Skip to main content

tv   The Journal Editorial Report  FOX News  October 17, 2020 12:00pm-1:00pm PDT

12:00 pm
♪ ♪ paul: welcome to the journal editorial report. i'm paul gigot. with a little over two weeks to go now until election day, president trump and former vice president joe biden participated in dueling town halls thursday night following the cancellation of their second debate. the candidates both pressed on questions they had failed to adequately answer in the past. >> you are open to expanding the court? >> i'm open to considering what happens from that point on. >> but don't voters have a right to know -- >> they do have a right to know where i stand, and they'll have a right to know where i stand before they vote.
12:01 pm
>> so you'll come out with a clear decision before election day. >> yes. depending on how they handle this. >> a lot of people is have asked you will you accept a peaceful transfer of power. >> they spied on my campaign and they got caught, and they spied heavily on my campaign, and they tried to take down a duly-elected sitting president, and then they talk about will you accept a peaceful transfer. and the answer is, yes, i will, but i want it to be an honest election, and so does everybody else. paul: this as senate republicans called on twitter and facebook to testify on capitol hill following the social media platform's decision to block reporting by "the new york post" about joe biden and his son hunter, prompting new accusations of big tech bias and censorship in the closing weeks of a campaign. let's bring in our panel, "wall street journal" columnist and deputy editorial page editor dan henninger, columnist kim strassel and editorial board member kyle peterson.
12:02 pm
dan, let's start with you and, dan, i guess the big news is donald trump is back post-covid, hutting the campaign trail -- hitting the campaign trail every day with an event and the town hall on thursday. how do you think he looks? >> i think he looks bent, i'll say that. this looks like one of the better recoveries from covid that i've seen, no question about it. maybe that drug cocktail he took worked. the town hall the other night, i tuned it in, i'm sure a lot of people did. it was a gross discuss -- disappointment. i was sitting there watching savannah guthrie badger and interrogate the president. after 15 minutes i sort of looked at the bottom of the screen where it said town hall, i wondered what was going on. she spent almost 20 minutes badgering him about coronavirus and trying to him a him agree with her.
12:03 pm
savannah guthrie was under a lot of pressure from social media and the left inside of her own company, and she had to show that she could stand up to donald trump. i think, ultimately, she blew up her own program and, frankly, i thought the president got a little hot under the collar, but i thought he held up pretty well under it. i wish more time had been spent answering people's questions, which was the point of the program. but that was not to be. paul: kim, what about the president's message here? he's got a little more than two weeks to, i think, make up a lot of ground in the polling. is he focused enough on the policy choice differences between the two candidates that you've one many times is essential -- written many times is essential to win this thing? is he focused enough on that? >> no, he's not. and you saw from that town hall he's still very backward-focused. and part of that is because the press won't let him look forward, as dan was correctly pointing out. everyone wants to keep going ten rounds over, you know, coronavirus. but the prime minister, he's
12:04 pm
got -- the president, he's going to have to make this discuss 2006 himself because the press isn't going to do it for him. if you have to say, look, my agenda is economic restoration, you know i can do it because i did it before, point to that record and legacy and point out the differences with joe biden, which are very, very stark on tax policy, on judicial appointments. and the president's been given an opportunity, given the appointment and confirmation hearing of amy coney barrett to talk about some of those big, fundamental choices. and that's going to have to be the closing argument for him if he wants to win re-election. paul: kyle, let's turn to joe biden. he had a dueling town hall. i watched him for the most part, i thought pretty softball questions for the most part. but i guess overall, and some stumbles, rhetorical stumbles as we've expected. how, how do you think he did overall? >> well, i think he did fine. i mean, there were points where he was talking about small
12:05 pm
pieces of his agenda, and he talked about building charging stations for electric cars, he talked about a $15,000 tax credit for down payments for first-time home buyers. but the thing to keep in mind is that this is just the tippy tip of the iceberg of biden's whole agenda. i mean, you go on his web site, and you can read the whole green new deal and see all the other parts of it that he doesn't want to talk about. but his message is, essentially, let trump get the ratings, let him suck you have the airwaves, and i'll sit here, and you can think about whether you're ready for a boring president again. [laughter] paul: yeah, dan, i think that is, that is the biden message. he's trying to reach out now to the middle. he's saying, look, i'm going to be the calm one, return to normalcy. let's not talk too much about what my party wants. this is just about me and trump's, you know, personalities. and, oh, by the way, i'd be better on covid. >> yeah. and i'm beginning to wonder,
