tv Meet the Press MSNBC March 21, 2016 1:00am-2:01am PDT
this sunday. the republican establishment has tried persuasion. >> mr. trump is a con man, a fake. >> it's tried schoolyard tactics. >> and you know what they say about men with small hands. >> and still, donald trump keeps winning. but last night, more ugliness at a rally. [ shouting ] >> as trump warns of violence if he's denied the nomination. >> i think you'd have riots. >> but can he stopped? democrats cry foul. >> the senate will continue to
observe the biden rule so that the american people have a voice in this momentous decision. >> why can't they do what they're supposed to, do their jobs? >> mitch mcconnell and harry reid exclusively join me. do you like buzzer beaters like this one from friday night? well, we've got the trump-atology buzzer beater possibilities for what could be a wild republican national convention. joining me are jose diaz-balart of telemundo and nbc news, molly ball, joy ann reid, and robert costa of the "washington post." welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press." >> announcer: from nbc news in washington, this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. good sunday morning. let's agree on this much about the 2016 campaign. the rise of donald trump is basically paralleled the fall of the republican establishment. the more the establishment cries
"never trump," the more the voters snub them. on tuesday night, in spite of millions of dollars of negative ads and high profile criticism by mitt romney and others, trump won four of five primaries and he nearly tripled his delegate lead over ted cruz. republicans are desperate to use any means necessary, candidate collusion, delegate jujitsu, rules changes, anything, to deny trump anything, in part because of scenes like this. last night in tucson, arizona, an anti-trump protestors was set upon and beaten up as he was being escorted out of the rally. police arrested and charged the man who assaulted the protester who we see in that video. this was the scene earlier in the day yesterday in arizona where protestors blocked a road to a trump rally. so the rise of trumpism and the undoing of the republican establishment has been years in the making. it began in 2007 when
conservatives killed president bush's punish fsh for immigrati reform. in 2008, and john mccain was clobbered by barack obama. in 2010, the tea party revolt. they chose to ride the tiger instead of fight it. more recently became the falls of kantor, boehner, and the prevention of kevin mccarthy getting a promotion, all at the hands of a resurgent populist conservative movement. now many in the party are trying to stop donald trump. but how? >> you have the establishment. they don't know what they're doing. they don't have a clue. >> reporter: the stop trump movement is limping forward. although republican opponents have the will to defeat the frontrunner, it's not clear they have a game plan. there have been meetings. a confab in washington two blocks from the white house, calling for a unity ticket. another meeting of big donors in florida. and new ads from outside group. >> ask donald trump why he sides
with hillary clinton. >> reporter: the stop trump" group spent $13 million and trump increased his lead. many voters are not comfortable with trump. 29% of primary voters in florida said they would seriously consider a third party candidate. so did 35% in battleground florida and 40% in battleground ohio. what's the alternative? >> for me to win 1237 delegates, i've got to win 78% of the remaining delegates. that sounds like a high bar. >> reporter: mitt romney encourages republicans to vote for cruz. >> are we sure he's a mormon? he choked. it was so sad. >> reporter: but only to force an open convention. >> but john kasich is stepping up efforts to challenge cruz in utah, which holds its caucus on tuesday. now many trump opponents are turning to the convention, hoping to deprive trump of a clear 1237 majority.
>> nothing's changed other than the perception that this is more likely to become an open convention than we thought before. >> reporter: trump warns of violence if a floor fight produces another nominee. >> i think you would have riots. >> reporter: for man republicans, denial and depression are turning into acceptance. >> if mr. trump does become president of the united states, he's going to need a majority to govern. i think he would welcome working with republicans in the house and senate. >> reporter: that's an admission that the republican establishment, long on life-support, may officially be dead. >> john cornyn is a ted cruz supporter, we think. joining me now, i'm joined by the men who ran the last two republican presidential campaigns. stuart stevens and steve schmidt. gentlemen, welcome to you both.
