a cheeseburger thinking what the heck. with roger ailes and all his -- yes.
circle of motley crue. and yeah. so i think he's more shocked than anyone. it was -- it was if i said to you like walking into a bank and expecting to find a lot of locked doors and guards. and all of a sudden walking through. both in the primary and now. and it -- it's really shocking to see the words president-elect trump on trump's twitter feed. in some ways he just seems more like a guy who would be selling reverse mortgages. and now he's leader of the free world. charlie: let me ask all of you about the press and institutions, people who do polling. did everybody get it wrong? or in fact did we see this coming and just did not see the full extent of it? john? john: well, let's see. you know, so in terms of what i -- i'll speak for myself. just the -- anybody who has covered republican politics for since the buchanan campaign
knows that this group of -- grassroots conservatives exist and has been disappointed by the capitulations of the elites in the party. and we've seen it in different candidacies. we saw it certainly in the tea party movement. and so we knew it was out there. what surprised me was that in all the conversations over the many years i've had with grassroots conservatives who felt this way, the number one trait they picked of the politicians that they did not like was that they changed their minds when they came to washington and seemed to bend and weren't -- they didn't stay true. well, so it was surprising to me that donald trump would become the champion. given how many positions he had changed. how recently he was a republican. and that he didn't seem to have that kind of deep in his bones feeling about some of the issues that grassroots conservatives did. so that's for me where i was caught unawares. i think in terms of the polling, there will be a lot of analysis.
i think one of the things that people missed, it wasn't -- i don't think they missed the shy trump voter. the polls as i looked at them in terms of that noncollege white voter, they got those. they got that. i think what happened was in the weighting when they tried to take the polling that they did and then weight it in order to be a representative sample of the electorate, they thought they wouldn't turn out in the numbers that they did. they knew the margin and didn't know the turnout. so that's one of my guesses about why this was wrong in some states like pennsylvania, wisconsin, ohio, where, you know, the polls had him about one point and then i think he's won now by eight in ohio. so that's my guess. but just preliminary. >> i think the problem with the media and i speak guardedly here, is that we're often too attached to orthodoxy. so we just assumed that it was quite right that the latinos would vote overwhelmingly against trump. and you could not win a general election, presidential election,
based on disaffected white male voters or even just white voters. and that's been turned on its head. i think that what dan was saying about free trade similarly, we've all believed that globalization is basically good for everybody. it comes out in the wash. wrong. people just don't feel that. and i think lastly, on economic policies, very interesting how the trump camp has attacked the fed for its ultra low interest rate policy. you'll see much greater attachment to fiscal policy in the new trump administration and that's not what orthodoxy has been about. we have to look a little harder at ourselves in the mirror. charlie: dan, you said trump's proposals lack real specificity but then his campaign was not about policy white papers. it was instead a thumb in the eye of the establishment. an american version of the populist uprising against open borders and globalization that has been seen in other western
societies. and it seems to me, and i'm asking this as a question, that trump's personality is reality television experience made him a unique candidate to do that. dan: oh, i think that's absolutely right. and you know, when he got into the race, i think everybody took him less seriously than they should have because they thought of him as a reality tv star and a kind of a celebrity without any substance. but in fact, he has -- he has some very shrewd instincts. if you think about what he has done in this campaign is he has taken down two dynasties in american politics. he first took down the bush dynasty. and now he's taken down the clinton dynasty. i mean, that's an extraordinary thing to have done for somebody who had never run for office before. and so again, his appeal was -- this was a campaign -- i wrote this. this was a campaign about
elemental and fundamental issues about who we are as a people. and trump seemed to understand the unrest in the country certainly better than his opponents and better than a lot of the people who were covering the campaign. i mean, i was over in britain for brexit. and remember that night as you could see the -- you could see the country suddenly come to terms with the idea that the vote was going to turn out in a way that no one had expected. and you could feel that last night as these races were much closer early on than people thought. and then as it became clear that clinton's path, rather than trump's, was narrower and narrower and narrower to try to get to 270 until finally there wasn't any path left for her. charlie: but lionel, the comparisons to brexit. do they have a real similarity? lionel: well, i think this is actually if anything, more serious than brexit as a political phenomenon. because remember, brexit was a referendum. where basically up or down.
here you have a general election with an electoral college. you got to win a given number of votes. and he won stunningly. and again, what dan said, he went not just through one vote. but he went through the republican primaries, against state governors with serious experience. so the impact of this, given the most powerful country on earth, and america is still the most powerful political, military and economic force on earth, has voted for somebody with a huge question mark about what he's going to do, what his style will be. where there are big questions about his temperament. well reported in the press. and just to go back to what was being said earlier about what happens to you in the white house? i look forward to the senior economic or the senior advisor who says to president trump, no.
