tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg February 11, 2016 7:00pm-8:01pm EST
from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." politics.e begin with donald trump and bernie sanders were the big winners of the new hampshire primary tuesday night. chris christie announced on wednesday he would suspend his cempaign after his six pla finish. carly fiorina also suspended her campaign. the battle shifts to nevada the next states to hold primaries. joining me now, maggie haberman, a political analyst for cnn.
karni and nate silver of five-thirty-eight. , coming out of new sanders hasernie proved he is for real? maggie: without a doubt. what it means at minimum is he is going to be well-funded going forward. he has a legitimate claim on the democratic party, which he is not a member of. he has a claim to say i have energy and enthusiasm. across-- i win demographics. hillary clinton only won 60 five and over. that is a condemnation of the establishment and a lot of people voted against the status quo. they did not want more of the same. they wanted a change of direction. give him a loto
of ammunition going forward, if you does well in nevada. that's starts to become something of a ripple effect and is a problem for hillary clinton. charlie: what does she have to do? maggie: she has a lot to do. not go to her muscle memory, which is to want to change everything about her candidacy. that is partly where she is going to go. she needs help with messaging. that has been her problem. no matter how many staffers you have, if they can't provide a central rationale for why you are running, there is not much they can do. she has not done that. she gave a sharper speech last night in new hampshire when she was conceding. it was a different speech. it was tighter. it is still very much all about her and she needs to talk about the voters. charlie: we. maggie: we and you.
charlie: how do you explain it that she does not have a narrative or a message? she has done nothing but make speeches since she gave up secretary of state. maggie: you can make the case she is over prepared. inputs and they tend to become overwhelming. she does not have a sense of politics. she does not get the inherent rhythms, which i'm sort of regretting saying it, because we compare her to her husband, which is not fair. she is different. there are certain skills he had said in terms of -- charlie: or has had. maggie: what he has never been been a goodhe has surrogate for other people. as for her, she knows what she wants to do in office.
she is not good at articulating that. she likes to talk about the past a lot. charlie: is it she still the favorite? maggie: she is because bernie sanders has negatives that would make it hard for him. he has to pass the commander in chief test. foreign policy discussion was challenging for him. that is a major -- on iraq i was right judgment. maggie: sounding like he is talking off of a briefing look. you can compare the difference to her. she is also the favorite because there is no one else running. if there was someone else, it might be different? there is speculation somebody could parachute into the race. i find that hard to believe. i still think she will likely be the nominee. she will go into the general , which isamaged
problematic. edge they with the have, should be able to nominate a cardboard cutout and have them win. ironically, the person who cleared the field of all other democrats who could have challenged her is now seeming like a week candidate. at least for the immediate future. add?ie: what would you annie: the message think is definitely her problem. they were trying to shake it up. the new ideas, talking about voters,rican american but still she faces a problem that bernie sanders is preaching a message of revolution and she is preaching a continuation of obama, incremental change. to the harder to sell
young people. it is not inspirational. that is what is exciting these young people. how she figures how to sell something like that is the message problem. we are hearing about a staff shakeup. it helped her win in iowa by a tiny margin. of new hampshire is a test the message. it did not resonate. it showed that is a problem more than the ground organization. charlie: young people, what are they looking for? nate: part of it has to do with hillary's theory of change. you have to work hard for change within the system and you have to pay your dues and make incremental progress. and hasre 22 years old
seen big progress for gay pass, youamacare actually think this approach works a little bit better instead. if you go to their websites, hillary's is a laundry list of issues. in new hampshire, where she spoke, it is this same thing. she has an impressive knowledge of 50 years of american political history whereas bernie, his issues are income inequality and free college tuition. young people are underrepresented and he figured out i can make 18 to 29-year-olds a constituency. obama won two thirds of that. bernie has 85%. charlie: what does he have to do to win more and do better in the
african-american community? is the one major caveat about iowa and new hampshire, they are extremely white states. we have not seen much support for sanders in north carolina. gooda should be a fairly test. there is not a lot of polling. i'm not sure i trust it. if clinton loses in nevada, that is a diverse state. people come from all over the country. you have union workers. hispanic, african-american populations. beif he shows, it used to talked about as a firewall and all of a sudden they are talking them it saying among credit caucus-goers it is 80% white. well, itf he does makes it looks like he is viable. nate: it is hard to know.