stu, prior to last tuesday, you wrote there was still time to stop trump. do you still believe that a week later? >> sure. 40% of the people haven't voted. we got upset in 2000 when they closed the polls in florida, they announced it when the panhandle was still open, 40% was still out there. i think it's going to be difficult for anybody else than donald trump to get to 1237. but there's credible scenarios out there, 40% of the ovote out there that you could easily have donald trump with 1,000 votes, and ted cruz with 950. we've done this before. this is the ronald reagan strategy in 1976, against a sitting republican president. >> steve, the most expedient way to do this would be to rally around ted cruz. and that seems to be something that washington republicans can't bring themselves to do. >> well, look. ted cruz is exactly right, a vote at this point for john kasich is in fact a vote for donald trump. >> why isn't the cavalry
rallying behind cruz? >> trump is on his way to 1237 delegates. if he gets there, he'll be nominated on the first ballot. if he does not and it goes to an open convention, anything of course can happen. but if you look at the amount of new voters coming into the process this year, for them to be denied what they view as a small "d" democratic process, in fact these parties are the vessels that we use to advance democracy in america, are not themselves democratic, small "d," institutions. as the rules play out, dire consequences for the senate majority. >> there is a way to do this. stuart, you were on the receiving end of some delegate manipulation that can take place. ron paul never won any states but he came to the convention with majorities of delegates. let me show some results in iowa, just to show people the iowa results in 2012.
romney and santorum, second and first. ron paul had a majority of the delegates by the time the convention rolled around. louisiana, a similar finding. ron paul ended up with 6% of the vote in the primary. look at this, he ended up with 40% of the delegates once he got to the convention. and this happened last night in louisiana. there is a way to elect delegates that are more supportive of cruz, if you're the cruz campaign, to deny trump this. then it does undermine what steve was talking about. >> i think what we'll have here is a period where the candidates will really be looked at more closely, more closely than before, because there's fewer of them. you'll have a different threshold for it. i think there will be a lot of pressure for donald trump to believe as a frontrunner, someone who could lead a party. people would have had second thoughts about getting into a convention with john edwards.
we'll have to see how these candidates perform under these test. >> steve, it seems as if, mitch mcconnell is sticking by the nominee, paul ryan, who some people believe right now is the titular head of the republican party given his position, he's getting criticized this morning by a conservative columnist in the "times" saying, hey, where are you, you could make a difference. >> a lot of the republican leaders may come to a moment where it's country over party, given their sensibilities about a prospective trump nomination. you have people out there saying, anybody but trump, but also saying i'm going to support the republican nominee for president. they have not yet crossed that rubicon. as we go through the next couple of weeks of contests, as donald trump i suspect continues to win at the proportion that he has been winning at, he moves closer to 1237, it will be interesting to see what the leaders of the republican party say. now, what the consequence of it would be for them to peel off
the republican nomination is to forfeit the election to hillary clinton. there will be multiple supreme court nominations made by her if she's the next president of the united states. and of course also, the republican senate majority hangs in the balance here. and it's tough to see how senate republicans maintain that majority if the 35 to 40% of these trump voters are feeling disenfranchised from the process and they take a walk. >> okay. but then you have 10 to 15% of the party, maybe more of that. look at those numbers i showed in the exit polls, battlegrounds, ohio, florida, north carolina, these were republican primary voters who say they prefer a third party option than to pick between trump and clinton. >> yeah, trump is a disaster. politics is ultimately about addition, not subtraction. the whole idea of trump is not that he's going to take these romney voters and add to them. he's losing romney voters. just look at republican hispanics. there's not tons of hispanics in
the republican party. he already has 60% negatives with republican hispanics. it's going to be very tough for any nominee to do better than romney, against hillary clinton. he's going to do worse. >> we ran the numbers using the exit polls from 2012 in ohio and wisconsin, just on the white vote. and assuming all things were equal, and here's wisconsin first, trump would have to increase the romney share by 5 percentage points, go from 51% of the white vote, which by the way, romney got and still lost the state. 56% of the white vote is what trump would need to flip it. in ohio, to flip ohio, he would have to move the romney white vote number from 57% to 61%. this assumes that the non-white vote doesn't move at all. this seems like an impossibility. >> i'm not sure it is an impossibility. i think it's a very difficult task. but he is an asymmetrical candidate. he is so unconventional, we've never seen anything like it.
