Return to Transcripts main page

S.E. Cupp Unfiltered

Democratic Hopefuls Flock to South by Southwest in Austin; Ilhan Omar Says Israel Comments Taken out of Context; Interview with Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt on Anti-Semitism in Politics; Senate to Vote on Rebuking Trump's National Emergency Declaration; Interview with Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R), Illinois, on Border Security; Interview with Sen. Ben Cardin (D), Maryland, on Border Security; Bill Shine out as White House Comms Chief; Democratic Party Will Not Hold Primary Debate on FOX News; Democratic Super PAC Downgrades Ohio to "GOP Watch" State; Aired 6-7p ET

Aired March 09, 2019 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:00:00]

(MUSIC PLAYING)

S.E. CUPP, CNN HOST (voice-over): Welcome to UNFILTERED.

They're keeping Austin weird. The Democrats have descended upon Austin, Texas. It's been known as a music-focused festival but now it's a key battleground for 2020 hopefuls with Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Tulsi Gabbard, Jay Inslee, Beto O'Rourke, Howard Schultz, Julian Castro, Pete Buttigieg, John Delaney and John Hickenlooper, all speaking at the festival this weekend.

Leyla Santiago is on the ground there.

Leyla, this has become a major campaign stop for Democrats this year.

What did you see today?

LEYLA SANTIAGO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: There are a lot of folks here talking about big topics. There are films and conversations being had about immigration, about health care, the economy, about criminal justice reform.

So you see a lot of candidates here hoping to tap into that conversation and the young and engaged audience that comes with it.

You have Senator Elizabeth Warren, really trying to differentiate herself from Bernie Sanders, saying I'm not a Democratic socialist, to make her different in a very crowded field.

Then you have those, like Democrat Beto O'Rourke, who hasn't made an announcement yet but really disappointed some people who were hoping that maybe he would say something here today

At a documentary called "Running with Beto," he was specifically asked when will you make a decision? And he deflected, talking about some of the other local races and candidates in Texas. So you're seeing a lot of candidates here to make big statements in a very crowded field and take advantage of the audience that's here, very young, very engaged and very much educated on some of the key issues that you'll see on the 2020 campaign.

CUPP: Leyla, thanks so much.

The 202 candidates will most certainly have to answer questions about the latest controversy. Her name is Congresswoman Ilhan Omar. Amy Klobuchar was asked about Omar's controversial remarks. She said she did not agree with them entirely.

Despite passing a resolution this week meant to put her offensive remarks behind them, Democrats did anything but. The past few weeks gave Omar, Congress, really all of us an opportunity to do a few important things.

One, have a different conversation about the role Israel plays in U.S. politics.

Two, discuss the particularly odious scourge of anti-Semitism in the United States, what it is and what it isn't.

Three, take on substantive debates about actual policies involving Israel.

Well, congratulations, America, we did none of the above. Despite saying that she wanted to have difficult conversations about Israel's influence, she's done no such thing. In trafficking almost exclusively in patent anti-Semitic tropes about Jews, money and dual allegiance, Omar steps all over her own stated mission.

And despite repeated warnings from her Democratic and Jewish colleagues to be more careful with her language, she's only gone in the opposite direction, like why has Congress had the opportunity to denounce anti-Semitism on the far right and the far left and Democrats decided to dodge that opportunity, unapologetically dressing up a resolution as anti-hate and insulating the person it was meant to discourage?

Republicans who voted no on that discrete basis may have a point but they only looked partisan in the process.

And finally there have been practically zero substantive debates about actual policies involving Israel policies ranging from U.S. aid to Israel to the boycott sanctions movement.

[18:05:00]

CUPP: That's gotten little if any attention at all, including from the person, who, once again, says she wants to have the difficult conversations. In fact, when asked about her support of an actual policy, here's what Ilhan Omar had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Why do you support BDS?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUPP: Here's the deal. It is not anti-Semitic to question or criticize our relationship with Israel nor is it anti-Semitic to question or criticize Israeli politics. Israeli Jews do this everyday. That's a straw man argument.

But when Ilhan Omar, a U.S. congresswoman, uses centuries-old anti- Semitic tropes again and again as a pretense for having difficult conversations and then refuses to have those conversations, there's no question as to what is going on here.

And Democrats, shame on you for protecting her. It should not be this hard to swiftly condemn both the language and the person who chooses repeatedly to use it.

