tv Matter of Fact With Fernando Espuelas ABC January 3, 2016 11:30am-12:00pm EST
tt2w>rxlh `:l#*.`:ctx tt2w>rxlh `:l#*0`:xb0 >> today on "matter of fact." the keys to a republican victory -- or will democrats dominate the electoral college? >> every exchange between a pollster and a voter begins with a lie. t always tell you. been broken for a very long time and everybody knows it. >> is mass deportation possible? timely advice on immigration, gun control and domestic policy from assistant to the president, cecilia munoz. class -- plus, what it really takes to be president. it is sad. >> the unforgettable moments politicians would like to
fernando: welcome to "matter of fact." i' m fernando espuelas. politicians without borders. >> she is a liar. fernando: they' ve dominated the headlines this political season with name calling, extreme statements and demands for apologies. in an election that seems to have no boundaries, who is really in the best position to win it all? i spoke with carl cannon, dc bureau chief for real clear politics. carl: it' s important to remember, every exchange between a pollster and a voter in the year before begins with a lie. the lie is told by the pollster. "if the election where held today, who would you vote for?" well, the voters know darn well t held today, it' s held in new hampshire in february, and in february, the new hampshire people will tell us what they really think. ve learned, you can never predict. the new hampshire electorate is independent, and we find out what they think when they go to the polls. fernando: why not iowa?
s a caucus. we spend all this money covering it. i am not even supposed to say this, probably, but it is a very small electorate. really true believers go. people like mike huckabee and rick santorum win. social conservatives dominate. they usually aren' t nominated. iowa is quirky. it doesn' t tell us "nothing." i think if you look back 4 years ago, rick santorum finishes in a dead heat with mitt romney. that showed that mitt romney was vulnerable. he wasn' t a strong frontrunner. it' s not that it' s unimportant. it tells us something. but doesn' t tell us who the nominee is going to be. fernando: and so you think new hampshire is a closer approximation, obviously not of the rest of the country because demographically it' s unique, but in terms of the process? carl: yes. it has about a million people, and it is much more diverse than it was when i started covering
was all white people. there' s a latino population there, there' s some african-americans. it is more diverse than it once was. but it always gave us a chance -- it gave them, the new hampshire voters, and they loved it, a chance to see the candidates up close. you had to go into living rooms in new hampshire. not just gymnasium' s. -- gymnasiums. coffee klatches they call them. these little rooms, and you had to sell yourself to the activists. and a candidate like bill clinton, by the time the voting came, he talked to half the people in that state. half of the democrats had seen him in person. now, what they' re worried about in new hampshire -- i was just trump wins, he hasn' t done a town hall. s done a town hall? what he' s really done is a rally he hasn' t spent the night there. and the question is, is that an existential threat to the new hampshire primary?
florida or california primary, if it is a tv deal then why should it be in , new hampshire? why shouldn' t it be in these i' m from california. ve worked in florida. t it be there? and so i think new hampshirites are a little worried, of either re a little worried that donald trump could expose fernando: that' that' s been floating around about marco rubio. on the ground, he' s depending on a very big media presence, both in new hampshire and iowa. what do you think? is that a right strategy in 2016? carl: let' s be fair to marco rubio. he gets it from both ends. some of the activists say he' s not doing all these things that we' d like you to do in new hampshire or iowa, but remember, jeb bush criticized him, sitting right beside him, and others have too, for not being in the senate. for missing votes, and they said he should resign. but you know, looking ahead in this new year to marco rubio, he is to me the most interesting candidate.
and this is the reason. after the last debate, he said, look, maybe this is not a majority view in my party anymore." and it may not even be a majority view in the country. but i don' t think that you can have 11 million people living here without papers, who love this country, who came here because they loved the country and are working here, their futures here, their kids here, and tell them they can never become citizens. that there' s no path for them to ever be citizens. now i remember, i' m older than , you, fernando. i remember when ronald reagan signed the reform act in 1986. i was there. this was mainstream republican thinking, and i think it still is. but that' s the big story of the year. is it? fernando: let' s talk about the democrats. are you expecting any surprises? in other words, is mrs. clinton on her way to becoming the party
carl: i can answer that question. yes. [laughter] she' s the establishment candidate. 100% name id, she can raise more money than she can spend in a campaign. known quantity, for her faults and her virtues, people kind of know them. the polls come out, show they don' t entirely trust the clintons, but they think they' re tough and competent, their best friends will say that about them. so the public knows these people, and they' re a known quantity. but they have restlessness on their side, too. the occupy wall street wing of s not 5%. maybe 40%. bernie sanders is out-polling her in these places, in these he' s not really in any conventional way even running for president. he does not air ads.