when you began the program today, you said looking back from 2007 the rise of the movement that led us to this. but it's more spaexpansive than that. we live in an era when trust has collapsed in every institution in the country except for the military. in business, in politics, in the culture, sports and religion. all of it accumulating to this moment in time where someone has come forward with profound communication skills, offering easy answers to people who through these wave elections have seen no changes. >> last point. >> 37% of the people don't trust hillary clinton. huge opportunity for republicans. so now we're turning to a guy who has 27% of the people don't trust him. he's one of the few people in america that is trusted less than hillary clinton. >> you mean 27% trust. >> only 27% trust donald trump compared to 37% for hillary clinton. he's trusted less than hillary
clinton. which is hard to do. >> i do try to figure out -- i'm trying to figure out what turnout is going to look like if the two candidates are the two most unpopular against swing voters. i'll leave it there. we appreciate you both. one man who is still in the race against trump is ohio governor john kasich, whose win in his home state on tuesday did keep his hopes alive and the hopes of the anti-trump movement alive in trying to get a contested convention. john kasich joined me yesterday in salt lake city. why are you in utah? if you didn't campaign in utah and ted cruz won 50% of the vote, you deny donald trump any delegates which actually helps your path to getting to cleveland in a contested convention. >> hey, chuck. chuck. look. i'm in utah. you know why? because i'm running for president and because i want people to understand what is a good, positive message, with a record of accomplishment. >> but do you want to win? >> but chuck, i'm going to compete across the country and
tell people who i am and let the chips fall where they may. and let me also tell you, no one, no one is going to that convention with enough delegates. i will have more delegates moving in there that will give me momentum. and then the delegates are going to decide who can win in the fall. because the other guys can't win in the fall. hillary will be president. and secondly, i've got the record, the experience, and the vision and the ability to bring people together to be a good president. that's why i'm doing this. >> we saw the evidence of what happens when there's three people in and two anti-trump candidates split the vote. missouri and illinois. donald trump cleaned up on delegates. if you go about this in new york and pennsylvania and some of these other states, you and cruz could end up handing more delegates to trump inadvertently. >> maybe ted ought to get out, because he can't win in the fall. maybe these people that are hot on that ought to tell him to do it. they try to tell me to get out of the race. how many times, chuck -- and now
they should be thanking me for staying in, because if trump had won ohio, it would be over. i have a record of accomplishment, a record of bringing people together, a vision for the future of this country. and guess what? in the grassroots, people are getting it. now, they didn't get it because, frankly, you put me on the tube a lot, but trump got $1.8 billion worth of free media. i got like none. >> not all of it was positive. >> people are starting to hear me and we're start to go rise. look at what our numbers are. >> if you thought your candidacy were helping trump, not hurting him, would you get out? >> chuck, i'm running for president. this isn't a parlor game of who gets this or who gets that. >> but you're stuck with a parlor game. i understand that, but you're stuck having to play a parlor game because your only path is the convention. that's the ultimate parlor game. >> i am not playing a parlor game. the convention is an extension of the process of nominating somebody. i was there in '76 when reagan
challenged the sitting president. they didn't like him doing it either. but you know what? his vision, his message mattered. listen. nobody's going to that convention with enough delegates. at the end, do you know why i'll get picked? because i can win in the fall, and secondly, because i have the experience and the record to lead this country. and chuck, if i didn't think that, i wouldn't be running. >> yesterday, earlier in the week, you totally ruled out ever being donald trump's running mate. >> under no circumstances. what are you people, kidding me? >> what about ted cruz? >> no. i'm not going to be anybody's -- i'm running for president. >> that's just as sherman-esque with ted cruz as it is with donald trump? >> you pundits have to get out of washington. you don't understand me. a lot of people just can't figure, how could this guy mean what he says, how is it that he's no different than what he
appears? you can't figure that out. people are like, what's his calculation, what's this or that. folks, i don't have time for her that. >> as you know, ted cruz is going to use two issues to try to wedge, if it's even a delegate fight, and that's common core and immigration. >> well, let me just say this. i'll tell you what common core is in my state. our state board of education has proved high standards. and our local school boards are the ones that devise the curriculum. we need high standards for our children in the 21st century. i am for shipping all the federal education programs out of washington to the states. so look, i'm telling you what we do in ohio, and at the end of the day, presidents should not run k-12. secondly, on immigration, i do not believe it is practical or doable to search in the neighborhoods and yank the people who came here illegally, and have not committed a crime since they've been here, and ship them out of the country. that is not going to happen. the plan that i support, finishing the border, making sure you have a guest worker
program, and having the 11.5 million who came here illegally who have not committed a crime, pay back taxes, pay a fine. let me tell you, they then can have a path to legalization and not citizenship. and any other position than that just isn't going to work, chuck. i hate to tell you that. it isn't going to work. >> you talk about yourself as a consensus builder. i'm curious, what do you make of the republican senate strategy on the supreme court pick, merrick garland? should the senate at least hold hearings? >> you know, chuck, look, this is one i'm not going to actually answer directly, because i don't think the senate is waiting there with bated breath for my opinion. i don't think the president should set it up. they can go ahead and meet with him, the senators can meet with that gentleman. ultimately, when i'm president, which i think we've got a good shot at being, maybe he would be under consideration for the supreme court. i don't know. but they ought to meet with him, show him that amount of respect. >> what about hearings? >> i don't think -- look, the
hearings aren't going to mean anything, chuck. that's up to them to decide. ask them. >> all right. governor john kasich, i'll leave it there. good luck in the next contest. >> always a pleasure. >> stay safe on the trip. >> and if it's sunday, it must be "meet the press." >> there you go. you can always get extra time by saying that. following that interview with john kasich, he walked back his comments on merrick garland, saying he would not consider merrick garland as a potential replacement to justice scalia if he's elected president. coming up, a lot more on the 2016 race. first, the fight over the supreme court. mitch mcconnell and harry reid, exclusively right here on "meet the press." laiter, the debate over hillary clinton's speaking style. >> i've never had more faith in our future. and if we work together -- >> we have heard the criticism before, that she sounds shrill, she oh, look... ...another anti-wrinkle cream
in no hurry to make anything happen. neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair works... ...in one week. with the... fastest retinol formula available. it's clinically proven to work on fine lines and... ...even deep wrinkles. "one week? that definitely works!" rapid wrinkle repair. and for dark spots, rapid tone repair. neutrogena®. "see what's possible."
