tv Election Special The 5 Final Candidates CNN March 21, 2016 5:00pm-8:01pm PDT
havana mansion that only costs $40 a day. the final five candidates' interviews on cnn starts right now. we're talking to all the remaining candidates in the race for the white house on the eve of more crucial contests. >> it's an unprecedented moment. hours after hillary clinton and donald trump launched high-profile taexs against one another on foreign policy. >> tonight, from the nation's capital, the final five presidential candidates on volatility around the world. >> we need steady hands. not a president who says he's neutral on monday, pro-israel on tuesday and who knows what on wednesday. >> i think i'm very different than hillary clinton. she doesn't know anything about my policy. she wouldn't know anything about it. her policies, obviously, didn't work. all you have to do is look at libya. >> closer to home, questions on a turbulent campaign. >> you want to beat donald trump, the way to do it is beat donald at the ballot box.
>> they're going to pick the most experienced, the person who can beat hillary clinton. me. >> supporting each other will always trump selfishness. >> this is a cnn presidential primetime event unlike any forum you've seen before. >> this may be one of the most consequential campaigns of our lifetime. >> you're going to say that with the greatest vote i've ever cast. >> five candidates, two parties, one network, one night. it all begins right now. welcome to our cnn election special. we are about to hear from the final five. all the presidential candidates still in contention for the nation's highest office.
the republican governor of ohio, john kasich, joins us now. thanks for starting us off. >> good to be with you. >> let's talk about aipac. you said there is not any prospect for peace until the palestinian authority, hamas and hezbollah take real steps to live peacefully. they also have to recognize israel as a jewish state. that doesn't sound like there's really a chance for peace in your opinion. hezbollah, hamas? >> anderson, why are we living in a dream world until they recognize israel's right to exist, how could you ever have a two-state solution? you know, this is pretty clear. when the prime minister came here and talked about the iran deal, he talked about the fundamental change he thought they should have exhibited before we signed an agreement. i found it to be compelling. >> anything you can do as president to move hezbollah, hamas, the palestinian authority in that direction? >> there's always a way in which you'd talk back channels. and we do have some limited leverage over the palestinian
authority, but the palestinian authority has been feeding a lotd of hatred for 30, 40 years and teaching their kids about suicide killers and all these other crazy things. so is there -- are there back channels in which you can say, look, two-state solution is possible but there's some preconditions. you don't ever go to an event or negotiation where you don't have some sense of how it's going to work out. then it becomes an experience in nothing but frustration. that's not where you want to be. >> in the speech today you also said we cannot be neutral in defending our allies reference no doubt to donald trump who talked about being neutral in negotiations. would donald trump be a staunch enough ally of israel? >> you ask him, okay? i can just tell you about me. 35 years i've supported israel. it's not just israel. we have to make sure we strengthen nato, make sure putin understands we will arm the ukrainians so they can fight for freedom, providing them with a
lethal defensive equipment that they need. we need to make it clear to the chinese what we expect from them. it doesn't mean we have to rattle sabers. we should not get involved in civil wars but, clearly, when it comes to isis, we have to destroy isis with a coalition of the arabs and also the europeans led by us. these are simple things really. >> what about military aid to israel. senior republican on the house budget committee. you proposed cuts to a lot of federal programs, freezing military aid to israel, israel currently receives about $3 billion in aid. would that still be on the table, an area to cut or -- >> we still have to continue to make sure that israel has military superiority, particularly in the air. of course, i was a supporter of the iron dome which is critical in early days. the arab program. no, i think we don't want to ever put them in a position where they don't have superiority. >> so no cuts to israel at all on military aid? >> i don't see any reason to do that or to say that today. we want to make sure they're
strong and the strongest in the region. >> you also said today jerusalem is the eternal capital of israel. that's your quote. the last three republican presidents did not move the u.s. embassy to jerusalem, dud not recognize jerusalem as the capital. why were they wrong? >> take the statement for what it is. it is the eternal capital of israel. >> should the embassy be there? >> i would prefer that. we have other things we have to do up front which is to make sure they have security. back channels to the palestinians. and i'm told today that there are -- there's some progress with the palestinians in terms of keeping some of the lid on the violence. the stabbings have been terrible. but perhaps there are still some things that they do to try to keep a lid on the situation. my whole point anderson as regard israel and the whole middle east is we look for sfa bility. we'll not have any long-term peace. it's a matter of getting through each day with a lid on things over there. we can make more progress but it's tough over there. >> ted cruz talked about acknowledging jerusalem as the
capital day one. moving the embassy there. you are saying that's a mistake? >> i'm just saying let's take one thing at a time. >> does it impact the peace process? >> there's some things you say that you know are just going to get you nowhere. nobody made a stronger speech today about my support over all of my professional career for israel. and what i think we need to do vis-a-vis the palestinians, hamas, hezbollah, iran. i called for the suspension of theu ran nuclear agreement because of their ballistic missile voolgsss and violating the spirit of the agreement. but look, anderson, it's easy to make a lot of statements. when you have a lot of experience in this matter, which i had serving 18 years on the armed services committee and being in the pentagon after 9/11 at the request of secretary rums feld to help solve some of their problems over there, you learn to choose your words carefully. today i think i was very strong in that speech. i received an overwhelming response from the beginning and all the way through that talk, and i think i've said enough at
this point. >> you have a lot of government experience. donald trump trumpets his business experience. >> i have that, too. >> making deals. is experience in business, making deals in business, does it transfer to statesmanship? does it transfer between making deals between countries or is that a whole other -- >> that's a good question. when you are a politician, people wonder if you can transfer it to business. i did. i had good success when i worked as a banker and as a board member. secondly in business, there's not an automatic ability to understand politics. it's not the same. some people can make the transition. other people cannot. >> is it about making deals in business or more moving -- you are dealing with countries, a lot of factors. >> it's more complicated, more nuanced. and but you know, i had great success in terms of business agreements. and, of course, the balanced budget which i was able to do with the clinton administration in addition to welfare reform. and, by the way, massive reform
of the pentagon. i was involved in significant things there. and then in ohio. the time i was in business, almost ten years i was out, was absolutely invaluable to me to understand in a real way what moves the economy. but it's back and forth. i'm the only one that has the legislative and executive and business experience in the race. >> you talked about the pentagon. donald trump said it's time to rethink nato because it costs too much. nato partners should be ponying up more. >> that doesn't make sense. we'll have to strengthen nato. nato has to be stronger not only vis-a-vis putin and what could happen in central europe but we want our allies to share intelligence with us. we need to come closer together. and they have to be part of the coalition to be able to destroy isis. >> is it reckless then of a potential leader to talk about -- >> i would never speak that way because we need nato. we all wish they would do more. >> you are saying it sends a
wrong message to do that? >> i don't think anyone is paying that much attention. as a leader of this country you want to be careful. i wouldn't say that now. it's cooperation on the intelligence side. it's cooperation, frankly, on the ability to put coalitions together, work against iran if they violate the agreement. there's so many reasons which we need to have stronger relationships around the world and not just with nato. we have to strengthen our relationship with some of our allies in the middle east, particularly the egyptians, jordanians, gulf states. the saudis, that's a tricky situation. another place to keep our eye on and that's turkey. and you know, now the talk with -- >> suicide bombing there. >> i know. they are blaming that on isis. but a situation is in europe they're trying to work a deal with turkey to deal with the problem of the migrants, the refugees. what's interesting is they are now beginning to talk about perhaps this san opening for turkey to get in the eu. we need to pull turkey to the
west. they are a gateway to what we need to do in the middle east. >> talking about isis. one of the pillars of your presidency would be to keep isis out of libya. would you use u.s. troops to do that? >> first of all, that's a major mistake of the administration and hillary. we should have let gadhafi stay there. by knocking him out, we turned this into the wild west. there's about seven cities in libya we have to pai attention to. we could use some air power. we can support people that want to deal with the situation there but when it relates to isis in iraq and also in syria, it's going to be necessary to do it. >> so you are saying libya is worse now than under gadhafi? >> yes. >> you would have kept gadhafi in power? >> any time you start getting in the middle of these kind of problems directly, which is what we did, you create problems. >> so it was a mistake to orphthrow gadhafi? >> it was a terrible mistake and it was hillary that really
pushed it. i was a very young congressman we had troops in lebanon. >> ronald reagan tried to knock out gadhafi. >> stay on one thing here. in lobe none when they wanted to keep the troops there, president reagan did. it was soon after that we withdrew our troops because of the bombing in the barracks. but reagan sent a message to gadhafi with a missile. he didn't put troops on the ground. it got gadhafi's attention. he disarmed his nuclear operation. one other thing i pointed out today that may have been lost. i've been talking about giving the kind of support we need to the people in afghanistan. but i don't want to stay there forever. give them the support. give them the air power that they need. let them be able to manage on the ground and in the air. but the united states should not be in afghanistan for the rest of our lives. >> can the u.s. effect change in afghanistan without having a presence on the ground? >> i think there's a way we could, in fact, be able to deal
with trouble when they pop up. but to have a huge troop presence there for a very long time -- >> -- or special forces or something like that? >> but you don't want to set a time timeline. that's another big mistake. chrchlths is something president oballa did early on. >> and that's not smart. that's why you have to understand foreign policy and how to conduct it and how to leverage the support you have and how do you bring people in and manage these. >> let's talk about cuba. president obama is there. you've been critical of the opening of the company. r under your presidency, would companies be forced out? >> we can't even meet with these ladies who have been marching every single sunday to ask for human rights and people to be -- the president hasn't even touched ground and castro is criticizing the united states. the president says we're communicating. >> has that ship sailed?
business is going in. under your presidency, would you take it out? >> i'd have to think about exactly what i would do. but let me say one other thing. we talk about nato. it's absolutely creditical that the president work with nato now so that if iran does violate that nuclear deal that he put together that we put the sanctions back on. some people say rip it up right now. i've called for a freeze on the nuclear deal because of the ballistic missile violations and violating the spirit of the deal. if they violate the deal in principle, we wouldn't have to want to do this alone. we'd want to do this with the europeans. and the problem is money. people go over, they make money. and then time comes to take action and we put money ahead of what we know is a security. >> when i asked you about nato and trump you said as leader you wouldn't say that kind of thing. >> i'm not saying it now. >> and you have been very careful not to directly attack donald trump. >> he's dead wrong on nato. he's dead wrong.
>> do you think he's ready to be -- >> that's up to the people to decide. that gets to be personal about my feelings about his competence. just look at his statements. i'm telling you what i think about it. and to say that we need to withdraw from nato? we're not going to -- >> he's not saying withdraw. he's saying lower -- >> what does that mean? we need deeper relations. imagine when the folks at charlie were murdered, the magazine. they had a service, a million people in service. we didn't send anybody. what are we thinking? how do we dis an ally like israel and not have the president meet with the prime minister. or a red line or dumping gadhafi out. these are things that soak confusion in the finds of not only our friends but our enemies. >> let's talk immigration. arizona votes tomorrow. major issue there, obviously, immigration. the last debate you said you could pass a bill to put undocumented immigrants on a path to legalization in your first 100 days in office which
puts you at odds with the two remaining republican candidates. but closer to hillary clinton than you tor the republicans. >> ronald reagan tried to solve this problem. we never finished the border. my position has been clear. finish the border. no one comes in. if you try to sneak in, you're going back. guest worker program, okay. you've come in, work, go back. for the 11.5 million who are here, if they've not committed a crime since they've been here, they'll pay back taxes, a fine, probably be delayed in terms of when they can get benefits and they'll be legalized, not citizens. the notion that we'll go into homes and grab people out of their homes with their kids on the front porch crying, this isn't going to happen in america. >> there won't be a deportation force? no matter what frutrump or othe say? >> it's never happened. they quote these things that are not accurate. if you have a deportation order you'll have to leave. that's the law in america. the idea that we're going to go around in the neighborhoods
picking these people up is just not, first of all, not practical and not the way we behave. are we just going to yank them out, handcuff them and put them in a car, their kids are there, breaking up families? that's not -- i didn't say it could pass in 100 days. i'll get them a plan in 100 days coupled with the economic changes i want on tax cuts and balanced budgets and common sense regulatory. >> there's a new cnn poll out. the good news -- do you like good news or bad news first? >> i'm a bad news first guy but i'll give you the good news first. the only republican that beats hillary clinton in a head-to-head matchup. 51% to 45%. 70% of republicans think you should drop out because it's impossible for you to win enough delegates to be the party's nominee. >> i don't think anybody is going to have enough delegates to win the nomination before the convention. this is going to go to the convention. if i hadn't won ohio and trump had won ohio, he'd be the nominee, but he didn't.
