tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC October 14, 2015 12:00am-1:01am PDT
>> tonight on "all in," this is a people's campaign and you, brothers and sisters, are part of a political revolution. >> it's debate night in america. >> we should have a good debate that uses accurate information. >> eight years later, hillary clinton returns as the democratic favorite. and faces her first real test as front runner. >> that's my goal. that's what i'm fighting for. i'm going to stand up for that. >> tonight debbie wasserman-schultz had, and more from las vegas. then, just how gruesome will the anti-hillary ads get? >> what difference does it make.
>> and why donald trump is accusing jeb bush of doing a plant. >> i don't think that you're a friend to women. >> when "all in" starts right now. geek from new york. i'm chris hayes. it is exciting, exciting night. i'm speak agof the democratic presidential primary finally gets started in ernest as five candidates take the stage in las vegas for their long awaited first debate, it is an uncommonly late start for the nomination process. at this point in the 2008 cycle, the candidates had already debated each other eight times. they started way back in april of '07. this time around, republicans have already faced with each other twice, eating up the horse race coverage, leaving a big vacuum on the democratic side to be filled with mostly hand wringing over e-mail servers. hillary clinton walks into the debate still the clear front-runner leading the field in every national poll but faces a tougher of challenge from self-described democratic
socialist bernie sanders who has never been elected as a democrat than anyone would have predicted including i would say sanders himself. he continues to generate the most excitement on the trail, draws an massive record-setting crowds and to a remarkable degree, his economic positions have become the party's center of gravity. then there are the three other participants in the debate, jim webb, martin o'malley and lincoln chafee, all of whom have failed to gain much traction. tonight there be their chance to give primary voters a chance to give them a look. there are two democrats who won't be on the stage, lawrence lessig after raising $1 million in small donations in rather short order and vice president joe biden who consistently polls in second or third place among the democratic field despite not being a declared candidate. we can predict with some confidence the emergency podium on standby for biden specially
constructed for his use won't be getting much use. joining me, charlie pierce, from esquire, jess mcintosh, spokesperson for emily's list and emily warren, an msnbc contributor. this struck me, charlie, as a good characterization where we are as we enter the debate. this was a tweet from the jonathan martin in the "new york times." he says "most consciousal part of the primary hillary concluding there's no general election downside in in aligning with the left." that put it well. i can imagine the iteration of this same debate ten years ago or in different circumstances in which bernie sanders could walk on the stage and find he was getting pummeled by hillary clinton for his positions that they were too far left that, they were extreme, they would alienate independent voters. i don't think we're going to see that tonight. >> not from hillary clinton. you're probably going to see it
from jim webb who is by far the most intriguing person opt stage tonight because it will be the first evidence in this campaign he's actually alive. he will be the voice of the legendary scoop jackson democrats. i guerin you at least four pundits will point that in the first 20 minutes after the debate is over. >> can we show that vo we just showed? that's jim webb at the soapbox in iowa. the reason you see that a lot, as far as i can tell, that's the only vo we have in our system of jim webb on the campaign trail. keep your eyes peeled. you will see that on cable news a lot. dorian, part of what's interesting here, bernie sanders presents a real challenge for hillary clinton, probably more than they thought particularly in new hampshire. you can imagine a scenario in which he would manage to take the first two states. that would be head turning, right? and yet, he is the policy center of gravity and so what do you
expect to see in hillary clinton and bernie sanders in that dynamic tonight? >> there are a couple things you. might say bernie sanders in some ways represents the warren wing of the democratic party. >> although bernie would be quick to point out, he was doing that long before elizabeth warren. >> the current momentum and fervor around economic populism and racial justice in some quarters. he represents that wing in a sense. there are three progressive groups that sent letters to three of the candidates conditioned saying hey, would you please represent the warren wing in terms of economic populism, racial justice. i can see clinton and sanders taking up this mantle of economic populism. >> to me the bigger problem for them is convergence, what does it get you in a campaign where you're trying to distinguish yourself. >> that's what makes the position of martin o'malley interesting tonight. this is in many ways his breakout chance tons distinguish himself.
