Return to Transcripts main page
Cuomo Prime Time
Trump Rages At Pelosi After Calling For Culture Of "Respect" In Christmas Message; GOP Senator "Disturbed" By McConnell, White House Coordination; 2020 Election Could Feature A Record Gender Gap. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired December 26, 2019 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR & NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Let's hand it over to Chris Cuomo for CUOMO PRIME TIME. Chris?
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, CUOMO PRIME TIME: Erica Hill, thank you very much. Merry Christmas everybody. Happy Holy Days. May we all be touched by the reason for this season. I am Chris Cuomo. Welcome to PRIME TIME.
The President was talking about being better one moment, then was at his worst the next, pounding Pelosi about impeachment. We know that game. He is all about heat. Question is where is the light at the end of the tunnel for the Democrats? We're going to ask a senior Member of the Caucus tonight.
And Presidential candidate Tom Steyer is here to debate if the money that he and Bloomberg are shelling out is proof of a solution or a problem in our politics.
What do you say? Let's get after it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All right, look, here's a little piece of what the President told us. "Together, we must strive to foster a culture of deeper understanding and respect - traits that exemplify the teachings of Christ."
Now, I suspect those words were written by somebody else, and put into the mouth of this President, as a Christmas message. Why? Because then we got reality just a couple hours later.
"Why should Crazy Nancy Pelosi, just because she has a slight majority in the House, be allowed to Impeach the President?"
We get the President's play, OK? The question is what will the Democrats do after the break? Where does this leave them and lead them? Let's ask a senior Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman Gregory Meeks of New York.
Blessed for Christmas, I hope, for you and your family.
REP. GREGORY MEEKS (D-NY): Absolutely. Merry Christmas.
CUOMO: Thank you for helping us out on this show as often as you do.
MEEKS: Good being with you, Chris.
CUOMO: Thank you, Sir.
MEEKS: As always.
CUOMO: So, the President's message, let's prove - put him to the side.
In the New Year, do you believe there is any chance of Democrats and Republicans working together on things that matter for the American people? I'm talking laws, not bills in the House.
MEEKS: Well now - you saw at the end of the year, we worked on certain things together. That's how we passed USMCA. That was a tremendously big and important bill. There were other bills that we were able to pass, working closely together.
I know coming out of, for example, the committee - one of the committees I sit on, the Financial Services Committee, we've got bipartisan bills, hugely important, dealing with, for example, EXIM Bank, which is important to the country. We passed that in a bipartisan way. That's going to go to the President's desk for him to be signed - to - to sign.
So, there's a lot of bills that we have been working on that we're doing our work we have been all along. And some McConnell deals with, and some he does not.
CUOMO: Do you think that changes?
MEEKS: Well I think so - I think people want to get things done. It's an election year. And you're going to ultimately be judged by what you've done, and what you've not done. And I think that we're pushing forward to get - to get certain things done.
CUOMO: So, the light at the end of the tunnel, when you come back to session, I know the counterfactual.
I know that in '98, there was a big gap between when the President was impeached, and when the Managers were picked. I think it was December 16th and then not until January something where they picked. I know.
This is different because it seems like a political play. When you are back, do you think this process should move to the Senate, and do so quickly?
MEEKS: No - see, first of all, what I disagree with this it's not a political play. What people are calling politics and partisan, etcetera, sometimes is a question of what is facts, and what are not. What is the truth and what is false?
CUOMO: So, what is it?
MEEKS: And so what we're trying to go out is the truth. So the truth is that, thus far, we've had witnesses that come in to testify, not Democrats, not Republicans, but individuals who were with the State Department or our Intelligence agencies--
CUOMO: Right.
MEEKS: --etcetera, to testify based upon what they see as a wrongdoing by this President.
CUOMO: Right.
MEEKS: So, therefore, we come with two articles of impeachment.
CUOMO: Right.
MEEKS: Now we go to a - and the only person that is obstructing is the President of the United States. Why do I say that? He blocks witnesses. He says he wants witnesses to testify. But he blocks them all. He withholds documents, even documents that some of the witnesses wanted, so they could testify.
So, the one that's blocking and preventing us from the truth, they say, and he has said that, you know, we need to have someone that was in the room. Well we want Bolton, we want Mulvaney, to come in and testify.
CUOMO: Well who else do you think you'll get? You know, the idea of the double-edged sword here, I think, is a good analogy.
Let's say you do get witnesses in the Senate. I don't know. I think it's less than 50/50 right now. But what do I know! If you get those two, you're going to give, Congressman.
You're going to have Biden witnesses in there. You're going to have the Republicans go after threads that they see as relevant, if for no other reason that the President wants them to. Is it worth it?
[21:05:00]
MEEKS: But here's what we know. Biden has been investigated. And the facts have shown there's nothing there. There's been an investigation. The facts show, despite the lies and, you know, you can go to the credibility of witnesses, and not just by Democrats.
CUOMO: There's political currency in continuing to look at Biden. There are enough people, especially in that Party, especially in Office in that Party, who believe there's more there to look at.
MEEKS: And what I say is, again, is a question of facts and lies. Now, one of the things that we do know, the credibility of this President, is not there. You know, the Washington Post talks about over 10,000 lies, since he's been President. And even Republicans, when they were honest with us, you know, let's
look at statements that walk around within my pocket that Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz and Mark Rubio, they've all said where they called and said, he's the worst thing that could ever happen to our Party.
Lindsey Graham said the best thing, you know, "Donald Trump could go to hell." They knew when he was running who he was and what his character is.