>> 70% of republicans who say you should drop out you say -- >> i don't know who they are. people have been telling me all along what the polls are and pundits tell me what's going to happen and they've never been wrong. i think god created pundits to make astrologiers look good. i have the skill, the experience, the vision and record to fix the country. that like really matters. we're going to get to a convention and delegates are going to think about who can win? i'm the only one that can win a germ election. and who can be president? i have the experience to do it. >> last week you had governor romney campaigning with you in ohio. didn't endorse you but urging people in ohio to vote for you. a proponent of strategic voting. he in utah and arizona he's put outs the robo call. i want to play it for you and get you to talk about it. >> hello, this is mitt romney. i'm calling to ask you to join me in supporting ted cruz for
president this tuesday in the utah republican caucuses. this is the time for republicans across the spectrum to unite behind ted. he is the only republican candidate who can defeat donald trump. at this point, a vote for john kasich is a vote for donald trump. >> campaigning for you last week in ohio. does it make any sense? >> of course it doesn't. you come out and say he's got a great record and the next week. but look. if he says to vote for somebody else is, you know, a vote for trump or whatever. you just read the polls. i'm the only one that wins the general. are we thinking about -- i don't get this. are we thinking about just what happens in a republican primary? we have to win the general election and beat hillary and have somebody that has domestuc and foreign policy experience, which i have. >> senator ted cruz, and he'll be out here shortly said if you weren't in the race he could get enough delegates to win and you are staying in as an audition to be trump's vice president. what do you say? >> there's zero chance i'd be
vice president with either of them. >> no chance? >> zero. below zero, actually. and secondly -- >> wouldn't be interested? >> not interested. and secondly, anderson, if i hadn't won ohio, trump would be the nominee right now. people forget that they wanted me to get out and get behind marco. great guy, by the way. i didn't. let me just tell you. my message of hope, my message of how we can fix the problems of income insecurity, how we can fix the problem of lack of wage increases and what's going to happen to our children is a vital message. >> so cruz -- >> it's important for me to be out there to have this voice and the voice of my team heard across the country. >> when cruz calls you a spoiler candidate you say -- >> that's name calling. that's name calling. don't name call. >> john boehner, good friend of yours going back to your days in congress, he said if we don't have a nominee who can win on the first ballot, i'm for none of the above. they all had a chance to win.
none of them won. i'm for paul ryan to be our nominee. should he -- >> he walked that statement back. he said he was for me. >> he did? >> yes. should it be limited to someone who ran? >> i'm not going to tell the delegates what to do on this. i've been to a convention in 1976 when donald reagan took on an incumbent president, gerald ford. we got together the delegates. they were extremely serious as they always will be. and they will measure, because they're going to be political types, local party officials, former members of congress, members of the legislature. they will try to decide who can win in the fall and who can be president. today when we talk about all this process, it's all like, who is going to be nominated? we shouldn't forget the most important thing. who can lead this country? >> at the convention, donald trump said there could be riots if he's not made the nominee. you are the governor of ohio. this would happen under your watch. are you planning to call out the ohio national guard just in case? >> we always manage events where
we think there could be problems as best we can. but that kind of language is not acceptable. in addition to that -- >> not acceptable for a leader to make? >> yeah. >> what kind of language should a leader say? >> i went to the convention. gave it the best i could and didn't win. god bless everybody here and god bless america. and let's get behind the person that won and let's move forward and win the white house. >> do you think that encourages people to riot? >> i don't think that kind of language is good. you don't think it is. i know you don't think it is. neither do i. nor do people when they hear it. it's not a head shake. we're running for president of the united states of america to be the leader of the world, the commander in chief and lead this country forward. we have to be better than that kind of language. >> governor john kasich, thank you. we're going to hear from donald trump shortly. next it's senator ted cruz's turn. plenty ahead. hey buddy, you're squashing me!
i'm a customer relationship my namanager with pg&e.er, i've helped customers like plantronics meet their energy efficiency goals. so you save energy and you can save money. energy efficiency and the environment go hand in hand. and i love how pg&e's commitment to the environment helps a community like santa cruz be a better place to live. and being able to pass that along to my family is really important to me. just being together and appreciating
in contention for the nation's highest office. texas senator ted cruz is with me right now. senator, thanks for joining us. >> thank you for having me. you've attacked donald trump in our apaic speech suggesting he's not pro-israel enough. that he's not necessarily against the iran deal. what do you back any of that up? i listened to his speech carefully. he was against the iran deal, very pro-israel. what do you say? >> it's interesting. you can listen to donald trump on any given day and he can give you three different answers in the course of the day. >> did you listen to his speech? >> i listened to part of his speech. >> what did you think? >> i think it was an improvement. he clearly hired someone to write that speech for him. they were different from what he said in the course of the campaign? >> what was different? >> for example, he said two debates ago if he were president he would be, quote, neutral between israel and palestine. >> to try to negotiate a deal.
>> that gets it exactly wrong. that suggests that he buys into the moral equivalency many in the media pitch. if you don't know the difference between your friends and enemies. if you think the state of israel that is defending itself against terrorism is somehow morally equivalent to terrorists who are murdering americans, murdering israelis who are strapping dynamite to their chest. >> he was not neutral in that speech today. >> he didn't say that but donald is an interesting fellow because he can say totally different policy positions in the course of a day from one end to the other. but on -- with respect to the iran deal also in the debates. he said, no, he'd not rip up the iranian nuclear deal. instead, he would renegotiate it. he'd get a better deal. anyone who says that doesn't understand the ayatollah khomeini. >> let's talk about peace negotiation in the middle east. you've criticized trump suggesting there's no difference between him and hillary clinton, that they both want to negotiate a peace deal.
what's wrong with negotiating a peace deal? >> nothing is wrong with negotiating a peace deal if the palestinians will come and seek peace. the barrier to peace is not israel. israel wants peace, has wanted peace every day of its existence. the barrier is the palestinians. >> so what do the palestinians need to do in order for you as president to negotiate a peace agreement? >> look, in order for there to be a peace agreement, the palestinians need to acknowledge israel's right to exist as a jewish state. >> they've acknowledged that. the palestinian authority has acknowledged a two-state solution. >> but they do not acknowledge israel's right to xuft as a jewish state. the palestinian authority is in a so-called unity government with hamas. a terrorist organization. the pa celebrates when terrorists murder. an american texan just recently murdered by a palestinian terrorist. the p.a. celebrates that and compensate the families of the terrorist for murdering innocent americans. >> so if the palestinians say
they accept israel's right to exist as a jewish state -- >> and they have to renounce terrorism. stop inciting terrorism. stop paying the families of terrorists. >> i'm happy to try to broker a deal from the beginning, but the difference is you need a president who stands with israel who doesn't accept this moral equivalence that the palestinians are somehow the same as the israelis when the p.a. is celebrating terrorists murdering women and children. it's not a moral equivalence and it's the same -- what donald trump does is the same thing hillary clinton does. when hamas was raining rockets on to israel and hamas was keeping their missiles in elementary schools, hillary clinton gave an interview where she said you have to understand, gaza is really small. they don't have any other place to put them. >> when did trump say that? >> that's hillary clinton. >> you said they're the same. >> they both accept the moral equivalence and refuse to acknowledge how they are different. >> what was striking in trump's
speech he referred to palestine which was just verery odd. palestine hadn't existed since 1948, and it was clearly a speech where, you know, one of the challenges with foreign policy is that donald's knowledge of the world is very limited. at a cnn debate, hugh hewitt asked him about -- >> let's get back to the middle east. we'll talk about the triad another time. let's talk about the middle east. you want to move the u.s. embassy from tel aviv to jerusalem and you'd start the process on day one. >> yes. >> president reagan said the same thing. he wants to move the embassy. both president bushs said the same thing. when they took office, they didn't do it citing security concerns. why do you think you would be different? >> i will do what i say. we will move the embassy to jerusalem. and you're right. republicans and democrats have said this for year after year after year. and it's actually u.s. law. in every other country on earth -- >> but there is a waiver in there. every six months the president
of the united states can sign a waiver saying i'm not doing it for national security. every president has done that. >> we've had presidents who have exercised their waiver. today at aipac, hillary clinton and donald trump promised to move the embassy to jerusalem. everyone watching them knows if they get into the whourks they'll exercise the waiver and won't move it to jerusalem. hillary's husband bill clinton, that's what he did is exercise the waiver. the difference is when i say i'm going to do something, i do it. >> irrespective of the consequences, the ang ter would generate, the security concerns it could cause the diplomatic repercussions from the rest of the arab world. >> the difference is when i say it, i say it taking the consequences into account. it's not just empty campaign rhetoric. but rather on day one, beginning the process of moving the embassy to jerusalem, sends a message both to our friends and allies. to our friends for seven years the obama administration hasn't stood with us.
let me explain this. this is important. we have been abandoning and alienating our friends and allies. moving the embassy to jerusalem makes a statement that america is back. and it also makes a statement to the enemies, yes, many in the arab world would be very upset. iran will be furious at moving the embassy to jerusalem. and it makes a statement to the radical islamic terrorists who want to kill us that america will stand up to them. the era of appeasement is over. >> today donald trump suggested that the u.s. should reconsider its role in nato diminish that role, stop spending all that money for nato commitments. do you agree? >> i don't. i found his remarks really quite astonishing. >> why? >> to suggest he'd voluntarily weaken nato either withdraw america from nato or decrease our involvement from -- >> he didn't say withdraw. he said decrease. >> he wasn't clear on the details. >> germany has more of an
interest there than the united states. >> donald in all likelihood has no awairness with nithis. ukraine used to be the third largest nuclear country on the face of the earth. ukraine voluntarily gave up its nuclear weapons because the united states of america came in and said if you hand over those nuclear weapons, we will ensure your territorial integrity from russia. we made a commitment. then the obama administration has broken its word. what nation on earth that has nukes would ever voluntarily give it up again? i bet you dollars to doughnuts donald trump has no knowledge about any of that. he's not focusod protecting us against nuclear war. and it has been russia's objective, putin's objective for decades to break nato. to break it apart. >> he says it's a u.s. problem. germany and other nato allies have a bigger interest than the united states. >> that is so -- >> the money that could be spent here as opposed to over there. >> that's hopelessly naive.
what donald trump is saying is that he would unilaterally surrender to russia and putin. give putin a massive foreign policy victory by breaking nato and abandoning europe. that's going backwards. you know who would agree with that? barack obama. trump's policy idea is entirely consistent with obama withdrawing from -- >> withdrawing from where? >> europe. when you saw leaders of the world marching with paris and singularly absent was america. obama wasn't there. kerry wasn't there. nobody was there. that reflects obama's leading from behind. trump's foreign policy is the obama/hillary leading from behind. he said we need to withdraw from the whole world. this is a dangerous world. if america withdraws we get the chaos obama/clinton has produced. >> let's talk about your national security advisers. you released a list of your
foreign policy advisers. frank apney was on that list. former deputy secretary of defense. he said mr. obama say muslim. the muslim brotherhood placed operatives throughout the federal government. that saddam hussein probably was behind the oklahoma city bombing. that chris christie may have been complicit in treason by appointing a muslim american to new jersey's state judiciary. is this someone whose views you agree with? >> wolf, i recognize that folks in the media get really nervous when you actually call out radical islamic terrorism. frank gaffney is someone i respect. he's a serious thinker who has been focused on fighting jihadism. fighting jihadism across the globe. and he's endured attacks from the left, from the media because he speaks out against radical islamic terrorism and speaks out against, for example, the political correctness of the obama administration that effectively gets in bed with the muslim brotherhood.
it's a terrorist organization. >> when he said in 2009 barack hussein obama would have to be considered america's first muslim president. do you agree with him on that? >> i don't know what he said in 2009. >> i read to you the quote. >> i don't have the full quote. here's every quote, every person supporting you, do you agree with every statement. that's silliness. here's my view. we need a commander in chief that defends america. and defending america means defeating radical islamic trump and defeating isis. what is completely unreasonable is barack obama and hillary clinton's consistent pattern of refusing to even say the words radical islamic terrorism. when we see a terror attack -- let me finish this point. when we see a terror attack in paris and san bernardino and president obama says, gosh, i didn't realize people were upset. i guess i wasn't watching the cable news and then gives a national tv conference where he doesn't call out radical islamic terrorists but instead lectures americans on islam phobia.
we need a commander in chief keeping us safe. >> i want to be precise. >> people are fed up with this silliness. >> would he be considered your national security adviser? >> frank is one of a number of people part of the team advising me. i appreciate his good counsel. >> so these statement ooze. >> frank has been leading the effort to focus on the threat of an electro magnetic pulse which would be a nuclear weapon detonated in the atmosphere that could take down our electrical grid. could kill tens of millions of americans. and all iran would have to do is fire one nuke into the atmosphere. they just need to get it above the eastern seaboard and they could kill tens of millions. that is valuable work. and i'm cur yurks wolf. when does the media focus on threats like an emp? >> we focus on a lot of that. he says there's on some compelling circumstantial evidence of saddam hussein's iraq being involved with the people who perpetrated the 1993
attack on the world trade center and even the oklahoma city bombing. you are a smart guy. have you seen any circumstantial evidence to back that up? >> i am not going to play the gotcha game of every quote every adviser may have given. you are welcome to throw them out. >> that was in 2009. >> i'm interested in talking about the problems in this country. this is silliness. let's focus on real problems facing america. >> let's talk about cuba. >> great. >> president obama is in cuba right now. you are a cuban american as we all know. you've said you would shut down the u.s. embassy in cuba if elected president. would you also term nat what u.s. businesses are now doing in cuba immediately upon taking office? >> i would enforce the law. and federal law prohibits doing business with cuba. and there's a reason for this. to understand what obama is doing in cuba you have to put it in broader context. today obama is there in cuba with movie stars and rock stars. and the far left has always glamorized the castros in cuba.
they are chic and gevara was such a young looking revolutionary. a homicidal maniac who tortured people. but he looked good. and as barack obama is sitting there sipping mojitos with brutal communist dictators, he can't be bothers to meet the dissidents or visit with the ladies in white or hear the screams of oppression. and what obama is doing in cuba is very much the same as what he's doing in iran. he's giving over $100 billion to the ayatollah khomeini, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism who chants death to america. and cuba he's giving billions of dollars to the castros. communist dictators -- >> you'd reverse all of that? >> we should be standing up to enemies of america and shouldn't give billions of dollars to people who hate us and want to kill us. this is not -- >> the cuban people don't hate us. >> he's giving the money -- >> but the cuban people will ben put it from all this investment
coming in. >> no, they won't. if you look at cuba. every dollar goes to the government. and what this will do is it will strengthen the repressive regime of fidel and raul castro. it will increase cuba spreading terrorism throughout latin america and anti-americanism. my family has fursthand experience with this. my dad was imprisoned and tortured by batista in cuba. and my tia sonia was imprisoned by castro's goons. and a couple of years ago, i had the privilege of meeting with sharansky, the famed dissident. described how in the gulog when raugan was president, that they would pass from cell to cell notes. did you hear what president reagan said? evil empire. ash heap of history. tear down this wall. there is power to the president standing up and speaking the truth to evil. and what this president does is exactly the opposite.