where can he go? he can't go left. is he going to -- he's not going to go center. that's not where the center of gravity is in the party right now. for chafee and for webb, god knows what the heck they're going to do. i'm assuming they're going to be the attack dogs on sanders and clinton. >> it's very hard to see lincoln chafee playing that role. his disposition doesn't seem inclined toward that. >> jess, it's remarkable to me to watch this as we enter the debate. we came of age in the clinton years. particularly i think our political awakening happened at a time when the conventional wisdom in the democratic party was you needed to defense everyone that you weren't george mcgovern and you weren't just going to hand out welfare to the other people that don't look like you. you're going to be tough on crime, fight wars, fly back to arizona to watch a man executed. we are in a very, very, very different place. i still can't believe what i'm seeing.
>> for as much as i love the '90s nostalgia, i'm not nostalgic for that time at all. not even a little bit. it's exciting to be a progressive right now. it is. what you pointed out in terms of what the democrats are talking about right now, like contrast that with what is happening on the other side of the aisle. we're seeing two parties have existential conversations about what it means to be them. and the republicans are disintegrating into sort of a nonethos policy. trump is saying things that are totally anathema to your typical severity cantive base. he's winning in the polls. on the democratic side, we're pretty much coalescing around issues of economic populism and economic justice with a real focus on gender equality, what we can do for women in the workplace. we are talking whether we should have debt free tuition or debt free college or tuition free college. that's where we have real wedge
issues here tonight on the stage. >> let me ask you this, charlie, as someone who has chronicled politics for a longer period of time than i have. i guess my question is, are is there a danger that you end up in this place where essentially i think the way they read the demographic politics and the electoral map, the road to victory is to reassemble the obama coalition. the road to resembling the coalition is to get marginal voters to vote by exciting them about the things they care about. is there a possibility of there being a kind i have backlash of ending up in a place where you do alienate these kind of independent swing voters? >> i don't believe -- i believe in independent swing voters as much as i believe in the yehti and sasquatch. i don't think there's enough proof they exist to be concerned about them. that having been said, i'm going to have to wait and see to determine to make any categorical statement that is no longer impossible to mcgovernize a democratic candidate.
>> right. >> there's an awful lot of money going to be dedicated to that task no matter who comes off the stage tonight. >> that is a very good point. there is sort of reality and you can point to the polling and say look, a majority of republicans support a path to citizenship on immigration. poll after poll after poll. you can say this is not a radical position to take. you can point to things about campaign finance. the bernie sanders on campaign finance is massively popular across the spectrum. that doesn't mean that you can't be mcgovernized. >> talk about immigration. this is probably bernie's one area of vulnerability in the state of nevada with the heavily latino population that if one of the other primary candidates wanted to go after him on, his support or his lukewarm support for comprehensive immigration reform will be one of his few areas of vulnerability. otherwise, the question is, will this be a mcgovernable debate by the end of it.
>> i want to, jess, read to you this. obama advisor someone leaked the sort of obama, hillary game plan for the debates in 2008. and as reported by ryan elis za. her greatest vulnerability is on shifting positions adding her recent announcement to oppose the tpp was a mistake. her position is a fairly significant error. she's going to get attacked either way. is that the sort of -- is hillary clinton going to having to answer for consistency and particularly if her policy positions seem roughly in the same place as bernie sanders, is bernie sanders going to be able to say look, i was here all along? >> no, what is going to happen is you'll see two records put side by side. there's a lot of talk about bernie sanders being an outsider which is tough because he's been in the senate for decades. they both have agendas.
they both having very long histories of working in public service. and i think we're going to see the two of them side by side. we really haven't seen a presidential contender with as much of a record advocating on behalf of women and children as hillary clinton does. that is an exciting and frankly progressive thing that i'm really glad that she gets a chance to talk about. yes, let's stay away from character and not do that. let's go into issues. there are divisions and we should talk about them. debate is the perfect place to do it. >> i do think character and i do think consistency matters. i don't think it's the be all end all. my feeling is if i argue with them and in the end they say you're right, i just say nice work. i don't say you flip-flopped. what's the whole point. i don't see the point of lee laboring it. >> the idea we somehow want leadership that would never admit mit they have evolved on an issue is insane. that's not the kind i have person we want making decisions.