CUOMO: They lost though.
MEEKS: And--
CUOMO: And that's what they say now.
MEEKS: But - but his character hasn't changed.
CUOMO: I know. That's - that--
MEEKS: He's done nothing differently.
CUOMO: That is clear.
MEEKS: He's the same man.
CUOMO: That is clear to anybody with eyes. What I'm saying is they made a choice. "He won. I lost. Now we're going to go."
Similarly, this process is going to end. It's going to go to the Senate. They're going to have a trial. In all likelihood, I don't believe this noise about Murkowski. I don't think that there is any insurrection within the Right. I don't see it happening. I see no proof of it anyway.
The President gets acquitted. What does that mean for the Democrats?
MEEKS: Well it means that the camera of history has rolled, number one, we did our job. We did what our constitutional responsibility required us to do.
And, for me, and one of the reasons why I'm happy that you had me on this show, I want to make sure that I am on the right side of history that I've did - I've kept my oath of office.
I'm not doing what McConnell is doing where he's not keeping his oath. He's already said he's going to be in cahoots with the President's people in this trial.
CUOMO: He made a mistake saying that he was not impartial when he has to take an oath to that. That's on him. But, for you guys, when he's acquitted, what do the Democrats say? Why was this worth it for the country?
MEEKS: Because we did our job, because, in fact, the President did obstruct, as I talked about before. There's no and - and he had the opportunity to present witnesses that would have - that could exonerate him. He chose not to. There's a reason that in fact--
CUOMO: Will it hurt you in the campaign do you think?
MEEKS: No.
CUOMO: How do you know so quickly?
MEEKS: No.
CUOMO: I know. Twice. But why?
MEEKS: How do I know?
CUOMO: Yes.
MEEKS: Because if you look at right now, you know, and I don't go by polling, but I think that what individuals look at, and most Americans, they want the truth.
CUOMO: Absolutely.
MEEKS: They want the truth. And the truth shall prevail.
And the truth is clear, in this matter, as well as looking at his credibility, as I just indicated, and the facts of who've testified, and what, and how this took - took place, and looking at the process, you know.
CUOMO: What if you lose Democrats in the Senate?
MEEKS: How do you think--
CUOMO: Not - not in the election. I'm saying what if a Doug Jones is contagious and there's three or four of them who say, "You know what? Case isn't clear enough. I'm going to acquit."
MEEKS: But - no. I think that what you're going to have is, again, the opposite, because you saw already the Senator from Alaska, and I think you're going to see some others who are looking at the camera of history also.
CUOMO: Right.
MEEKS: And they are concerned - I think it's the Republicans that you're going to look at that may want to - to reconsider on what's taking place with this process. And if we hear--
CUOMO: I just don't see the proof because Murkowski said what's obvious right now, which is I don't like that McConnell said that he's not impartial and impartial, well that's easy, you know, that's low fruit.
I think that you've only heard it from one Republican. Tells you how tight-lipped they are on this.
If they actually vote, I think the best point of your argument will be seen if there is a motion to dismiss, or there is a motion on rules, that gets dicey in terms of Republican Senators wanting a semblance of fairness. So, the three most weighty words in our business, "We will see," and soon enough.
But what we know right now is, Congressman, I appreciate you being on and making the case.
MEEKS: Thank you, good being with you.
CUOMO: Not everybody wants to be tested. I appreciate that you do.
MEEKS: My pleasure.
CUOMO: God Bless. Best for the New Year.
All right, now look, I say it's obvious because I - I think for all of us it is by now. You know, the poison in this President's brand of politics is easy to point out, but it has been working like medicine in his Party.
They are behind this President the way I have never seen any Party be behind their President, ever. Why? Well let's look at the talk about Alaska Republican Senator, Murkowski, saying she's not a rubber stamp. What does that mean? Does it mean anything?
We're going to bring in two Republicans with very different mindsets and debate where this Party is and why. Dent and Duffy, next.
[21:10:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has made no secret of his own bias in an impeachment trial. And that was a mistake. I can't wait to watch him take the oath.
Now on the opposite end of the spectrum, we have a lone Republican Senator, and I emphasize "lone" for a reason, Moderate Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Here is what she said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI (R-AK): In fairness, when I heard that, I was disturbed. To me, it means that we have to take that step back from being hand in
glove with the defense.
Anyway we move forward, I think it's going to be important that, at a minimum, the process that the Senate uses is one that is fair and full.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Now, this is getting a ton of pickup and heat. But is it proof of any real daylight between this President and his Party? Great Debate to be had, two former Republican Congressmen, Charlie Dent and Sean Duffy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: THE GREAT DEBATE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: First, Merry Christmas to you and your families. Thank you for being on this show. I appreciate it.
SEAN DUFFY, (R) FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: Merry Christmas, Chris.
CUOMO: Good to have you. Charlie?
CHARLIE DENT, (R) FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Merry Christmas.
CUOMO: Pushback on the idea "That means nothing. Of course, he made a mistake saying that he wasn't impartial in this situation. It's easy for Murkowski to say that. It's easy to say that this process should be fair."
But your Party is locked in. Where is there any proof that that's false?
DENT: Well I think we should take Lisa Murkowski at her - at her word.
I think she's sending a signal to Mitch McConnell that she wants there to be a negotiated agreement between McConnell and Schumer to come up to - to come up with some kind of a consensus on - on witnesses, for example.