he abandons our friends and shows weakness and appeasement and gives billions to our enemies who hate us. it's exactly backwards. >> let's talk about miracles. >> okay. >> you said today there is proof that the god of abraham,u zach and jacob still produce miracles. lindsey graham held a fund-raiser for you here in washington. that's a pretty big miracle. >> just a few weeks ago he was openly calling for my murder, so that's a remarkable thing. listen, i like lindsey. he's got a wonderful sense of humor. he's a passionate supporter of israel. and lindsey reflects he's part of what we're seeing more broadly across the country. we're seeing republicans uniting behind this campaign, coming together. we're seeing republicans -- the full spectrum from lindsey graham and mitt romney to mike lee and mark levin. now that's a broad spectrum across the full coalition of republicans are uniting behind our campaign. our campaign is the only
campaign that has repeatedly beaten and that can and will beat donald trump. >> one republican not on that list is a republican presidential front-runner. listen to what he said about you over the weekend. >> he was born in canada, lived there four years. he was a citizen of canada 15 or 16 months ago. he was a citizen of canada. can you believe it? he became a united states senator and then said, i didn't know i was a citizen of canada. lying ted. lying ted. he didn't know. lying ted. lying ted. one of the biggest liars i've ever seen in my life. i really mean it. he walks in, the evangelicals are with me because they know one thing about me. i'm not a liar. but ted cruz walks in, bible high, bible high, puts it down and he starts lying. >> all right. your response. >> listen, every time donald
gets scared, he begins lashing out, attacking. he begins insulting, yelling. often begins cursing. i'm surprised he didn't curse in that particular riff. that will change. and, you know, i will say this. donald's campaign, his entire campaign is built on a lie. i understand the people who are supporting him. >> what's the lie? >> let me explain. i understand the people supporting donald. they are frustraitted with washington. with politicians in both parties that have been lying to us that make promises and go to washington and do the exact opposite of what they said. but if you are fed up with washington, with the corruption of washington, then it doesn't make any sense to support donald trump who has been immeshed in the corruption of washington. the lie behind donald's campaign is that he'll stand up to washington. he is the system. donald trump and hillary clinton are flip sides of the same coin. donald trump has made billions buying influence in washington. hillary clinton has made
millions selling influence in washington. and donald trump has supported liberal democratic politicians for 40 years from jimmy carter to john kerry to joe biden, chuck schumer, harry reid and hillary clinton as a presidential campaign. and donald trump has enriched himself using government power. and in every instance, donald believes government is the solution. whether it was supporting the wall street bailout, which he did. he supported obama's bailout. supporting the obama stimulus plan. or using eminent domain to take the homes of little old ladies or to try to do so in order to build a parking lot for his casinos. >> even though he calls you lying ted, you've just heard it right there, i asked him if he might consider you as his vice presidential running mate if he gets the republican nomination. and he said crazier things happen in politics. here's the question. are you open to being his vice presidential running mate? >> i have zero interest whatsoever in this. and listen, if donald trump is
the nominee, it's a disaster. hillary wins. donald may be the only candidate on the face of the planet that hillary clinton can beat in a general election. and the stakes are too high. if you are fed up with illegal imgrags, donald trump funded the gang of eight that pushed the massive amnesty plan. i led the opposition to it. if you are fed up with wages being driven down by illegal immigration, donald trump has supported open border democrats for 40 years. and if you are unhappy with the economic stagnation, with the job loss caused by obamacare, donald trump funded harry reid and nancy pelosi taking over the congress which led to obamacare. >> so far about half the states have voted in republican primaries and caucuses. he has 2 million more votes than you have. people have spoken. >> the people have spoken. n what they have said, we started with 17 candidates. it was a wonderful diverse, talented, young dynamic field.
it's now narrowed. this is effectively a two-person race. only two candidates with any plausible path to winning the nomination and getting 1,237, me and donald trump. >> if he gets close and you are much further behind and he has millions more votes, do you think he should get the nomination? >> my object sufficient to win 1,237 delegates. >> let's say you don't -- >> the hypothetical you're giving is totally fanciful nod not going to happen. one of two scenarios. i believe we're going to win 1,237 delegates before the convention. the second outcome far more likely is nobody gets to 1,237 and we go to the convention with donald having a bunch of delegates and me having a bunch of delegates. and we'll be neck and neck. the convention is going to decide. they're not going to do what people in washington want which is bring in a white horse who wasn't on the ballot, wasn't running. that's not going to happen. the delegates are going to decide between donald and me.
if we go in with a bunch of delegates each, i believe we win that and win that by earning the support of the delegates elected through the democratic process. >> a politico report saying your campaign, the cruz campaign, is exploring the possibility of forming a unity ticket with marco rubio. you are smiling, laughing. that you had considered that possibility. >> listen. people write all sorts of things in the media. >> is it true? >> i haven't had any conversation with marco about that. that is not accurate. our staff hasn't had any conversation with marco's staff. a lot of people have suggested that marco and i should join forces. i think very, very highly of marco. he's a friend. he's talented. incredible communicator. and he inspired millions in this campaign. and what we are seeing right now is the overwhelming majority of the rubio supporters are coming to support -- >> sounds like you think that could be a good idea. >> we welcome marco's supporters with open arms, and i would
enthusiastically welcome marco's support. i think very, very highly of him. but what we're seeing, that is a manifestation and i would enthusiastically welcome john kasich's support. we're seen republicans come together. 65% to 70% of republicans recognize that donald trump would be a disaster. that he loses to hillary. if hillary wins, we lose the supreme court for a generation, lose the bill of rights and our kids are burrreyed in trillions more debt. >> if trump is the nominee, will you support him? >> i've said many times, yes. that's a commitment i made. as we startod moving the embassy to jerusalem. when i say i'm going to do something, i do exactly what i said. but let me be clear. donald trump is not going to be the nominee because that hands the general election to hillary. our campaign is the only one that's beaten him nun times all over the country and we're seeing republicans come together and unite and we're going to keep on winning primaries and caucuses going in order, including i hope we do very well in utah and arizona coming up tomorrow. >> senator, thank you very much.
>> thank you. god bless. >> senator ted cruz. coming up the republican front-runner donald trump. our cnn election special, the final five continues in a moment. (music plays) hi i'm kristie and i'm jess. and we are the bug chicks. we are a nano-business. windows 10 really helps us get the word out about how awesome bugs are. kids learn to be brave and curious and all kids speak the language of bug. "hey cortana, find my katydid video" oh! this is so good. (laughs) if you're trying to teach a kid about a proboscis just sketch it on the screen. i don't have a touch screen on my mac, i'm jealous of that. (laughs) you put a big bug in a kids hands and change their world view. (laughs) it's more than tit's security - and flexibility. it's where great ideas and vital data are stored. with centurylink you get advanced technology solutions from a trusted it partner. including cloud and hosting services -
all backed by an industry leading broadband network and people committed to helping you grow your business. you get a company that's more than just the sum of it's parts. centurylink. your link to what's next. rheumatoid arthritis like me,e and you're talking to a rheumatologist about a biologic... this is humira. this is humira helping to relieve my pain and protect my joints from further damage. this is humira helping me reach for more. doctors have been prescribing humira for more than ten years. humira works for many adults. it targets and helps to block a specific source of inflammation that contributes to ra symptoms. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common,
and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. talk to your doctor and visit humira.com. this is humira at work. alriwe could do tacos.hink boys? we could do some thai. ooo... how 'bout sushi, eh? (dog yawns) no, we're not having barbecue... again. (dog groans) why? because you're on four legs, and i'm on two... and i'm driving. that's why. (dog whines) sushi it is. lease a 2016 lincoln navigator for $599 a month only at your lincoln dealer.
welcome back too to our sprus with the final five candidates. coming up we'll hear from hillary clinton and bernie sanders, senator from vermont. you'll also hear from donald trump coming up in just a few minutes. let's get some quick thoughts from our panel so far. we heard from senator kasich and senator cruz. >> neither of these guys are getting out any time soon. and kasich believes he's the most electable. doesn't sound like cruz actually wants to be on the ticket with donald trump when wolf was talking to him -- >> kasich either. >> and these things can change, of course. but cruz in particular seemed to be really belilling donald trump's grasp of foreign policy
tremendously. >> john king, cruz such more willing to go after donald trump than john kasich is. >> kasich has decided i'm going to be the nice guy and somehow try to parlay my ohio win into more delegates. tell me where he's going to win. they do hope the schedule is west this week. arizona, which is winner take all. if donald trump gets those, his path continues. utah could be important. if ted cruz can get above 50%, he gets all those delegates. he's saying he'll make a play in wisconsin. where is he going to win? i don't know. they all seem to hope, keep hoping for this moment and this meeting of aipac, the pro-israel group, they hope this moment where people say donald trump is not up to it. not ready for it. >> hasn't happened yet. >> nia? >> you look at our poll and for 70% say kasich should probably drop out of this race. and also look at the trajectory of donald trump, something like 12% in june.
he's at like 47% now. and all along the way they've had this hope and dream and plan to -- that he would implode or something would happen that the anti-trump or never trump movement would work and it never has. >> i was at aipac this afternoon and there's no question john kasich gave a very rousing speech. he had the entire place, which was tens of thousands of people on their feet applauding. he gave a speech like i haven't seen before and donald trump did as well. and the whole room was -- >> donald trump actually gave a speech. >> from a teleprompter. and the room didn't know what to do with it. that was not the donald trump they were used to seeing on television for six months. one thing about john kasich what he said to you was about the fact that he believes firmly believes that once he gets the convention floor if there is no nominee that the delegates will turn around and look at the poll that you just showed that he's the most electable and that's why he's going to buckle in and -- >> coming up next the republican front-runner weighs in. donald trump joins us in the cnn
♪ (cell phone rings) where are you? well the squirrels are back in the attic. mom? your dad won't call an exterminator... can i call you back, mom? he says it's personal this time... if you're a mom, you call at the worst time. it's what you do. if you want to save fifteen percent or more on car insurance, you switch to geico. it's what you do. where are you? it's very loud there. are you taking a zumba class?
welcome back to our cnn election special. the final five. joining us now, the republican presidential front-runner, donald trump. mr. trump, thanks for joining us. this is your first day in washington in quite a while. there's a lot of focus today on foreign policy. let me ask you about u.s. participation in nato. do you think the united states needs to rethink u.s. involvement in nato? >> yes, because it's costing us too much money. and frankly they have to put up more money. they'll have to put some up also. we're playing disproportionately. it's too much. and frachkly it's a different world than it was when we originally conceived of the idea. and everybody got together. but we're taking care of as an example the ukraine. the countries over there don't seem to be so interested. we're the ones taking the brunt of it. we have to reconsider, keep nato, but maybe we have to pay a lot less toward the nato itself.
>> when you say keep nato, nato has been around since right after world war ii in 1949. a cornerstone of u.s. national security around the world. nato allies hear you say that, they'll not be happy. >> they may not be happy but they have to help us also. it has to be -- we are paying disproportionately. and very importantly, if you use ukraine as an example, and that's a great example, the country surrounding ukraine don't seem to care as much about it as we do. so there has to be at least a change in philosophy and in the cutout, the money, the spread because it's too much. >> you are suggesting the united states should decrease its role? >> not decrease its role but certainly the spending. we're spending a tremendous amount in nato and other people proportionately less. no good. >> what do you say to allies watching and they're not happy with what you're saying. >> they're not happy? we're spending a fortune. we're spending tremendous amounts of money. you look at countries that
circle other countries. they aren't as bothered by it as we are. you have to make them happy. but the kind of money -- we owe $19 trillion. going to be $21 trillion soon with the crazy omnibus budget they just passed, which is ridiculous. we can't afford to do all of this anymore to the same extent. that was a different time, a different age. >> let's talk about what you told "the washington post" earlier. you suggested the u.s. should be noninterventionist. in our last debate you suggested maybe the u.s. would have to deploy 20,000 or 30,000 troops in iraq and syria to destroy isis. >> what i said is that they tell me, the military tells me, you need 20 or 30,000 troops. i wouldn't deploy 20,000. i'd get people from that part of the world to put up the troops and certainly give them air power and air support and some military support. but i would never put up 20,000 or 30,000. >> the military commander said, we need 20,000 or 30,000 troops to destroy isis. send them in to iraq and syria,
you would say -- you said in the debate you'd listen to the generals. >> i do listen to the generals. i'd much rather have people in the local area put up the troops. that's very important. we've had -- look. we've spent $2 trillion at least in iraq. we're spending trillions of dollars in the middle east. you know where we are now? further back than 15 years popping the middle east is a disaster for us. and in the meantime our country is crumbling. we have a country that the roads are no good. the hospitals are no good. the airports are third world airports. look at laguardia and kennedy and l.a.x. and all of the airports. and you go to other countries. dubai and qatar and these countries, it's like unbelievable. wolf, we have to rebuild our country. >> let's talk about the subject of your speech today at aipac. hillary clinton spoke this morning at the aipac conference. listen to what she said. listen to this. >> we need steady hands, not a president who says he's neutral
on monday, pro-israel on tuesday and who knows what on wednesday because everything is negotiable. well, my friends, israel's security is non-negotiable. >> she's talking about you. what's your response? >> i agree on the last statement. it's non-negotiable. frankly, she is -- just doesn't know me. she doesn't know my policy. she doesn't know what i'm going to be doing. >> she said you don't have steady hands. >> i have the steadiest hands. far steadier than hers. look where she got us. look at libya, thinge migration. look at the job. probably in history, although i think john kerry may even be worse. i'm not sure after the iran deal, but look at what she's done. >> she's referring to your comment that you wanted to be neutral as a negotiator to try
to achieve an israeli-palestinian peace agreement. >> i would love to be neutral if it's possible. it's probably not possible because there's so much hatred. there is so much going on. i am very pro-israel. i've always been pro-israel. i have many awards from israel. many, many awards. i've contributed a lot of money to israel. there's nobody more pro-israel than i am. >> what do the palestinians need to do for u.s. president to be neutral in trying to achieve a peace agreement? >> i would love to achieve a peace agreement. >> what do the palestinians need to do? >> they have to end terror. they have to stop with the ter op because what they are doing with the missiles and the stabbings and all of the other things they do, it's horrible. and they've got to -- it's got to end. now i have many, many friends from israel and jewish friends. everybody wants to see peace. it seems to be the all-time olympics in peace -- in a deal. can you make that deal between
israel and the palestinians? i think the answer is maybe. >> what else can they do besides stopping terror. >> the primary thing is stopping terror. one thing they have to do is stop the stabbings, the weapons, the military. what they are doing is incredible. they killed a young man, a young soldier last week. they stabbed him. this is crazy. now from the time they are born, they are educated a certain way. it's got to change. there's a bad mind-set going on. >> back in december you seemed to question whether israel would be willing to make the concessions it would need to make to achieve a two-state solution, israel and palestine. what are you expecting from israel? >> i can say this. i believe that bebe and almost everybody over there wants a deal, wants some deal done. >> would you want israel to stop
building settlements in east jerusalem in the west bachk? >> the biggest thing from my standpoint is there has to be a different way, a different attitude because of all the deals that i've ever seen, this is the one that's the most difficult. not the iran deal, which was a horrible deal and we wouldn't want a deal like that. i don't like the united nations getting involved in the negotiation. this has to be a deal between the palestinians and israelis. this has to be that. you can't force a deal down the throats of both but you know it will be a bad deal for israel if they do that. so i would veto a deal with the united nations if the united nations forces a deal, i would veto that deal immediately. >> you'd use the u.s. veto at the security council? >> absolutely. that's not what deal making is all about. they have to make their own deal. i'll try as president. everybody has failed. but i will try as president to work out a peace agreement between israel and the palestinians. >> will you recognize jerusalem as israel's capital and move the u.s. embassy from tel aviv to
jerusalem in. >> yes, i would. >> when. how quickly? >> it's a process but fairly quickly. the fact is i would like to see it moved and like to see it in jerusalem. >> hillary clinton at the aipac meeting today also said this referring to you. listen. >> encouraging violence, playing coy with white supremacists, calling for 12 million immigrants to be rounded up and deported, demanding we turn away refugees because of their religion and proposing a ban on all muslims entering the united states. if you see bigotry, oppose it. if you see violence, condemn it. if you see a bully, stand up to him. >> she's talking about you. >> i guess. look, we have to be vigilant. our country is under siege. we're under attack. we're under attack in virtually every way. our economy is falling apart. we're sitting on a big, fat bubble. our trade deals are no good.