12:06 pm
paul, whether this may start to work against him even in the last three weeks here. joe biden -- again, looking at that town hall -- he's really not giving people a clear reason why they should vote for him beyond that he's not donald trump. i mean, his description of his policies is so circuitous, god, he almost like trump sound like damocles compared to the way he talks about these things. the only argument is that he is not donald trump, and i think as we get closer to election day people are going to start wondering what exactly am i voting for in joe biden? i mean, his answer on packing the court was basically he's going to wait to see how the vote for her confirmation comes out, which makes no sense whatsoever. either he's going to come out for it ahead of the election, or he's going to wait til afterwards. paul: yeah. it's a preposterous answer. kim, the hunter biden revelations, that e-mail trove that the new york post came up with, what did we learn that's
12:07 pm
new about hunter biden's business dealings overseas, ukraine, china, etc., and what joe biden knew and said he knew about them? >> well, i think what it does is it fits a pattern that we have had from the senate report that we got last month that shows that joe biden appears to have known far more about it, about his son's business dealings and that this raises some very serious questions about conflicts of interest and what a biden presidency would mean in terms of that old somewhat stinky beltway influence out there. and the issue now is americans, are they going to get an airing on that issue when you have social media companies that are trying to suppress that story and a democratic media trying to protect joe biden. paul: do you think, kim, it's going to make a difference in the election? >> i do. i think this is a big last-minute issue that could really matter especially now that republicans are subpoenaing these social media companies,
12:08 pm
because a lot of americans are already very unhappy about what they see in bias in those platforms. paul: all right. when we come back, as the presidential candidates make their closing arguments, is the race for the white house closer than many of the polls seem to suggest? we'll ask pollster mark penn next. ♪
12:09 pm
12:10 pm
12:11 pm
♪ ♪ >> i'll tell you what, we have more enthusiasm now than we ever did four years ago. [cheers and applause] it really is true. and we have great poll numbers, although, you know, you see a lot of the fake poll numbers. they'll do anything they can. they're called suppression polls. paul: president trump in des moines, iowa, casting doubt on polls. the latest real clear politics polling average shows the president down about 9 points nationally, but that gap anywhere rows considerably -- narrows considerably in the
12:12 pm
battleground states. just how close is the race as we enter the final stretch, and is there still time for trump to close the gap? let's ask mark penn, president and managing director of the stagwell group. mark, thanks for coming on begun. is -- how do you see the race? 9-point arm, is that where we are -- average, is that where we are right now here? >> well, it is looking pretty good for joe biden. you know, you look at this, and there is not a single poll in america that i know of that shows donald trump winning. now, he's someone who has defied the odds before. he's in the business of defying the odds. but these are pretty tough odds going into the final swing here. paul: you know, your recent poll was an outliier a butt. a couple of weeks -- a bit. a couple of weeks ago was showing it closer, 2 points. what was the difference in the sampling there, or was this a matter of timing? >> i think that was a matter of timing. i think that was right after the
12:13 pm
debate. i think the days after that the president lost the spin on the debate really badly. i think that poll shows his ability to come back. we have some polls now with the show coming out that really showed him having made a lot of advance in florida but having real problems in the midwest. i think elderly in the midwest, last time he was a surprise midwestern candidate. today i think democrats see it coming, and they've poured a lot of money into there. paul: one of the polling numbers, maybe the most startling number i've seen all of this cycle, i want to ask you about it, and that's a gallup survey that shows 56% of americans asked if they're better now than they were four years ago, they say, yes. 56%. that's higher than george w. bush running for reelection are, higher than for barack obama, even for ronald reagan, and yet donald trump is trailing by what he's trailing by.