while john kasich and ted cruz fight it out for the rest of the season and end up splitting the anti-trump vote. trump is able to come away with the majority he needs and he wins the nomination, game over. in bracket number 2, we start with the same standings. but in this scenario, cruz catches fire and wins enough delegates to deny trump the 1237 that he needs. so we move to an overtime. and an open convention. trump delegates eventually abandon trump and cruz emerges as the conservative compromise choice in a buzzer beater. in bracket number 3, this is our sinner ella story. it looks familiar at the beginning. cruz, kasich, trump, they all compete. and again, trump ends up short of his magic number of 1237. and again, we head to an open convention. but in this scenario, we go to overtime and we go to multiple ballots. we go to double overtime, actually. in neither case does cruz win the majority and the nomination
ends up going to, how about that, somebody not running. probably house speaker paul ryan. more possible than you might think. who is going to have their one shining moment in cleveland this july? it's something that we have a whole rest of a primary season to figure out. we'll be back in a moment with the battle over the supreme court and the two leaders of the senate, mitch mcconnell and harry reid. >> announcer: if you miss "meet the press," catch highlights in under two minutes. brought to you we needed 30 new hires for our call center. i'm spending too much time hiring and not enough time in my kitchen. (announcer) need to hire fast? go to ziprecruiter.com and post your job to over 100 of the web's leading job boards with a single click. then simply select the best candidates from one easy to review list. you put up one post and the next day you have all these candidates. makes my job a lot easier. (announcer) over 400,000 businesses have already used ziprecruiter. and now you can use ziprecruiter for free. go to ziprecruiter.com/offer99
welcome back. the expression "elections have consequences" usually refers to the fact that presidents get to choose who sits on the supreme court. well, when president obama named merrick garland this week to be his nomination to replace antonin scalia, republican senate leader mitch mcconnell immediately announced that republicans would not even give garland a hearing. mcconnell said the choice should be made by the next president. democratic senate leader harry reid immediately criticized mcconnell's move, saying the senate was abdicating its responsibilities. i spoke to both mitch mcconnell and harry reid. i began with a conversation with senator reid that took place
yesterday. let me start with a piece of sound on judges that you said over ten years ago. let me play it and get you to react on the other side. >> the duties of the united states senate are set forth in the constitution of the united states. nowhere in that document does it say it has a duty to approve nominees. >> the senate's constitutional duty to give a fair and timely hearing and a floor vote to the president's supreme court nominees is invileable. which is it? what is changed since 2005 when you said there is nothing in the constitution that said a vote, to 2016? >> this is the same thing as you talk about, the biden rule. there is no biden rule. what happened then was worked out. it was an effort to try to get something done. what i have tried to do during my entire career in congress and in the senate is to get rid of obstruction. and what we found the last eight years especially with republicans, boehner first,
mcconnell, is everything was obstructed. that was what they say the out to do and they've done a good job of it. we have always tried, i've been part of that for many years, to get rid of obstruction. i don't believe in it. >> what happened in 2005? i can quote you, you said, there's no reason to mince words, we're not going to allow an up or down vote on estrada. that's a form of obstruction back when president bush was in office. >> but remember, remember, this man had a full hearing, came to the senate floor. and all we ask is -- you worked in the white house, you wrote a lot of legal opinions, we're entitled to see them. and the white house instructed this good man not to do it. it was unfair to him. but that's what happened. we and the american people were entitled to what he had written in those legal opinions. >> but i guess i'm going back to, what part of -- what has changed other than the political party affiliation of the white house?