And don't bother tweeting at me. I'll save you the time. Yes, I also denounce Republicans' protection of the human cancer, Steve King.

Joining me now is Anti-Defamation League CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt.

We have talked about this before. I welcome conversations about Israel. I know you do, too.

Why do you think it's so hard for this congresswoman to initiate those important conversations without using anti-Semitic language?

JONATHAN GREENBLATT, ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE CEO: Thank you for having me. It's somewhat inexplicable to me. As you stated at the top of the broadcast, we have tough conversations about Israel all the time. This wasn't about Israel.

The charge that Jews somehow have an allegiance to a foreign power is deeply anti-Semitic. It predates the State of Israel. It's been used to slander and marginalize and discriminate against Jewish people for hundreds and hundreds of years.

We should keep in mind that not only is it anti-Semitic, it's anti- American. This charge was used against German Americans in the First World War. It was used to intern Japanese Americans during the Second World War. It was to marginalize John F. Kennedy, who was an American Catholic, who ran for president in 1960.

So this isn't new. It's ugly, it's tired and it doesn't belong.

CUPP: I want to ask about BDS, because its steeped in anti-Semitism. Its goal is to delegitimize and villainize the Jewish state.

Explain why people should be as concerned about this policy, which Omar supports, as they are about her tweets?

GREENBLATT: The BDS movement, this idea of boycotting Israel, is a form of delegitimization. Delegitimization has been used by anti- Semites to discriminate against the Jewish people, literally for thousands of years, questioning their legitimacy.

Now instead of the Jewish people, this policy seeks to question the Jewish state. But it's the same old charges; as you said, the people behind it have deeply anti-Semitic motives. They seek to deny solely the Jewish people the right of self-determination. And by the way, it doesn't seek a two-state solution. It doesn't seek Palestinian- Israeli engagement.

It spends its time demonizing the single Jewish state in the world. We find that deeply problematic.

CUPP: To be fair, she says she does support a two-state solution. But again we haven't been able to talk to her about it.

What do you make of the resolution in Congress, basically denouncing all hatred?

Is that the proper response?

GREENBLATT: The most violent anti-Semitic attack in American history; I have a few thoughts.

First, there was some good in the resolution. It had good parts.

Here's the bad news. It shouldn't have taken this long. We shouldn't debate calling out bigotry when it happens. Congress should be quick, clear and call it out.

Secondly, what is there to debate about?

At the ADL, we fight all forms of hate. We've been doing for 100 years. I've defended Congresswoman Omar when she was smeared by that poster in West Virginia last weekend. I stood up for Syrian refugees.

(CROSSTALK)

GREENBLATT: -- whole idea of a Muslim registry..

But this whole notion that we have to take an issue about anti- Semitism this week and all lives matter it, we can do better than that. Congress can do better than that.

CUPP: Thank you, Jonathan. I appreciate you being here.

GREENBLATT: Thank you.

CUPP: Now I want to bring in our panel. Senior columnist at "The Daily Beast," Matt Lewis, and Democratic strategist Maria Cardona.

[18:10:00]

Matt, let's get the elephant out of the room. President Trump has weighed in on this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The Democrats have become an anti-Israel party and anti-Jewish party. That's too bad.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUPP: That is demonstrably, provably false and probably not the best tack to take here.

MATT LEWIS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think Donald Trump should stay out of this but I think there is something to be said that this sadly like a canary in the coal mine and maybe the way the Democratic Party is headed toward a Corbynite Labour Party in Britain.

CUPP: I've heard this comparison.

LEWIS: The reason is, look, Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House but Nancy Pelosi's refusing to call this out specifically. There's a resolution that passed that didn't specifically condemn Representative Omar. Basically what we have is Omar using these very old anti- Semitic tropes being defended by AOC.

And guess who is the future of the party?

It's not Nancy Pelosi. AOC has more Twitter followers than Nancy Pelosi. This is the wave --

CUPP: And Nancy Pelosi has defended Omar. She chose an interesting defense yesterday, saying that Omar has a different experience in the use of words.

I would just add -- I mean, over and over and over again, despite being told to choose better words, should she maybe be on a different committee than Foreign Affairs?

MARIA CARDONA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Here's what I'll say. Let's step back. Everything keeps saying the Democrats let her off easy. They didn't. She was giving very difficult talking-tos.