and gets away with it. so, you know, this is much -- this is bigger than brexit. brexit was pretty big. future europe. but this is big. charlie: john. john: about brexit, what donald trump did was amazing and phenomenal as a political act. but the place that the brexit analogy falls down a little bit is hillary clinton would have loved if it had been a referendum and she is ahead in the popular vote and stays there, then she would have won. so the idea of the brexit analogy is a, a surprise to the elites who didn't see it coming so that holds for sure. but the idea of an up or down vote and the one that's most popular among the people and the people's voice picking the most popular person out there, if that were the case, donald trump wouldn't be president. >> trump is going to get a chance to look at the white house tomorrow. president obama has invited him over there. i would love to be at that meeting -- charlie: yes, i would. >> between the birthie and the birther, right? they've had such a tortured relationship.
obama's statement today was very gracious. but you know this is just agonizing for him. there's a chance that so much of his legacy is going to be wiped away. they're suffering over there in the white house. seeing what's going on. so that's going to be quite the session. charlie: when you say wipe away his legacy meaning that he can, that the republicans have the power now to dismantle the iran nuclear deal, the republicans have the power now to dismantle obamacare and obamacare has lots of critics now because of -- we've seen the rise in premiums and some other considerations about it, but that's exactly what we should look forward to and so therefore all the things that barack obama took great pride in will be >> and climate change. charlie: climate change. >> the treaties on climate change. immigration. his executive orders. on many things. one of the things trump has promised to do is undo, repeal the executive orders over there. so i think this is painful at the white house.
now, there's parts of the president's legacy that can't be removed. he got us out of the financial crisis. advances on gay rights. but i do think they sees this a real threat to what they've spent eight years putting together. charlie: the clinton dynasty. the bush dynasty. donald trump has defeated both. is this the end of the clinton dynasty? what happens now to bill clinton and hillary clinton? maureen: well, you know, i agree with dan. i think that must have been incredibly painful for the two president bushes to put out their congratulation statement today to donald trump. given how he's talked about that family. and the first president bush made -- charlie: especially on the war. maureen: the first president bush made his feelings clear about donald trump in 2011. with one epithet. one choice epithet. but i think it's -- it's interesting. because president obama was elected in this revolutionary fervor to move past the clinton machine.
and i think at that point, in 2008, we thought the machine was over. but then somehow president obama led us back to that. you know, he sort of pushed aside joe biden. he could have gone -- lent his support to him. charlie: encouraged and supported joe biden. maureen: instead he chose hillary. i don't know if he felt guilty that he had usurped her or he joined her in ivy league elitism. but he sort of misread the mood of the country which is amazing for such a brilliant politician. charlie: let me ask you this point because many people have said that donald trump, hillary clinton is the only person donald trump could have defeated and they also would make the point that donald trump was the only person that hillary clinton could have defeated which turned out not to be true. but -- could joe biden have beaten donald trump? has donald trump found the one flawed candidate that he was most likely to defeat? or that's giving him too little
credit? john? john: i think that might be giving him too little credit. the problem with counter factual like this is you never know -- people when they put joe biden forward, they think of joe biden from scranton and now he has this connection with working class voters. and -- that's all true. and that's all part of it. of his amazing personality. but they don't think about the withering attacks over the course of a year and a half from donald trump who -- one of donald trump's great traits is to create chaos. because he can be the master of the chaos. and joe biden as a product of the senate and of washington is not -- that's not his turf. chaos is not his turf. so -- and the same is true with bernie sanders. people last night were saying you think bernie sanders would have lost those rust belt states?
