Return to Transcripts main page

S.E. Cupp Unfiltered

Trump Spends Full Week Defending Incorrect Claim About Hurricane; Bipartisan Outrage About How Military Plans To Pay For Wall; Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) Makes His Case To New Hampshire Primary Voters; Sanders' Remarks On Climate Crisis Stir Controversy; President Trump's 2020 Fate May Rest On Economy; NC Special Election Could Be Litmus Test For 2020. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired September 07, 2019 - 18:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:00:00]

S.E. CUPP, CNN HOST: Welcome to UNFILTERED.

The weather used to be if you wanted to avoid controversial or divisive topics with other people, talking about the weather was your safest bet. Not anymore. Now, as is the case with everything else politics, has corrupted the last safe refuge of polite conversation.

Hurricane Dorian has neared the end of its destructive path, but the Trump administration is still trying to prove that the president's false warning from a week ago about where the storm would hit was actually not factually inaccurate.

The president himself sending yet another tweet on the subject just an hour ago but it reached new height late yesterday with a federal agency backing Trump's false rationales over its own scientists and meteorologists.

Friday afternoon, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, released a carefully worded and courageously unsigned statement that defended the president's Sunday declaration that Alabama would most likely be hit much harder than anticipated, two days after the National Weather Service had the storm on a much different path.

The unsigned statement reads in part, from Wednesday, the 28th, through Monday, September 2nd, the information provided by NOAA and the National Hurricane Center to President Trump and the wider public demonstrated that tropical storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama.

Also in the statement, NOAA, which is parent agency of the National Weather Service, reprimanded the Birmingham National Weather Service Office for debunking the president's factually incorrect warning. The Birmingham National Weather Service's Sunday morning tweet spoke in absolute terms that were inconsistent with probabilities from the best forecast products available at the time.

That led the president of the National Weather Service employee's organization to tweet, let me assure you the hard working employees of the National Weather Service had nothing to do with the utterly disgusting and disingenuous tweet sent out by NOAA management tonight.

Here is tonight's headline. This is a five-alarm fire, folks. Really let this sink in. This president got a government agency to contradict its own scientists to help make his falsehood sound more true. It is insane. And of this while an actual weather disaster was ravaging the Bahamas and the U.S. Coastline, all of this while people were dying.

During a weekend which many Americans were preparing for or enduring a hurricane, the the president and his lackeys spent their time crafting revisionist history all because he can't just say, I made a mistake. The stunning lengths he would go to throughout this week included personally doctoring a days-old official map with a sharpie, calling a Fox News reporter into the Oval Office to argue his point, tweeting out week-old trajectory maps as the active hurricane was hitting the U.S. on its actual trajectory, which is unwise at best, dangerous at worst.

Trump could have said, I misspoke, been done with it. He could have ignored it all together. But, no, instead he spent the week trying to make it true and enlisting journalists, scientists, government officials in his deranged campaign.

This isn't the first time a taxpayer-funded federal agency has been tasked with doing the president's bidding either. It's literally been happening since day one.

After the National Parks Service re-tweeted side by side photos showing Trump's inauguration crowd compared to Obama's, Trump reportedly called the agency, urging them to find photos proving his claim that it was the biggest inauguration crowd ever.

There was Trump's Orwellian clampdown on the EPA's social media footprint and mass deletions of climate change content from government Web sites. There was Homeland Security parroting Trump's false claim that tremendous amounts of his border wall have been built, when, in fact, the wall construction DHS was touting was just replacing old barriers and a plan that had been approved in Obama's first term.

Those are just a few. There are more, alarmingly, many more.

Here is the deal. What the president did is truly indefensible. It's also likely illegal under the U.S. Code titled false weather reports, making it a crime to make false claims under the authority of government weather science.

But this habit of using our government to cover for his inaccuracies, [18:05:00] lies and failures is an abuse of power. Some see it as worse. Garry Kasparov, America's most well known former Soviet dissident, tweets about this kind of authoritarian behavior often. 2018, he posted (ph) that blatant lies aren't just misinformation, they are loyalty tests. Obvious lies reveal the devotion of those that concur and the integrity of those that do not. Well. I guess we know where NOAA stands. I'm joined now by former NOAA Principal Deputy and General Counsel Monica Medina. Monica, you were shocked by the NOAA statement, right?