[21:15:00]
And hey don't - Lisa - Lisa Murkowski is not a shrinking violet. I mean she's beaten back Right-wing challenges before. I remember when she was primaried she turned around and beat the guy as - as an Independent. So, she knows how to fight.
And I think that she can move some other Members. So, she clearly wants a fair trial. We'll see if there's any real daylight at the end of the day between her and - and the President. But I think she just sent out a - out a warning shot. CUOMO: It's not about the Murkowski for me. It's about the Duffys for me.
There are so many more of you and people with your mindset, which is, "We have to protect this President. What's being done to him is unfair. And that is the chapter of this history we're going to write," you don't think you'll see that in the Senate, Duffy?
DUFFY: So, first off, I would agree with you, Chris.
If the Senate - or the - I'm sorry, the House had actually had a fair process themselves. I mean they did hearings in secret. Donald Trump wasn't present, wasn't able to cross-examine witnesses, wasn't able to call his own witness - witnesses.
It was a political show and a political sham. So, now they're coming to the Senate and say "We want something other than politics," I think, is rich.
I would agree that if the - if the House had been fair in the way they had done this, and not been political, I would join you, and Charlie, and say, "I think the Senate should do the same thing." And that's the danger.
When you just play politics, it - it trickles down. And so now, the Senate's going to play politics. And I think Lisa Murkowski, she's an upstanding lady. Do I think she gets any traction? Probably not.
She was back home, you know, in Alaska when she made those comments. Who knows what her perspective is going to be when she gets - gets back to D.C. and - and in the Senate with her fellow Republican colleagues.
CUOMO: Now, Charlie, I've had this debate with Sean before. I believe he's arguing the two wrongs make a right model of this.
I don't agree with his assessment of the House process. I believe it was exactly what we've seen in the past, except that the - the - the House wound up doing the investigating this time. It wasn't something that was really secretive like Ken Starr who spent 4 years looking at this kind of stuff.
But the point remains the same, Charlie, is that they can say they want it to be fair. But the politics, of what Sean is laying out, is that too strong to have the Senate be anything other than the correction of the House for your Party?
DENT: Well I - I think, to be fair, I think the House did rush their process more than they should have. They should have insisted on witnesses and - and subpoenaed people and tried to enforce those subpoenas.
That said a lot of these Senators have been running their mouths. And they should at least put up the pretense that they're going to be impartial, even though many of them have already made their minds up. But I think many of them are - are quite clear where they're going to
come down on this whole situation. So, I do think people expect the Senate, at times, you know, to be, you know, a calmer, more deliberative body than the House.
Hey, Sean and I served in the House. We know what it's like. It can be very partisan, very raucous. The Senate is there often to calm things down. And I think many Americans are expecting the Senate to act like adults, and try to run what appears to be a fair trial, even if people have already made their minds up.
CUOMO: Sean, what is the fear? And I don't say this cynically. Fear is powerful in politics.
My suggestion is that this President scares people in your Party, not like "I'm going to hurt you," nothing thuggish. "I will beat you if you go against me. I will come where you live. And I will run someone against you. I will come to where you are toe-for-toe, and you will lose like Sanford did."
Is that the pull for people?
DUFFY: No. So I think you're - I think you're absolutely wrong, Chris.
I think - people don't, you know, gravitate towards Donald Trump because they fear him. They gravitate towards him because they love him. They love the policies that he's fighting for.
We're a Party of lifers. We believe, you know, we believe in life, not late-term partial birth abortions. We believe in secure borders. We believe in fair trade. We believe in limited government.
Donald Trump has fought for all those things and that's why people love him. No one's afraid of him.
And if they're - I mean, people who disagree with him, and Charlie was one, even when he was in Congress, would say he disagrees. Murkowski feels like she can say she disagrees.
The - the difference though is people - people love him. And they love the results of the policies. So, I don't think it's fear at all, Chris. It's love and affection for a President who has stood up and fought for the principles that Republicans believe in.
And, by the way, we've had - we've had Presidents and leaders who said, "I believe in all these things that you Republicans believe in," they run on that, and then they never do when they get into Office.
Donald Trump has actually kept his promises. And for that, he has a 90 percent approval--
CUOMO: He didn't promise to pass a tax cut that he wouldn't pay for.
DUFFY: --within the Republican Party.
DENT: Donald Trump-- CUOMO: And a trade policy--
DENT: Don - yes.
CUOMO: --that makes a mockery of conservative thinking for the last 50 years. But Charlie, are you--
DUFFY: No. Let me--
DENT: Yes?
CUOMO: Do you buy the love thing?
DUFFY: But--
DENT: Donald - Donald Trump--
DUFFY: OK.
DENT: No. No, I don't. I mean there - sure. There's a - is there a core element of the Party that is completely enthralled with Donald Trump? Yes.
But if I had a nickel for every Republican voter who told me they had so many misgivings and reservations about Donald Trump but they're willing to take a risk on him--
DUFFY: No.
DENT: --they knew it was a - he was a potential problem. There a lot of Republicans out there who support this man very reluctantly and would prefer to have somebody else. They made that very clear over and over again.
DUFFY: Charlie?
[21:20:00]
DENT: And, by the way, Sean, where I disagree with you, I don't think - I don't think Donald Trump is very principled at all.
I think he's completely transactional with the exception of two issues, trade, where he's a protectionist, and - and immigration, where he's a restrictionist. He's been consistent on those two issues. On everything else, he's - he's transactional.
DUFFY: So - so--
DENT: I mean it's - it's obvious to all of us. I mean this trade policy, to me--
DUFFY: But Charlie?