our health care is no good. our security is no good. look what happens in our country. people are poring across the border. people that are convicted criminals are pouring across the border. we have to be smart or we're not going to have a country any longer. >> dozens of rab eybis and othe jewish religious leaders are boycotting your speech at aipac. we denounce the bigotry, racism, xenophobia and misogyny expressed by mr. trump. what do you say to those rabbis and others? >> are they going to leave or want to see what i have to say? because i have a very good chance of getting the nomination. i have a very good chance -- >> on the substance, what do you want to say because those are strong words? >> i've heard words. hillary's words which are largely false. although we have to practice vigilance and be smart. we're being very foolish right
now. we can't take in the syrian refugees. we don't know where they come from. there's no paperwork. are they isis? isis related? >> what's your message to these rabbis and others so concerned about the words they've heard from you over these many months? >> my message to the rabbis is that i'm going to be great for israel. i am very pro-israel. the grand marshal of the israeli day parade a number of years ago when nobody else would have done it because it was a bad and dangerous time for israel. i will be very good for israel. now president obama, the worst president that israel has ever -- i mean there's been nothing. probably one of the worst things that's happened to israel is president obama's election. if the rabbis want to leave, if some of them want to leave, that's okay. but the people that really understand me and they understand israel, they know i'm going to be the best -- >> their condemnation is about bigotry, racism, xenophobia and misogyny. >> or let's call it intelligence. we have to be careful.
we have to be careful who we allow into the country. we've had tremendous problems. look what happened in california recently with the woman who comes in radicalizes the guy. they walk into their workplace and kill 14 people. look what happened in pauris, france. >> you've disavowed david duke and the ku klux klan several times now. >> i have. >> why do you think these various white supremacists out there are supporting your campaign? >> i don't know. i am the least racist person you'll ever meet so i don't know. i don't know they really are. you are telling me that's. >> the adl put out a list of ten white supremacists, neo-nazis, anti-semites out there working, support your campaign. >> you are telling me this but i don't know why. i'm certainly the least racist person. >> but you condemn them? >> of course i condemn them. always. i've always condemned them. >> you don't want their support. >> i don't want their support. i don't need their support. >> let's talk about cuba right now. historic moment.
president of the united states is in cuba as we speak right now. the first time in 88 years that an american president has gone to cuba. if you are elected president, would you continue to normalize economic and diplomatic relations with cuba? >> probably so but i'd want much better deals. i expect that cuba is expecting to be bring august major lawsuit against us for all the problems we've caused them over the last long period of time. for billions and billions of dollars. naturally before i did anything as to normalization i'd make them sign something that no way that suit is going to be brought. i thought it was very disrespectful when the president of the united states flies into cuba last night and castro wasn't there to meet him. wasn't there to meet him. he met the pope. he meets other leaders of much smaller countries. much less important countries. and he wasn't there to meet the president getting off of air force one. i thought that was a very big sleight. i don't know how obama felt
about that. i think that's was a very, very big sleight. >> so you say you'll continue to try to normalize diplomatic and economic relations. would you open a trump hotel in havana? >> i would. i would. at the right time, when we're allowed to do it. right now we're not. i wouldn't do it with 49% interest. right now you get 49% interest. no one knows what the economics are or what they're going to do. maybe it won't work out, but i will tell you, cuba has certain potential, and it's okay to bring cuba into the fold but you have to make a much better deal and get all liabilities. you don't want to be sued in a year from now or two years from now for $4 trillion because they say we destroyed cuba. it has to be part of the deal. >> you are here in washington once again. furst time in a while. you met with members of congress today. you are seen as an outsider. is there a turning point you see right now happening in your race for the white house? as a result of your success? >> i think the turning point has already taken place.
i won florida by 20 points against a very popula sitting senator. i won other states, i've won now just about 22 -- >> are you anxious to work with the so-called establishment with members of the senate, members of the house and try to -- >> wolf, many of them want to work with me. they are calling my office. >> but not the leaders. they didn't come to the meeting. they were other members -- >> we'll see how the leaders react. the leaders have called me. i've spoken to mitch mcconnell, paul ryan. we'll see what happens. >> do you think you should have invited paul ryan, mitch mcconnell to the meeting today? >> this was just a meeting of some respectful people. senator jeff sessions is a tremendous man. one of the most respected senators in the country. and meeting of some senators, some congressmen and women. i think it was a very good meeting. >> john kasich, the ohio governor, republican presidential candidate, said this on cnn. listen. >> everybody's got to face the fact that we're going to an open
multiballot convention. i won ohio because of my message and my record. and guess what, as a result of that, donald trump is going to go -- not going to go to the convention with enough delegates. >> your response? >> i disagree. 50 of a first of all, i almost beat him. had i had one more day or two more days i would have beaten him. that night i won five states between states and islands. i won five. i don't think anyone has ever done that. and it was a very, very close race. but because i won so many others, it really nullified it, neutralized it because i watched your reports. and i think i will win and perhaps easily without having to go through the machinations. >> let's say you show up in cleveland and don't have the magic number of 1,237 to be guaranteed on the first ballot. let's say you are 20 or 100 short. the chairman of the republican party reince priebus says that
that's not the rules. they would have to go along with the rules. what would happen if you are just short? >> well, i heard him say that. number one, i don't think i'm going to be there. i know they'll -- >> will you go along with the rules? >> let me explain something. it's a little unfair because i have been competing against, we started over 17 people. then we go down to 15 and 12 and 11 and 10 and i had many, many people i'm competing with. when you talk about the mairjory plus one, it's unfair. we had so many people running. one would get 2%, 4%. i was always in the lead. just about from the beginning i've been leading. it's very unfair when i have all of these people running. it's not like i'm running against two or throw people. hillary is running against one person. that's very unfair. i'm going to get the majority anyway. >> if you don't, will you abide by the rules? >> i think this. i've had many, many people running against me which -- you understand what i mean.
mathematically, it's unfair. it's almost impossible to believe that i should do that. that i would be able to do that. i think i'll be able to do it. but i will say this. if i was at 1,190, so i'm a little bit off, and i have millions of votes more than anybody else. right now i have 2 million more votes than anybody else running for office by a lot. not even close. >> are you calling on the rnc to change the rules if you're close you should still be the nominee? >> it's going to be very hard for them to do. i have millions more votes than anybody else that's running. again that's also with a lot of people running. so it's more difficult. but i'd say the majority is a tof thing when you have all these people. i had races i guess that started off with -- when they started the primaries there were 12, 14 people, maybe more than that's. i'm supposed to get half? mathematically it's unfair. >> those are the rules. >> well, it's -- look. you are supposes to have three people, two people, one person. crow are supposed to have people, not 17 people running.
>> i want to -- >> i think i'll do it anyway. i think i'll do it. i may do it easily because i think we'll have a big night in arizona and i think we'll do well in wisconsin. but i do say this. it's mathematically unfair. now if i have millions of votes more and have 1,100 and somebody else is down in 400 or 500, i think it's awfully tough to take all of these people out of the system. >> i want to play what house speaker paul ryan said about, you used the word riots if that were to happen. >> nobody should say such things in my opinion because to even address or hint to violence is unacceptable. >> you don't want any violence to emerge, right? >> of course i don't. >> you used the word riots twice. >> i says very simply if that happened, i'll have no part in it, but there could very well be ripopts you know that's true. are we supposed to be so politically correct that we're not allowed -- i have people,
millions and millions of people that have come out. it's the biggest story in world politics today. the number of people that came out. these people are by the millions. you see what's happening with the republicans. >> i want to be precise. will you unequivocally say toior supporters you don't want any violence or riots at the conventions? >> of course i would. 100%. but i have no control over the people. >> you have a lot of control over the people. a lot of your supporters listen closely to what's you are saying. >> these people have been disenfranchised. they lost their jobs. they maybe less money now than 12 years popping people that are working hard and working double jobs are making less money in real dollars than 12 years ago. they are -- they have seen their jobs going to japan and china, mexico. forget it. it's the new china. they are very -- they aren't by nature angry people but right now, they're angry people. >> you can calm them down. >> i don't know that i can. >> with your words. >> i can certainly try.
but they are very angry people. they have been misled by politicians for years. and they are tired of it. and that's why i'm doing so well and it's why i'm leading. >> do you understand why there's a sense of unease about you in the general public right now? >> no, i don't see that. i think i'll do very well in the general and beat hillary very easily and bring in states like michigan that was devastated by job loss. states like -- >> the sense of unsees some of the words you've said, the violence at the campaign rallies that they see on television. riotss outside -- >> we've noted had anybody hurt. i have 21,000 people showed up the other day to arizona. i didn't have one protest. they tried to block the road but outside of the road, once sheriff joe saw the cars he -- >> canceled that whole event in chicago. >> because i didn't want to see violence. i could have gone to that event and there probably would have been some problems. >> you can understand why some
people are nervous. >> i don't really. when i go into those rooms and have by far the biggest crowds and much bigger than bernie. he is second, i agree. much big are than bernie or anybody. we had 21,000 people in arizona. it was like a lovefest. those rooms are wonderful. but here's what happens. sometimes a protester, and i think they are professionals, they get into the room and start raising their voice and they start screaming and sometimes they get physical, very physical. and they start screaming and making noise and it's a disgrace. sometimes they put themselves in front of the entrance doors so people can't get in. sometimes they try and block a car by chaining themselves to a car in the middle of the highway. they are the problem. my people aren't the problem. and the news doesn't cover it. you have agitators. these aren't even protesters. you have agitators. they'll wait for my to make a final point and just before they'll stop screaming at the top of their lungs. people are very upset about it. >> this is a republican superpac, a very negative ad
about you that you've seen i'm sure. >> i'm
sure i'll love seeing it. >> a person who is very flat chested is very hard to be a 10. >> i'd look her right in that fat ugly face of hers. >> look at that face. would anyone vote for that? >> she had the height, the beauty. she was crazy. but these are minor details. >> i like kids. i mean, i won't do anything to take care of them. i'll supply funds and she'll take care of the kids. >> it really doesn't matter what they write as long as you have a young and beautiful piece of [ bleep ]. >> has your language come back to haunt you? >> no. i think people understand. i think people -- first of all, half of that was show business. the dropping to the knees was in "the apprentice." the rosie o'donnell stuff. but i think people understand. look. these politicians, i know them. they say far worse when they are in closed doors or where they are with a group of people that they trust. this -- a lot of that show business stuff, and in florida,
the amazing thing. they spent $38 million in negative ads on me and i
won by a record landslide. pretty amazing. >> but that's not how you feel about women? >> no. nobody respects women more than i do. nobody takes care of women and they take care of me -- >> show business? >> i don't even know what these statements are. nobody respects women more than i do. >> why do you keep -- >> by the way, i'll take care of women with women's health issues far better than hillary clinton who is a totally phony, if she's even allowed to run. >> why do you keep attacking megyn kelly of fox? >> because every night on her show she does negative hits on me. every single night. frankly, if she didn't, her ratings would drop down far lower than yours. >> do you think it's appropriate to geet about her and call her crazy on twitter? >> she hits me. she's got a television show. when it's unfair, i hit her
back. she was fair in the second debate. i thought she was okay. could have done a little better, but that's okay. i thought she was fine in the second debate. people asked me, what did you think of megyn kelly? i thought she was fine. every night the show is like an infomercial and always negative stuff. always. not fair. so i will fight back with twitter. i will let people know she's a third rate talent. i'll say what i have to say. but it's not fair that -- let her not talk about me. by the way, seriously, if she didn't talk about me, her ratings would go down like a rock. >> fox news issued an extraordinary statement. vitriolic attacks against megyn kelly and extreme sick obsession with her is beneeths the dignity of a presidential candidate. >> she's got the obsession. she puts me on her show every night. look at her show and the air time i get on her show and i don't do her show. she wants me to do it so badly. roger ails wants me to do it.