MONICA MEDINA, FORMER NOAA PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR UNDER OBAMA: I was shocked. I found it completely unprecedented and really dangerous and out of control.

CUPP: Well, the former NOAA chief operating officer also tweeted, perhaps the darkest day ever for NOAA leadership. I don't know how they will look their workforce in the eye again. Moral cowardice. What's your feel (ph) on that?

MEDINA: I completely agree. And the fact that no one was willing to put their name on that statement means that it was the subject of political pressure. And that's just been unheard of in the Weather Service and it's dangerous. It puts American lives at risk.

CUPP: Yes. I was going to ask you, as former general counsel, not signing it, does that have a legal kind of protection for NOAA or for whoever drafted it? What did you make of it?

MEDINA: Well, I think there ought to be an investigation and figure out who was behind that and why they let it go. If I had been general counsel at the time, I would have pushed back hard. And if my bosses told me to put that out, I would have quit.

And I can tell you that the previous NOAA administrators all disavowed that statement today. The ones I worked for were as horrified as I was at this turn of events.

CUPP: Well -- and I know -- I mean, I know there are great people that work there. What do you think the morale is like for them?

MEDINA: It's devastating. And you well-documented all the ways that the president has undermined other agencies.

But until now, NOAA had been relatively unscathed. And that's a good thing, because we need the public to trust those forecasts and to believe that they are true. And we need those weather forecasters to be able to make those little corrections. It wasn't a big deal what the Birmingham Weather Office did to correct the misperception about the storm track. That's exactly what we should want them to do. And now, I think they'll all think twice.

CUPP: Monica Medina, thanks so much for your time. I really appreciate it.

Now, let me bring in the host of the Van Jones Show, Van Jones. Van, you worked in the Obama administration on green jobs initiatives. If Obama did what Trump just did, Republicans would have impeached him.

VAN JONES, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I mean, he would already be impeached.

CUPP: Five minutes ago.

JONES: Exactly. I mean, he would be impeached right away.

CUPP: Yes, what do you make of those this week?

JONES: Well, look, there's a politics of it. I think we should talk about like the human reality of it.

CUPP: Okay.

JONES: Our government works a particular way for a reason, that the civil servants or the not political people, they're not elected, they don't -- they stay -- I call them the B-team. They're going to be there. Administration after administration, they have a job to do for the American people, not for the American president or prime minister or overlord, but just for the American people.

For those people to not be able to just do their job, which is to make sure that we don't have one state overpreparing for something and one state underpreparing, for that to become a political issue is shocking. It's -- everybody -- oh, I love America. I'm such a patriot, God bless America, I am making America great again, all that stuff, this is the opposite of what a great country does and what a great government does. It's literally the opposite and it's very dangerous.

CUPP: How do we -- how do we trust anything anymore? I mean, when you -- we now know that an official government agency was will to distort the truth to help the president, how do we trust anything?

JONES: I mean, that's really -- I mean, that's -- we are talking about now the last of the sacred cows. I don't want to offend any vegans out there. The last of the sacred cows is being slaughtered. I mean, this is it.

There are certain things that everybody (INAUDIBLE) the government to do. You are supposed to deliver the mail, gather data on what's going on with the (INAUDIBLE) and the critters and that kind of -- all of that stuff is just basic government functions.

When that gets political, when you -- actually, this is 1984. This is George Orwell. You have to unthink what you just thought. You have to unspeak what you just spoke because the government changed its mind.

And we have arrived at that threshold. In some ways, people -- why are you guys keep picking on the president for this? Because we understand what Kasparov was saying, is that it's a loyalty test. Will you believe --

CUPP: How far are you willing to go for me?

JONES: How far you willing to go for me? Will you believe this sharpie over the entire U.S. government? And some people say, yes, I will.

CUPP: Well, that's what I mean. I feel like there are no -- like this will work for his base. They'll say, yes, he said it. [18:10:00]

And why are you picking on him? This will work. What will the consequences be other than really tearing into the trust and integrity of these institutions?