DENT: --I mean violates every core tenet of - of what we stood for as Republicans. I thought that was a core principle.
DUFFY: But - but--
DENT: Not this crony capitalism.
DUFFY: But it doesn't - so--
DENT: That protects the few--
DUFFY: But - but hold on a second. But hold on. No, no, no, hold - hold.
DENT: --at the expense - expense of many.
DUFFY: But I think - I think trade is an area where he has - he has advanced the thinking of Republicans. So, we were - we were a party of free trade at all cost. It doesn't matter how many jobs you lose--
DENT: Tariffs on Canada?
DUFFY: --how many factories move overseas.
And so, what President Trump has said is "Basically, I want to make sure we don't have just free trade. We're going to have fair trade. If you don't treat us equitably, we're going to respond with tariffs." And that's what he's done with China. And so, I think Republicans--
DENT: Yes, tariffs on Canada and Mexico and Brazil--
DUFFY: --have rethought that and they support the President in his fight on China.
DENT: --German cars?
DUFFY: And - and - and, Charlie, I think you're living in a bubble. There - there is a small sliver of anti-Trump Republicans. But I mean Donald Trump has a 90 percent approval rating.
And I hate to quote this. I'm going to get lit up on this, Chris. But I mean some will say that--
DENT: Of the--
DUFFY: --Donald Trump is a greater President than Abraham Lincoln. That's how much they love him.
CUOMO: Well but this - this - this is the thing.
DENT: Oh!
DUFFY: It's not because they're afraid of him.
CUOMO: We'll leave - we'll leave the debate--
DUFFY: It's because of his successes. I know I'm going to get crushed on that.
DENT: Oh! CUOMO: We'll - let's leave the debate there--
DUFFY: But it's true.
CUOMO: --because I'm out of time. But I will say this. I think that the--
DENT: Oh, please!
CUOMO: --I think the reckoning is not going to be about policy. It's that every Republican I have on here, to defend this President, literally everyone, will say "No, I wouldn't have said what he said. No, I wouldn't do it that way."
And I don't get how the Party of Character Counts makes that compromise. But that's for the voters to decide.
Sean Duffy, Charlie Dent, God bless you both and your families. Thank you for being with me. Best for the New Year.
DUFFY: Hey, Merry Christmas.
DENT: Merry Christmas.
CUOMO: Merry Christmas.
So, look, that vote is coming. We're 39 days out from the first 2020 votes. Obviously, they're going to matter so much more on the Democrat side than Republican, and we need to look at what matters now, and for which candidate, because we now see the state of play taking shape.
The Wizard of Odds slicing up the numbers in a new way, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:25:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: I've argued to you many times on this show that this election doesn't start until the votes start coming in, and that's not just a silly obvious point. It's that that's when the media starts to pick winners, and losers, and why, and metrics, and all these things.
However, the shape of the race heading into it matters. There's a new analysis. There are a few wildcards at play like we haven't seen before in this race, so we brought in the Wizard of Odds, Harry Enten, to show us what he thinks matters now and why.
Good to see you, brother.
HARRY ENTEN, CNN POLITICS SENIOR WRITER & ANALYST: Shalom.
So, I just want to start off with a simple concept, right? So, take a look at the 2016 versus 2020 choice for President.
So, in 2016, we had a record gender gap, record, 25 percentage point difference between how women voted, a 14 point margin for Hillary Clinton, and how men voted, a 11 point margin for Donald Trump.
Now take a look at 2020. This is an average of our October and our December polls. What do we see? We see the gender gap becoming even larger, a 34-point gender gap. Men are voting about the same, 10 points for Donald Trump versus a 11 back in 2016.
But women are increasingly becoming more Democratic. They're going for Joe Biden in the polling by a 24-point margin. That's a 10-point increase from what they were doing in 2016.
CUOMO: So what?
ENTEN: So what? Well there are a couple of so-whats on this. One big so-what is let's talk about the Midwest, right? The Midwest was where Donald Trump won all those votes. He did particularly well among White voters without a college degree.
So, I've broken it down among White voters without a college degree. In 2016, women and men, we saw a 27-point gender gap in that year. Women voted for Donald Trump overwhelmingly by 23 percentage points, White women without a college degree.
Now, take a look at 2020, because I think this is so key. And in average of our last two polls, women are going for Donald Trump by just 4 percentage points, just 4. That creates a gender gap of 39 points. So, Trump is losing among women who he won overwhelmingly back in 2016. He's losing ground among them, and he's basically even now.
CUOMO: So, the weighed and measured and found lacking analysis is informed by women, especially if they don't have a college degree. But then you offset that with him being at 90 percent in the Party, Harry--
ENTEN: Yes.
CUOMO: --where's the space between those two things?
ENTEN: I think the space between the two of those is although the swing part of the electorate is becoming smaller, and smaller, and smaller, it is the pivotal part of the electorate.
Even if you're seeing small changes, among small groups of people, remember, Donald Trump won the state of Wisconsin by just 1 percentage point, just 1. So, if we're seeing movement like this among White women without a college degree, who make up 28 percent of the voters in the Midwest battlegrounds like Wisconsin, like Michigan--
CUOMO: Matters.
ENTEN: --it really, really matters.
CUOMO: Because it's such a thin margin to begin with.
ENTEN: Exactly.
CUOMO: All right, I get it. So now, you have to look it on the Democrats' side.
ENTEN: Yes.
CUOMO: How much do people who say they want a particular candidate mean it, right? You call that durability.