>> here's one place that i think has been underserved in the democratic debate so far. i hope to see it tonight is foreign policy. the republican party has talked about important policy a lot partly because there's not a ton of domestic agenda aside from tax cutting and can a wall and mass deportation. what they've spent a lot of time talking about is putin and isis and the war in syria. you've seen a reverse image of that on the democratic side, much less discussion of foreign policy, much more discussion of domestic policy agenda having to do with immigration or income inequality. what do you anticipate in foreign policy tonight? i would like to see some stuff pleasure fleshed out. >> i think number one, hillary clinton's going to get hammered on voting for the iraq war because sanders did not vote for the iraq war. number two, again, i think you're going to see the democratic scoop jackson traditional hawkish democrat person fived by jim web. he's going to be the one saying that you know, isis is going to murder you in your beds.
he's going to be the hard-core anti-terrorist guy and somebody on that stage among the front-runners has to answer to it. >> i'm glad he's going to be there for that reason. what i'm hoping more than anything, i would like to see an extended debate about libya, something hillary clinton played a key role in. there are people who say it was smart and wise and good to do what we did there in terms of the nato bombing people say it wasn't. i would like to see an extended debate on that. that has been underserved in the debate be so far. charlie pierce, jess mcintosh, thank you all. >> thank you. still ahead, debbie wasserman-schultz chair of the dnc is here responding to allegations a fellow member was disinvited from the debate. plus an attack ad that deserves a spotlight for just how deplorable it is. later, why donald trump is accusing the jeb bush campaign of planting this woman to confront him at an event. those stories and more ahead.
>> you it's great to be here at "saturday night live." but i'll be completely honest. it's even better for saturday night live that i'm here. >> some things never change. that was donald trump hosting "saturday night live" income 2004. today in a huge announcement, snl said the donald will host again next month on november 7th exactly a year and one day before the 2016 presidential election. his appearance follows a cameo by hillary clinton who played a bartender named val earlier this month. clinton's three-minute role quickly triggered discussion of the federal equal time rule which says if a candidate's appearance doesn't fall in the category of a live news event, opposing candidates can demand comparable airtime on the same network in the same time slot. during the 2004 election, then democratic candidate al sharpton hosted "snl" and the campaign for primary opponent joe
lieberman saw an opportunity. his lawyer claimed in states in which both candidates were on the ballot, lieberman was entitled to 28 minutes of free air time on certain affiliates. lieberman never appear add on "snl" since the fcc doesn't require them to appear on the same show. instead, he cut a deal for reruns of the lieberman town meeting to reappear. we all know what this means, bobby jindal, you have your opening. when a moment turns romantic why pause to take a pill? or stop to find a bathroom? cialis for daily use is approved to treat both erectile dysfunction and the urinary symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently, day or night. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex.
do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or any symptoms of an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a free 30-tablet trial. david brock has become one of hillary clinton's prost prominent and notorious defenders. he's made a career fight are not the clintons in the media.