JONES: These are the termite days. These are the termite days when you're boring into the basic public confidence and institutions, the basic legitimacy of institutions. Someday then those floor boards get tested when you have to trust the government. Are we going to go to war or not? We don't know if we can trust the facts. Are we going to prepare for a storm? Are we going to prepare for a plague? We don't know if we can trust the fact.

These are the termite days where you're boring in and boring in, at some point, those boards get tested and they break. And you don't have a functional society or a government.

CUPP: I also just think -- I mean, I can see the ads now they're writing themselves. Republicans are anti-science.

JONES: Sure. Well, absolutely. I mean, for a certain base of voters, mostly female and in the suburbs who maybe gave Trump a chance, by who also then decided they went to send a bunch of Democrats to Congress in '18, this kind of stuff is not good. I mean, for them, they are going to say, okay, hold on a second, science?

And also -- I mean, again, I just want to say, government workers.

CUPP: Yes.

JONES: You've got to go to work on Monday and say, cheese. If I do my job the right way, I might get smacked down on national television, global television by the president and by my own bosses in unsigned public statements.

CUPP: Yes.

JONES: How do I do my job? And this is -- again, it's a corrosive effect on the morale of America's government workers and on the trust of the American people.

CUPP: Well, they are all just there for Trump's benefit. Every lever, every population, every group of people, they are all just there to service Trump.

Apparently, it's really, really -- it's grotesque.

JONES: We do have an election coming up. And I just have to say that I interviewed candidate Cory Booker. He's going to be on my show. And maybe there is some hope there. I don't know.

CUPP: I was just going to promo. Van, always good to have you on. Definitely stick around for his show at the top of the hour where Van will talk to 2020 candidate Cory Booker and freshman Congresswoman Katie Porter. Don't miss the Van Jones Show at 7:00 after Unfiltered. Up next in this hour, he promised repeatedly over and over, in fact, that Mexico would pay for the wall. Now, it seems like military families and you will be footing the bill. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:15:00]

CUPP: Amidst troubling 2020 polling numbers, a dimming economic outlook, an unpopular trade war and sharpie-gate, President Trump's back is against a metaphorical wall, so he is smuggling up to his political security blanket, a literal wall, the border wall.

In a desperate attempt to circumvent Congress, the president used an emergency declaration to divert $3.6 billion from the military to help fund his biggest and still unfulfilled campaign promise. Defense Secretary Mark Esper signed off on that move this week.

So where was that money supposed to go? Nine schools and a day-care for children of military families, a fire station at Florida's Tyndall Air Force Base that was destroyed by a hurricane, Hurricane Maria rebuilding efforts in Puerto Rico. Overall, 127 projects spanning 23 states, including Trump-friendly states, like Texas, Kentucky and South Carolina, and at least 19 countries are being put on hold.

Now, the Pentagon maintains that these funds are merely deferred. But what that actually means is Congress would have to fund them again. AKA, best case scenario, your tax dollars will pay for the same thing twice.

Here to discuss is Democratic Congressman from Texas, Marc Veasey. Congressman, this move hits GOP and Democratic districts and states alike. It hits lawmakers who supported Trump's emergency declaration. In fact, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he will protect funding for a new middle school on a base in his state, a school that was marked to lose its funding.

Are you hearing from any of your Republican colleagues in Texas? I'm curious to know what they are saying about these cuts.

REP. MARC VEASEY (D-TX): Yes. You know, a lot of them here are obviously very afraid of Trump, concerned that they'll face a backlash in their own districts. But Will Hurd, who is a member of Congress from San Antonio, he has spoken out against these cuts. And we need more people from our delegation to speak up.

Let me tell you, before I was on energy and commerce committee, I served three terms on the armed services committee. I've visited at least five Texas bases over the last two years.

And I can personally tell you that the number one priority that all these base commanders have is MILCON, military construction project money. All of these bases need to be updated in some form or fashion. Many of them are way behind, including bases like Lackland, that does almost all the training for incoming military personnel and the Air Force. And this is just really going to be devastating to these communities and to these bases that have been counting on this money for quite a long time. And it's just -- and people should be mad. I don't care if you wear a MAGA hat or if you are Democrat here in California or wherever you may happen to be. Like people should be upset about this because these families and these generals and the people that work on these bases have been counting on this money for a long, long time.