ENTEN: Yes.
CUOMO: What do you see?
ENTEN: Yes. So just to sort of set the stage-work here, look at this. This is the top choice for the Democratic nomination. This is my average of polls in December of 2019 versus December of 2018.
Look at Biden, so similar here, 28 percent now versus 27 percent back in December of 2018. Bernie Sanders, the same thing, 18 percent now versus 17 percent, back in December of 2018. And why is that? Why is that?
I think one key thing, you know, you're talking about this durability, take a look at our last poll here. Look at this. We said, OK, who's your choice for the nomination, and is your mind made up, or may you change your mind?
Among those whose minds are made up, look who's at the top? Joe Biden with 37 percent, Bernie Sanders with 26 percent, versus Elizabeth Warren just at a 11 percent. A lot of her voters say they may change their mind.
The same with Pete Buttigieg, just 7 percent, among those who say their mind is made up, just 7 percent are supporting Pete Buttigieg.
CUOMO: All right, so quick.
ENTEN: Yes.
CUOMO: This idea that Sanders is having a resurgence, his numbers have been solid. Warren took a bite out of his ass for a while. But he's--
ENTEN: Tushy.
CUOMO: --his tushy, his tuchus. ENTEN: His tuchus.
CUOMO: But he's been bringing them back. But now, the new narrative is, "Hey, you know, it could be him because?"
ENTEN: You know what? The fact is it could be him. I will say this. You know, Bernie Sanders does better among Whites without a college degree and non-Whites who tend to be unrepresented in media coverage, the same for Joe Biden.
But the fact is, look, he's still in the national polls at only 18 percent. That is not enough to win a nomination. He has perhaps a very - a very high floor. But his ceiling, he hasn't shown that he's able to get above that. We'll have to wait and see.
[21:30:00]
18 percent, not enough to win a nomination, but certainly big enough that he'll be able to continue on in this nomination process.
CUOMO: So Sanders is going nowhere. The only question is how far does he go, right?
ENTEN: I think that's the big question.
CUOMO: All right, I got you. Harry, thank you very much. Not easy to explain. You did it very well. Appreciate it.
ENTEN: I appreciate the kind words.
CUOMO: Even I got most of it.
Now, somebody who is up in that Enten-echelon of understanding things is someone I call the Politics Professor.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: ONE ON ONE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Ron Brownstein, brilliant journalist, understands the meaning of the numbers, good to see you, as always, the best to your family for the Holy Days.
RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST, SENIOR EDITOR, THE ATLANTIC: Hey, Chris. Happy holidays, yes.
CUOMO: So, does all of that make sense to you about what we're seeing in terms of these very small margins in the places that matter, and this gender gap being real?
BROWNSTEIN: Right. Look, I - I agree with Harry completely on one key point.
I mean the - the biggest reason Donald Trump is President, I think, is because so many blue-collar White women in the Midwest, in the key states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, picked him over the first female nominee.
His margins in all the data sources that we have nationally, among those non-college White women, was 20 points or more. And he has seen a significant erosion. I mean, we saw - you saw in that poll the--
CUOMO: Why?
BROWNSTEIN: Well I think - I think it began - I - part of it - the obvious part of it is his style and manner and his confrontational--
CUOMO: But he was like that before, Ron.
BROWNSTEIN: He was like that before.
And - and therefore, I think the biggest difference where this really began, Chris, is when he tried to repeal the ACA. The repeal of the Affordable Care Act really kind of cut into his core promise to those women that that he would provide them more economic security.
And that's why I think that, you know, obviously we're all focused on impeachment. But in terms of whether Democrats win the House in 2020, hold the House in 2020, and even, to some extent, their battle for these blue-collar White women in - in the Presidential year, a more significant vote this month was the House vote, to try to reduce prescription drug prices by allowing Medicare to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies.
I mean that is the key wedge, I think, for Democrats with these - with these blue-collar White women. If you - and if you look at Wisconsin, which is probably the state right at the tipping point of the 2020 election, the - the folks at the University of Marquette Law School poll ran for me today their year-long average.
Trump is now underwater among those blue-collar White women, and trailing Joe Biden among them. That's very hard for him because even though he's still very strong among the men, as you saw in the chart that Harry put up--
CUOMO: Right.
BROWNSTEIN: --he's - he's suffered big erosion also among the college White women. It means, you know, in 20 - 2018, Democrats had their biggest margin ever among those white-collar White women, and we're probably going to see that again in 2020.
CUOMO: I mean, look, the Professor has argued to me numerous times that I am wrong to suggest that the way this President is doesn't matter. I look at the durability--
BROWNSTEIN: Yes.
CUOMO: --within his Party at 90 percent, and this, you know, legion of apologists who come on this show no matter what he says--
BROWNSTEIN: Yes.
CUOMO: --no matter what he does. But your argument is "Yes, but Cuomo, you're talking about the political class, and how that plays, not necessarily with voters." Where's this space?
BROWNSTEIN: Well - well the space is really, I think, you can really measure the cost of the way Trump behaves, very precisely, in the attitude of voters who are satisfied with the economy.
If you look at this CNN poll, you know, the latest CNN poll, or Quinnipiac, we're up to three-quarters of the country describing the economy as excellent or good. And yet, Trump's approval rating is somewhere between 40 and 45 percent.
If you go back to the exit polls, in the 2004 election with George W. Bush, and 2012 with Barack Obama, about 90 percent of the people, who described the economy as excellent or good, in each case, voted for the incumbent President.