12:14 pm
explain that dichotomy. >> well, see, it took a gallup poll to discover that fact -- [laughter] when reagan was running, he told you that. [laughter] and i think the biggest failure of the trump campaign has been its failure to just fox on the economy -- focus on the economy and that fact. he is winning the economy in every poll that i have where he's losing to joe biden, he's winning on the economy, but he's losing on the virus. and i think that if he does lose, it's most likely really going to be because people decided he did a bad job on the virus. paul: well, but wouldn't the response to that be then talk about the virus, talk about what your successes are, talk about how you've done better than biden? and, by the way, biden doesn't really have much different answers other than he likes lockdowns and he wants to mandate masks. what's the difference on covid? >> well, yes. but people are angry, upset and afraid about the virus --
12:15 pm
paul: right, right. >> -- and they've got to take it out on somebody. but you're right, the president has to do or can do, has to do a better job defending on the virus and pushing forward his economic record and say, look, this virus will be over in six months one way or another. but for four years you're going to be living in the economy. that's his strongest message. but he goes out there and, i think, almost talks about anything but. paul: yeah, i have to agree with you. the other thing i hear from republicans is the enthusiasm gap. they say they have an enormous enthusiastic base, going to turn out in record numbers. democrats not so enthusiastic about biden. do you agree with that? >> yes. i i find that there is at least a twice as big enthusiastic base for donald trump over joe biden. but what joe biden has a are swing voters, my if favorite kind of voters, right? those folks in the middle. so they're done a great job --
12:16 pm
they've done a great job cultivating and making an enthusiastic base but a poor job of getting these swing voters, and that's why joe biden is leading. paul: the -- and trump, i guess, has to go see if he can get some of those swing voters back, or is this just a game right now of just generating more, even more turnout among natural trump voters? >> well, look, really trump needs a one in the debate, he needs -- needs a win in the debate, he needs to drive home some of these issues from the new york post, and he needs to close on the economy. and joe biden he needs to, i think, do what he's doing which is keep his coalition together, let people know that he's not donald trump, and so far, you know, he won the i primary by being not bernie sanders. so it has been a winning strategy for him of being not donald trump, which is all he has to do. paul: and very briefly, mark, the shy trump voter, people who
12:17 pm
don't show up in the polls because they won't answer or just aren't surveyed, is that a real phenomenon? how large is it? >> well, that's where this race gets within 5, i would give it a high level unpredictability because of that. i think at 9 or 10, where it seems to have opened up since the last poll we did, it's outside what i call the shy trump voter, you know, victory ring. but if this closes another 5 points, then trump will have momentum. if it doesn't, it's going to be a good day for democrats. paul: all right, thank you very much, mark penn, appreciate it. when we come back, amazon cancels shelby steele. the historian's new documentary on the 2014 police killing of michael brown rejected by the streaming service. we'll talk to mr. steele about his film and amazon's decision to censor it next. ♪ ♪
12:18 pm
♪ ♪ ♪ (clapping) ♪ hey, you alright? ♪ find the nonpartisan facts behind the real stories at ♪
12:19 pm
12:20 pm
12:21 pm
♪ ♪ paul: it's been six years since the death of michael brown, the black teenager shot by a white police officer in ferguson, missouri. his killing sparked nationwide protests in scenes that have become all too familiar in the years since. now in a new documentary by shelby steele, whether historic racism was to blame for brown's death. >> america's original sin is not slavery, it is the use of race as a means to -- when truth becomes the lie and when the lie becomes truth. >> if michael brown valued his life, he wouldn't take the chance of risking it. >> was it really racism that killed michael brown? ♪ ♪