he's the founder of media matters that routinely attacks media outlets for unfair coverage and founder of correct the record that describes itself as rapid response team designed to defend hillary clinton from baseless attacks. is he one of her most effective allies. today he's here to preview some of the arguments she will likely make in the first democratic primary debate. joining me from las vegas is david brock, author of "killing the messenger." david, last night, you gave some remarks i believe in san francisco that talked about hillary clinton is essentially the choice for democrats seeking someone who is pragmatic and can get things done with a progressive vision. is that meant to distinguish from her closest competitive or right now, bernie sanders? >> what i was trying to do is make an affirmative case for hillary, one as the real progressive champion in the race, two, record of achievement. and three, specific proposals
that are being put out there now that address voters' concerns on the issues that progressives are pushing, reigning in wall street, getting big money out of politics. >> i've asked bernie sanders this and martin o'malley. i would love to ask hillary clinton if she wants to come on. putting out proposals is great and a lot of the substantive policy proposals put out by the clinton campaign have been really encouraging, well thought out, well designed. they have values that i find attractive personally. but the odds are, you're going to have -- we're looking what's happening in congress right now. you might have that same group. it's a real thing. those same 40 people holding a reit toe are likely to be equally empowered after this election. what's the theory of the case here about why electing hillary clinton would create the space to get some of this stuff done she's talking about? >> well, look, she's a veteran
of the political wars. i think she'll have a very good idea of how to get things done even with the recalcitrant house of representatives. she has a record of bipartisan reaching out in the senate and at the end of the day, you look at these pros like take the campaign finance proposal, that's got some strong executive actions in it. so i this i that's part of the answer, as well. things she can doing from the oval office and that sheal do. that will be progressive and that will be more change to our system. >> do you think bernie sanders is electable if he's the nominee? >> you know, i mean voters have to decide that. >> i asked you. i asked you. >> well, you know, you know, probably not. >> you think he's probe not electable in a general election? >> right. >> why? >> well, i mean we'll have to see who he's up against.
i have to make a little caveat there. about i think on the issue of experience i think there's virtually no foreign policy experience. and i think that again, and i have to contrast it with hillary that she's putting out real plans that have a good chance of working. i'm not really hearing that from the sanders campaign. >> do you think that -- do you think there is danger and let me stipulate i think the sanders campaign would say they are putting out things that will work. do you think -- i'll ask you what i asked at the top of the show. do you think -- do you think there's any independent swing voters left to persuade in a general election in america? >> well, not too many. you know, one of the things and it cuts both ways for hillary, she's got this iconic status. that means a lot of people think they know her and a lot of people have their minds made up. there's probably left to fight
over in the middle. i think tonight and in other debates, people who think they know her get another chance to actually know her. that's what they're going to see is this progressive champion and a democratic progressive champion. she spent three decades building the democratic party. i don't know how senator sanders labels himself today. it's not the most consistent thing in the world. >> the fact he was an independent for decades in congress and recently joined the democratic party officially. >> democratic primary voters have to decide if they want that as their standard bearer. >> do you think we're going to get much foreign policy tonight? >> well, i was listening to the show earlier. i hope so there shoo she was secretary of state for the love of god. you would think it would be instinct we were hearing more about. >> you would think so. i mean, i'm sure she's happy to talk about that record. i hope it does get brought up. i think it to some extent.
>> sure. david brock, thanks for joining me and being honest. all right. one of the central issues emerging in the democratic primary race is criminal justice reform. over the summer black lives matter activists interrupted martin o'malley's panel discussion and shutting down busy's speech in august. activists met with several of the candidates, many of whom released some kind of criminal justice reform package. it will like hely be one of the biggest topics of the night. joining me deray. you have -- there's a picture of you saw sitting down with hillary clinton along with a bunch of black lives matter activists. also bernie sanders. what have those meetings been like? i imagine off the record. if you can characterize them, what have they been like? >> we've had tough good conversations with the candidates. sanders is a straight shooter. clear talker. pushes back.
in both of the meetings but in sanders, we pushed him on this idea that the police should make people feel safe. interesting conversations about the role of policing and community police. we pushed him on civil asset forfeiture which he came out against after the meeting. we talked about the difference between income and wealth. i'm hopeful he'll talk about the racial wealth gap. you take everybody up to the poverty line and people still have no wealth. with the clinton meeting, it was different preparation. she's not released a full platform around criminal justice. we were trying to get a sense where we stood on so many ideas. tonight will be important. we'll still be learning her position. we talked to her about how this will be key, how these issues will resonate in her first 100 days if she's the president and how she will make these issues a national agenda item and use the federal government to encourage this work at the local and state level around equity with race.