2008, you can kind of say i get why obama did well in iowa and hillary did well in new hampshire. right now we only have two data points and we don't know how the map will fill in. i'm fascinating by, can bernie do well in appalachia? west virginia? very working class. they would not typically vote for a vermont socialist. we have seen change is that bernie's support has become downscale. voters who have an interest in voting for him economically. can't that translate into winning votes in appalachia, the south, the midwest and not just in the states that border canada? >> in terms of why clinton is struggling, she has made a lot of her own missteps.
this does not exist in a vacuum. sanderstalking about becoming downscale on the economic spectrum. donald trump and bernie sanders, despite being a plutocrat, the other is a vermont socialist, they share a lot of messaging points. trade,e both focused on anti-wall street, focused on the working man. some semblance of a pitchfork or gay. trump -- brigade. are these strange forces at play that are making it harder for clinton. it is not a static election. there is a huge desire for change. changed the landscape on both sides in ways we don't totally understand that will become clearer now that he has
won something. charlie: because of his appeal? he is something we have never seen before. at,ntioned he is a clinical -- a plutocrat, we have never seen that before. mitt romney was vilified for his business record. combined with his command of media attention, it is hard for other people. forlways says i am good ratings. there is something to that. charlie: we can document that. maggie: absolutely. it keeps people engaged. there was a line in the movie about howard stern where there was a study done in the people who liked howard stern said was wanted to see what he going to say next. there is something to that.
when you think about bernie sanders, as a general election candidate and electability, does he have an argument he has to make? nate: the further you are away from the center, the worst you do. it would cost him a couple of points. right, whereasy clinton is receiving fire from all sides, progressive democrats, republicans, and probably gets harsher media coverage, sanders is a viral media sensation. it would be different if you go on to march and april and he is still viable and is being attacked. annie: people feel like they were disproportionately impacted by the recession and have been negatively affected by the slow recovery. all of those forces combined are
creating the sense of turmoil that we see. there was some suspicion that maybe the polls were misreading this or the media was overstating it. new hampshire would suggest otherwise. charlie: it plays out in different ways. immigration, economic issues. maggie: i think that is right. annie: it's a problem for hillary. speeches, she has a tougher plan to crackdown on wall street and she quotes paul krugman is saying she has one. the bottom line, bernie sanders says she did speeches to goldman sachs and made $600,000. she has trouble looking like the honest messenger of someone who is going to fight wall street. hillary clinton is ofremely well-liked by most
a kratz. in new hampshire, where she lost, two thirds said she would be an acceptable nominee whereas donald trump, half republican said he would not be. so far, it is a friendly contest. it is interesting. i was wondering a few years ago by we did not see more of people in the united states -- of upheavel in the united states. some people are getting a again. others are not. right now the economy is doing well. barack obama is popular. why are people acting like it is 1929? i guess because there is a delay. charlie: we have donald trump leading the country almost everywhere you go. and ted cruz,h
marco rubio. where is the race going? everything i hear is it is going for a long time. maggie: it definitely is. it reminds me of the end of the movie "the candidate where robert redford says "what happens now"? trump has a solid lead in all public opinion polls. ted cruz faces a tough choice of who he is going to attack. and you have this sort of three-man other race for who is going to become the non-trump and that is jeb bush, john kasich, marco rubio. bush in thejeb lead, which is amazing. right to rise, his super pac, they aremoney and buying a lot of ads in south carolina. they are going to go scorched earth against marco rubio and