>> what has changed is you have to look at what has happened. we have never held up a supreme court nomination. since 1900 in a lame duck session, there have been six, they have all been approved. >> wait a minute. alito, you did a filibuster for alito and roberts. >> where is alito today? >> he's on the supreme court. but you failed. >> that's the point. you can draw these extra click l extracurricular activities that took place. let's look at two famous cases that came before the senate. bork didn't get enough votes in committee. neither did thomas. we brought them to the floor anyway. we met with them, we had hearings, and they were brought before the floor. they could have been killed in the committee. we believed there should be a full vote. and that's what we should do now. i don't know why mcconnell's done this to his senators. he's marching these men and
women over a cliff. i don't think they're going to go. he's said we're not going to meet with him, we're not going to hold hearings, we're not going to have a vote. that facade is breaking as we speak. we now have about eight or nine senators who say, oh, yeah, i guess we'll meet with him. we had a senator the day before yesterday who said, let's man up here, we're elected, we should be voting. there's going to be a break through here. >> why do you think you're going to get a hearing? mitch mcconnell has said no hearing at all. why do you think you're going to get a hearing? >> mitch mcconnell has said a lot of things. his republican senators are not going to go over that cliff with him. they're not going to do it. as i told merrick garland, you're going to become a supreme court justice. in addition to people agreeing to meet, we have republican senators, senators who are veteran senators, saying maybe what we should do is do it in the lame duck. orren hatch, lindsey graham. if you're going to do it in a
lame duck, do it now. >> four years from now, if you're in the fourth year of a republican presidency, you don't think the democrats should do whatever it takes to prevent that republican president from appointing a supreme court justice in a presidential year before the election? >> not only do i think they shouldn't do it, they wouldn't do it. whoever is elected president is elected for four years. obama was elected for four years. he filled that duty he had to the american people. he was reelected. he has an obligation to do his job for four years, not three years. senators have an obligation to do their constitutional duty for the time that the person is in. >> do you blame republicans for wanting to do whatever it takes? this is going to change the makeup of the court. they believe this is worth fighting for. do you blame them for doing this? >> absolutely. when you have oren hatch, chairman of the judiciary committee, now chairman of the finance committee, said you could not pick a finer nominee than garland. why didn't you do that?
he's complaining to obama. of course i blame them. of course i do. here is -- >> you don't think they should fight to protect the change in the makeup as hard as they possibly can? >> no. it's not been done in the past. their excuses are lame. they're going to wind up as a result of this foolishness, they're going to wind up losing senate seats they shouldn't have lost. i'm kind of glad they're doing it. mcconnell is leading his senators over the cliff. the senators are not going to allow that. >> and earlier this morning i was joined by the republican senate majority leader, mitch mcconnell. senator mcconnell, welcome back to "meet the press," sir. >> good morning. glad to be with you. >> i want to start with something you said in 2008 about judicial vacancies. here it is. >> our democratic colleagues continually talk about the so-called thurmond rule under which the senate supposedly stops confirming judges in a presidential election year. it's a seeming obsession with this rule that doesn't exist.