CUPP: Yes. And in addition to the way that this will punish military families and military communities, what else will these cuts mean for your state?

VEASEY: Yes. For Texas, the cuts are going to be devastating. I mean, you're talking about -- like, for instance, one of the facilities that I visited in San Antonio, it was so outdated that they actually assigned people who were going to be where they use the new facilities by their last name.

[18:20:00]

So it was basically a lottery. If you were A through L, then you've got to use the new facilities. But if you were M through Z, then you have to use the older facilities where there was like not as good a ventilation, not as much updated technology. And it's really going to hurt our personnel.

And I'll tell you what else disturbs me too, is that some of these cuts are also going to hurt personnel that are serving overseas. Many of these maintenance facilities that were slated to be updated with this MILCON money was to support operations specifically overseas, in places like Bahrain where you are much closer to radical activity.

And so the fact that the president is doing this, I mean, it is really going to not only hurt our military because they have been, again, waiting for the money for a long time. But I really think that it puts a lot of our personnel in immediate jeopardy, particularly overseas.

CUPP: So what should the Congress do about this runaround? You're supposed to have the power of the purse. You already voted for the allocation of this money for those projects. And he's kind of going around you guys. What can you do?

VEASEY: Yes. Obviously, you know, we need to push back on this. This is not good. And hopefully some of these can be taken care of with negotiations between the House and the Senate.

But that is a bit problem in Congress, the fact we have abdicated so much of our power to the executive branch. It doesn't matter if it's a Democrat or a Republican in charge. Letting the executive branch and not even sure who the person is that are making all of these decisions to be able to do drastic things, like make cuts to military spending is not good. It's not how our constitution was designed and set up.

CUPP: Congressman Veasey, always good to have you on. Thanks so much for coming.

VEASEY: S.E.

CUPP: Democrats are in New Hampshire today making their cases to the first in the nation primary state. One candidate is facing heat for a case he tried to make earlier this week. I will get into that.

And later, the president tries to turn the page on a rough week with a rally in North Carolina on Monday ahead of a congressional contest that may give us an indication of whether or not voters still buy his spin.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:25:00]

CUPP: 19 of the Democratic presidential candidates descended upon New Hampshire for the state's party convention. They each took the stage to make their case to voters, a lot of eyes on Bernie Sanders who beat Hillary Clinton in that state primary in 2016. Here is Senator Sanders making his plea to voters earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (D-VT): This country cannot continue to have a president who is a pathological liar, who even uses his sharpie pen to lie about the direction of a hurricane. How crazy is that?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUPP: This comes following a climate change town hall in CNN, in which many of the candidates shared their plans, one moment involving Sanders stood out to many. Here is the entire exchange.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARTHA READYOFF, TEACHER: Human population growth has more than doubled in the past 50 years. The planet cannot sustain this growth. I realized this is a poisonous topic for politicians but it's crucial to face. Empowering women and educating everyone on the need to curb population growth seems a reasonable campaign to enact. Would you be courageous enough to discuss this issue and make it a key feature of a plan to address climate catastrophe?

SANDERS: Well, the answer is yes. And the answer has everything to do with the fact that women in the United States of America, by the way, have a right to control their own bodies and may think about their decisions.

And the Mexico City agreement, which denies American aide to those organizations around the world that are -- that allow women to have abortions or even get involved in birth control, to me, is totally absurd. So I think, especially in poor countries around the world where women do not want to have large numbers of babies and where they can have the opportunity through birth control to control the number of kids they have, something I very, very strongly support. (END VIDEO CLIP)

CUPP: That didn't go over well, because most people don't think eugenics is a great idea. In fact, if you ask me, it's a disqualifying idea. We reached out to the Sanders camp for clarification and they provided us a statement which reads, Bernie has always opposed governments dictating any limits on how, if and when people start and grow families both in the U.S. and around the world.

Bernie believes that federal government does not have the right to make women's choices for them. When he's in the White House, Bernie will fight back against the Republican assault on abortion rights across the country and defend a woman's right to control her own body around the world.

Here to discuss this, Republican Strategist, Shermichael Singleton, Democratic strategic and CNN Political Commentator, Aisha Moodie- Mills.