try to lay everything on him they can. rubio was very damaged by that debate before miss. -- performance. she did have a bar he had to pass which was that i can do something better than just be the first-term senator who gives a good speech. that is what he looks like. he could give a good speech and pay the same line over and over again. hadlie: what was it obama at the same time about him? maggie: were you callow? and marco rubio are not the same. it was the same argument. in terms of john kasich, one thing is i don't think he is a great fit. i don't know what his financial situation is. consultant, john weaver, i
have to imagine because south carolina is such a hotbed of politics, that will play out in some way, for all of those reasons i give jeb bush the edge. charlie: is nikki haley going to make an endorsement? maggie: i don't leave so. bush spend't jeb like millions of dollars compared to ted cruz? does that change? nate: we have to have some healthy disagreement. bush has the most resources. he has a good ground game. this is a product that failed upon lunch. it was new coke where right now as many republicans have a negative view of bush as a
positive view. i could see him winning the semi final and beating rubio, who has not had a lot of exposure. he has a path to winning the three-man fight. nate: then we agree. charlie: is he likely to win it? maggie: he has to come close to cruz and trump. and then it goes to florida, where it is complicated. i would give the edge to trump. if he wins florida, he will be hard to stop. better for hillary clinton because her race is going longer. if the republican field clarified, that would be the worst case for her where she comes into the general -- charlie: do you agree marco rubio suffered serious damage? annie: i think so. it was disconcerting to watch.
it was one moment. i don't know. it played into an image of him. if it is true and he continues to do it, yes. if it was one messy debate performance, i don't think so. maggie: chris christie got out. , the otherate stage night he put on a bomb vest and ran over marco rubio. he hurt himself in the process, they was problematic for rubio. he thought rubio was his biggest obstacle and i also think chris upset atis genuinely the super pac adds marco rubio's group had aired in new hampshire. they were quite negative.
charlie: even though it is conventional wisdom, john kasich can't come out of this new hampshire primary with a lot of momentum because a lot of people found him an attractive personality the way he campaigned and how he reacted to audiences. now he is saying, i learned a lot about listening. it's the opposite of donald trump. maggie: absolutely. the trump thing wrong many months. i'm not suggesting i'm certain this is how it is going to go. nate: he is a victim of the calendar. in the final third, you have all these blue and purple states vote where he could do well and a lot of them are winner take all. to get there from here, when
you're going to lose fourth or fifth everywhere else -- charlie: the calendar is his enemy. nate: he has a conservative track record. it's an impressive resume of governor of ohio. he has run a folksy campaign. can he pivot when he is not the most interesting story? trump so dominated the media ways it isn some like we are still in september for marco rubio and john kasich. voters don't know much about them. so you will probably see more volatility. that is why rubio might get a second chance. it is not like voters know a lot about him. the kind of liked him and then it was a bad debate. i think he will get another look. on andger this goes trump is picking up delegates
here and there, we can argue about his ceiling. he has a lower ceiling than a typical nominee. he has a high floor. 20%. people will turn out for him no matter what. maggie: this is what new hampshire showed. many of his voters made up their mind months ago. charlie: if john kasich does well, that is trouble for the democrats. maggie: yes. i believe anybody runs to be vice president, but he is probably running the race best suited to being picked for the ticket. he is a popular governor. why not? charlie: third party candidate? hello? [laughter]
michael bloomberg is the only one who has talked about it who has some sense of plausibility. ofgie: plausibility because the unlimited resources. charlie: he has political experience. he has a high profile. maggie: absolutely. i can make a case where bloomberg makes sense for the reasons you said and also as we on this populist message of anti-wall street, i in't know how mike bloomberg 2016 makes the case -- if you think about the metric president voters said he cares about people like me. that is going to be a challenge for mike bloomberg. he is more of a technocrat. he was a good manager of new york city. emoting was not his strong suit.