>> just civil asset forfeiture, is the ability for law enforcement to confiscate goods only after an arrest. sometimes keep it even if the person is cleared. this happens all over the place. it's something that is very rife for abuse. police departments can fund themselves this way. i wanted to explain it. do you think so far the meetings you have had were the product essentially of the disruptions? there's a cause and effect that's happened where there's been a lot of activism. there's been activists in the street and events and that essentially has forced this into the conversation. >> yeah, i think the result of the protests that happened over the past 18 months, right, people know we've been talking about race and the country's been engaged in this deeper conversation about race and definitely criminal justice in safety. the democrats know they cannot win without the black vote. people are focused on the issues in a way they have to focus on them.
in the meetings, both sanders and clinton have been receptive. both meetings started about not agreeing on core issues especially about safety or criminal justice. by the end we got to places where we agreed to disagree or we were definitely heard. that was important. >> hillary clinton recorded an interview with the fantastic podcast another round the other day. it was a great conversation which i recommend folks listen to. at one point, she made this point i thought was interesting when she said a lot of the pressure that came for increased police presence or cracking down on crime or getting tough particularly on drugs and crack in the 1980s and '90s came from african-american communities that felt they were being underpoliced. that was part of the rationale that led to things like the crime bill. i'm curious your response to that. >> yeah, i'm mindful of the fact so much of those are forms, like the warren poverty were actually bipartisan initiatives. a lot of people thought that was
the right way to do it. as we move forward, i'm interested in people are they unwilling to undo that. will people be aggressive in undoing it? neither candidate has spoken about that. will they undo it with the same force that it was done. >> you know, the activism and the organizing that's happened around civil rights, criminal justice reform, police use of force that we've seen over the last year and a half, sometimes it's disruptive. sometimes it's things some folks find alienating. i don't think activists have illusions about that. the disruption is part of the reason. politicians have a whole other agenda. can you see yourself, can you find your movement being distanced from pol significances as had he seek to appeal toe broader sets of voters? are you prepared for that? >> yeah, i think the reality is that the black vote matters.
i'm interested to see how candidates center blackness especially when they talk about issues around criminal justice, safety, education. i'm not worried about the movement being alienating to people but what does it mean the structures have alienated so many people and if people are supposed to be the representatives of people in this government, they must nope what the people want. i think the movement is giving voices in space for people to say here's what it means for there to be justice or here's what equity looks like in representatives to respond to that. >> deray mckesson, thank you. >> see you later. >> still ahead as attention tonight focuses on the democrats, republicans already have two primary debates in the bag. but will they have a big problem when it comes to the general election. >> a look at that coming up. but i think this solo date will seal the deal. sure! i offer multi-car, safe driver, and so many other discounts that people think i'm a big deal. and boy, are they right. ladies, i can share hundreds in savings
by the time the democrats take the stage tonight at 11:00 p.m. eastern, that's an inside cable news joke, nearly 50 million people have already watched the republicans face off in two spirited debates. this could be another reason why some democrats have been calling for more debates. 50 million people have already watched the republicans debate. martin o'malley said it's a disservice to the party to hold just six debates. with three of those scheduled on weekends, he criticized the democratic national committee for not giving its candidates time to showcase ideas. which contrast, the republican party has 11 scheduled. it was reported tulsi gabbard, a vice chair woman of the dnc said she was disinvited from
tonight's debate after she called for more debates. yesterday i spoke with her about that claim. earlier tonight i asked chairwoman debbie wasserman-schultz to respond to the comments. >> i was actually on your network. i was on msnbc speaking with steve on "meet the press" daily. the very next day, i landed after a red eye flight from the hawaii back to d.c. and landed to a message saying that debbie wasserman-schultz's chief of staff had called mine and said we saw her on msnbc. and basically i'm paraphrasing if she continues this, then we don't think she should be at the debate. >> is that true? do you do have a response to that. >> that's just not true unfortunately. what i want to continue to stress, you know, we're now just a short time from the if first democratic debate in which we have an opportunity to feature our candidates and talk about the huge contrast between our