12:22 pm
paul: amazon announced this week, just three days before its release, that it will not stream the film on its platforms. shelby steele is a senior fellow at stanford university's hoover institution and the writer, their ray editor and producer of -- narrater and producer of what killed michael brown. welcome, shelby. good to see you again. let me ask you why you and your son decided to make this film. >> we thought that there was somehow it encapps alated the real -- encapsulated the real story of race in america, where we are today, where things have evolved to. and we were fascinated by, again, by the fact that this young teenager was shot and killed. and instantly there was this huge reaction that this was the result of racism, this was the
12:23 pm
result of systemic racism, structural racism, so forth when the facts just didn't add up. and as time went on and there were many grand jury investigations, justice department investigations, it became clear that there was not a single shred of evidence that suggested racial animus had anything to do with the killing of michael brown. well, then what's the story? paul: that's the question. >> we wanted to see what -- look into that. paul: well, and you're -- the title is provocatively phrased, right? you don't say who killed michael brown, you say what. so what did kill him? >> right. the kind of liberalism that i emerged from the 1960s when america had, in a sense, confessed to centuries of racism, of having colluded with the evil of racism to oppress
12:24 pm
black people. my feeling is we have overlooked the profound significance of that confession. and that confession, in a sense, then set off all sorts of other things. whites since that time have been preoccupied with reestablishing their innocence of racism in order to have legitimacy, in order to -- lyndon johnson right away in the mid '60s, the war on poverty, great society, school busing, public housing, all sorts of things to try to one back enough moral authority to have legitimacy. and i think what just happened to me, in a sense, is an outgrowth of that what i call white guilt. amazon -- paul: i want to talk about that. >> all right. paul: give us the, give us the story of what happened here with
12:25 pm
amazon, because my understanding is that they were, they'd agreed the stream it and then changed their minds. what happened? >> i don't know what, you know, i am not privy to what went on inside amazon. i dud not even know that they had accepted it, is so i don't know how that happened. but clearly, they did not -- what botherrerred amazon about the film is that we question whether or not black american victimization is a source of power, the truth of the black american experience. what we discover is that it's not the truth. it's one feature. but amazon used it as an opportunity -- that is to say, the rejection of my film -- they used that as an opportunity to show their innocence of racism. so they, in a sense, committed an act of racism against me in
12:26 pm
order to show the world that they don't tolerate, they don't tolerate the idea of blacks and victims being tampered with, being questioned. of course they're victims, and we as whites pay off. we, that is what white guilt does. that's what amazon's quite happy. they gave $10 million to black lives matter, and they canceled me. thereby reconfirming this old symbiosis between whites and blacks that we've been plagued with since the '60s where whites, in a sense, used blacks all over again to prove their innocence and their legitimacy and why they should have power, continue to have power. paul: right. >> so it was a power move on amazon's part. paul: are you going to -- where can our viewers see the film if they can't do it on amazon? i guess a web site? but where else?