Publicly Nancy Pelosi --

(CROSSTALK)

CARDONA: But she apologized twice, OK?

Now the reason why I think it's so ill-advised for the president to jump in on this, he is somebody, as you know, has used anti-Semitic tropes in his tweets. He said in Charlottesville there are good people on both sides.

(CROSSTALK)

CARDONA: Where is the Republican outrage on that?

(CROSSTALK)

LEWIS: Wait a second, we spent three years on CNN talking pretty extensively about Donald Trump's failings --

LEWIS: You have but Republicans in Congress don't do it.

(CROSSTALK)

CUPP: No offense to Maria, here's what I don't like. I understand, Maria but now we have hijacked the conversation to talk about Trump. I want to talk about what she said. It's deeply offensive --

(CROSSTALK)

CUPP: Democrats have not effectively put this behind them, dealt with it. I'm not convinced she won't say something like this again.

CARDONA: This is something she's going to be held to account.

CUPP: By whom?

(CROSSTALK)

CARDONA: If she keeps saying it, she will be held to account by her own party --

CUPP: Wasn't this that opportunity?

CARDONA: -- because she had just said it and there are things that she did say that I think merit, to your point at the beginning, a much broader conversation.

Paul Waldman had a terrific "The Washington Post" article, he grew up in a Zionist household, he said she had some very good arguments, arguments that we need to discuss.

CUPP: Here's the problem, the scourge of anti-Semitism --

(CROSSTALK)

CUPP: Anti-Semitism is a door. And all it requires is a crack.

LEWIS: Yes.

CUPP: For anti-Semitism to be fomented and this crack that she opened the door and that Democrats seem perfectly fine to leave open --

CARDONA: But I don't agree with that.

CUPP: -- to not watch her language and normalize it.

LEWIS: They should kick her off the foreign affairs committee if they're serious.

(CROSSTALK)

LEWIS: She's engaged in three very, very explicit anti-Semitic tropes that go back forever, right?

One of them is that Israel has hypnotized the world.

CARDONA: She apologized for that.

LEWIS: She's apologized three times and she keeps doing it.

(CROSSTALK)

LEWIS: Whether people tell you who they are, believe them.

CARDONA: What I'm saying is they have cut her some slack. They have not let her off the hook, because they have publicly reprimanded her.

LEWIS: Nancy Pelosi is apologizing for her.

(CROSSTALK)

CARDONA: Hang on, Nancy Pelosi has publicly reprimanded her and said that what she is saying is inappropriate.

(CROSSTALK)

CUPP: Another way of pointing out, illustrating how bad a look this is, Congressman Clyburn --

[18:15:00]

CUPP: -- said that Ilhan Omar's relationship with -- she's a refugee and was talking about how that personally impacted her, of course. He intimated that that is somehow more legitimate than someone's relationship with the Holocaust a generation or two ago.

This is absolutely obscene, an obscene way to apologize for what is patently anti-Semitic remarks. She does not seem to get it.

CARDONA: Democrats have absolutely said her remarks are patently anti-Semitic but I also want to point out this resolution did not water down the anti-Semitic piece of it. It actually beefed it up by including all kinds of hatred that, by the way, I am a part of that every day, being a Latina.

(CROSSTALK)

CARDONA: I think it absolutely strengthens it. The fact that 23 Republicans voted against it.

(CROSSTALK)

LEWIS: Who's not against hate?

CUPP: All right, we've got to go.

(CROSSTALK)

CUPP: Maria, Matt, it's an important conversation. I'm glad we're having it. I really do appreciate it. I'm sure we'll have it again, unfortunately.

The president may get his first taste of legislative pushback from the Republican Senate next week over his national emergency declaration.

But first, some perspective from someone who has just returned from serving at the southern border. Congressman Adam Kinzinger joins me next.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:20:00]

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We're apprehending a record number of people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUPP: President Trump on his way to tour tornado devastation in Alabama on Friday expressed very little concern about the grumblings going on in Congress over his national emergency declaration. The Senate is set to vote next week on a rebuke of that measure, viewed as a dangerous precedent by many, some even in his own party.

But as the politics play out in D.C., the situation at the border is inarguably not good. According to the administration, more than 66,000 people were apprehended at the border last month, the highest number recorded in almost a decade, most of them families or unaccompanied children.

Still historically low?