democratic field of candidates and the republicans. to talk, chris, about what this really is about, which is making sure that we can continue to have america which is already great continue to be great. and so i'm going to put this hat on and do the rest of this interview with it on because america is already great, chris. that's got to be the focus of this debate tonight. the fact that our candidates are going to talk about closing the widening wage gap, the fact that our candidates will talk about making sure we can pass comprehensive can immigration reform and making sure people can get good access to quality education so that they can actually achieve those cornerstones of a middle class life and contrast that with the republican field which has said how fast can we kick immigrants out of this country. let's take away health care. they already shut the government down. now they want to do it again top defund planned parenthood. >> congresswoman gabbard was asked to keep the focus on the
candidates. she chose to not come to the debate. we need to continue to focus on america's greatness and make sure that we can move forward and help people continue the progress we've made under president obama and democratic policies. >> i will note that is a different account. we will leave that there. here's my other question for you. in the issues you just mentioned one of them was not campaign finance refor. it's something both hillary clinton and bernie sanders talked a lot about. there's a candidate named lawrence lessig who is running. he will not appear tonight. my question is, is it the network of cnn or the democratic party that ultimately determines eligibility for who is on that stage? >> so we have discussions about our threshold and our view of what the threshold should be. ultimately cnn made the call on what our threshold was which was you know, having an average of 1% in a poll about six weeks
before the first debate in three national polls. and you know, larry lessig didn't make that thresh hold. that's why he's not on the debate is taken tonight. if he subsequently achieves a percentage and it's a pretty low bar, we went for maximum inclusion and certainly encouraged cnn to set that criteria. we'll see what happens going forward. >> so that was -- there was some sort of partnership collaboration. in ten of the last national polls he's only been included in four. let me ask you this question. there's national polling out today and again, i think this far out essentially meaningless in terms of the outcome of the election. there's national polling from fox news today that has a bunch of republican candidates beating hillary clinton in a head to head match-up. does that mean anything for who will win in november? no. do you feel like there has been a kind you have domination of the coverage of this race so far on the republican side because
of how entertaining frankly it's been and how outlandish some of the comments are? has that ended up hurting hillary clinton? >> you know, i this i what we've been watching on the other side of the aisle is essentially a reality tv show. and there's some fascination associated with that. you know, it's like kind of like picking a scab. you know you shouldn't but you can't help yourself. so that's -- that's what's been playing out on the republican side and heavy been busy trying to outright wing one another. the questions at their debates have been who said what about whom. tonight you'll see our candidates talk about how we can continue to move america forward, how are we going to make sure more people have an opportunity to succeed. how are we going to expand opportunities for people to reach the middle class and i think our candidates, any one of them will be calling out people like donald trump and jeb bush and marco rubio and their entire
candidate field led by p.t. barnum of the 21st century, donald trump. so that we can show that clear contrast which is ultimately how the 45th president of the united states of america will be chosen and the 45th president of the united states of america will be on the debate is taken tonight. i'm confident of that. we're getting ready as a national party to support our democratic nominee and be in the strongest possible position to do so. >> when i get off the air, i'm going to be disappointed if you pull the hat out for any of your other interviews. >> this is the only one, chris, because america is already great. $30 on the dnc web site. >> thank you, congresswoman. >> absolutely. still ahead, we're bound to see plenty of shady attack ads. this one within sets the bar for just how truly shameful they can be. that's just after the break.