they want a primetime special on fox network where megyn kelly interviews me. i say what's in it for me? what do i get out of that? you'll get great ratings. what's do i get out of it? they want a presumetime special. i won't do it. she should do somebody else. if she didn't do me, watch what happens to her. watch. now in the meantime, she's benefited greatly. hotter now than ever before because of me. she should give me at least half of her salary. >> let's talk about a few other issues before i let you go. before you lost iowa to ted cruz, you had a good relationship with him. is it at all realistic if you get the nomination you could call on this man, you call him lying ted, to be your vice presidential running mate? >>i crazier things happen in politics. >> so you aren't ruling that out? >> i don't want to rule out anything. i think it's probably unlikely. i had a relationship when i said when is it going to come? at some point it had to come.
and we were essentially with the last two standing because john is you know, is not doing so well. i mean he's 1 for 28. he won his state and not by much. he won his state so he's 1 for 28. he's in it because he's, you know, a guy that doesn't want to get out. >> you recently said hillary clinton has low energy, very low energy. doesn't have the stamina to be president. you are roughly the same age as hillary clinton. why do you say that? >> she doesn't have the stamina. you watch her life, how she'll go away for three, four days, come back. she'll go. i just don't think she has the stamina. we've got to beat china in trade, we've got to beat isis. i say she does not have the stamina to be a good president. plus she's always good problems whether it's whitewater or e-mails or -- it's always drama. it should end. it should end. she shouldn't even be running. she shouldn't be ark loud to run based on the e-mails. she's being protected. but hillary clinton does not
have the stamina, doesn't have the energy. doesn't have it. doesn't have the strength to be president in my opinion. >> mr. trump, thanks for joining us. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. coming up, we'll turn to the democratic presidential candidates. hillary clinton is coming up. much more right after this. it's more than a network and the cloud. it's reliable uptime. and multi-layered security. it's how you stay connected to each other and to your customers. with centurylink you get advanced technology solutions, including an industry leading broadband network, and cloud and hosting services - all with dedicated, responsive support. with centurylink as your trusted technology partner, you're free to focus on growing your business. centurylink. your link to what's next. i'm bushed! i've been on my feel alyea me too. excuse me...coming through! ride the gel wave of comfort with dr. scholls massaging gel insoles. they're proven to give you comfort. which helps you feel more energized
...all day long. i want what he has. they carry your fans' passions, shouhopes, and dreamscarry pads. and maybe, a chance at greatness... because shoulders were made for greatness. not dandruff find fast relief behind the counter allergies with nasal congestion? with claritin-d. [ upbeat music ] strut past that aisle for the allergy relief that starts working in as little as 30 minutes and contains the best
oral decongestant. live claritin clear, with claritin-d. when the doctors don't you know it's not good. when i went out i had to put on a wig...i had no hair... ...then when i got home, i got to take everything off and just be me. two days before christmas i found out i was cancer free. we live carefree and where we're happy, and...that's home. whatever home means to you, we'll help you find it. zillow. isn't like last saturday. [ indistinct shouting ] bulk from boxed won't only save you money, it will save saturday. [ pop, screech, doorbell rings ] boxed -- bulk-size shopping delivered easy with no membership fees.
welcome back to our election special, the final five candidates. joining me the democratic front-runner hillary clinton. thank you for being with us. >> great to be here. >> you reiterated your support for the iran deal. aipac opposes it. netanyahu says it's a mistake. even chuck schumer opposes it. why are they wrong? >> we have put a lid on the iranian nuclear weapons program. almost all of their enriched uranium sout of the country. the centrifuges have stopped spinning. we have detection measures that will give us fair warning.
so i think on balance it was the right step to take. but i've also said look. i gave a speech last summer in which i made clear the slightest infraction needs to have consequences. i believe it's not trust and verify. it's distrust and verify. so i think we have to focus now on a lot of iranian aggressive behavior while we enforce the agreement on the nuclear weapons program. i think that puts us in a stronger and better position going forward. >> you took a shot at donald trump during the speech, not by name. i want to play for our viewers what's you said and ask you about it. >> we need steady hands, not a president who says he's neutral on monday, pro-israel on tuesday and who knows what on wednesday because everything's negotiable. some things aren't negotiable. and anyone who doesn't understand that has no business
being our president. >> do you think he's not qualified to be president? >> well, i am quoting him. i think it's important to listen to what he says. you have to take him at his word, so to speak. he has been engaging in bigotry and bluster and bullying and i think when it comes to understanding what he would do as president, there are serious questions that have been raised in this campaign. should he be the nominee, we'll have to address them. >> you're saying he's a bully? >> i think his behavior certainly qualifies for that. i think his incitement of violence, his constant urging on of his supporters in large numbers to go after protesters. his saying i want to punch people in the face and telling somebody who did punch somebody, i will pay your legal bills. i think that raises very serious questions. >> he says that as president, there would be a different tone.
that he'd have a more presidential tone. you've known him for a long time. is there a different donald trump in there? >> who knows. you present yourself to the country the way he's presented himself to the country over the last many months, calling mexican immigrants rapists and criminals. saying john mccain was not a war hero. being reluctant to denounce the ku klux klan and david duke, and the list goes on and on. so for me, i think you have to take him at his word at how he's behaved and what he has said. if you do that, then i think people have questions that deserve answers. >> he makes much about his deal making abilities, his negotiating skills. are the skills used in business the same as that are used in state craft? are they applicable? >> well, if you run a business, and i've heard this from many, many business leaders, you have much more authority and control
over your employees than if you are the president or the leader of a democracy. political decision making, listening to the full range of voices and opinions is something that our founders highly valued, as do i. so i think there is in general a difference and i think a lot of the behavior we've seen from him raised some specific questions about what he would do. >> you have said at one point that you were the -- i think it was the disignated yeller in chief in relationships with prime minister netanyahu. you had a front row seat at the sometimes contentious relationship under the obama administration. how would you be better? how would your relationship with israel be better? >> well, as i said in my speech today, and it really is built on my many years going back to the first time i went to israel 35 years ago and the work that i've done, the people that i've known and admired, i am staunchly in
favor of israel's security. and although we may have differences, which we do, i believe in treating those in a respectful manner, candid but respectful, which is what i have done in the past. and i think my firm commitment to israel's security puts me on a very strong foundation to deal with whatever the questions might be in the relationship. but more importantly, we have to stand against what's happening in the broader region, which i think is not just a threat to israel but a threat to our other partners in the region and even to the united states. >> what was the disconnect under the obama administration? >> i'm not going to go into that. i think the president has made ministration, israel has been a given an enormous amount of defensive capabilities. i mentioned the iron dome
missile defense system which has worked very well against the rockets coming from gaza by hamas, and there have been differences. but i think in general, the relationship remains very strong and central to american foreign policy. >> you said today you'd invite the prime minister within the first couple of days of taking office. >> i've known him a long time. that's one of my advantages. >> is it true you yell at each other? >> i'd say we engage in vigorous discussion. and i like that. look, we have a raucous democracy. israel has a raucous democracy. i think those of us who are in the midst of the political activities in both of our countries understand that a give and take between friends is the best and most honest way to come to any resolution. so, yes, i have had my disagreements, but i've also never strayed from my strong commitment to israel's security.
>> would you move the u.s. embassy to jerusalem? >> that's something that really has to be looked at in the context of a two-state solution. and i've always said that. i've always supported that as a first lady, as a senator, as secretary of state. >> would you commit to using the u.s. veto power over the security council to protect israel? >> yes, i would. >> no matter what? >> well, look. the talk now, you know, i can't predict everything in the future but in general the answer is yes. but the talk now is to somehow try to use the u.n. through the security council to impose parameters on a settlement between israel and the palestinians. number one, i don't think it works. and i don't think that's the place for it to be hashed out. it has to be between the two parties. and, remember, i was the last person who brought prime minister netanyahu and president abbas together for three face-to-face meetings in 2010. the fact that i sat there and it was just george mitchell and me and president abbas and prime
minister netanyahu and i watched the interaction and listened to the issues that they were debating actually gave me more encouragement and commitment to keep pursuing a two-state solution. >> ted cruz is talking about on day one of taking the office if he becomes president of authorizing the movement of the embassy to jerusalem. what's your -- what's -- why wouldn't you do that? >> because i think that would end any chance for a two-state solution. and i think it would, in the midst of a very dangerous region right now with many threats, not just aimed at israel but aimed at jordan, for example, that turkey and lebanon and egypt and others are coping with. it would light a fire that would add fuel to the flame of what's already so threatening in the region. i don't think it accomplishes any purpose that would lead us to a two-state solution but instead it could make it even more dangerous for israel. i'm not about to sign off on
that. >> president obama is in cuba right now. they've been cracking down on dissent in advance of his arrival. they are still protecting this woman who is the aunt of tupac shakur convicted of murdering a new jersey police officer. the state department claims it's in talks with cuba to negotiate her return but her attorney is saying skuban officials have assured him her political asylum will not be revoked. should president obama have made her return part of the deal? >> i think what he did was to get an intelligence official, as well as we got the return, not part of the deal, but in addition, alan gross. and having been involved in some of those negotiations while i was still secretary of state, you push as hard as you can to get as much as you can. and i support the president's efforts to move the relationship forward. i think it's good for the cuban people. i want them to have democracy and freedom. and i also want human rights
respected. and i know that the president will be meeting with some dissidents, and i highly approve of that. and i think we have to continually raise the issues of all of the dissidents. and that's what i hope he does, and i will certainly continue to do that. >> i want to talk about isis. according to a police report obtained by "the new york times," authorities in europe say the paris attackers used encrypted communications devices during the massacre there. if that is accurate, do you believe it proves that major tech companies, most notably apple, should cooperate with the u.s. and other governments on unlocking terrorist phones? >> i really want to see a resolution to this. now it's caught up in the legal process, as you know. and i've said for many months, there has to be some way to protect our real physical security, to prevent terrorist attacks, to track down perpetrators while we protect online security. i think we've got a lot of really smart people in our tech
community, in our government who somehow have to come to terms with this. because it is a serious problem for law enforcement. and it's also a problem for the tech companies. >> your critics say you're trying to have it both ways. you aren't taking a side between the government or private sector. >> try to solve harder decisions like the ones i've solved. you have to keep working a problem until you get some break in that. >> you don't think it is an either/or? >> i hope it's not an either/or. i think it's still too soon to say whether it's an either/or because it's still in the legal process. the federal courts can make all kinds of orders. i don't know what they will decide but at the same time, people working in the tech community also have a stake in preventing terrorist attacks on our shores. and in keeping people safe. how do we do that? and, you know, i think it's important to keep trying to work the problem and trying to find some common ground for people to
work on. >> regarding the supreme court, senator sanders said last week if elected he'd ask president obama to withdraw the nomination of merrick garland so he could nominate a more, in his words, progressive cand daut. is that something you'd ask president obama to do? >> i want to ask the senate to do their constitutional duty. it's time for them to quit the partisan posturing and receive the nominee. have the appropriate process go forward, including hearings, as to whether or not to vote to confirm him. >> if he's still facing nomination when you are -- and you get the nomination, would you ask president obama -- would you continue to push for garland or if elected, would you try to appoint someone of your own? >> i think that is getting way ahead of ourselves. others can say what they want to say. i'm going to keep the pressure on the senate. why would we lift the pressure off? >> would he have been your pick? >> we have one president at a time.
that's something i want the senate to remember. there is one president at a time. barack obama is our president. he has a constitutional responsibility to fill that vacancy. he has exercised it by appointing someone nominating someone that he believes would be a very good, qualified choice. >> do you think he would be a good justice? >> i think he has a tremendous reputation. let's focus on we have one president at the time. he's made his nomination. we have a senate that refuses to fulfill its constitutional obligation. and i believe and hope perhaps, as more to the accuracy, i hope that as this election goes forward and a lot of those republican senators who are up for re-election who are running in states where they are going to face increasing pressure to do the right thing, to stand up and tell their leader, hey, give him a hearing, and let us vote. you don't have to vote for him. you can vote him down but go
through the process. that's what's required. >> last week your daughter was on the campaign trail in salt lake city and implied that you would want to extend obamacare to undocumented immigrants. i want to play what she said so you can respond. >> she thinks it's so important to extend the affordable care act to people who are living and working here, regardless of immigration status, regardless of citizenship status. >> donald trump took to twitter attacking you saying that now you want obamacare for illegal immigrants. are you in favor of extending obamacare to undocumented immigrants? >> there are two steps here. if someone can afford to pay for an insurance policy off the exchanges that were set up under the affordable care act, i support that. >> even if they are undocumented? >> if they can afford it, they should be able to go into the marketplace and buy it. but it is not going to apply to people who are in need of
subsidies in order to afford that because the subsidies questions has to be worked out in comprehensive immigration reform. and what i do want to see is that we have more options for undocumented people to be able to get the health care they need. it's not only the right and moral thing to do for them. it's also important that we keep ourselves healthy and public health requires that. so i see this as a two-step process. >> at the debate in miami recently, you were pushed on what you would do with the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently here. you said no more deportations of children. you don't want to deport family members. you want to focus on those who have broken the law. are you saying no more deportations of anybody who hasn't broken -- who is not a violent criminal? won't that just encourage more people to come, if people know there's not any chance they'll be deported as long as they obey the law?