one of the things trump does is connect with people. with all the flourishes and minimal contact he did, people feel a connection. results is night's the kind of situation that would make mike bloomberg think about it. he looks at it and he sees donald trump and says, the rules don't seem to apply to anyone. i think it is true they would apply to him. charlie: it used to be said if it was sanders versus trump, that opened up a door to a third party. he would be the most logical one. is not that far removed from hillary clinton. he is more centerleft. trump might run away to the
center. said whenk at what he he was contemplating running on the reform ticket, kind of a populist centrist. with, bloomberg did a good job in new york, but for a national platform, a little bit more creative and clever. trump already is a third-party candidate and an effective one. you that youar might have gotten to the point where having watched this campaign, and you can imagine donald trump as the nominee and you can imagine him as being an effective candidate. maggie: there is a version of him that can be controlled and subdued. he did a town hall on monday in new hampshire where there were so many i feel your pain
moments. a man held up a picture of his son and trump did a lot of engaging. the day before that, he was at a large rally where he was complaining about the length of his drive. it depends on when you catch him. he has hinted he will do things differently. it's funny, if you have been marinating in the new york hard to see was trump as the rest of the country would see him. the rest of the country does not have gotten to know. the rest of the country sees this successful businessman.
this famous brand everybody knows. he's been in your living room on "the apprentice" or hiring you. i do think he is mindful there are things he will have to do differently if he is the nominee and he is prepared to do them. charlie: it's hard to argue with success. maggie: it's working for him. he beat the public polls in terms of numbers. he exceeded where the polling was showing him. charlie: coming off a loss. unwitting is not an formula for being the nominee. back in a moment. stay with us. ♪
richard eyre is here. he has served as rector of the national theater in london and has won six awards. his new opera is "manon lescaut directed siro anthony hopkins as an aging actor and his assistant, played by sir ian mckellen. the guardian calls it serious and grown up television. i'm very pleased to have sir richard eyre on this program.
opera is not new for you. eyre: i was a slightly more than a child for my first opera, 22 years ago. i was persuaded. i was prejudiced because i felt it was all about big gestures and everything about opera was overblown. talked me intoor it. i directed a production of "guys and dolls." he said i love your "guys and dolls." four years he asked me and "la ly i said yes to traviata" and since then i have come back to it and i came back to it at the met with "carmen" about seven years ago at the
invitation of someone who are taken over the met. i have been a regular visitor since. "manon lescaut" is my fourth opera in seven years. charlie: help me pronounce it. mannan, mon non. mr. eyre: of course it is in italian. they don't say it the french way. please don't ask me the correct italian pronunciation. charlie: you find opera fascinating because -- all, it isirst of music theater. music theater i understand. music is soe ambitious. the whole enterprise is ambitious. at the met, i get to work with
the best singers in the world. that is not propaganda. i get to work with the best singers in the world, the best conductors, the best opera orchestra, the best opera chorus. plus this extraordinary , initution that manages some bewildering way, to produce these operas of great quality and conditions, if you go backstage come you think, i don't know how this works, but it does. peter likes to reach out for motion picture directors. mr. eyre: yes. the first production was directed by the late anthony minghella. that is revived it now. he goes into theater looking for people with an experience of
musical, music drama. was somebody, music was stronger in his movies. me.lucky he came to i think what peter has done, and i think it is a virtuous decision, is to say, let's thin the division between broadway musical theater and opera musical theater and say it is about putting drama. telling the story. using music and the human voice. charlie: did you need to acquire special skills to do this as well as you wanted to? mr. eyre: the special skill is
it requires me to study the school for about two years. i read music like a dyslexic. i have to follow with my finger and listen to it and eventually . decipher the hieroglyphics it takes me about two years to really get on top of a musical score. i have to -- i can't go into a rehearsal without feeling i know as much as i can about the score. charlie: does that mean you can talk to the stars with the same authority you could talk to a brilliant shakespearean actor? i would not say quite the same authority. i can have a conversation. and they are willing to listen. of mutual respect.