You know in our new CNN poll what - what Trump is polling against Biden among people who call the economy excellent or good, 55 percent. It's 55 to 40 as compared to 90. That gap, to me, is precisely the measurement of the cost of his behavior. He is driving away too many voters who are satisfied with the economy.
And, in a way, that puts him on a treadmill, Chris, because in response to that, he has to go even more polarizing to turn out more of his voters, who aren't really voting on the economy, but really the way he talks about culture and race.
CUOMO: What happens if they do something like drug prices, and the President then takes credit for it? So, the Democrats say--
BROWNSTEIN: Yes.
CUOMO: --"Well this was our idea," he said, "Yes, but I got it done," is that a fix for the President with these same voters, largely female and orientation, mostly non-college?
BROWNSTEIN: Potentially because I mean if you look at - I mean, it's pretty clear - I think - these are not Democrats, OK? These voters are not - have not voted Democratic in a long time.
They don't lean toward the Democratic Party. They don't like Medicare- for-All. They don't like decriminalizing the Border. They don't like letting the undocumented into the healthcare system. There's polling on all of that.
But they don't like the way Donald Trump behaves. And they don't like him trying to repeal the ACA, in particular, the provisions, you know, guaranteeing protections for people with pre-existing conditions.
So, Democrats do not have infinite license with these voters.
CUOMO: Right. So, that's where - that's--
BROWNSTEIN: You know, and - and - and the - and - and--
CUOMO: So that's the smart part of what The New York Times reported with Katie Glueck saying that there's some Republicans who've taken a look at Biden. I find that so hard to believe. But you see a potential opportunity--
BROWNSTEIN: Well--
CUOMO: --there.
BROWNSTEIN: Well it's the - it's the - it's the kind of penumbra of the Republican coalition.
I mean obviously there are college-educated White men, non-college White women, and college White women, who previously voted Republican, who have moved toward the Democrats in 2018.
[21:35:00]
Democrats would not have won all of those House seats without some movement among voters who may call themselves Independent, but have usually leaned Republican, and may still in fact lean Republican on some of the policy issues.
But they simply are not comfortable with the volatility and the belligerence and - and the polarizing nature of the Trump Presidency, you know, and that is the basic argument of the Democratic Party.
Should the core goal in 2020 be to pull over these pieces that have kind of broken off the Republican coalition, that is more of a Biden, Klobuchar kind of play? Or is it to find a nominee who can really gin up the turnout among young people and minorities who are even more alienated from Trump?
And that is a big choice that the Party faces and will resolve, you know, starting very soon from now.
CUOMO: The Professor, Ron Brownstein, thank you so much. Best to you for the New Year.
BROWNSTEIN: Thanks, Chris.
CUOMO: I look forward to sharing a lot of it with you.
BROWNSTEIN: Yes, you too.
CUOMO: All right, so one of the names we're not bringing up, but it's obviously in play here, especially if you watched the last debate for the Democrats, Tom Steyer.
Now, whenever his name comes up, you always wind up talking about money, within about two or three sentences, fair or unfair. He's been pumping in a ton, so has Bloomberg.
Couple of questions. One, is it making a difference? Is it worth it? And two, is it good for the process? Let's get after that, next. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Used to be the Republicans were where the big bank account battles happened, but no more. There are two billionaires vying for the Democratic nomination.
Money can be magic in politics, especially one that is so dependent on ads. Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, they spent a combined total of more than $211 million on TV spots so far.
Two questions. Is it working for them? More importantly, is it working for the rest of us? Democratic Presidential candidate Tom Steyer joins me now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: ONE ON ONE.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Always a pleasure. Best to your family for the New Year.
TOM STEYER (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Chris, nice to talk to you.
CUOMO: The money, and using it the way you do, why is it OK?
STEYER: Chris, there is no question that the only real thing that will work in a Democratic primary is having a differential important message that people respond to, and being somebody who Democratic primary voters trust.
I mean I can look, you know, not talking about myself, but talking about Mayor Bloomberg.
If his - if he would embrace a wealth tax, which I've said if somebody like him, or like me, who's very rich, is going to run and represent Democrats, they have to understand the inequality in income and money in this society, and embrace a wealth tax to represent the people to show that how unjust the current situation is.
If he would do that, then it's just a question of what is his message and do people believe it. CUOMO: Yes, I - I get it, Tom. But like there's no reason--
STEYER: And that's the same for every single person.
CUOMO: I - I get it. I get that message matters, so does money.
And the argument is you, and arguably even Bloomberg, you know, we have invitations out to him to be on the show. I've obviously interviewed him before. He hasn't - wanted to come on to make his case yet. We'll see when he does.
But that - but for the money you guys aren't in this race. And is that OK that the process even allows it?
STEYER: Well, let me put it this way, Chris. I'm not a famous person.
And in order to get my message out, I have to do what I've done for 10 years, when I've been trying to correct problems in our society from the outside, which is I have to put in all my time and all my effort and blood, sweat, and tears, and the money to get that message out.
So, if you don't - if I weren't allowed to do that, you'd basically be saying only famous people get to do this or Senators.
CUOMO: No, I hear you.
STEYER: So, if you look at who's on that stage--
CUOMO: I hear you about that. But it's not like, you know, you're making a hoi polloi--
STEYER: --as an outsider--
CUOMO: --you're making a hoi polloi argument versus the hoity-toity, you know, but you're not the common man. It's not that, you know, the billionaire class is being suffocated by the bubble.