>> people are already here have to be put in a separate category. people who have been here. some of them decades. i want to stop the raids and round-ups. i don't believe we should be breaking up families and deporting mothers and fathers. i think that is, you know, really unnecessary. i want to go after people who have committed violent crimes. i want to go after people who pose a threat to our country's security, absolutely. but i want to get comprehensive immigration reform, and i want to start trying to get it as soon as i am elected president, if i'm so fortunate. >> it's obviously a very difficult situation, but doesn't allowing those who already broke the law in crossing the border illegally to come here, doesn't that reward them for breaking the immigration law? >> there has to be a several step process under comprehensive immigration reform. i do think people have to pay a fine because, yes, they came here without legal authorization. they have to pay a fine. they have to learn english.
they have to be at the end of the line in terms of others who came here legally and are waiting to be processed. but they should be in the pipeline. and they should be given legal authority to work, which i think actually helps the whole economy because you can no longer exploit undocumented workers, pay them less and endanger jobs of others. so i have a whole theory about how we can do this, and i don't see the purpose in breaking up families. i've met a lot of these families, anderson. i've met, you know, people who have been here for one or two decades who have worked who have supported their families, who some kids were born before. a lot of kids were born after. and they are citizens. and, you know, there's a knock on the door and all of a sudden, a father or mother is deported. i think we can send a strong message that we are literally drawing a line between those who have been here so that those who might think, hey, i could fit in
under that line are told, no, they can't. and we have increased defenses along the border. right now there is no net migration from mexico. mexicans have gone back to their home villages and areas. so we know we can do a better job on border security. and then for people who do come, especially from central america, they need to be treated humanely and fairly. they need to be given full due process to see whether they qualify under our laws to be given asylum status. >> a couple of politics questions. you were not doing well with white male voters. you did well in 2008 with them. this time exit polls showed you lost them in all five primaries last week. why do you think >> well, i'm doing really well. you know, right now i have more votes than anybody running. i've got more than 8.5 million
votes, i think, and that's a million more than donald trump and it's 2.5 million more than bernie sanders. so we're going to build on the broad, inclusive coalition that we have and we're going to keep adding to it. >> why do you think among white male voters you have an issue? >> well, i don't know. because i haven't analyzed all of that data. in some places i have carried white voters and other places i have not carried white voters. nobody, is in my view, to be left out. i think i have a message that will resonate with voters of all kinds. >> bernie sanders has a new line of attack. i want to play that. >> let me say a word or two about my good friend donald trump. [ booing ] just kidding.
he's not my good friend. in fact, i never even went to one of his weddings, you know. i just never did. >> you probably heard that one before. >> yeah, i have. >> in a new cnn poll, sanders does better against republicans than you. do you buy that? >> no, i don't buy that at all. i think any horse race poll this far out is meaningless. i also think -- and i'm proud of this. senator sanders and i have run a campaign based on issues and we haven't been personally attacking each other and running negative ads. we've had differences on issues and we have tried to draw the contrast which i think is fully appropriate compared to what the republicans have done. i'm pretty well vetted. i think people have a good idea about, you know, what i've been through, who i am and i think that actually makes me the stronger candidate to go into a general election. >> one of the things you said actually to me at a town hall, i
think it was new hampshire. it's been a while. we've done a lot of them. it was really personal and i had never heard you say it before and i've heard you say it once or twice, this doesn't come naturally to you. that your husband is -- it's part of his dna. it's not for you. >> right. right. >> is that -- can you explain that a little more? can you talk about that? >> well, you know, it's funny, because every time i have a job, i get really, really high ratings. you know, go back and look at my favorability ratings when i was secretary of state and how high regarded i was in the senate and as first lady when i started actually getting into politics. so whenever i have a job, i really work hard to do it to the best of my capacity. and i get good results and i work across the aisle and people who never have a good thing to say about me when i'm running for something actually say really nice things about me when we're working together. so doing the job, getting results for people, making a
difference for our country, that's what i feel best at and what i am committed to doing. and i think that the kind of results that i get when i'm actually holding a position speak to that. but actually going out and campaigning, it is harder. it is harder for me. and it may be partly that it seems harder for women. and i recognize that. and also as someone who has supported my husband and other democrats for so many years, you know, moving from he or she to i or me is not easy for me either. >> do you think you're held to a different standard? i've seen people on television saying, oh, you should smile more, that when you're yelling it sounds -- that when you're speaking it sounds like you're yelling. >> yeah. >> do you think that's a -- is that sexist? >> well, let me say i don't hear anybody say that about men. and i've seen a lot of male candidate who is don't smile very much and who talk pretty loud. so i guess i'll just leave it at
that. >> or male candidates that even yell. >> there have been one or two that do that. >> they relish the idea of you taking on donald trump this fall. president obama is clearly geared up to campaign. do you have any concerns that by having president obama out there campaigning, talking against donald trump, he's going to talk into donald trump's hands, he's going to elevate donald trump? >> i don't think so. look, i'm not yet the nominee. i hope to be the nominee and i intend to run a campaign about the real issues facing our country and to knock down the barriers that are standing in the way of people getting ahead and staying ahead. that is really my core commitment. and i want everybody out there campaigning on what we can do together and i'd be honored to have the president. i'd be delighted to have others who are with me in making that case, whoever the republicans end up nominating. >> do you feel like you know how to run against donald trump?
>> i know how to run a campaign that is about the real issues affecting the american people and i believe, at the end, americans are going to vote on who they think can do all aspects of the job. this is like a big, giant job interview. and at the end of the process, i really believe americans are going to say who's steady, who's predictable, the temperament to do all aspects of the job in january 2017. >> secretary clinton, thank you for coming to the election center. >> good to talk to you. >> when we come back, senator bernie sanders will join us in our election center. when i fiy i was really surprised that i wasn't finding all of these germans in my tree. i decided to have my dna tested through ancestry dna. the big surprise was we're not german at all. 52% of my dna comes from scotland and ireland. so, i traded in my lederhosen for a kilt. ancestry has many paths to discovering your story.
get started for free at ancestry.com. and i'm still struggling with my diabetes. i do my best to manage. but it's hard to keep up with it. your body and your diabetes change over time. your treatment plan may too. know your options. once-daily toujeo® is a long-acting insulin from the makers of lantus®. it releases slowly to provide consistent insulin levels for a full 24 hours. toujeo® also provides proven full 24-hour blood sugar control
and significant a1c reduction. toujeo® is a long-acting, man-made insulin used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. it contains 3 times as much insulin in 1 milliliter as standard insulin. don't use toujeo® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar, or if you're allergic to insulin. allergic reaction may occur and may be life threatening. don't reuse needles or share insulin pens, even if the needle has been changed. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which can be serious and life threatening. it may cause shaking, sweating, fast heartbeat, and blurred vision. check your blood sugar levels daily while using toujeo®. injection site reactions may occur. don't change your dose or type of insulin without talking to your doctor. tell your doctor if you take other medicines and about all your medical conditions. insulins, including toujeo®, in combination with tzds (thiazolidinediones) may cause serious side effects like heart failure that can lead to death, even if you've never had heart failure before. don't dilute or mix toujeo® with other insulins or solutions as it may not work as intended and you may lose blood sugar control,
welcome back to the cnn election center. joining me now is senator bernie sanders who is in salt lake city, utah, campaigning tonight. thank you for being with us. you skipped the aipac meeting today because of campaigning out west. is there any message people should read into that? are you sending a message in any way? >> no. in fact, we just did a press
conference and gave a speech right here in salt lake city on the middle east and on israel, pretty much the speech that i would have given to aipac had i been able to attend their conference. i wanted to be there. it was simply a question of scheduling. >> you said that the u.s. should be even-handed when it comes to dealing with the israelis and palestinians. does that mean that the u.s. should remain neutral to achieve middle east peace? >> no. if we want lasting peace in the middle east, we've got to obviously make sure that the security and the independence of israel remains in tact. that is not a debate. israel must continue to exist as an independent free state. but if we are going to have lasting peace, we have also got to work with the palestinians. and what that means, we have got to recognize, for example, in gaza, an unemployment rate of 44%, you have people living in
horrific poverty. you have a community that was destroyed. so if we are going to go forward, it cannot be that the united states just takes the side of israel. we've got to work with both communities to try to do what is very, very difficult. and that is create a lasting peace in the region. >> do you think the u.s. has not been even-handed up till now? >> right. i do not think so. i think that overwhelmingly the united states time and time again has looked aside when israel has done some bad things. i think, for example, that the growth of settlements in palestinian territory is not acceptable to me, not conducive to the peace process. i think that the kind of destruction that was racked on gaza during that war was way above what needed to be done for military purposes. a lot of civilians were killed. a lot of hospitals and schools
and apartments, above and beyond what had to be done. so look, i think there is no question that there's enough blame to go around on both sides. israel has the right to defend itself against terrorist attacks, against hezbollah, against hamas. but i think the united states is stronger when we work with both sides. >> secretary clinton said that she's presided over face-to-face meetings between prime minister netanyahu, for instance, and president abbas, three separate sessions. she says she's had a lot of experience in this region. why do you think you would do a better job than a president clinton? >> well, i'll tell you why. because i think i have shown a lot better judgment than she has on foreign policy. look, she was secretary of state for four years. and in that capacity, you gain a lot of experience. but, in fact, when she was in the senate, she heard the same evidence that i did from george bush and dick cheney about going into iraq.
i not only voted against that war, i helped lead the opposition to that war and if you go to my website, berniesanders.com, read what i said back then in 2002. much of what i predicted would happen in that vacuum with saddam hussein gone has happened. secretary clinton voted for the war. as secretary of state, she worked very hard as "the new york times" documented to overthrow gadhafi in libya. once again, regime change. without thinking about it a whole lot created a political vacuum. isis came in. secretary clinton in a debate i had with her a month or so ago, she talked about henry kissinger praising her achievements. in my view, henry kissinger was one of the worst secretary of states in the history of the united states of america.
very destructive policies. so i think secretary clinton and i look at foreign policy in very different ways. i am confident that i have the judgment to bring together people, to create a foreign policy that works for israel, that works for the palestinians, that works for the people throughout this world. >> one of the things that secretary clinton talked about in her aipac speech is continuing military aid to israel with the most advanced weapon systems available. you in the past have said your long-term hope that u.s. policy shifts from more military aid to israel to more economic aid. the u.s. gave about $3 billion a year in military aid. would you continue that much military aid? >> well, i think we've got to do both. i think israel needs military aid. i can't give you the exact number. but this is what i will also tell you. i want to see the united states providing economic assistance to the region. i want to see the united states working on water issues in the region which are major, major
problem in many of the arab countries. i want to see the international community with the help of israel, with the help of the united states rebuilding the devastation in gaza. at the end of the day, long term, not going to happen tomorrow, i would much prefer to see money going into that region for economic development, schools, health care, infrastructure rather than just weapons of destruction. >> but for now, would you continue the same amount of aid that israel has been getting in terms of military assistance? >> i can't give you that. i just don't know the answer. it's a lot of money and maybe but i've got to take a hard look at it and talk to a number of people. but israel -- let me be clear -- let me be clear. israel has the right to defend itself, period. >> would you recognize jerusalem as the capital of israel and move the u.s. embassy to jerusalem? >> i don't know the answer to that one as well. i think the status quo, in general, i am sympathetic to
what president obama has done in that area and i am not happy, for example, with some of the behavior of prime minister netanyahu. especially when he went to a joint session of congress without even notifying president obama that he was coming. so, in general, i think that, you know, president obama -- i know he has been criticized a lot, but i am supportive of many of his efforts in the middle east. >> hillary clinton hailed her deal in the iran nuclear deal. you say it doesn't achieve everything you would like. what do you think she and the obama administration left out, did not get in the deal? >> well, this is what i think. i very strongly supported the agreement to make sure that iran did not get a nuclear weapon. and we have to do everything we can. and if iran breaks that treaty, we've got to go back to sanctions remains on the table. but in a general sense, when we
look at the entire region, i think we have got to understand that it's not just iran that has been a bad player and they have been a bad player. they have supported terrorist activity but, you know what, we've got to look at the other major country in that region, saudi arabia. and if anyone thinks that saudi arabia is a model of jeffersonian democracy, you have another thing coming. they have also in that country put money into terrorist organizations. they are the fourth largest military in the world -- defense department in the word. i would rather them play a constructive role in the fight against isis along, by the way, with qatar, which is now spending $200 billion for the world cup in 2022. i want to see those countries becoming engaged in the war against isis rather than saudi arabia being in yemen and qatar preparing for the world cup. >> right. you've talked in the past about
saudi arabia and iran teaming up against isis. hillary clinton has said, look, that's a nonstarter. i mean, that a lot of these countries don't even view isis as their primary enemy. certainly saudi arabia views iran as a major foe. >> but anderson, that is exactly my point. you know, we are allies with saudi arabia. and it is time that they work with us. in fact, in my view, isis is a real threat to saudi arabia. but saudi arabia in some ways has paid off and bought off some of these terrorist organizations to protect themselves. >> how do you force them to get involved against isis? >> well, it cannot just be attacks on iran. you know, it's not that iran is wonderful. they are involved in terrorist activities. saudi arabia is a monarchy, does not respect women's rights, does not have tree elections. there are people in saudi arabia who are funded terrorist
organizations. that's what our job is, to try to bring these organizations, these countries together and to say, you know what, the united states of america can't do it all for you. we are not the policemen of the world. our men and women are not going to be involved in perpetual warfare. you have the fourth largest military in the world in saudi arabia. start using that military in a constructive way. work with other countries. listen to king abdullah of jordan about the need for the muslim countries to be on the ground to defeat isis. >> let me ask you about cuba. president obama is obviously in cuba right now, historic visit. as president, would you also make history? would you invite raul castro, if he's still the leader of cuba, to the white house? >> i have long believed that we should normalize relations with cuba in every respect, including doing away with the economic embargo. i think normalized relations would be good for americans. right now, you can go to saudi