it's just an excuse for our colleagues to run out the clock on qualified nominees who are waiting to fill badly-needed vacancies. >> senator mcconnell, i started my interview with harry reid with a similar quote from him back during the bush years too. essentially you guys have changed places in your position on supreme court vacancies. and it seems to me the only difference is the political party affiliation of the white house. >> well, there was no supreme court vacancy in 2008. that's what we're talking about here, chuck. you have to go back 80 years to find the last time a vacancy on the supreme court created during a presidential election year was filled. you have to go back to grover cleveland in 1888 to find the last time a presidential appointment was confirmed in an election year. the election is under way. what we are using is the biden rule. 1992, when joe biden was chairman of the judiciary committee, he made the point
that a vacancy, had it occurred in 1992, would not be filled. harry reid, when he was leader in 2005, pointed out the senate had no obligation under the constitution to give a nominee a vote. and chuck schumer in 2007, 18 months before bush's term was up, said if a vacancy occurred, they wouldn't fill it. we're talking about supreme court vacancies. >> in each of those occasions, senator, republicans at the time criticized those senate democrats for having that position. and frankly, that's what we're seeing here. it feels like there's hypocrisy on both sides. democrats essentially don't want to confirm a supreme court justice if republicans are doing it, and republicans don't want to confirm a democrat's. isn't that what we're staring at here? >> nobody has been entirely consistent. let's look at the history of it. it hasn't happened in 80 years and it won't happen in this year. the principle involved here, chuck, when an election is under way, when joe biden was talking in 1992, the american people are about to weigh in on who is
going to be the president. and that's the person, whoever that may be, who ought to be making this appointment. >> you know, you said something, about, three months ago, you said, "my view is just because there is an election coming up doesn't mean you're not supposed to do everything. we've had an election every two years right on schedule since 1788." so i guess, when does a presidential term run out? when does a president lose his authority to make appointments, in your view? >> the senate has been quite active. this year we have another year which we have a great chance of passing every single appropriation bill for the first time since 1994. the senate is not doing nothing during this election season. but we're not giving lifetime appointments to this president on the way out the door, to change the supreme court for the next 25 or 30 years. >> let me get you to respond to a criticism that george will has that's all over the papers today. and you've probably seen it. but he doesn't much care for
your strategy here. he writes this. conservative george will. "the republican party's incoherent response to the supreme court vacancy is republican rationalizations for their refusal to even consider merrick b. garland radiates insincerity." what do you say to george will? >> i just disagree with him. when you've got a nominee that moveon.org is extremely enthusiastic about, and multiple articles pointing out that if judge merrick were in fact confirmed he would move the court dramatically to the left, i disagree with george will. i don't think it's a good idea to move the court to the left. but that's not really the issue here. it's not the person, it's the principle. who ought to make this lifetime appointment? >> are you completely ruling out a lame duck scenario if hillary clinton wins? >> yes. we won't be confirming this
person to the supreme court. >> even if hillary clinton nominates somebody more liberal than merrick garland? >> it would be hard to be more liberal than merrick garland. it's my hope she would on the part of the be making the appointment. >> are you comfortable with donald trump as your party's standard bearer? >> i'm going to support the nominee. i have a responsibility to support support my party's nominee. >> what did you mean when you said privately you could drop him like a hot rock? do you think it's appropriate for your senators to run against him if necessary? >> i think we've got a bunch of senate raisces in purple states that are very competitive. each of those rates will be crafted very differently. every one of those races are going to be individual standalone contests with people who we think have a great chance of winning in november.
>> and if that means running away from donald trump, that should be their strategy? >> i think every campaign will have a different strategy to appeal to different kinds of voters that we have in different parts of the country. >> one other final thing. donald trump is having a meeting with various republican leaders tomorrow in washington before he speaks to aipac. are you going to be participate in that meeting, sir? >> no, i'm in kentucky. he did call me last week. we had a good conversation. >> all right, senator mitch mcconnell, i will leave it there. thanks for coming on, sir, appreciate it. >> thank you, chuck. when male pundits say when your type 2 diabetes numbers aren't moving in the right direction, it can be a burden. but what if you could wake up to lower blood sugar? imagine loving your numbers. discover once-daily invokana®. with over 6 million prescriptions and counting, it's the #1 prescribed sglt2 inhibitor that works to lower a1c.
invokana® is used along with diet and exercise to significantly lower blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes. it's a once-daily pill that works around the clock. here's how: invokana® reduces the amount of sugar allowed back in to the body through the kidneys and sends some sugar out through the process of urination. and while it's not for weight loss, it may help you lose weight. invokana® can cause important side effects, including dehydration, which may cause you to feel dizzy, faint, lightheaded, or weak, especially when you stand up. other side effects may include kidney problems, genital yeast infections, urinary tract infections, changes in urination, high potassium in the blood, increases in cholesterol, or risk of bone fracture. do not take invokana® if you have severe kidney problems or are on dialysis. stop taking and call your doctor right away if you experience symptoms such as rash, swelling, or difficulty breathing or swallowing.
tell your doctor about any medical conditions, medications you are taking, and if you have kidney or liver problems. using invokana® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase risk of low blood sugar. imagine life with a lower a1c. are you loving your numbers? there's only one invokana®. ask your doctor about it by name.