t attack hillary clinton. remember the first democratic debate where he says, "i don' t want to hear about your damn emails." she high fives him. i don' t know that he meant to do this, but he' s taking the email server off the table, he' s taking with it benghazi and with it the whole character issue. if you' re not going to run the clintons on the character issue, you' re not really running against them. because that' s their only achilles heel. experience, she has all that. fernando: you mentioned bernie sanders. he obviously has a message that has connected with 40% of democrats, perhaps but it' s also , a message that sounds an awful like the republican messages, in terms of middle class that' s been crushed. but how real is the angst across the country? do you perceive that to be one of the big motivators for next year? carl: i do. bernie sanders and his people will say "big business." "corporate america" is the
not big business. and republicans like trump and ted cruz will say "big government" is the problem. but they' re not really saying something that different. they' re saying that the game is rigged against the working man. it' s an old tune in american politics. but there come times when there is enough truth to it that it reaches critical mass. fernando: nothing about the presidential campaign season has been ordinary so far. and there is no indication that scenario will change anytime soon. >> up next, she was once an immigration activist. now she advises the president of the united states. what does white house advisor cecilia munoz say to barack obama? and, the road to the white house is paved with careful planning
lawsuits and courtroom battles. it' month since the tragic shootings in san bernardino pushed the debate over gun control back into the headlines. as assistant to the president and director of the domestic policy council, cecilia munoz helps to guide the administration on both major issues. is any progress being made? i asked her. cecilia: so the bulk of the president' s executive actions are in place. he did a number of things, including, there' s a visa modernization task force that' s sort of updating as we can legal immigration systems. there' s a task force on new americans, which is focused on citizenship, helping welcome immigrants who come to the u.s. very importantly, the changes to enforcement policy that the president announced a year ago are in place, meaning that the department of homeland security is focused on removing people who are convicted of serious crimes, and not on people who have been here for the long term, are raising families in this country. if they have no criminal record, they' re not priorities for
so all of that is in place. the part that has been held up in court so far is the expansion of the deferred action program for people who were brought into this country as children illegally, and the new program, which people call dapa, for people who can demonstrate that they have been in the country longer than 5 years and that they have a u.s. citizen or legal permanent resident child. about 26 states sued the federal government. that is working its way through the courts. and the next step, we' ll see if the supreme court takes the case, and if they do, we' ll have an answer about our ability to implement that program by the end of june. administration, i' m assuming, is confident that the supreme court will see that the enforcement action is actually legal? cecilia: yeah. we did our homework. we did our legal homework knowing that this was going to be controversial, and what it boils down to is this. the dapa program is a reflection of the administration' s enforcement authority. ve said who is at the top of our priority list. dapa is an expression of who is at the bottom of our priority list, who we are not going to be deporting.