12:27 pm
>> there is, there is that web site, what killed michael brown, and we -- not to get sidetrackedded, but we really do try to answer that question, what did kill hum. and those forces are still in play. but that web site, what killed michael brown, is the best place to find it at this point since we don't have amazon. paul: well, i hope -- >> it's available as of today. paul: good. i hope you have a, you get somebody else to be able to pick that up because it's an important message that needs to be heard, amazon or not. thank you, shelby steele, appreciate it. >> thank you. paul: still ahead, amy coney barrett faces a senate grilling. what we learned about president trump's supreme court pick in this week's confirmation hearings. ♪ ♪
12:28 pm
12:29 pm
12:30 pm
12:31 pm
♪ ♪ >> anybody. okay, so in english that means that i interpret the constitution as a law, that i interpret text as text, and i understand it to have the meaning that it has at the time people ratified it. so that meaning doesn't change over time, and it's not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it. paul: that was judge amy coney barrett this week during her confirmation hearing spelling out just what she means when she says she is an originalist. president trump's supreme court pick facing two full days of
12:32 pm
questioning before the senate judiciary committee. so what did we learn about her jurisprudence and how she would approach cases brought before the high court? let's ask ilya shapiro, director of the robert levy center for constitutional studies at the cato institute and author of the new book, "supreme disorder: judicial nominations and the politics of america's highest court." welcome back, ilya. so what did you think of the judge's definition of originalism? >> i think that was accurate. she's very good at explaining sometimes complicated legal terminology in english, as the clip showed. those of us who have spent a lot of time reading her academic and judicial writings didn't really learn anything, but if anyone just came into this cold, i think they saw that she was a solid originalist as she defined there and textualist, looking at the statutory text, rather than trying to divine some mythical legislative intent, very much
12:33 pm
like justice scalia. paul: well, did you learn anything? do you think the american public learned anything about how she would approach cases once she gets on the bench? >> i mean, i learned that she took high school french -- [laughter] i learned she does the laundry in her family. i mean, really, everything that we need to know about a nominee is there in the law on paper record that we can read on the internet. everything else is just kabooky theater, and everyone is playing from a playbook. the nominee herself, going back to justice ginsburg, you talk a hot and don't say much. you can't, you can't judge past cases, you can't talk about specific hypotheticals because they might come before you. this is all everyone playing their assigned roles, and i don't think anybody's opinion changed, although the american public who was being introduced to her for the first time and probably not reading the large articles that i have been saw someone not just of great
12:34 pm
intellect, but poise and a gracious human could be very influential if and when she gets up to the high court. paul: the democratic strategy seemed to be to talk about not how she thinks about the law, not about precedent, but mainly to talk about outcomes. let's talk about what they think the results of her decisions and ruling opinions would be on health care, on abortion, on corporate governance, on all kinds of things. what was behind that strategy, and was it effect i have in making an argument -- effective in making an argument against barrett? >> well, very quickly they say they couldn't really attack her as not being qualified and also being this close to an election, they knew they didn't have the votes in the senate to block her. there's no filibuster. but they were making an appeal to voters to show that, you know, she might -- there's a case on the docket about obamacare this term, and there's approaching 0% chance that'll actually get struck down. but never mind, the political
12:35 pm
emotional appeals particularly by vice presidential nominee kamala harris, first time we've ever had a vp nominee questioning a supreme court candidate with those blow-up pictures of smiling kids, other personal stories, making a very political emotional appeal. and also you did see how the democrats tend to see there not being much distinction between the law and politics or policy. that's an important thing, you know? if you don't have the heart to decide in a way that helps the little guy or the most sympathetic litigant, that's not going to appeal to the democratic senators. paul: and that's even if the case, the law demands a different judgment than what seems superficially to be the fair outcome. you mentioned the obamacare case that's going to be heard before the court november 10th. you said there's passing zero chance this this is going to overturn the law? why is that? why do you say that? >> let's be clear, this is not a redo of the nfib v. sebelius
12:36 pm
case of 2012 where john roberts reconstrued the individual mandate as a tax in order to uphold it under the taxing power. we've had something happen in between, and that's congress zeroed out that tax as roberts put it and, therefore, it doesn't raise revenue, the mandate can no longer be upheld under the taxing power. okay, so the mandate falls, but the big question is what of the rest of the law falls. and that question, what lawyers call severability, what can be severed from that is different because congress didn't change anything else. in effect, congress just said we want to zero that out, but we think that everything else can work together, we don't need to eliminate the rest of the affordable care act. and so this is a fairly straightforward question now for the justices. i don't think there are four votes to strike down the entirety of the law such that judge barrett would become the deciding vote. i don't think there was even vote to do that.