i have something to offer them and they have everything to offer me. charlie: do you do this because it is a challenge? it is a place to paint with a different brush? mr. eyre: it's a different experience. yesterday morning was the dress rehearsal of "manon lescaut." there are 90 members of the orchestra. there are 85 members of the chorus. there are four massive sets. the just a cold puzzle of theing that -- the lid just cold pool of pulling that together, the object is to make cohere intoing something that is incandescent. the challenge is irresistible. when you work with those fingers, they are like the great
artists and athletes. they live the dangerous lives of athletes because they are like high jumpers and they are expected to be able to jump eight foot. and then one day they do 7'11". they set the standard. mr. eyre: and so the sense of gladiatorial. the audience are not ungenerous. , but't say they come along there is a sense of "show us something special." itn they do do it, i find found me moving. charlie: would you like to make a musical on film? mr. eyre: no because it is live. film, i love film.
i love movies. i like watching movies. the kind i've made are very small budget and about small stories. for me, the thing about peter and opera -- about theater and opera is at the center is a human being. the human being is roughly the same size, between 6'5", you know, five foot. it is the human voice. the unamplified human voice. the humanity of it is what i find profoundly moving. it can't be manipulated. whereas with a movie, nowadays you can manipulate. you can create -- charlie: the tools are so much more. mr. eyre: i find the one thing
whichistinguishes movies are truly successful and live on our ones in which the human values are more important than the mechanical ones. have seen a lot of movies recently where that is not the case and i come out feeling inordinateor an length of time by special effects and noise that has no dynamic at all. it is just allowed or louder. loudest. there is no nuance about it. charlie: this was in germany? ," ieyre: "manon lescaut first did it nearly two years berlin. fantastic. coproduction and it is a
if you had your career to do over, and you started as an actor -- mr. eyre: a bad actor. charlie: and you knew that? mr. eyre: i was not sufficiently confident when i started and when i finished for my intelligence to be suppressed by my talent. that is to say my self-monitoring won out over my ability. i became paralyzed. because if you start -- i am sure in your job -- if you hear in the way anng actor starts to see themselves moving and hear themselves self-censorship
becomes so extreme, you become paralyzed. aarlie: when you became director, did you know, this was for me? the talents i have are applicable to this? i did.e: i was very lucky. everybody who has some sort of patron in their life is lucky. often a parent or a teacher, or a sibling. , ire was another director was acting in a company and i asked if i could put together a production for a sunday night in the show i was in. i did this show and he said you have to choose whether to be a director or an actor. i did not know i had a choice. assistant on as his and gave me productions. charlie: anything you have not done you wish you had? well, i am hoping
to make a film in the fall of ian mcewan novel "the children act." he is a very old friend of mine. all of his friends have been at this table. about the great book friendship between them all. the late christopher hitchens and others. julian barnes. when christopher died, they came here to talk about christopher. it was amazing. ia was heren. something about british riders. -- writers. mr. eyre: they are the same generation. they are not all oxford and cambridge at all. sensibilitysimilar
and they have become very distinct and the remarkable the top they remained of their game. that is extraordinary for a generation of novelists. charlie: somebody made a film of one of ian's books. film in 1984ade a which was about thatcherism, the politics of the right, and the kind of slow corruption of the media. there was a character, very strongly based on vista for hitchens. charlie: who was a political journalist? mr. eyre: played by tim curry.
that is the film i plan to make. charlie: nothing of shakespeare. that you dramatist wanted to make and never did? mr. eyre: the shakespeare play i have never done, i've done all of the tragedies. i've never done 12th night. right never found the cast. in the next 15 years -- i am only 72. charlie: you have done that, l -- macbeth. lear. mr. eyre: anthony hopkins is keen to make a film of lear. he would probably be the definitive lear. he is a most remarkable actor.