That statement, Shermichael, is basically responding to straw men.

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Right.

CUPP: We didn't ask him about his position on abortion. I know where he stands.

SINGLETON: They are just talking around it. Yes.

CUPP: Bernie has always opposed governments dictating any limits on how, if and when people start to grow families. I never said, you didn't. That's not the point. This is actually not complicated, Shermichael. A woman asked if you would make curbing population growth a part of his plan to address climate change, to which he said unequivocally, yes. And then that's disturbing enough. And then offered up himself that protecting abortion rights in third world countries will be part of that plan.

SINGLETON: And this reminds me of Margaret Sanger. Eugenics 2.0 and as an African-American, this concerns me more than anything else. And this is part of the problem with Bernie Sanders and his idea of socialism. I'm reminded of the aphorism. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I don't see how this guy is any different, to be quite frank, than Donald Trump with the level of control he wants to have over the average person. That's extremely problematic. It's disqualifying to me and it goes to show you why Bernie Sanders has not done well with African-Americans.

[18:30:00]

CUPP: Aisha, saving the planet through fewer poor black and brown babies, how does a liberal hear that?

AISHA MOODIE-MILLS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: OK. So first of all, as a liberal ... CUPP: Yes.

MILLS: ... I hear this whole conversation as like extremely disingenuous. Bernie Sanders did not ...

CUPP: There's nothing disingenuous about my outrage over what he said. Please.

MILLS: Bernie Sanders did not get on the stage ...

CUPP: Please.

MILLS: ... and say that he did not have a eugenics conversation. Now, what he did was ...

CUPP: He was asked, "Are you interested in curbing population control?"

MILLS: And he made the wrong answer ...

CUPP: Yes.

MILLS: ... by saying yes, but that was because Bernie Sanders' biggest problem in my humble opinion is that he flubs just like Joe Biden flubs.

CUPP: We asked him to clarify, Aisha.

MILLS: And he did not.

CUPP: He did not changed his mind.

MILLS: He did not lean into a conversation about climate change in that statement. He actually started talking about the woman's right to choose. And I think that what he did wrong ...

SINGLETON: Yes.

MILLS: ... is that he was not able to pivot from a ridiculous question and actually make a point that is the point that he makes all of the time. That is a point that liberals agree with.

CUPP: He didn't pivot. He said, "Yes." Affirmatively, he answered yes.

MILLS: Sure.

CUPP: And Aisha ...

SINGLETON: So you think he misspoke.

CUPP: ... I think this response does not ...

MILLS: I think that Bernie Sanders misspoke.

CUPP: ... take that away. MILLS: And I'll say this as someone who does not defend Bernie

Sanders.

SINGLETON: No. No. And I know that.

MILLS: And certainly is not on his payroll.

SINGLETON: So ...

CUPP: I understand.

MILLS: If you look at my Twitter, you all know how I feel about Bernie Sanders.

SINGLETON: No, no, so Aisha what ...

MILLS: But I think it's disingenuous ...

SINGLETON: Sure, go ahead.

MILLS: ... to try to feed a very right wing rabid idea to just try to say the socialist guy wants to kill our babies.

CUPP: I don't know what you're talking about.

(CROSSTALK)

CUPP: Guys. Guys, I don't know what you're talking about. Don't call me disingenuous. I'm genuinely outraged about this, because it's disgusting and the majority of the country is not interested in population control.

MILLS: Sure, and he did not say that.

CUPP: It's an extreme idea.

MILLS: And he said, "Yes, I totally agree with you." And he did not say he believes deeply in population control.

CUPP: Excuse me. We need to have facts.

MILLS: I think he misspoke and he said yes.

SINGLETON: But he did ...

MILLS: And he should have said no.

CUPP: We need to have facts on this show. We need to have facts on this show.

(CROSSTALK)

CUPP: Stop. Do you - would you be courageous enough to discuss ...

MILLS: I think the question was outrageous.

CUPP: Excuse me.

MILLS: It was outrageous.

CUPP: "Would you be courageous enough to discuss this issue and make it a key feature of a plan to address climate catastrophe?" The answer ...

SINGLETON: He said yes.

CUPP: The answer, Martha (ph), is yes.

SINGLETON: He said yes.