arabia, it's a monarchy, you can go to china, it's a dictatorship. but for some reason you can't go to cuba. which, of course, is an authoritarian country. i think americans should have the right to go where they want. second of all, i think for american businesses and jobs in this country, there are investment opportunities in cuba which are now being taken advantage of by canada and europe. we should take advantage as well. so to answer your question, yes, i want to see us move as forward as quickly as possible to normalize relations with cuba. i applaud president obama for his initiative. >> normalize relations for you would mean inviting a leader like raul castro to the white house? >> well, last i heard, we've invited the leaders of saudi arabia, we've invited the leaders of china. we've invited the leaders of a whole lot of authoritarian countries to come to the united states. i think cuba should be treated similarly. >> i want to follow up to a
question you were asked in miami recently. the moderators played a video of you back in 1985 in which you prais praised fidel castro. do you think the cuban revolution was good for the people of cuba? >> look, you know, the cuban revolution took place -- when was it? 1959? it was a long time ago. what i said, the main point that i made, anderson, is that i don't think that the united states of america should go around overthrowing governments. i think the bay of pigs was a disaster. i think the overthrow of the democratically elected president in guatemala was a disaster. i think the overthrow of the democratic elected prime minister in iran was a disaster. so i don't think the united states has the legal or moral right to go around overthrowing
governments and i think very often those efforts have backfired bringing about a whole lot of instability in regions throughout this country. >> but as you know, even at that debate, hillary clinton went after you for, in her words, essentially praising the regime of fidel castro which in a general election would no doubt be used against you. >> anderson, let's not get into -- let's not get into red baiting here. here is the truth. everybody knows it. cuba is a very poor country. its economy is in very bad shape. it is an authoritarian country. do i support their political policies? of course i don't. but you know what else? cuba produces a lot of physicians in this country. and you know where they go? they go to poor countries around the world doing a lot of good. i wish we had physicians in this country, the number of physicians that we need to go to poor countries around the world. by and large, cuba's educational
system for a poor country is pretty good. when castro came to power, they did a lot to eliminate illiteracy in that country. so, yes, you don't have to praise everything about fidel castro. it's a dictatorship. it's a poor economy. we want changes. but have some good things been done in cuba? yes. should the united states go around overthrowing governments we don't like? i don't think so. >> let me ask you about the supreme court. you're supporting president obama's pick judge merrick garland and you said you wanted to nominate someone more progressive if you're president. in what way does merrick garland fail that test? >> well, i think garland is a widely respected and clearly intelligent man. but what i have said, anderson, and you've heard me say it on numerous occasions, i believe that the supreme court decision six years ago on citizens united was one of the worst supreme court decisions in the history
of our country and, in fact, it is paving the way to undermining american democracy and creating a very corrupt campaign finance system. i do have a litmus test for a supreme court nominee. and that is that i want that nominee to be loud and clear in telling the american people that he or she will vote to overturn citizens united. >> president obama said recently at a fund-raiser the democrat success in november requires the party to come together behind a nominee. you pledge to stay in the race through june to the convention. if hillary clinton clinches the nomination before june, are you hurting democrat chances of staying in the ray -- by staying in the race? >> no. quite the contrary. number one, as you know, many of the early states were in the deep south. secretary clinton picked up a lot of delegates. she did well there. now we're moving to another part of the country. just tomorrow -- i'm here in
utah. there is going to be a caucus here. we think we're going to do well. we think we're going to do well in idaho. we think we have a chance. it's going to be tough in arizona. we have washington state. i spoke yesterday to 35,000 people in washington state in three separate locations. we think we have an excellent chance to win there. we think we're going to do well in alaska. we think we're going to do well in hawaii. we think that once we're on the west coast, we think we're going to do well in oregon. we think we're going to do well in california. so to answer your question, number one, i think we have a road -- a narrow road but a road to victory. number two, it is absurd. it is completely anti-democratic to tell some of the largest states in this country, california, new york state, you should not have a voice in helping to select the democratic nominee. number three, democrats win when the voter turnout is high. republicans win when it's low. by contesting and having serious debates about the important issues facing this country, getting people involved in the
process, we're going to drive up the voter turnout in november no matter who the nominee is. number four, virtually every poll that has come out has bernie sanders defeating donald trump by very large numbers. last nbc poll had me 19 points ahead of him. far more than secretary clinton. here in utah, of all places, i was 11 points ahead of trump. she was two points ahead of trump. a cbs poll came out today having her all of five points ahead of me nationally. when we started off, we were 70 points behind. i am not a quitter. we're going to fight this to the last vote. we're going to give every american the chance to decide which candidate they want to be the democratic nominee in november. >> you saved me the problem of bringing up donald trump. since you've brought him up, you recently referred to him as a pathological liar. that's pretty tough words. >> yes. >> pathological is actually a word he had used against ben carson who is now endorsing him.
do you think he has some sort of compulsion towards lying? >> look, this is not bernie sanders, as i'm sure you are aware, there have been a number of publications, politico did an article checking what he says. polito fact which checks on what politicians say, overwhelmingly, almost everything that he says is not true. he just says things off the top of his head. he saw muslims in new jersey, thousands celebrating the destruction of the twin towers on 9/11. it never happened. time after time, he says things that are just not true. and i think more and more people understand that. that is above and beyond the fact that almost every day he is insulting latinos and mexicans, muslims, women, african-americans. i mean, there is a reason why this guy will not be elected
president of the united states. that type of temperament, that kind of divisiveness which he is ingendering, the kind of violence which he is almost encouraging is not what the american people want. in utah, when i am beating donald trump by 11 points in what is one of the most conservative states in this country, it is clear to me that donald trump is not going to be elected president of the united states. >> your fellow senator elizabeth warren on twitter said some tough words against donald trump. among other things, she called him a wannabe tyrant. do you agree with that? >> oh, there's no question that he has authoritarian tendencies. you know, what really boggled my mind -- and by the way, anderson, it's not just me. you've got a lot of republicans out there, conservative republicans who are looking at this guy and saying, what is going on? it's what mitt romney and people like that are saying. when he suggests after one of his supporters punches out a
protester, knocks him down, sucker punches him, trump says, i've given thought to paying for the legal defense for that guy. when do you that, you are giving a signal to your supporters to say, violence is okay. you go around beating up people, we'll be there to support you with legal costs. so i think that does he have a tendency towards authoritarian, i think the evidence is clear that he does. >> you're urging superdelegates to back you, saying that you'll fair better against donald trump. you talked about that tonight rather than hillary clinton. the clinton camp says in private that you poll better essentially because you haven't been targeted yet by republicans as a socialist who will raise taxes on the middle class. is that why you're polling better? >> well, no. that's nonsense. first of all, i wasn't born yesterday. and this is not my first campaign.
certainly it's my first campaign for president. i've run a number of times in vermont against very wealthy people who have opposition research and they throw a lot of garbage at me. my last election in vermont i won by 71%. in this primary process i have vermonters who have seen all of the crap that people can throw at you. but i think when you look at a race against trump, there is no question that we are a much stronger campaign than is hillary clinton. we will get all or virtually all of the democratic support. not many democrats will be voting for donald trump. but we will do much better than hillary clinton with the millions of people who are independents. the millions of people, for whatever reason, feel uncomfortable with hillary clinton. so the polls show and what i think the evidence is pretty clear, we are the candidate to beat donald trump and i think more and more democrats are seeing that.
>> one of the impacts you've had on this race is hillary clinton has moved to a number of your positions to the keystone pipeline and asian trade and calling on the governor of michigan to resign. she seemed to do that right before the debate in flint. if you could move her on one more policy, what would it be? >> look, anderson, you know, i think the american people know it is not what a candidate says during a campaign. what the american people, the ideas that they steal from other people, what is important is what your record is and what your history is. right now, hillary clinton has super pacs raising huge amounts of money from the fossil fuel industry and drug companies. i think most americans understand that somebody cannot be a serious agent for change when they are so close to some of the most powerful interests in this country. we have raised money through 5
million individual contributions average 27 bucks a piece. i have spent my entire political life taking on wall street, taking on the drug companies, taking on the fossil fuel industry. that is the kind of record that i think the american people and democrats will look at and that's why i am confident we are going to do better and better as this campaign proceeds. >> i saw you on the campaign trail the other day. you said you never went to one of donald trump's wedding, clearly referring to secretary clinton who did attend donald trump's wedding. should voters take that into consideration that she was once friendly with donald trump, that she received funds from donald trump? >> i think, you know, people have got to take everything into consideration. look, this is no secret. hillary clinton is the candidate of the establishment. she is the candidate -- the democratic candidate of the big money interests. she has the support of public officials all over america. what it is also clear, we are
running an insurgent campaign. we are the anti-establishment campaign. we are the campaign that is calling for a political revolution, that has taken on the billionaire class and wall street. and i think as people look at our records, how we raise money, what our views are on income and wealth inequality, who was there first, who was helping to lead that fight, the war in iraq, fracking, on all public colleges and universities being tuition-free, demanding that the wealthy and large corporations start paying their fair share of taxes, who is calling for the united states to join the rest of the industrialized world for a medicare for all health care system guaranteeing health care to all people? that is bernie sanders. and that is why we are creating so much excitement at the grassroots level. >> senator sanders, thank you very much. good to talk to you tonight.
>> thank you very much. how have what we heard impact tomorrow's contest? much more from the cnn election center ahead. ♪ ♪virgin islands nice ♪ ♪so nice ♪so nice, so nice ♪ spend a few days in st. croix and return with a lifetime of experiences. that's virgin islands nice. ♪so nice, so nice hello?!n presents the yardley's. you do? really? ding dong? -oh, pizza is here! -oh! come on in. [claps] woah! lose the sneakers pal. kind of a thing. this is more than a lawn. this is a trugreen lawn.
we need to be ready for my name's scott strenfel and r i'm a meteorologist at pg&e. we make sure that our crews as well as our customers are prepared to how weather may impact their energy. so every single day we're monitoring the weather, and when storm events arise our forecast get crews out ahead of the storm to minimize any outages. during storm season we want our customers to be ready and stay safe. learn how you can be prepared at pge.com/beprepared. together, we're building a better california.
we're back with our cnn election special. we've just heard from all five of the remaining presidential candidates. right now, we have brand-new numbers from our just released cnn poll. donald trump holding a commanding 16-point lead over his closest competitor ted cruz. trump is a whopping 30 points ahead of his other republican opponent john kasich. but will trump get the nomination? 60% of republicans want the party to choose the candidate with the most support in the primary season if no one has the 1,237 delegates needed to win. whoever gets the nomination will face a daunting task to bring the gop together. 46% of republicans, nearly half, believe the party still will be seriously divided in november.
in the democratic race, hillary clinton has a seven-point advantage over bernie sanders in our new national poll. but sanders does better than clinton in matchups against the republican candidates. take a look. clinton has a 12-point edge over trump when they go head to head in our new poll. sanders beats trump by a 20-point margin. let's go back to anderson. >> i'm here with our panel. let's talk about some of the things that we've heard tonight. wolf asked donald trump about his remarks about the possibility of his supporters rioting if he doesn't get the nomination at the convention. let's listen to what he said. >> you don't want any violence, right? >> of course not. >> you used the word riots twice. >> i said if that happened i'd have no part in it but there very well could be riots. are we supposed to be so politically correct that we're not allowed -- i have people, millions and millions of people
that have come out -- the number of people that came out, these people are by the millions. and you see what's happening with the republicans and they are not coming out for other people. >> will you unequivocally say to your supporters that you don't want any violence or riots? >> of course. but i have no control over the people. >> donald trump talking. gloria, what do you make of nothing really new from trump on that front, although kind of walking back, i guess, the comments he made certainly off the cuff about riots. >> yeah. i think he turned into an issue of political correctness which is the way he answers a lot of questions and gets around directly answering it because he did use the word "riots." the thing that was so stunning to me in wolf interview with trump was the question of nato and how he feels we put too much money into nato and maybe we ought to reconsider that. i think all of our nato allies and perhaps putin were a little
surprised at that and you heard ted cruz earlier this evening say that he felt it was just stunning. >> john kasich also saying he -- leader not direct against trump on that and certainly hillary clinton saying that as well. >> trump did say, i believe it was a "new day" interview, he did say that there would be riots and angered again the republican leadership which wants them to realize when he speaks, followers take cues from the leader. my people will be mad. my people feel i deserve the nomination. that's all fine. there will be riots. mr. trump needs to dial that back. he seems to get that and seems to be doing that in degrees there. he seems to be talking about his argument, if i get close, if i get 11 something and the other guys get 5 something, you can't take it away for me. you can see that he's preparing to make that case. not just to the rules committee, not just to the republican establishment leadership but to the american people and to his voters because he understands the moment we're at in the election. if he wins in arizona, gets some
delegates out of utah, then wisconsin on the 5th, that becomes a huge contest. if trump wins again there, not only will it be he has a chance to get the magic number but even if he doesn't, it will be clear that he'll be leader in delegates. >> you saw him today doing something very much like most politicians do, which is use a teleprompter during his aipac speech. >> a speech that somebody wrote. >> yes. >> that's the first time we've heard -- >> yes. prepared remarks for the speech, something i've never gotten in my inbox before. you do see him doing that. you saw him meeting with some other republicans. none of the leaders really. but even in today, gloria mentioned nato. i mean, that gets at what he's trying to do here. he is really turning a lot of the conservative orthodoxy in terms of foreign policy on it is head. when he talks about nato, he's borrowing in some ways from ron
and rand paul who had a much more libertarian idea about american anti-interventionism. so, yeah, you saw sort of two or three or four faces of donald trump today in many ways. >> yeah. there's no question in my mind that the nato issue, what he said to wolf is going to be rippling through, not just washington but as gloria said through the entire globe because it's one thing to be anti-interventionist or isolationist and makes it clear that he thinks the united states is the policemen around the world spending too much resources which he thinks should be spent for roads and bridges and things here but it's another to suggest we're not going to pay our dues on an incredibly important alliance around the globe. >> particularly at a time of a resurgence -- let's play that again for those who didn't hear it. >> do you think the united states needs to rethink u.s. involvement in nato? >> yes.