12:37 pm
paul: yeah, i think it could be 9-0 myself. just very briefly, where will she fall on the spectrum in the court, do you think, if she's confirmed. >> >> >> well, it depends on the issue. you know, who is now going to be the median vote now that roberts is the superfluous man, number six? it could be kavanaugh on some issues, it could be gorsuch on some issues, it could be barrett on some issues depending on whether you're talking about criminal procedure versus government power, versus individual rights. paul: thanks so much for coming in. >> thank you. paul: still ahead, the fallout from this week's supreme court showdown as democrats attempt to make the barrett hearings all about, guess what? donald trump.
12:38 pm
12:39 pm
12:40 pm
♪ ♪ >> the republican goal of repealing the affordable care act. >> they are trying to get a justice onto the court in time to insure they can strip away the protections of the affordable care act. >> republicans are rushing to put a nominee onto the supreme
12:41 pm
court to be the deciding vote to take health care away from millions of people. >> health care coverage for millions of americans is at stake with this nomination. paul: this week senate judiciary committee hearing resemibling a series of campaign stump speeches with democrats claiming barrett easel vegas to the high court would put coverage for millions of americans at risk. is so how will the likely confirmation affect the election? and did democrats help or hurt their case with their questioning this week? we're back with dan henninger, kim strassel and kyle peterson. so, kim, listening to the judge and the senators, any stumbling blocks there to confirmation for the judge? >> no, certainly not for confirmation. the judge went into this with enough republican votes. her job when she was out there this week was not to say
12:42 pm
anything that would be disqualifying. she didn't come anywhere close. in fact, people were praising her performance. she's immensely talented. hard to have watched that and not felt she's eminently qualified. that's the view of -- imminently qualified. on the issueses not of the judge herself but, rather, the closeness of the appointment to the election. paul: kyle, the setup we had with all those mentions of health care and the affordable care act, you know, somebody sent them talking points all to deliver the same campaign message. and, i mean, does it, did it show you anything at all about what the democratic strategy is? is this just an election play pure and simple, or did it tell us something about how democrats think about the court? >> well, i think it did in that it was all policy. there were no questions even about the aca, very little about the legal issue that's coming up
12:43 pm
in the supreme court in the case on november 10th. but i don't think it worked. i mean, this is a strong nominee, and i think they were grasping at straws a little bit. if you look at the polling, the morning poll on judge barrett's confirmation is now at 48% confirm and 31% don't confirm which is a double-digit increase from when she was nominated. paul: dan, it does seem to be right now barring -- we know democrats could throw a last minute accusation out there. they did it against kavanaugh, clarence thomas, so they can do it again. but i think in this case it would seem to be unlikely. assuming that doesn't happen, this does look to be a real triumph here for donald trump and one of his legacy, maybe his greatest legacy assuming if he does lose this time for the first four years will be changing the supreme court. >> yes, that's right, paul, at
12:44 pm
least changing the membership on the court. but i think these hearings were extraordinary hi interesting and important -- extraordinarily interesting and important just to show the deep philosophical differences between modern day democrats and conservatives and republicans. donald trump's nominated three people, neil gorsuch -- we got into the issue of originalism with judge gorsuch -- the brett kavanaugh nomination disappeared totally into the mud. we didn't learn must much of ang there. but now with amy barrett we come back to issue of originalism and interpreting the law. the democrats, it seemed to me, made clear that they are wholly about the courts serving as producing political results that they want whether on abortion, gun control or health care, and that's what this argument about packing the court is all about. with two more justices on that court, you could just as well put chris coons and amy klobuchar on the court.