welcome back. take a listen to hillary clinton's victory speech on tuesday night when she swept five primaries. >> i've never had more faith in our future. if we work together, if we go forward in this campaign, if we win in november, i know our future will be brighter than tomorrow and yesterday. thank you all so very much. >> so some people saw and heard. they heard a presidential candidate celebrating a huge night in which she took a giant step towards winning the democratic presidential nomination. others, many of whom were men, called her shrill, loud, hyperaggressive, and the admonition that clinton should smile for, which many women found ins does your makeup remover take it all off? every kiss-proof, cry-proof,
stay-proof look? neutrogena® makeup remover does. it erases 99% of your most stubborn makeup with one towelette. need any more proof than that? neutrogena. get one of our right best deals ever.... ....for just $9.99 you can get any large pizza with up to five toppings pile on your favorites with up to five toppings for just $9.99 better ingredients. better pizza. papajohns.com
has your phone turned you into like, scoring the perfect table. or getting a better seat. or let's say there's an accident. if you have esurance, you can use their app to start a claim. upload a few photos and an esurance claims rep will help you get your money fast. maybe that doesn't make you a control freak. more like a control enthusiast. auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company.
welcome back. our panelists are here, jose diaz-balart, molly ball, joy-ann reid, and robert costa. i want to pick up on what i teased before. molly, here is what dana milbank wrote. "the criticism is the same as in 2008. she doesn't connect, she isn't likeable, she doesn't inspire. if she can't plausibly offer pie and the sky and can't raise her
voice, how does this inspire people? this hurts with young voters, the same segment that shunned clinton in 2008." this is a male writing this. in some ways she's being graded on a different set of rules in her style, and this holds her back. fair? >> i think it's very difficult to parse what qualities are specific to hillary clinton and what qualities have to do with gender. there's been this criticism that women are more subject to commentary on their appearance. political science has constituted it and it's not true. men and women get comments on their appearance at the same rate, and it doesn't hurt for women to get comments on their appearance. a neutral woman, a made-up woman in a political science experiment, is viewed as a little more trustworthy than a man, they're not seen as part of the system, and there's some positive stereotyping about a woman. we've never had a woman
president so there's not a mold there, there's not a stereotype we can fit her into. >> older women, joy, see some of the criticism against hillary clinton and truly get offended. barbara mikulski said, "many of we women feel that there's a double standard. what's being said about hillary is what's been said about centuries." senator feinstein, "mwomen go through a magnifying glass that women don't." >> i think out on the campaign trail, particularly when i was in the midwest where i actually finally heard a lot of people who sound like hillary clinton, who have that same midwestern twang, and i can tell you, you can almost pick them out, whether they like hillary clinton or not, particularly if they're women over the age of 60, this really bothers them. this sense that she's being judged differently. because they're also taking their experiences at the office, if you're a woman boss you're judged as something that rhymes
with witch, whereas a man can be strong. younger women who have not experienced that in the workplace yet, their experience is more in the collegiate world, they don't respond to that argument. but women who have had some years in the workforce and have dealt with these biases, they feel incensed. >> jose, so does this mean any criticism of hillary clinton is going to be -- is the clinton campaign -- emily's list is stoking this, almost to galvanize women. >> when is the last time that we heard criticism of a man screaming too much? >> howard dean. >> and look what happened. that was one moment in time. i was looking at joy right now, joy, you and i use our hands more, that's a fact of life. i can't tell you how many times i've been told, latinos, you guys are louder in a public setting. probably we are in a lot of ways. but i've got to tell you something. i don't understand why hillary clinton has to be said she's
screaming, she has to smile more. i don't see men being talked about the same way. >> there's real fear when it comes to how donald trump may approach secretary clinton's delivery. his video ad which featured select clinton parking on the campaign trail. if you're kelly ayotte in new hampshire, you have to worry about how she's being portrayed. >> when you ever see an unnamed statement from fox news, you know it's roger ailes. he attacked trump in a way that you've never seen a news organization attack a candidate. >> saying trump has a sick obsession. it's interesting that trump keeps picking these fights with journalism on the right.