charlie: you just worked with him. mckellen.wtith ian -- it wasd of hannibal lecter and gandalf together, feeding off each other. they had known each other. i have worked with at you in mcallen. i had never worked with tony hopkins. i have known them a long time. sir richard, sir anthony. mr. eyre: i anticipated it might be awkward having these giants working together. they fell in love. it was perfect. themould see both of sitting back and thinking, how
clever, they have chosen to do the line that way. there was this wonderful generosity between them. 2.is was for bbc weeks,arsed for two mostly sitting around the table. there should have been a fly on the wall. charlie: they have little cameras that can record everything that is happening. mr. eyre: we should have done that. charlie: it's about aging. mr. eyre: it is set in a theater who sees himctor through the performance they have worked together for years and years. it is not exclusively about theater. obviously they are doing a " andction of "king lear
the tension is will anthony hopkins get on stage? he's had a breakdown. gradually it becomes a story about mortality. and more about the relationships that build up in the workplace. it could be a newspaper, television station, it could even be a small business. they are mutually dependent and gradually you see the old man is on the way out. he has an awareness of time is coming to an end. he is trying to settle his debts. charlie: who was attached to this before? mr. eyre: it was done as a movie with albert finney. courtney had done it in the theater. it started as a play.
a terrific playwright and oscar-winning screenwriter wrote so a long time, ago. the trappings of a classic precisely because it is not exclusively about the theater. it is about aging. charlie: a producer tells the story that as you approached anthony hopkins, a he shouted out, i'm not doing it on stage. mr. eyre: that's true and he meant it. he tells, movingly, tony hopkins, the story of being on stage with judy dench and he armor was wearing this and i thought, i look good in
this. i thought, there is judy dench. i'm not half as good as her. went -- nervef went and had to be coaxed back on the states. he stood outside himself. itwere talking about earlier, when the third eye looks down and thinks, i can't do it. there is no way back. charlie: you had an interesting life beyond theater. you went through depression. mr. eyre: i did. quite bad depression. it's an occupational hazard. the work of very intensely on a piece of work and then it stops. the day after it stops, if you don't have the ammunition to there is at, i find
desolation. because you don't know where you are going or work brings you so much purpose the next day you have no focus? it's a mixed year of that. a mixture of needing your be validated. it is also, there is a wonderful called an american poet "the end of the war." hearast line is i could the dust falling between the walls. that is what it is like for me, when the noise stops. the silence is frightening and depressing. charlie: how did you come to deal with it? mr. eyre: i acknowledged it. i wrote about it. i wrote about having medication.
charlie: do you have to have medication the rest of your life? mr. eyre: no, no. i got better. charlie: it does not stop you from working. did, a couple of young people talking about bipolar. the number of people who have had bipolar depression and who have been enormously creative in bursts of creativity. mr. eyre: we give it a name. we not sure it is a virtue give all these conditions names and we say bipolar where we used to say a bit up today. there is a difference. there is a clinical difference. anybody who has experienced real
it is a miserable condition. it is different from just feeling blue. i've never felt that. me, the flicker of life has there been stronger and is a sense of shame, i mean, what does it matter when you are dead, but the sense of leaving behind the shame. i would find -- charlie: of suicide? mr. eyre: i would find that difficult to live with. or difficult to die for. hand, a on the other lot of people in this world are in unimagined pain. someone whojudge
had pain i could not appreciate or understand. mr. eyre: that is one of the things, one of the functions of art, if not the central function. empathy. the most difficult thing to imagine what somebody else is going through, to actually really empathize, to see with their eyes and hear with their mind understand with their and understand some else's pain is the most extraordinary gift. thank you. a pleasure as always. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪
♪ john: i'm john heilemann. mark: i'm mark halperin. with all due respect to all those candidates who are claiming others are going negative, going negative against you still counts as going negative. ♪ mark: what's up from the walkie? well, it's here -- from milwaukee? it is here where bernie sanders and hillary clinton will debate tonight. we will have speculation on their tactics in just a moment. but first, with iowa and new hampshire in the rearview mirror, and with early voting states coming up soon, today, a little over a week before the