CUPP: And the answer has everything to do with the fact that - look, don't put words in his mouth. This is what he said. I asked for clarification, he did not take it back, nothing he said in his statement changes what he said here.

MILLS: I am not a Bernie Sanders apologist. I will say, though, that what I have not seen is anyone other than you being as outraged in interpreting this in the same way.

(CROSSTALK)

MILLS: And so what I'm saying ...

CUPP: Go on the Google. Go on the Google, it's not just me.

MILLS: ... that he does have some explaining to do.

SINGLETON: Sure.

MILLS: But I do not believe that those two conversations were intended to be conflated. I think that he did not ...

CUPP: He conflated that.

MILLS: ... that is bond well to this question that in my mind, frankly, (inaudible) ...

SINGLETON: But, S.E., can I - but I do want to say ...

CUPP: I think that you're inventing a justification for this that just isn't there.

SINGLETON: ... I do want to say I know your position, I follow you, I've known you for a while, so I believe what you're saying. But my point, Aisha, would be if he did miss speak, they had a clear opportunity to clarify. He didn't say, "Yes. But wait a minute, let me back this up."

CUPP: I'm not for population control.

SINGLETON: He expounded upon the yes which I find to be problematic and when given the opportunity ...

MILLS: I think that he expounded on the women's right to choose but (inaudible) ...

SINGLETON: ... but when given the opportunity when asked by this show to clarify, to add further specificity, he did not at all. That's extremely problematic to me.

CUPP: All right. Let me move on just a little.

SINGLETON: Sure.

CUPP: Same theme, Aisha, Joe Biden has been criticized in the past for pretty clearly defending the China one child policy. It was a while ago. Biden also isn't always very clear with his words, do you think that'll come up in the next debate? Will this kind of live on?

MILLS: You're making my point, is that I think that both Bernie and Biden are men of a certain age, I think that they have what we're as the media kind of pushing office gaps, which aren't necessarily clarification.

CUPP: Oh, I don't think this a gap but I think he meant it.

MILLS: I think that they say things often not really knowing how it lands, not necessarily knowing how it's going to land on people and what they really mean.

CUPP: Yes.

SINGLETON: Sure.

CUPP: Yes.

MILLS: I think that that's ultimately the problem is that both Biden and Bernie ...

CUPP: Yes.

MILLS: ... they kind of flip off and they say things and they're like, "Oh, I don't know why people are outraged." Well, it's because you're not necessarily prepared and clear in the first place.

SINGLETON: Well, I would generally be willing to give people the benefit of the doubt, but there is no way in the world I'm giving Bernie Sanders the benefit of the doubt because of this reason. He did not walk it back. He expounded upon the yes. That's problematic to me. Two, when confronted with this and given the opportunity to respond, they didn't even answer the question at all.

CUPP: No.

SINGLETON: They started talking about something that was completely irrelevant so we have to them at face value.

CUPP: All right, guys. So we got to go ...

(CROSSTALK)

MILLS: ... is not irrelevant, that's the thing.

CUPP: ... we've got a debate next week.

SINGLETON: Yes, we do.

MILLS: Yes.

CUPP: Maybe we'll see if he provide some clarification, if it comes up again. Shermichael, Aisha, thank you guys both so much for being here.

MILLS: Thank you.

SINGLETON: Thanks, S.E.

CUPP: Up next, lower than expected job growth, a contracting manufacturing sector, unresolved trade wars, the President's once strong re-election pillar is showing signs of strain.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:38:27]

CUPP: In THE FED FILE tonight, President Trump's fate in 2020 is tied closely to the fate of the economy and right now he has new reasons to be concerned. The latest jobs report for one, employers adding 130,000 jobs, fewer than the anticipated 150,000. Also this week, we learned that the manufacturing sector shrank for the first time in three years. Trade wars it seems are not easy to win.

Data suggests and most economists agree that the economy is heading for a downturn, but there are still quite a few factors that could impact that and the President's 2020 chances too. Trade talks as we learned from China are on the docket for October and Congress will tackle the USMCA, that's the NAFTA do over when they get back.

As one strategist put it, "The state of the economy is the single biggest factor in determining whether the President is reelected, and right now, it feels like they're riding a rubber ducky into alligator infested waters."