Yes.

But overwhelming and a strain on the tools we have to handle it?

Yes. The border's been so politicized it's hard to know exactly what's really happening there.

Let me bring in Illinois representative Adam Kinzinger, who has just returned from the border.

Congressman, you were deployed to the border with your Air National Guard unit. I want to know what you saw there.

REP. ADAM KINZINGER (R), ILLINOIS: So this is my fourth time doing this kind of deployment. The thee prior times were in Texas under President Obama. As politicized as this is getting, this is not only the President Trump that is actually sending the Guard to the border and recognizes the problem.

It's very rugged terrain in Arizona. I was based out of Tucson but flew all over Arizona. There was a lot of drugs. You'd see people. I fly intelligence aircraft, you would see people drop bundles, which a good number of those were actually drugs. You would see people abandon a group when they got spooked.

Those were coyotes from the cartel leading people in. When they abandoned them. they left a group in the middle of nowhere and they have no idea where they are. So it's a very bad situation.

I think while we can disagree on whether to build a wall, et cetera, where I get worried is I'm hearing people disagree that there's even a problem on the border. That used to be not something we disagreed on.

CUPP: In the times you were there before, how did the trip compare?

Was it different?

Worse?

Better?

KINZINGER: I think it's worse. Texas is very different terrain than Arizona, so it's a little apples and oranges. When I was in Texas, people were seeking a better way of life, migrant groups in essence trying to come over the border illegally. Border Patrol was then overwhelmed, too.

In Arizona, there's that. But what I saw more of was cartel counter- intelligence operations. For instance, people would sit on hills and mountains and scout out where the Border Patrol is. They do things to draw Border Patrol to one area, so they can bring in a group in another area.

They would leave one or two people behind so that Border Patrol would be tied up arresting them. So between the drugs and the human trafficking, two ways the cartels make money, it's pretty bad.

CUPP: Do you support the president's use of a national emergency then?

KINZINGER: I actually do. I went down purposely because I said I wanted to see it from the operations perspective. I'm not afraid to say if the president is wrong but I think he's right in this case. This is not a change to a law. Some of President Obama's executive order actually changed policy.

This is a change to where money is going. I said, not because of the immigration component but because of the drug and human trafficking, the two biggest scourges that the country and the world faces, frankly, it rises to the level of a national emergency.

CUPP: You met with the president this week.

What did you talk about?

KINZINGER: We talked about this. I wanted to share my experience on the border. He was very interested it. The president and members of Congress can go to the border with a windbreaker and get a picture.

But to actually be involved in the operations was very unique. So I shared that experience with him. He was very interested to hear it. It just reaffirmed his belief and my belief that this is a national emergency.

CUPP: Well, as always, thank for you your service and thank you for bringing all of that detail back to our show.

[18:25:00]

CUPP: I appreciate it.

KINZINGER: You bet. Take care.

CUPP: Next, I'll ask a Democratic senator if this border problem is worthy of a wall.

And a little later, a debate about a debate. We'll talk about the president's favorite news channel, snubbed by the DNC.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

CUPP: I just finished discussing the politicization of the border situation. In a few minutes, I'll speak to a senator about the upcoming vote against the president's national emergency.

But there's another troubling layer to the border conversation and it involves the First Amendment. Homeland Security has launched an internal investigation into Customs and Border Protection over allegations they are tracking journalists and activists at the border.

Earlier this week San Diego reported they had documents showing that CBP officials had a list of people to pull aside for further screening when crossing the U.S.-Mexico border because they may have had information related to the migrant caravan and incidents at the border.

People with information?

Yes, journalists would fit the bill. CBP says it does not target journalists based on their occupation or their reporting, so that's reassuring. We'll have to see where that goes. We'll be back in two minutes.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:30:00]

(MUSIC PLAYING)

CUPP: In the red file tonight, the Senate votes this week on a resolution to block Trump's national emergency declaration to get money for the border wall. These are the Republican senators who announced they'll be breaking rank and voting for the resolution.

There could be others, which would force a presidential veto. In true Trump fashion, he sent out a tweet imploring Republicans to stick together. But behind the scenes, the White House is fighting back. Officials are warning there would be retribution against anybody who doesn't get in line, including potential primary fights.

So when the president almost certainly vetoes the resolution, what then?

Joining me is Democratic senator from Maryland, Ben Cardin.