perhaps not. but also we don't really know what it would have looked like to have somebody who is an independent socialist be attacked by donald trump for a year or so. and what that would have done to a candidacy like that. so i think donald trump was and is a pretty talented politician. and it would have been hard for anybody. charlie: but dan balz, will he build the wall? dan: he'll try to build the wall. and he'll come to the conclusion, i suspect, that you don't necessarily have to build the entire wall. charlie: yes. it can only be a block long and a wall and built a wall. dan: he will try to build the wall. but i think in many ways, it's the rhetorical wall that he will build about what this country is and who we're open to and who we're not that is the more important aspect. he can build a wall or not on the u.s.-mexican border. but the degree to which the united states is an open country and a tolerant country or a closed country and a suspicious country, i think is what -- what
we're waiting to see in terms of the definition of a president trump as opposed to a candidate trump. >> yeah. i think there are four words that define donald trump and maybe his presidency. which is actually five. the art of the deal. he is a deal maker. this is not values driven. and broadly -- in broad terms. but he's a guy who thinks he can cut a deal. so i completely agree. this will not be as long -- the wall in arizona, texas, will be a lot shorter than the great wall of china. but there will be something. and the mexicans -- the mexican president is already reaching out to donald trump saying oh, going to meet you. maybe we can talk about this immigration problem. i just make one prediction, charlie. dealing with the chinese will be a whole lot harder. charlie: because -- >> when donald trump talks about free trade and that americans are basically losing out to china, and there's a massive trade surplus that needs to be
reversed, actually doing that in real terms, changing a trade surplus, reducing it sharply, without a massive say depreciation of the dollar, it's really difficult. that -- and in broader terms, managing china's rise as a nation. that's not something that can be done in four words. >> and speaking of the art of the deal, the republicans are ebullient today and they have a republican president. but there is still some unease. they're not really sure of trump. they don't know for sure if he's a fiscal conservative. he's thrown some expensive programs out there. he wants to make deals. i notice that he called chuck schumer who is going to be the new democratic leader new york has contacts with trump from the past. chuck schumer is a deal maker, too. so, you know, it will be interesting to see if those guys can get together. this might not play out exactly how the republicans anticipated playing out. charlie: well, his friends have said on this program, donald trump's friends have said on
this program that for him whatever he says is simply first offer. that he is a deal maker. and that whatever -- he simply laying out what -- as any real estate negotiator would do. this is what i would like to have. knowing that's not what i'm going to get. >> very interesting considering what president putin has said just today. early message of congratulations. question, could you actually isolate one or two problems in that relationship like syria and try to do a deal? an early test. >> you know, one thing from the paul ryan press conference, we talked about earlier. he also mentioned the name mike pence quite a bit. my good friend mike pence. paul ryan. i think you're going to see mike pence playing a really big role in dealing with the hill. he's been up there. he knows something about it. certainly more than president-elect trump knows about it. and i think paul ryan is also counting on mike pence, his good
friend, to protect him a little bit from donald trump. charlie: absolutely think that's true. and go ahead. john: we may very well see an entirely new kind of management structure in the white house, too. based on the conversations that donald trump has had with leaders on the hill. his -- he's interested in a couple of things. he's interested in kind of a big result. and then the rest of it he wants basically people to deal with. and -- >> you clean up the details there. would you, mike? take care of that. john: yes. and on the fiscal situations, yeah. you don't want to get a c.b.o. score for donald trump's plans. because remember, at least the things he said in the campaign. he's not going to touch social security or medicare. he's going to cut taxes considerably. he's going to increase infrastructure spending. and he did at least at one point believe that everybody should be covered by health care. so if you're -- universal health care. >> and day care. >> exactly.
day care and family leave as well. so that's not going to -- that's not going to make it through the budget committee let alone get a score that anybody would be satisfied with. but that's also a part of the gap between what he -- what he talks about and then what's possible and he'll -- and he'll just work to get that deal somehow. >> i wanted to come back to domestic politics for just a second. charlie: yes. >> the democrats have now won -- assuming that hillary clinton does win the popular vote, she's ahead now. they will have won the popular vote in six of the last seven presidential elections. and yet they come out of this election without the white house, without the house, without the senate, without most of the governorships and state legislatures in this country. this is now a republican-run country from top to bottom. and it leaves the democrats in a quandary. they believe that they have a coalition, a rising coalition, of a new america. and the popular vote would
suggest they're right. but in one way or another, they have a party that's been hollowed out over the obama administration. they suffered huge losses in 2010. in 2014. and now they've had this stunning loss of the white house in 2016. so the question of how does the democratic party regroup and rebuild in order to take advantage of what they assume are the demographic movements in this country in order to become a governing party again? charlie: one thing that concerns some people is whether he has -- does his victory somehow bring respect to the most extreme followers of some from the alt-right? >> i think that's a very central question. in talking about the demographic and cultural change that the country is going through, this is a serious debate about who we are as a people. and in its best sense, you can
have that debate in a civil way. but what we saw in this campaign was that the joining of those issues gave rise to racism and anti-semitism and misogyny and religious bigotry. and, you know, donald trump is in the vortex of that. and as president, he's in a much different position than he was as a candidate. and so this is a -- this is a debate that hasn't been fully resolved. and donald trump is going to be the agent for in one way or another moving that discussion forward. and the question is how does he plan to do that? charlie: you understand culture and politics intersect. and what do you make of this? maureen: well, i mean, donald trump was -- it looked like three ticks away from losing his brand. and that he would be going around making speeches to white supremacists groups. but instead he's the president-elect. so i don't think any of us know. and also he has played a lot of different characters in his career.