12:45 pm
in their words, the supreme court becomes a subsidiary of the politics of nancy pelosi and chuck schumer. i think that was clearly evident at this hearing and something that the american people got a better appreciation of. paul: kim, what do you think the impact of this nomination had been on the election? a couple of joni ernst's and lindsey graham on the committee, both running very tight a races. could this them? >> oh, absolutely. you saw them really trying to performance to this nominee. and in the process making the case to republican voters, look, this is one of the important jobs that we serve in the senate. if trump were to be reelected, we're going to be there to make sure he continues to be able to put through his judges. by the way, if joe biden is elected, we're a potential check on some of those crazier ideas that democrats are talking about. so you're going to see them out there making that case on the ground and showing clips of
12:46 pm
their performance here. but i think that there's some potential too for the trump administration. this was a chance this week if they pick it up and use it to point out their own promises kept in particular on the judiciary and the stakes, again, out there between trump putting more judges on courts or biden packing the court. paul: all right, thank you. when we come back, as republicans push to confirm amy coney barrett before election day, the race for control of the united states senate heats up. a look at the races to watch and what's at stake if democrats take control, next. who's supporting prop 15?
12:47 pm
governor gavin newsom. the governor says prop 15 is, "fair, phased-in, and long overdue reform", that "will exempt small businesses and residential property owners." join governor newsom. vote yes on 15.
12:48 pm
so i'm voting 'yes'. nineteen allows seniors and all homeowners 55 and older to transfer their home's low tax base to another home. it also protects the right to pass my family home to my son. we've all worked hard for our house and we should be allowed to give it to our kids without a tax penalty. it's time to limit taxes. vote 'yes' on 19.
12:49 pm
it's time to limit taxes. who's supkamala harris.5? harris says, "a corporate tax loophole has allowed billions to be drained from our public schools and local communities. no more. i'm proud to support prop 15." vote yes. schools and communities first is responsible for the content of this ad. ♪ ♪ paul: the supreme court fight putting a renewed spotlight on the battle for control of the united states senate with some members of the judiciary committee locked in tight races.
12:50 pm
the gop holds a narrow e 53-47 majority in the senate now, but republicans are defending 23 seats this year compared to just 12 for democrats. so, kyle, let's assume for a second that the republicans will win, pick up a seat in alabama. that gets 54 seats. but they can only afford to lose 3 to keep that 51-vote majority. tell us about the next most suggest potential republican seats. >> well, colorado looks like it's a tight race. maine where susan collins is running for reelection looks like a tight race. and the difficulty in some of those states is that there's a segment of the population that really likes trump, and there's a segment that really doesn't. and in an equally-divided state, also true in iowa where joni ernst running for re-election, it's a problem of how close you get to the president, how far away you get from him and try to keep your coalition together. i mean, part of the problem that republicans are having here is
12:51 pm
just that, you know, or there's 23 seats they're defending instead of 12 for democrats. when there's a wave election, six years later, you know, the tide may go back out. paul: yeah. but you didn't mention martha mcsally in arizona, she's very vulnerable as well. you lose colorado, maine and arizona where they're trailing fairly substantially, then that doesn't, you can't lose another one, dan, and that means thom tillis in north carolina or joni ernst in arizona -- in iowa, if those two go down, that makes it 50/50 or 51-49 for the democrats. >> which would not be much of a majority, paul, for a progressive. i mean, you've got conservative democrats in there like krysten sinema or joe manchin, so they need more than that. down in south carolina the belief was that lindsey graham was in a very tight race against his opponent down there, but "the new york times" poll itself say he's now about 6 points
12:52 pm
ahead. and one of the big issues here is donald trump atop the ticket. trump have coat tails or will he underperform and, therefore, take down some of these senate candidates. and, you know, paul, this is a unique election. they're not out there campaigning much in person. it's like a political science fiction movie where people are campaigning online and virtually. so i think it's really kind of difficult to predict how some of these tight races are going to come out in this particular election. paul: well, kim, on montana where steve daines is trying to hold out, a tight race against the former governor. you've got, you've got kansas which is an open seat. it's not a done deal yet. and i think lindsey graham is actually, he's got a tight race on his hands. it's not done yet because his opponent has literally tens of millions of dollars that he's raised nationwide. i mean, how big an issue of concern should republicans have that this could be a blowout election where they lose 7, 8