Well, he joins me now, former aide to House Speaker John Boehner and partner at Hamilton Place Strategies, Michael Steel. So Mike, how bad is it for Trump?

MICHAEL STEEL, FORMER AIDE, HOUSE SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER: We don't know yet. I mean, look, he has an incredible story to tell. Millions and millions of jobs created, record setting low unemployment and those things aren't an accident.

We're at a very end of a long economic expansion, slow as it was at the beginning and his policies, tax reform deregulation are a big part of that. At the same time with these other policies, particularly trade, it feels like he's continually break dancing on the lip of a volcano waiting for Brexit or his trade thrust.

[18:40:01]

CUPP: Where do you come up with these, Mike? It's amazing. I didn't mean to interrupt. I mean you metaphors really paint the picture.

STEEL: I'm frustrated because I feel as though these are so many good solid economic concerns ...

CUPP: Right.

STEEL: ... and economic policies showing great results and yet some sort of tweet or sharpies' situation involving Alabama in a hurricane or China trade or ...

CUPP: Right.

STEEL: ... whatever it is tomorrow morning could upend the apple cart and that's really scary and frustrating.

CUPP: And for the first time in his presidency, a plurality of voters are now saying they believe the economy is getting worse. I think he knows it which is why he wants the Fed to help juice the economy and also maybe why he tweeted this afternoon, "Our economy is doing great!!!!!" With five exclamation points just to make it super convincing.

And according to CNN reporting, he's instructing aides to develop new ideas to get folks excited about the economy.

STEEL: Yes. I think here by ordering the economy to improve in a tweet is maybe the strategy. No, there's a lot of things that he can still do but the biggest thing he can do and the thing that is the most unnatural to this President is offer some stability, some normalcy.

CUPP: Yes.

STEEL: People who run large corporations want to be able to plan for the next quarter or the next year. They need to know what the tax rate, the trade policies are going to be, offer some certainty.

CUPP: So you worked on campaigns for Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, you also work with John Boehner, so I don't have to tell you all three men are no longer in elected politics and probably not all that relevant to today's Republican Party. I wonder what you make of the Trumpification of the GOP where now the party supports things like protectionism, eminent domain, big government, big spending, raising the debt, raising the depth of all the things that used to be bad.

STEEL: Yes. There's a certain element that always happens of rallying around the President. There's a certain element of the winning ...

CUPP: Forgiveness.

STEEL: ... the person who wins nomination comes around. CUPP: Yes.

STEEL: But at the same time, there's a lot of core principles of the party that had been tossed away by this president. And I do worry because this president may or may not win reelection in 2020. He will not be on the ballot in 2024. He will not be on the ballot in 2028.

And as someone who wants conservatives to continue winning elections across the country and at the national level, I'm worried when I look at the numbers for under 40 people ...

CUPP: Yes.

STEEL: ... for minorities, for women, people that are being alienated in massive numbers by this president and the policies that so many Republicans are falling in lockstep behind.

CUPP: I'm worried too. In other news, the GOP is canceling primaries in some states. Just today, South Carolina announced they will not have a Republican primary. In the GOP press statements that I'm reading, they're insisting there's precedent for this, which is true that this is just a sign of how fired up they are about electing Trump.

STEEL: Yes.

CUPP: But isn't this just a sign of how worried the party is?

STEEL: Yes. There's definitely a whiff of fear here. In the modern era, presidents who have a robust primary challenger when they're running for reelection as president lose. Presidents that do not have a robust primary challenger win. At this point I don't think we can characterize Joe Walsh or Bill Weld or perhaps Mark Sanford as robust.

CUPP: Right.

STEEL: But there is definitely a hint of fear coming from presidents camp on this.

CUPP: Yes. Thanks, Mike. And a personal note, congrats on becoming a new dad.

STEEL: Thank you. We'll get them up there to hang out with your boys soon.

CUPP: All right, good. North Carolina is still recovering from Hurricane Dorian has a busy week ahead including a very important election. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:47:56]

CUPP: President Trump goes to North Carolina on Monday. Will he devote some time to Hurricane relief? I don't know. Will he do a political rally? Definitely. It's his favorite part of presidenting. But Monday is not supposed to be about him, it's supposed to be about a special election on Tuesday for an open house seat in a race that is at the moment a tossup.