he's played the apprentice boss. very judicious. you know, he played the protege to george steinbrenner and roy cohn. so he, you know, as these guys have said, his -- he doesn't have any value system except winning. so it remains to be seen what he thinks winning in this case is. charlie: the other thing that strikes me and i mean this for all of you is that this was a singular victory for donald trump. i mean, he at every stage in this campaign, he was the one who made the decisions, the candidate made the decisions. he was not the -- as i think secretary clinton was more often the product of a committee or the product of a campaign staff. at every turn, you would ask them, who does he listen to? and they would always say he listens to himself. he was making all the decisions about his campaign. >> but i think that's incredibly important to factor in as we assess what kind of president he will be.
because clearly he can't do that when he's in the white house. charlie: yes. >> but he will say to himself apart from saying look at those crowds, he will say, you know, i was right. they told me after the convention in cleveland that i had to pivot to the center. they had -- they told me i had to be responsible trump. they told me not to go off message. well, i didn't. and i won. and i didn't just win, i won convincingly. so the really big question now is how far can he pivot from candidate to govern as president? i want to pick up something that was said earlier which is very, very important. is we may be looking at a new managerial style. you'll have the showmanship. but people are saying to me, as they've said to others, that vice president mike pence will be an absolutely critical player, not just in helping donald trump with appointments, but also building bridges to congress.
so you may see a slightly different kind of presidential style. of management. and team building. interesting to watch. charlie: go ahead. >> the one thing i would say about the trump running his own campaign that i know there's a lot of consultants and political strategists who really hope he was a singular candidate. because they might be out of business, right? other people are going to look and go, wow. i can do this myself. i don't need all you guys. so we'll have to see. >> what i wonder is that it certainly -- the case of those people around him, at the r.n.c. and even some of his closest advisors that they think this last stage between the third debate and the end, that he did well and that they saw movement in the polls because he was put on the teleprompter as they say. and that he stuck -- stayed on message. and that he accepted some of the constraints of the campaign and that that really paid off for him. and that's why you heard him say out loud, stay on message, donald.
or -- which is a paraphrase. and the extent to which he took that on. why does that matter? because there are obviously lots of constraints in a white house. and you have to stay within the boundaries of the office in certain instances. and the whole promise of the trump presidency is that he won't. that he will be disruptive. that he will break through the stuff that clogs up washington. so what he may have learned in that last stage of the campaign about discipline will be fascinating to watch as he takes on a job where a whole lot more discipline is required. ♪
>> one of the interesting things is that when he seemed to do best in the debates, when his -- he had his best moments, and in the later stages of the campaign, as john said, when he was tethered to the teleprompter, he was very much more a generic republican. a reform-minded republican but a generic republican. and yet we know that the mandate that he sought and received is to come in and, you know, totally shake up washington. to change this system. to make this system work for people who feel it hasn't worked for them. those are in some ways in conflict with one another. and he's going to have to figure out -- and perhaps he has begun to figure out how you balance those two. he certainly did it in a way that has now gotten him to become president-elect.
but it's one thing to do it for two or three or four weeks and another thing to do it for two or three or four years. charlie: i'm old enough to remember the kind of people that john kennedy attracted to washington in the -- in 1960. and other time ronald reagan attracted a group of people from the conservative wing of the movement wing of the republican party. what kind of people will he attract to government? >> haven't we already seen some of those examples? charlie: carl, what kind? carl: rudy giuliani. newt gingrich. jeff sessions is interesting. one of the things we were talking about is who actually will he attract to the government? as dan knows, we got to start figuring that out. so interesting question. i can't really say. but i do expect to see more of rudy, newt, and chris christie. >> one thing he did in his
campaign that the campaign was both a message against the elites but then also form followed message in the sense that he had a data group that was more out of the consumer marketing wing of the world than the ground game kind of political science wing of the world. and it turned out the marketing wings knew a thing or two and the extent to which he is able to bring new voices and new ideas to the calcified business of government. and that's the promise and the hope of the trump presidency, the downside of course is that all presidents have to worry about being -- getting into a cocoon and having people around you who just tell you what you want to hear. that's the problem with the office. and donald trump being his world, somebody mentioned earlier the first economist who has to tell him no, maybe it was lionel, and when people have to start telling him no, how does that work out?