there' re all getting rounded up and removed. and so what this is is a recognition that folks who are at the bottom of the priority list should be able to come forward, ask for deferred action on their deportation on a case by case basis, and if granted, have the ability to work. that is squarely within the branch. s about what our enforcement priorities are. that' s something the executive branch has the right to do. and while two judges on the fifth circuit court of appeals disagreed with that, two agreed with us, and we' ll see what the supreme court has to say. we' months, we' ve had a spate of horrible, horrible mass shootings. some of them are connected to terrorism, but many of them are not. the president has spoken many times from the white house and other places about gun control. there seems to be a real block in congress about doing anything. what can the president do? i understand he has some s s on his plate? what can he actually achieve? cecilia: so there are multiple
respect to the tragedy in san bernardino. you heard him give a national address. he' s focused on, in particular, looking at the visa system with which people enter. he' s talked about making sure that folks who are on the no-fly list, for example, can' t buy a weapon in the u.s. so there is a piece that is looking at those policies, and s a piece looking at gun control sadly, mass shootings on average are more than a daily occurrence in the u.s. this is an enormous frustration for the president. it is -- we' re unique in this respect and it is unnecessary. the president tried after sandy hook to pass reforms that the majority of the country agrees with. with respect to background checks, the overwhelming majority of the country agrees with those reforms. for that matter, the majority of gun owners agree with those
congress to enact those. the president will keep fighting until we do. like on immigration, he' s doing everything he can. he did 23 executive actions after sandy hook to tighten on things like mental health and other aspects of eligibility for and access to weapons. but the fact of the matter is that we have to do more to create sane systems, a more rational system that really protects us better, goes right through the congress of the u.s. and so this president is going to stay focused on that, because he' s gone to far too many memorials, and we' ve all mourned far too many times, and we can do better as a society to keep ourselves and each other and our children safe. fernando: it will be the job of munoz to steer the president' s domestic priorities in his final year. >> coming up on "matter of fact," politicians do the
fernando: what does it take to become president of the united states? ideally, you have command of the key issues, you are an effective communicator, and you demonstrate vision and leadership ability. in reality, a different set of skills is also required. in 2015, as politicians and their campaigns tried to appeal to massive numbers of voters, they found themselves in some very awkward situations, usually ones they created themselves or just couldn' t avoid. we were there to watch and wonder, what were they thinking? >> i tried to hit my mother in the head with a hammer, around the same time as the stabbing. fernando: candidates in this year' s election are doing everything possible to really stand out. donald trump made outrageous
he succeeded in delivering a ratings bonanza. but was it presidential? jeb bush hipped up late night tv, when he "slow jammed" the news. bernie sanders clearly tried to recruit more african-american votes when he chose to share a chicken sandwich with rap star killer mike. and hillary clinton decided to connect with iowa voters, eating pork chops on a stick as if it was her favorite snack. sometimes, the campaigns took a bizarre twist. dr. ben carson' s campaign took a foreign policy hit after he repeatedly referred to the terrorist group hamas as the mediterranean dish hummus. unexpected domination in the polls made him a big target for both democrats and republicans. both sides fought back. hillary clinton: he is becoming best recruiter.
i have got to get off my chest. donald trump is a jerk. fernando: and oddly, the only woman in the gop field, carly fiorina, was forced to defend her looks after trump insulted her appearance in "rolling stone" magazine. carly fiorina: i think women all over the country heard clearly what mr. trump said. fernando: the road to the white house is paved with gold when it comes to uncomfortable moments, spontaneous comments and revealing behavior too numerous to list. and guess what? this only the beginning. >> when we return new ideas for
much to the frustration of the republican establishment and the washington media elite, he has only grown more powerful in time. will trump sink? well anything is possible. , but right now, it' s not clear who or what can end his campaign. hillary clinton is most likely to capture the democratic nomination. only she can blow up her own lead. and that could happen. either a brutal gaffe or some as yet undiscovered dimension of the email scandal, for example, could trigger her decline. turns out that with a strong candidate, the super pac' s, those rivers of unregulated donations are having a big impact. whether raising marco rubio in the polls, to keeping jeb bush afloat and giving ted cruz a real chance of victory in iowa, super pac' s are playing a huge role in our democracy. is it good or bad? that' s for you to say. expect more war in more places.
t handle, of course, but we will see america engaged across the world, defeating isis and the taliban, but also in new challenges from china, russia, and global terrorism. and a surprising person to watch, president obama. in the last year of almost every administration, most presidencies wind down. congress and the country focus on the elections. meanwhile, the president' s initiatives are politely ignored. yet this time, something is different. with big ideological splits among republicans and plenty of muscular executive action, the president has been able to advance his agenda in the last -- advance his agenda. look for at least some of that momentum to flow into 2016. tweet me and use #matteroffact, and connect with us on our
fernando: since man was able to organize into warring tribes, we have been at war. today we look around the planet and see all kinds of conflicts, big and small. yet even in this advanced age of technology and promise, peace seems elusive and the world scarier every day. meanwhile, presidential candidates have tuned into voters' anxieties and supplied even more reasons to fear. but there' s something more dangerous that gathers strength and threatens our republic. listen to some candidates. they promise great battles in foreign lands as a way to make us safer at home. in other words, a kind of perpetual war without a path to victory. create exaggerated fear and reap the rewards by offering the hardest possible line against enemies everywhere -- this is the basic formula of a military demagogue. we need to rigorously question, examine and analyze the candidates' foreign policy and military vision. do they make sense?