STEYER: No. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying there's an insider versus outsider question here because for 10 years, I've been doing this from the outside, taking on corporations and beating them.
But, in fact, as an outsider this is the only way to get my message out, and it's what I've been doing for 10 years, is really when I see something wrong - and I see something really wrong here.
I mean I see a broken government and no one calling it out, no one calling for term limits. I'm the only - I'm the person here - only person who'll say climate's my number one priority.
I think - I looked at this and I thought "My goodness! Nobody's leveling with the American people. Somebody's got to do it," and I went out to do it.
CUOMO: The--
STEYER: That's exactly what I've been doing. CUOMO: It is a fair point to make that. You are not a Johnny-come- lately to politics. You've put a lot of money where your mouth is, over the years, in a lot of different ways, including politics. People can find out--
STEYER: But I've also put in--
CUOMO: --themselves for that.
STEYER: --all my time. It's not just money, Chris.
CUOMO: I - I'm not saying you haven't.
STEYER: That's not the--
CUOMO: I - I'm saying that's - that's all fair.
STEYER: I've - I've put in all my time and effort.
CUOMO: That's all fair.
STEYER: Yes. It's been a full-time job.
CUOMO: Yes. I'm not trying to counter that at all. You've put your time, you put your blood, you put your sweat, you put your money. I allow you to check all those boxes because that's what the record shows.
What I'm saying is that the argument is that money poisons politics, not on the grassroots level, not in helping organizations that do things that you believe matter in your own opinion.
But the idea that our political campaigns are this dependent on money is part of the problem of this process. Do you see that?
[21:45:00]
STEYER: Chris, I take your point. But my point is this. If you don't have a message, if I don't have a message that the people in Iowa believe, if I don't have a message that the people in New Hampshire, and Nevada, and South Carolina believe--
CUOMO: Right.
STEYER: --then they don't try - trust me, like me, that's all that matters.
CUOMO: All right. But I mean it's not like--
STEYER: The only real question here is--
CUOMO: --you're lightening up in the polls despite the money. I mean we had you at 3 percent in the couple of the polls. Now, you know, you're usually around a single-digit. What does that tell you about the money?
STEYER: It tells me that you're looking at the wrong polls, Chris. Because you're looking this is an--
CUOMO: Oh, yes? What do you think your numbers are?
STEYER: I think you're looking at a national poll. And I think it - that - what this actually is, is a series of state elections, all of which are a row - it's a series of state elections, all of which impact each other.
So, I think that national polls, to me, aren't that relevant. What's really relevant is going to be a series of elections, Caucus in Iowa, primary in New Hampshire, Caucus in Nevada, primary in South Carolina.
So, actually, that's what I think counts. And I think under the - that's why I've been spending my time. That's where people have gotten some of them, a chance to hear what I have to say to them. And I believe those people really understand what I'm saying and like it.
CUOMO: Well--
STEYER: So, I actually think you are looking at the wrong numbers, my friend.
CUOMO: We'll - we'll - we'll see soon enough. And, by the way, there's some truth to what you're saying. This race changes once the votes start. I know that sounds completely absurd. It's obvious. Yes, of course it changes.
I'm saying the media narratives change. They start talking about a different universe with people and they start talking about them in different ways. So, you're right, and that's why the - the three weighty words are "We will see."
Let me ask you something. Do you really believe that your Party is going to win this election?
STEYER: Chris, I think everybody is getting a gut check on that right now. I think that's a fair question.
Look, we can see what Mr. Trump is doing, and we can see what he's going to do. And it's what you were talking about before. He's going to run on the economy. And honestly, could--
CUOMO: Yes. Why wouldn't he?
STEYER: --he's - that's all he's got.
CUOMO: But that's the biggest thing--
STEYER: And, you know--
CUOMO: --to have in politics.
STEYER: I agree, Chris, and my point is this. Conventional democratic wisdom won't work against Mr. Trump.
CUOMO: But how do you beat him anyway? He says just look at the numbers, the - are you doing better than 4 years ago metric.
STEYER: Well Chris, if you'll - if you'll apologize my - me for saying this, I just said to you, you're looking at the wrong numbers. He's looking at the wrong numbers too because the real question here--
CUOMO: Such as?
STEYER: He keeps looking at GDP, unemployment, and the stock market, right?
CUOMO: Yes.
STEYER: The real question is how are the American people doing, not the average, because the average is so weighted by rich people.
The question is how are 90 percent of working Americans doing. Unemployment, unemployment is very low. Unfortunately, you can't live on the jobs that you have. You really can't.
CUOMO: Right. But they have a point in saying, look, they'll say wages--
STEYER: And that's - people are getting absolutely crushed.
CUOMO: --they'll say wages are better than they were 4 years ago that there has been a rising tide, maybe not what we want.
STEYER: Tiny.
CUOMO: But better than nothing.
STEYER: You know, this is a guy who is - sold a bill of goods to the American people. And my point is you need somebody like me who spent 30 years building a business, who can take him on, on the economy. This guy's one of the all-time great salesmen. But he's - he did exactly the same thing.
I mean, Chris, you're from New York. You probably went down to Atlantic - Atlantic City to his casinos. Good grief!
CUOMO: No, I only went there once, and it was to jump off one of them.
STEYER: Well, in all fairness, he's doing to the United States what he did to Atlantic City casinos, which is overpromise, over-borrow, and go bankrupt.
CUOMO: All right.
STEYER: He - the guy's a fake. He's always been a fake. And you need somebody who has a lot of private sector experience like me who has the experience and the expertise to show that he's a fraud.