in the run.to the 2016 election. airing tonight during the debate is an early entrant for the most odious of the lot from the stop hillary pac created to ensure hillary clinton never becomes president of the united states. it shows images of the four americans killed in the 2012 attacks on the american diplomatic mission in benghazi, libya while actors are presented as speaking for those murdered americans ask clinton critical questions about the benghazi attacks. >> i'd like to hear why you tried to silence the benghazi whistleblower. but mrs. clinton, i can't. what difference does it make? >> let's bracket for a moment the fact the claims have been investigated ad nauseum and found to be baseless. the stop hillary pac put the baseless claims in the mouths of murdered americans played by actors and then for the big phenol the pac had the gall to show the grave of ambassador and dedicated diplomat christopher
stevens. a treasure and council of the stop hillary pac dan backer told all in the group has raised more than $2 million since launching in may 2013 mostly from small donors. asked to respond to critics who deemed the spot disgusting he would only offer more attacks on clinton. this is the beginning. we're going to see hundreds of millions, billions of dollars in attack ads in the cycle many from groups who won't disclose who created the ads, and the great thing for the candidates, they don't have to come in at the end and say i approve this message. they get to stand on the sidelines pretending they're on the high road and let shameless outside groups do their disgusting dirty work for them. despite cnn's best agent vice
tonight vice president bide been host a high school reunion following which he will watch the debate at the naval observatory. the announcement coming as the political action committee draft biden released its second ad urging him to run. the first ad was pulled from the airwaves after the vice president reportedly objected to it. up next, what the other side is up to. we'll check in on the republican primary race as donald trump accuses jeb bush of "doing a plant."
okay. so maybe i'm wrong, maybe you can prove me wrong but i don't think that you're a friend to women. [ applause ] >> i knew i shouldn't have picked her. i knew i shouldn't have picked her. so let me give that you answer right now. i respect women incredibly. >> the crowd at the ostensibly nonpartisan no labels event in new hampshire was not necessarily a trump crowd.
trump was riled by the suggestion he is not a friend to wo-man. this morning he accused the questioner of being a plant from jeb bush's presidential campaign tweet ago the young woman who questioned me in such a nasty fashion was a jeb staffer. how can he beat russia and china. if you're wondering about the nonsequitor he tweeted how can jeb bush expect to deal with russia and iran if he gets caught using a plant? the woman has been identified and her linked in profile indicates she is an intern at jeb bush's campaign. she is unpaid an volunteer but not a plant. according to a bush spokesperson, lauren is a student who is passionate about an politics and attended this event on her own accord. this question was not sanctioned by the campaign. we can't help notice mr. trump seems to be very sensitive about being challenged by woman.
>> trump isn't buying that insisting she was indeed a plant. >> she was a bush plant. she was a bush plant. >> their campaign said no, she was not. >> they're not denying it. they acknowledged that it was. >> no, no -- >> if bush can't plant somebody in a room. >> they said she was not a plant. >> it was a bush plant. what happened is if he can't put a plant in a room with thousands of people and not get caught, how is he going to deal with russia, china, and iran? i don't think it's going to work so well for us. >> caputo tried. he tried. give him credit. when we come back, we'll look at the inherent problem for any republican nominee once they reach the general election. someone who knows all about the workings of a major presidential campaign, steve schmidt joins me next.
when a moment turns romantic why pause to take a pill? or stop to find a bathroom? cialis for daily use is approved to treat both erectile dysfunction and the urinary symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently, day or night. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or any symptoms of an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a free 30-tablet trial.
if i live surrounded by immigrants, my neighbors are immigrants, my family in is immigrants, married into a family of immigrants. i see the good of immigration. i see how important it is for our future. >> just under three years ago, marco rubio sawed got of immigration. today the current crop seem to be far different from that including the position of now presidential candidate rubio. joining me steve schmidt, the reason i want to talk to you, you know, the nature of this polarization of the electorate combined with the electoral college is that either major nominee basically starts with like a 45% floor. the battle is very, very constrained in terms of who's
persuadable. that's kind of the theory we're seeing people operate under. do you buy that general framework we sort of see both sides more or less accept as fact. >> absolutely. the obama campaign in 2012 came to the determination in the 1 states where the election will be decide in fact, only 5% of the likely voters were persuadable by either campaign. that was much of their focus with the data, the analytics, the targeting being able to identify early on the actual individuals who will decide the outcome of the presidential race. >> but that's a vanishing small number of people. >> a small number in a country with 350 million people. dem graphs with destiny. even before we talk about the candidates, whether they're good at debates or not, if you look at just the states where democrats have won six out of the last six elections they start with 242 electoral votes. if you add in the states where they've won five out of last six, they go to 12 more than is necessary for victory.