The race between Republican State Senator Dan Bishop and Democrat former Marine Dan McCready in a district that includes suburbs of Charlotte has drawn national interest. It's a seat that a Democrat hasn't won since 1963 in a state that Trump won by 12 points in 2016. And yet, the President is going to rally on behalf of Dan Bishop the night before the election. Why?

As David Wasserman of The Cook Political Report told The Charlotte Observer, "Trump's reelection depends on North Carolina, and a Democratic upset would be a genuine sign of danger for the president heading into 2020." Here with me now Harry Enten, CNN Political Writer and Analyst.

So the Ninth Congressional District area has been Republican since 1963. It is seemingly safe Republican district and yet they're bringing Trump in, what does that say?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL WRITER AND ANALYST: I mean it tells you everything that you need to know about this national political environment. It's not good for the President of the United States.

Look, we've played this game before. We saw it on the lead up to the 2018 midterm. You saw all of these special elections that were in Republican-held district and the Republicans either struggled to hold them or didn't hold them.

CUPP: Yes.

ENTEN: And this looks like a repeat of that.

CUPP: So talk about the demographics of this district in particular and what it means for the national election. Can we predict anything out of whatever happens next week?

ENTEN: Look, one special election know.

CUPP: Yes.

ENTEN: But it's part of a larger sign and this is a district, if you look at the suburban districts where Republicans have generally been struggling during the Trump administration ...

CUPP: Yes.

ENTEN: They tend to be well educated compared to the nation as a whole. This one is about even with in terms of education, those who have a bachelor's degree. So this is not the type of District you'd necessarily expect the Democrats to be over performing in the Trump area. So the fact that we have a close race in a district that Trump won by 12 to me would be a genuine sign of say worry for the White House, especially if McCready carries it.

[19:50:00] CUPP: So if Republicans lose this seat, you think Trump is in

trouble?

ENTEN: I think Trump is in trouble regardless. I just think that this is merely a manifestation of the trouble that he is in. This is a district as you pointed out has been Republican for so long.

CUPP: Yes.

ENTEN: It's a district Trump won easily. It was a district that remember was a very close race back in 2018 despite the ballot fraud so on and so forth. So if this district is still close, remember what happened in 2018, Democrats rolled in that midterm election. If democrats come close here, it's still a very bad sign for the President of the United States.

CUPP: Well, we'll be watching it. We'll have to have you on after.

ENTEN: I'm going to be watching it so much. You have no idea.

CUPP: I know, Harry.

ENTEN: I'm already refreshing the state board of election right now.

CUPP: I know you are, Harry. OK. Thanks for coming on as always.

ENTEN: Thank you.

CUPP: All right. Sit tight, we'll continue after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:54:41]

CUPP: Beto O'Rourke, once a darling of the Democratic Party is now polling at 1 percent in a number of polls, even in his home state of Texas, Joe Biden is trouncing him. But that's nothing a few F-bombs can't solve. First, as you'll recall, he dropped the F-word on national TV while talking about gun violence. A topic that certainly warrants some expletives.

[18:55:06]

But if we were meant to believe that that was an authentic moment of emotional exasperation, he then totally ruined it by repeating it on another news show. Then again repeating it on Twitter and then releasing official campaign T-shirts with a contrived profanity written no less, no fewer than six times on them.

I remember my first swear word. Beto's teenage exhilaration over using a cussword and then he's forcing it into a branding effort isn't cool or interesting. It isn't even shocking. Everybody swears, it's just kind of desperate and lame.

Dude, you're 46 and running for president, not class president but actual president, president-president. Elizabeth Warren has a plan for literally everything and your big idea is to make the F-bomb your thing? Marianne Williamson is moving hurricanes out the sea with her mind, you're making T-shirts?

You think your swear word shows how angry you are. Bernie Sanders is so angry, he's even telling crying babies to keep it down, so no one is impressed. Better go back to the drawing board, Beto, and come up with another idea. Save your campaign because that one is fundamentally dumb.

That's it for me. Be sure to stick around for "THE VAN JONES SHOW" with 2020 candidate Cory Booker. That's up next.