CUOMO: Getting--
STEYER: Always has been. CUOMO: I hear you. I am - I welcome you to make the argument here. We'll continue to make the case of the American people. Saying that Trump is a fraud is easy. Getting people to believe it is the trick in an election. And we'll see how it goes. Thank you so much, Tom Steyer.
STEYER: Chris, it's great to talk to you always.
CUOMO: All right, best to you and the family for the New Year.
You thought I was joking. I wasn't. Google it and you'll see that I actually did go down there to jump off one of his casinos.
And Mr. Trump, at the time, not the President, said, if you do it without the cable that you had on, I'll double the donation to charity, if you do it again tomorrow without the cable. He was kidding, I think.
All right, what a year!
So much heat in our politics, led by a President who calls any who say or do anything that he doesn't like a fake, a fraud, and bad. "Nothing but problems for the country," that's how he describes any criticism. He is wrong. I can prove it. That's the argument, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: LET'S GET AFTER IT.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: "All we journalists do is talk about the bad, and we're therefore making things worse." That's the President's main argument against criticism. "It's all fake, malicious. Therefore it's part of the problem."
To borrow from him, wrong.
We all know the media is not supposed to pump up the powerful. Besides, this President already has that in Fox right, so - especially, at night.
The rest of us refuse to capitulate to power. You should want that in your media. These people may have power and money. But they work for you and your communities, and so do we.
We report to you and for you. And you are activated, engaged now in a way that I have never seen. And, as a result, you're seeing the media and this maelstrom for what it is.
The biggest proof that criticism and analysis isn't the problem isn't how you feel about the media. 41 percent of Americans trust newspapers, TV, and radio to report the news fully and fairly now, all right?
It's actually, you know, better than it was in 2016, all right? But the division is real. People are angry at us and at everybody else. When it comes to the government, what you ignore you empower, and what you expose, you can change.
Trump's Presidential run reveals certain frustrations and realities in this country. But he's a one-trick pony. He's juicing anger. But America is much bigger than Trump.
Millions voted for him. Millions more voted against him, and his numbers are stuck right where he started? Why? In part because fake news and lies and denials of the obvious, sure, creates tension, it fires up some people. But it makes a lot of other people more discerning, informed, and engaged.
That can cause progress. Like what? Here. U.S. stocks, they're up, but they're not the only thing on a roll this year.
The 116th Congress, most diverse in history. Humpback whales recovering from near extinction. Why? Exposure. This tortoise we thought was extinct was found after a 100 years. They're small unless you care about the environment and the ecosystem.
We got to see the first close-range image of the far side of the Moon. NASA completed its first all-female spacewalk. All major pageants won by women of color. The U.S. Women's Soccer team won its fourth World Cup.
You think that would come if we didn't scrutinize ourselves and where we need to be better? Sesame Street launching the show to help refugees.
Scientists able to spot Alzheimer's now, more than a decade before symptoms. Two men cured of HIV. Mental health being discussed as something other than a stigma. States responding to calls to help people, make society safer, thereby make us more free to live as we choose.
Even in crisis, we see that this country is strong even when it's weak that our fellow Americans are at their best when others are at their worst.
Riley Howell, you remember him? He died tackling a gunman at UNC Charlotte?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NATALIE HENRY-HOWELL, RILEY HOWELL'S MOTHER: You know, you look out for others, you protect. You do what needs to be done. And, like I said, when I heard the classroom, I - I knew it. I - I just knew it. THOMAS HOWELL, RILEY HOWELL'S FATHER: Yes, we both did.
NATALIE HENRY-HOWELL: We just knew it. If he's anywhere near a situation like that, he's going to - he's going to run towards it and try to stop it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: All of our hearts broke for them. But those parents were so certain of the type of man they - they raised that he was like a Jedi.
[21:55:00]
And now, he actually is one. The Visual Star Wars Dictionary that was just released has a reference to Jedi Master and Historian, Ri-Lee Howell. Look, he's proof of the truth.
We could be angry and ignorant and unkind. But there's so many of us, even the young, who could be heroes. Don't be burned out by the bad. Don't put blinders on to all the happiness that's going on around you as well in this world.
It's not about being Pollyanna. It's about being practical.
As for us, we do what we do. We fight your fight. We demand the powerful answer to you, and sometimes it works, like this did.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Did you ask the Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden?
RUDY GIULIANI, ATTORNEY TO PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: No. Actually, I didn't.
CUOMO: So, you did ask Ukraine to look into Joe Biden?
GIULIANI: Of course, I did.
CUOMO: You just said you didn't.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: You got to have the fight because every so often, heated moments, they shed some light, not always, but sometimes.
And as ugly as it's been, and it is uglier for some of us than anything I have ever seen in this business before, you definitely have the facts of what happened and when and why with Ukraine and TrumpCo.
Is it worthy of impeachment or removal? You know, look, that's lawmakers' call. And it's your place to judge their call. It's my job, the media's job, to relay and scrutinize the process.
The point is this country is strong because we expose our weaknesses. The way those in power handle criticism can galvanize support and also birth a formidable challenger. Both of those fates make our democracy stronger.
Good, bad, ugly, it's all real. The job is to face them all the same way, and as a people, to be more about unity than division. If we can do those two things, we will be the best we've ever been.
Thank you for watching. Up next, I want you to join CNN's Tom Foreman for ALL THE BEST, ALL THE WORST 2019.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TEXT: CUOMO PRIME TIME.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