the gender politics there, to this point hillary clinton has tried very hard to turn herself into a sort of feminist identity candidate. she's leaned into the woman thing and it hasn't worked. >> that hasn't worked. >> maybe it will. >> if trump is her opponent in the general election, that turns the tables and makes the gender politics really intense. >> hillary clinton ran against the feminist ideal in 2008 because she was growitrying to commander in chief. donald trump specifically uses a woman's appearance to attack them, with rosie o'donnell, or carly fiorina. he is stoking a certain base that wants that male, white male primacy back. and that is a core part of his message. hillary clinton is in an excellent position to counter that in the general election. >> it goes back to this trump issue. that one ad that was run that
hasn't had any money behind it of women reading the things trump has said about women, can you imagine if they put money behind that ad and ran it for two weeks? >> it's devastating. >> northern virginia, we'll see it a lot. >> you'll see a lot of it. that's the real concern for republicans, how does trump play in the suburbs of northern virginia, the suburbs of philadelphia. republicans still need to win the suburban voters who went for mitt romney. >> we'll take a pause and be back with our end game segment and talking something that hasn't happened in nearly 90 years. not a contested convention. it's when calvin coolidge was in office. office. it's a and that a tired dog is a good dog. ♪ [ whimpers ] ♪
end game time. jose, i have a feeling the cube ban people are going to be more excited about this trip in cuba than necessarily the entire cuban population in south florida. >> everybody is looking at this trip. let's put a little context in it. the united states, when castro took power in 1959, had 48 states. hawaii and alaska weren't states. mick jagger hasn't even gotten any satisfaction, he was 15 years old when the castro brothers took power. a lot of people in south florida think of the castro brothers as kim jong-il. the president is going in there now and he is going to be seen as someone, by the cuban people,
who can speak to them. let's hope that he uses those words to inspire them. >> it's interesting, joy, i've been to cuba, and cuban people love america. they love america. they want to come. many of them are not happy living under the regime they lived in. but the criticism of the president is, too soon for you t?agoing, let the vice president go, let secretary kerry go, but until those guys release all those political prisoners, don't do it yet. >> there will be significant pressure on president obama to meet with dissidents. there's been an edict from the cuban government not to do so. >> i think it will hurt if he doesn't do it. >> he's going to do the baseball game. sports has been unifying, along with music, particularly in south florida, a lot of unity there. the president has to walk a line. the openness to the united states is there, there is tremendous openness on the
island to us and wanting to have -- >> 100%. >> but we cannot ignore the issue of did itssidents and repression. >> this makes the government in cuba anxious. >> there hasn't been an election there since before 1959. people want change. hopefully there will be change and the president will help. >> speaking of change, the republican party is hoping to change the trajectory of this race. molly and robert, you two cover this. the "new york times" claims it's a hundred-day strategy to deny him. >> this has been a keystone cops operation from the start. if this were a republican establishment that had its stuff together, the time to make sure donald trump didn't get the nomination would have been six months ago. instead they've been running around like chickens with their heads cut off. even now it's not unified.
the chances of stopping him are very small. donald trump got a lot of flack for saying there would be riots. but i think it's true that you can't just say to his voters, this large so far plurality lock of the republican party that you don't count. and that we're not going to listen to you. donald trump doesn't go away if there's some kind of weird contested convention and they take it away from him. >> the thing about all these anti-trump strategies, none of them talk about how they're going to woo the trump voter. >> i hope they can eventually bring the party together on the convention floor. every person who left the army-navy club seemed depressed when i was there, downbeat, because of the possibility of a third party bid. as much as they have all these different names they're considering, it's very difficult to do. the other meeting that bothers them, monday at jones day, trump will be meeting with republicans at capitol hill, long time party consultants. >> today, what you heard was a
capitulation to the idea that donald trump can lead their party and lead this country. other than governor kasich, there is a complete capitulation that you're seeing in terms of the republican party. >> the relationships with cruz have been so severed since the 2013 shutdown that cruz doesn't have the political capital he needs with the establishment to get them to coalesce. >> let me close quickly with the supreme court. does anybody here think we'll get hearings? >> i'm very dubious. but those eight very vulnerable purple state senators will be in a world of hurt. >> we're going to go to the meetings, they need the conservatives to come out in a general election. >> no way they're getting hearings. maybe some meetings but no hearings. >> mitch mcconnell is very determined. when he makes up his mind, it stays made up. >> that is true. but chuck grassley, if a poll comes back and he's under 50 in his election, i think that's the one way we could see it. >> you're saying we could see them? >> there's more chance
it's monday, march 21st. right now on "first look," history. president obama is the first u.s. president to visit cuba in almost 90 years. donald frum plans to beef up security at his campaign rallies as he and other candidates prepare to address the american israel public affairs committee today. the captured suspect in the paris terror attacks is squealing to authorities. we have new details ahead. plus an 11-year-old's joy ride aboard a cement mixer? gas pains at the pump as prices skyrocket. and fantastic finishes as march madness heads to the sweet 16. "first look" starts right now. good monday morning. hopefully you had a great weekend. thanks for joining us today, i'm betty nguyen. it is a notion almost unthinkable for nooin