despite any magical thinking republicans wish to apply to the electorate, it is not possible as a matter of mathematics for a republican candidate to successfully win the presidency without getting at least 40% of the hispanic vote in the country. and you look at the 1988 election. the last person before mitt romney to have 59.5% of the white vote, george herbert walker bush winning in an electoral landslide. fast forward to 2012, you have 59.5% of the white vote but you see the correlating collapse of the asian vote along with the hispanic vote, along with the youth vote. for a range of issues on a number of different questions that republicans won't be heard because the positions for example on gay marriage and any one of a number of issues, you lose in an electoral landslide. >> so that basic math is the math i think is understood by the professionals in both camps. i think it's largely why we've seen the campaign thus far we've
seen from hillary clinton, right in it's not the campaign i would have expected of the hillary clinton who i watched run for senate in new york in 2000. right? times have shifted. the politics. they're smart people and can understand the way the math works. the goal for the democratic nominee basically is follow the path that led to two successive electoral wins. >> a fundamental truth of this race, chris, is a great republican candidate. dynamic, articulate, exciting. can still lose. a very poor democratic candidate inauthentic, inarticulate, shifty, not trustworthy. >> that is a mean thing to say about lincoln chafee. >> he was lighting up the debate is taken as we saw moments ago. >> right. that's the thing people have to understand. here's what i think is interesting. all that sort of structural stuff that brings -- that is not the case where it strikes me as less the case in this primary particularly on the republican side where does feel like it really matters a lot of the
candidate, who how good their professionals around them are, how good they are at raising money. we've already seen candidates fall by the wayside who the structural factors would tell you scott walk ser going to go pretty deep in this. he didn't. how much does candidate quality matter at this point in the primary? >> candidate quality does matter. look, there's two types of elections, change elections and there's more of the same. i believe this will be a change election and a general election dynamic but it's certainly a change election inside the republican party. you see 52. >> it is not more of the same. >> you see 52% of republican voters supporting three of the outsider candidates. you have to put ted cruz into that category, as well. though elected he's an anti-establishmentarian candidate. he has no interest in governing -- he is very much part of that outsider class. when you add his totals in, you're talking about 60% of the republican electorate in absolute rebellion against the political establishment of the republican party.
you see this, of course, play out with a faction in the house of representatives able to hold a gun to the heads of the larger republican majority. >> 200 members. >> demanding it gets its way or else with severe repercussions. we see the dissolution of the seams binding the republican party together. in fact, i think you could make an argument that what we're seeing is the creation of a third party in the country. i think there's an awful lot of republicans in the country who look at ted cruz, donald trump, look at ben carson and say that's not my party. i would vote for any one of a number of the democrats before i would vote for one of this em. >> i thought it's interesting, there was wall street journal data that the came from pew. it said lightly more than half of white southerners is identify as republicans. i thought that's weird. it's not they're voting for democrats. they don't identify with the party. that's a bigger issue we're seeing play out. steve, always a pleasure to have you here.
that is "all in" for this evening. "the rachel maddow show" starts right now. "the rachel maddow show" starts right now. >> thanks for joining us this lawyer. you know what, al sharpton, he did not always look like this. this is reverend al hosting what until very recently was his weekday show "politics nation." here's reverend al hosting the new sunday morning version of "politics nation." this is him in his exclusive interview with presidential candidate hillary rodham clinton. this is the reverend al you're used to seeing. this is what reverend al looks like these days. but reverend al didn't always look like this. and that is not usually a terribly relevant thing for somebody who has a big public persona like reverend al sharpton. a complaining in his look over time wouldn't necessarily be a notable thing. when you were talking about his political history. the difference is incredibly