and or does the cocooning function keep him protected from adverse views which often ends in bad problems? and back to your kennedy analogy, charlie, the problem is that the decisions in the bay of the pigs, bay of pigs, just kind of carried on on their own course. in part because they were cooked before he got there. but the classic example of group think. what's that going to look like in a trump presidency? charlie: but also a teaching moment for john kennedy as well. >> and the best teaching moment about group think, the problem is, you know, sometimes that -- that near miss learning can be -- you can have a big problem while you're learning the useful lesson. >> do you envision -- i was just going to say do you envision the book come out of this, the best and the trumpiest? when you see who comes in here? [laughter] >> it will be the tremendous and the brightest. >> i think it's very important to find out who is going to be
advising donald trump on national security and foreign policy. and i spoke -- and we -- because the whole generation of foreign policy -- so-called experts wrote themselves out of the script when they denounced donald trump several months ago as a republican candidate. charlie: there's finally this from me. the nastiness that he expressed toward secretary clinton, saying she was guilty and she was crooked and she ought to be in jail and he was going to appoint a prosecutor if he was elected president. does anybody think he'll really try to do that? >> well, he said that the nation owed hillary clinton a debt of gratitude last night. which seemed obviously a hard thing to say if you're planning to then go and prosecute her. i think -- and that's -- i'm being cute. but there is a tension there. and if -- whatever inspired him to give that conciliatory speech
which was -- which struck at least the right pitch and a right enough pitch that the president referred to it in his remarks and said that he liked what he heard. and mitt romney has said he hopes that's how trump will govern. whatever inspired that speech would probably, you would imagine, inspire trump and his inner circle to decide not to go after both hillary clinton, the dozen or so accusers, "the new york times," and the list of other groups that he was going to sue or take legal arks against. >> yeah. i think it's bluster. i would be amazed given that speech, i think it was very well crafted and thought out. and i think the fact is donald trump does not play by the marcus queensbury rules but it is different in the white house. so to have some vindictive campaign a la stalin circa 1931 i don't think is going to happen.
but that -- i'm out on a limb there, charlie. charlie: and this question for maureen and then everybody because it's an important question, who do we think influenced him on the speech he made last night? was it family? was it simply him alone? or is there, you know, some -- >> charlie, i don't know the answer to that. but i think that the team around him has been writing those speeches that he's been reading on the teleprompter for weeks. i was told earlier this week that steven miller, one of his policy people, has been very important in the words that have come out of -- or that have been put up on the teleprompter. i don't know if he was the word smith on the speech last night. but trump does some noodling with the speeches. but i think a lot of those words have been written for him. for particular audiences in particular moments. charlie: and what role was steve bannon play? >> i have no idea.
[laughter] >> let me throw out -- we know in administrations that -- and in presidencies that there is a kind of inner circle political and in the old arrangement, you have your -- your lee atwater go over to the r.n.c. or karl rove or you have david axelrod. the person who maintains the political brief and there's often a lot of sloshing around behind what's policy and the role of the presidency and what meetings the political advisor sits in. and that will be really, really interesting. because tending that political base will be quite important because you can imagine that that will give donald trump a lot of power in dealing with congress. charlie: you also wonder whether this whole idea of the speculation about a television network, whether that could still be a real idea on the part of jared kushner, his son-in-law. maureen: yeah. he's been talking to banks about it.
but i think they have bigger fish to fry now. charlie: it was historic last night. as we watched these things come in. and most of the questions remain. we've talked about many of them today but those are the questions that remain. because the hard part begins now in putting together a government and finding out what's possible and not possible. and coming face-to-face, knowing that you are responsible for the challenge that the country faces. and i think that's a sobering impact. and i don't think anybody can escape what that does to someone knowing that you are responsible. and you have -- responsible for the national security of the country. but responsible for so many other things having to do with the country that you love. and i think everybody knows it. and anybody who reaches the levels of trump and hillary clinton have reached are patriots and care about the country. the question is how that caring is expressed and what are the limits and the inspiration for it? thank each of you for joining
>> it's noon here in hong kong. here's an update of the top stories -- emerging-market currencies are falling on speculation the federal reserve cap boost interest rates to inflation from any increased spending by a donald trump administration. and indonesia currency tumbled. nearlypoint, it plunged 5%, the most in eight years. the bank of indonesia said it stepped in to stabilize the market. the central bank says it does not the