because it's costing us too much money and, frankly, they have to put up more money. they are going to have to put some up, also. we're paying disproportionately. it's too much. and, frankly, it's a different world than it was when we originally conceived of the idea and everybody got together. i think we have to reconsider -- keep nato but maybe we have to pay a lot less towards the nato itself. >> you know, it also -- anderson, it plays into this whole question of, you know, rand paul question of foreign aid. >> yeah. >> right. >> people believe we spend too much money or foreign aid which i think is 4% of the budget and up to 4%. >> it's not a huge -- he talked about this with u.s. forces in south korea. >> he's also talked about putting 20 to 30,000 ground troops if he needs to to fight isis. >> sometimes it's a translation issue. i'm not defending everything that mr. trump says but some of
it is he does not speak in the language of a united states senator, somebody who has been a member of a past administration when it comes to foreign policy. the role of nato has been a huge debate since the fall of the berlin wall. it was a big debate when i covered the george bush administration. mr. trump is dead right in saying there's a global conversation about what is nato's role. but when the person who would be the president of the united states, the head -- essentially the head of the big super power, the leading power in nato says, well, we're going to pay less, you guys have to do more, it's just the language. but that's trump. >> well, the other thing we should keep in mind is that this is why people out there really like him. >> uh-huh. >> because it's the populist message. they are listening to us talk about global alliances on a political basis and want to know why our taxpayer dollars are going abroad instead of being here. that's the bottom line for them. >> we heard from a lot more candidates tonight.
we'll have much more ahead. le. and to connect us with the wonderment of nature. the detail on this surface book is amazing. with the tiger image, the saliva coming off and you got this turning. that's why i need this kind of resolution and computing power. being able to use a pen like this. on the screen directly with the image. it just gives me a different relationship to it. and i can't do that on my mac. this is brilliant for me. ♪ whose long dayis sheldon setting up the news starts with minor arthritis pain and a choice. take tylenol or take aleve, the #1 recommended pain reliever by orthopedic doctors. just two aleve can keep pain away all day. back to the news.
senator john king is at the magic wall right now. tomorrow night, there are pretty important contests. we're looking closely at these states. >> can bernie sanders come back? we're going to learn can the stop trump movement beat him at the ballot box. tomorrow, march 22, western tuesday, three states on the democratic side part of the next few weeks that will award 360. but we get to the delegates of tomorrow night in a second. on the republican side, over the next month, if you're going to stop donald trump, this is the period to do it and it would start in arizona and utah, if you can and then it's wisconsin and we move on with new york a month from now. that's the state coming up. let's look at the delegate race. on the democratic side, here's the issue for bernie sanders. secretary clinton starts with a pretty healthy lead. these are just pledged delegates. she has a lot of super delegates. she starts with a pretty healthy lead. tomorrow, bernie sanders could run the board. he could win all three contests. even if he did, this is 55-45, wolf. he would just cut ever so slightly. >> proportional.
>> proportional rules on the democratic side. secretary clinton thinks she's going to win in arizona. if clinton wins one and sanders wins two, it's a draw is what happens. she picks up a little more here and he picks up a little more there. that's the challenge for bernie sanders. after tomorrow night, there's states favorable to him out in the west but he has to win by huge margins. he has to win by 70-30, 75-35. the calendar is moving his way. mr. trump is past the halfway mark. ted cruz says i'm the only alternative but he's way back and ted cruz went 0-5 last week. john kasich one in ohio and donald trump won the rest. tomorrow is the chance to do it. if you fill in the map here, i filled in the map all the way through a bunch of contests they're. i just wanted to show this to you. let's assume donald trump wins arizona tomorrow and cruz wins utah. then if you say cruz is successful in the west but trump is more successful in the northeast, give john kasich
delaware, this sets you up for the california primary. look how far out trump can get if he keeps winning. it's imperative, if ted cruz wants to get back in the game, it's imperative he changes the psychology of the race in arizona. at some point, if you're going to stop donald trump, you have to stop this map. if you come back to where we are right now, if trump wins arizona, it's winner-takes-all. if you go into utah, it's a split, john kasich comes in third or even if donald trump comes in third, you give him a few out of that, if he picks up ten, he keeps the march going. >> cruz gets 50% he gets it all? >> he gets it all. which is why cruz is complaining about governor kasich being out there. why don't you let me seed this state and kasich's point is that's not enough. kasich hopes to pull some delegates out of utah and wisconsin would become a huge
battleground on the 5th. if donald trump wins here, you can't just stop him by running millions of dollars in ads. with the exception of ohio, kasich's home state, look how favorable this has been to donald trump. we're out west for a couple days and then come back here. if donald trump, if you're going to stop it, you better stop his momentum there. if he picks up arizona and wins the next contest in wisconsin, are we going to get to an open convention? maybe. can he clinch by the time he gets there? maybe. but to his point in his interview with you, what are you going to do if donald trump is somewhere out here and you get to the convention and you're going to say, this guy? the rules -- the rules are the rules but if he gets way out there, depending on how big, let's say trump pulled this far ahead, you can have a california primary, put him right there. pretty impossible to tell that guy he's thought going to be the nominee. >> especially if he's got 3 or 4 million votes as opposed to the delegates. it's going to be tough. stand by. anderson, back to you. >> wolf, when i talked to john
kasich earlier, he's putting his hopes in an open convention and makes the argument he's the strongs guest republican in a general election matchup. there's a new cnn poll out. the good news and bad news for you -- would you like good news or bad news first? >> whatever you want. >> i'm a bad news first. but i'll give you the good news first. you're the only one that beat hillary clinton in a head-to-head matchup. 51-45. 70% of republicans think you should drop out because you don't have enough to win the delegates to be the party's nominee. 70% of the republicans say you should drop out. you say -- >> i don't know who they are. people have been telling me what the polls are and pundits telling me what is going to happen and it hasn't happened yet. i think god created pundits to make astrologers look accurate, to tell you the truth. i have the skill, the experience, the vision and the record to fix the country. that like really matters and
we're going to get to a convention and delegates are going to think about two things. who can win? i'm the only one who can win a general election. >> does that argument hold up, gloria borger, and delegates will look around to see who can win in a general election? >> well, not if you look to our poll tonight which actually says that republicans don't think that's the way it should work. six out of ten republicans say that the candidate with the most support going into the convention should get the nomination. and if the delegates are going to listen to the voters, that's not the way it works. we just don't know and they are all talking to people who could be delegates want to know where their loyalty is after the first ballot, where they are bound and then whether they would say if you're trump's people, they are talking to delegates trying to find out, would you be with us on the second ballot? kasich's hope is that everybody would be freed up and somehow miraculously they would all decide that john kasich is so
much better in a general election matchup against hillary clinton that they would all run to him. i don't think it's going to work that way. >> i introduced reince priebus on sunday. is that yesterday? the head of the rnc. and asked him just that concept. conceptually whether he thinks it's the voters going through the primary and caucus process who should decide or it is the delegates on the floor because, you know, in recent history, in the past 20 years, it has been the voters. >> uh-huh. >> before that, as john kasich likes to remind everybody, he was there in 1976 when it was the delegates. he's suggested it's the party and it's the delegates but good luck with that if there genuinely is a feeling that there's some backroom deal and the front-runner gets robbed. it's not going to be pretty. >> yeah. you wonder where all of those trump voters go. even if he doesn't -- you know,
if the nomination is sort of wrestled from him, he doesn't quite form a third party because he can't get on the ballots, he sort of is a third party anyway in some ways because what do his voters do? >> but his voters are not necessarily the same as the delegates, which is the fascinating issue. there are spy games going on right now because a lot of these delegates, you go to conventions, it's the same people. it's the party activists and they know how to become activists. they are bound to vote for trump because their state voted for trump in the primary. they are not trump supporters. they are activists who know how to become trump delegates. if there's a second ballot, you don't want trump. >> that's already going on. >> the cruz campaign is definitely working it. >> trump is starting to work it because he understands and the kasich people are trying to put it together but they don't have the -- if he beats hillary clinton, he'll have a case to
make but you need momentum coming in. >> donald trump is not running a conventional campaign. he doesn't have the campaign staff that i think even ted cruz probably has. >> look at the meeting he went to today, one of the guys who showed up, newt gingrich, the former house speaker. a lot of people see newt gingrich trying to make friends with mr. trump and he says, i know the rules, you don't. you need my help. the people who think it's going to beat trump, it could be trump cozying up. >>ut they have moved over there, too. >> and if you look at our polling in our poll, the voters would be very enthusiastic if ted cruz became the nominee. even some of those trump voters. so he's clearly there. >> right. >> sort of top second. >> our cnn election special, "the final five candidates" continues. much more after this quick break.
testing, testing... 1, 2, 3, 4... ♪ ♪look out honey... ♪because i'm using technology...♪ ♪ ♪ain't got time to make no apologies...♪ ♪ ♪soul radiation in the dead of night...♪ ♪love in the middle of a fire fight...♪ ♪ ♪honey gotta strike me blind... ♪somebody gotta save my soul... ♪baby penetrates my mind... ♪ ♪ [cheering]
i am a first responder tor and i'emergencies 24 hours a day, everyday of the year. my children and my family are on my mind when i'm working all the time. my neighbors are here, my friends and family live here, so it's important for me to respond as quickly as possible and get the power back on. it's an amazing feeling turning those lights back on. be informed about outages in your area. sign up for outage alerts at pge.com/outagealerts.
one from secretary clinton, one from ted cruz, both talking about donald trump and maybe perhaps telegraphing some of the ways if they reach a general election they'll push back against him. >> you say he's a bully, though? >> well, i think his behavior certainly qualifies for that. i think his incitement of violence, his constant urging on of his supporters in large numbers to go after protesters, his saying i want to punch people in the face and telling somebody who did punch somebody i will pay your legal bills, i think that raises very serious questions. >> donald's campaign, his entire campaign is built on a lie. i understand the people who are supporting -- >> what's the lie? >> i understand the people who are supporting donald. they ares fr they are frustrated with
politicians in washington who go to washington and do the exact opposite of what they said. but if you're fed up with washington and the corruption of washington, it doesn't make any sense to support donald trump who has been immesh in washington. the lie behind his campaign is that he will stand up to washington. he and hillary clinton are flip sides of the same coin. >> he was talking in response to donald trump, calling him lying ted repeatedly over and over again. hillary clinton's team, it seems -- they must already be doing opposition research. they must already be looking for how they are going to go after donald trump, assuming he is the nominee and assuming she is the nominee. >> and you know, bully is a buzz word, obviously, that she will continue to use, they will use because clearly it is aimed at women. and also men but largely women. hillary clinton needs to increase her wins with women.
and if she's going to have a gap with white men. and i think that they are going to attack him on that front every way they can. you've already seen the ads from the stop trump movement on the things he has said about women. hillary clinton started this campaign by running as a woman and she kind of stopped. now i think if she finds herself in a race against donald trump, you're going to see her talking a lot -- >> he asked her about why she's not doing well among white men. she didn't really have an answer. she claims she hasn't looked deeply into the data. i find that hard to believe. >> right. >> but she didn't really seem to acknowledge it in any way or add mit it. >> no. no. and, you know, frankly, that's i think part of the rap on her, that instead of saying, you know what, i'm not really sure and i've got to work harder with that group of people and got to see what's going on, it's, well, i'm not really sure, we're doing well, we have an overall bigger number than donald trump and so on and so forth.
>> and i want to appeal to everybody. >> yeah. and it was one of those -- you gave her an opening to have a human moment and it didn't happen but i think the way that you asked that question about how she would campaign against donald trump was fascinating because, look, she, like everybody else running, is a conventional politician and he -- it's unconventional warfare for him and it's going to be -- >> she has had the benefit, as sanders has had as well, what did not work for gop candidates. >> that's right. and they want to do what they feel like the gop didn't do, which was to really dump out the opposition book on him, to essentially say you don't want this guy with the nuclear football because of his temperament and also, by the way, he doesn't know what the nuclear triad is as well. so i think that's what you saw tonight. i do think it's interesting. she has got to be careful with calling donald trump a sexist. we remember what happened when she did that before. i thought she was very careful not to do that tonight. i think the bullying thing is a
way -- i think the bullying thing is a way to get at that but not say the word sexist. >> starting an anti-trump ad, it's kind of funny. they think the republicans underestimated him for too long so they are testing him. they are going to run a bunch of different ads and they are doing it to see how people react to it to test names that might work in the general election. and to your point and the point that dana made, i think if you completely disagree with their positions, they talk to voters. they don't want to reporters. they talk to people. they tell a human story or tap a human anxiety. they don't go, oh, i don't know. >> they are doing it in a way that seems authentic certainly to this reporter. be sure to join us tuesday night for western tuesday in the cnn election center. results from idaho, arizona and utah. our coverage continues right after this.
through dna i found out that i was only 16% italian. he was 34% eastern european. so i went onto ancestry, soon learned that one of our ancestors we thought was italian was eastern european. this is my ancestor who i didn't know about. he looks a little bit like me, yes. ancestry has many paths to discovering your story. get started for free at ancestry.com my school could be bad.ing fast. could be a blast. can't find a single thing to wear. will they be looking at my hair? won't be the same without you bro.
♪ when it's go, the new choice privileges gets you there faster. and now, stay two times and you can earn a free night. book now at choicehotels.com we're talking to all the remaining candidates in the race for the white house on the eve of more crucial contests. >> it is an unprecedented moment just hours after hillary clinton and donald trump launched high-profile attacks against one another on foreign policy. >> tonight, from the nation's capital, the final five presidential candidates on volatility around the world. >> we need steady hands. not a president who says he's neutral on monday, pro-israel on tuesday and who knows what on wednesday. >> well, i think i'm very different than hillary clinton. she doesn't know anything about my policy. she wouldn't know anything about it. her policies obviously didn't work. >> tough questions about a turbulent campaign. >> y