12:53 pm
seats in the senate? >> well, if you talk to republicans just right now, those races that you just mentioned, actually the last couple of weeks they've begun to feel better about them. the polling out of montana, the polling out of south carolina, for instance, kansas and alaska, these are places that, yes, if you really had a blowout election, it could be devastating where, you know, you could see 9, 10 seats lost. but again, the more recent as this race has gone on and we -- things have grown tighter, more narrow and you see a lot of last minute voters moving toward the republicans in that state, is so actually that's their view at the moment. paul: okay. and, kyle, i want to bring up one other race which is the michigan senate race where john james, republican, former member of the military is making a real race against the incumbent, gary peters, who's a lackluster incumbent with not much of a
12:54 pm
record, but james is running ahead of donald trump in the state in the polls but, boy, trump's got to make that a close race otherwise it's very hard for a republican senate candidate to make up 8, a 6, 8-point deficit. >> right. and that's also true elsewhere. there were many republican senate candidates in 2016 that outperformed trump, for example, in north carolina, the senator there outperformed trump by 1%. but trump is down by 3, and so that's the same pop for tillis. it would certainly help if trump could improve his numbers there. paul: and do you think trump is a net asset or detriment here for the senate candidates? >> it certainly depends on the state. i mean n maine, if susan collins has -- susan collins has a tough split voter that she's trying to appeal to. paul: yeah, okay. all right. thank you all. we have to take one more break. when we come back, hits and misses of the week. ♪ ♪ - i'm norm.
12:55 pm
- i'm szasz. [norm] and we live in columbia, missouri. we do consulting, but we also write. [szasz] we take care of ourselves constantly; it's important. we walk three to five times a week, a couple miles at a time. - we've both been taking prevagen for a little more than 11 years now. after about 30 days of taking it, we noticed clarity that we didn't notice before. - it's still helping me. i still notice a difference. a live bookkeeper is helping
12:56 pm
12:57 pm
customize quickbooks for me. okay, you're all set up. thanks! that was my business gi, this one's casual. get set up right with a live bookkeeper with intuit quickbooks.
12:58 pm
>> time now for hits and misses of the week kim first to you. >> paul, a misto nih anthony who spent this week complaining that the trump campaign is running an ad and quoting him as praising the federal government's virus response in the spring. here's a problem, he did praise the federal government virus response and the state response. also you haven't heard a peep from dr. fauci complaining about democrats using ads against trump and my advice if you don't want to be involved it in politics don't be involved in politics an stay quiet. >> all right, kyle. >> i will give a hit to america nobel prize winner a good year for the u.s. one american honored in each of the big categories one of the physics award from germany but also affiliated with university of california berkeley that's typical there's one study that says, of all of americans
12:59 pm
noblist depending on category a third or more of them are immigrants because the u.s. is a supermagnet for talent. >> all right kyle thanks very much. dan. >> paul here's a monumentalness this week the 93 members united nations voted into their human rights counsel, the following countries, china, russia, and cuba famous in order for reeducation camps assassinating opponents and political dungeon. in 2018, president trump pulled the united states out of the human rights counsel maybe it is time to kick the u.n. headquarters out of new york altogether. they would love living in moscow or havana. >> you know, people say that donald trump is somehow delegitimatizing institutions this case shows they do a very good job of doing that all by themselves. thanks, dan. thank you all that's it for this week's week thank you to my panel and all of you for
1:00 pm
watching i'm paul as you go hope to see you right here next week. ♪ >> president trump right now heading for a midwest campaign blitz hoping to use final weeks before this election to shore up support in two critical battle ground states the president making his way there. those people are waiting in the heart land and they are waiting with anticipation in the cold. he will hold a rally there in western michigan, that to start in the next hour. we will, of course, carry it live for you. hello everyone welcome to a brand new hour of america news headquarters i'm eric shawn. hi arthel. >> president trump expected to


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on