Senator, welcome, what are you expecting to happen?

SEN. BEN CARDIN (D), MARYLAND: Well, S.E., it's good to be with you. I expect the Senate will follow the House and pass a resolution disapproving the president's use of this emergency power. We'll do it for several reasons.

We could argue the merits of what the president is doing, we could argue the fact there is no emergency. This is a circumstance that's been building for a long time. But the real reason is that this is usurping the power of Congress.

Congress has already acted on this issue specifically and the president's trying to take over the legislative branch of government. And I think that the majority of senators recognize that and will vote to override the president's emergency declaration.

CUPP: If he vetoes, what is the next plan from Democrats?

CARDIN: Well, I'm disappointed we don't have the votes to override the veto. I think it's a clear situation of abuse of executive power. I think the courts will weigh in. The courts, I believe, will rule that the president cannot do this.

CUPP: Yes. I don't know if you heard but in the previous segment, Adam Kinzinger was deployed to the border as part of the Air National Guard. He said what he saw there assured him a border wall was necessary.

Are Democrats ignoring very real problems for politics?

CARDIN: No. I heard the segment and I disagree with his conclusion. I do believe we have to do more to secure our borders. I believe in that. Most of the drugs come in through commerce; the trafficking issues, many come right across the border and turn themselves into our border security people.

So I disagree with his conclusion. But I do agree we have to do more and, in fact, we did that in the appropriations bill. We provided additional billions in order to protect our border.

CUPP: As you know, immigration was an advantageous issue for Trump in 2016.

Are some Democrats, though, by backing things like abolishing ICE, for example, are they swinging too far in the other direction?

CARDIN: I don't believe in abolishing ICE. I believe we need that, so I disagree with that view. But I believe we have to do more to protect that border and Democrats have supported that.

Look at our actions on the appropriations bill. We have done that. We have also supported comprehensive immigration reform. It's the Republicans who have blocked the ability to reform our immigration system and President Trump has refused to take leadership in reforming our immigration system.

CUPP: What would you say to Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez or some of the candidates running to be president, who support things like abolishing ICE?

CARDIN: You need to have people on the border. We need law enforcement on the border. We need to know who is coming in. We want people coming in, we want to know who we are. We recognize our system needs to be reformed. Let's reform that system.

Let's lead our hemisphere on humanitarian issues. We have a crisis in Venezuela and we're pleased that Colombia opened its borders to protect people's lives. America needs to have a policy that we let people --

[18:35:00]

CARDIN: -- legitimately seek asylum. We need to have the right laws but we need people on the border to enforce those laws.

CUPP: Senator, thank you for coming on and previewing what will be a pretty important week in the Senate.

CARDIN: It's good to be with you.

CUPP: Thanks.

Former FOX News chief Bill Shine resigned as the president's sixth comms director.

Will that change anything?

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

CUPP: White House communications director Bill Shine resigned on Friday, after eight months in the role. He was the sixth person to occupy that post. He's not going too far. He will now serve as --

[18:40:00]

CUPP: -- senior adviser to Trump's reelection campaign. It comes after "The New Yorker" published a lengthy article on the

stunning overlap between the White House and FOX News. According to that piece, here's Shine's White House origin story.

"Hannity became a matchmaker, arranging a dinner with the president, attended by himself, Shine and Scaramucci. Hannity proposed Shine as a top communications official or even as a deputy chief of staff. A year later, Shine was both."

The story only confirmed for many that FOX is nothing more than state media, Trump TV. Democrats apparently agree. DNC chair Tom Perez announced that the party would not be holding a primary debate on FOX News.

The DNC hasn't held a primary debate on FOX News for 15 years. But the reason this time is new. While FOX News' actual reporters -- Chris Wallace, Bret Baier -- are urging the party to reconsider, Elizabeth Warren, who would be in these debates, presumably, totally agrees with the move.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MASS.), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: When more and more keeps coming out about how FOX News was just operating as an arm of the Trump campaign and then the Trump administration, I understand why it is that the Democratic Party would say we're just not going to be a part of that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUPP: Not everyone agrees, though. Joining me to discussing this CNN chief media correspondent, Brian Stelter, and CNN political commentator, Bakari Sellers.

Brian, let's start with Bill Shine.

What do you know?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: This was an impossible job. We say it every time. The president thinks he's his own best communications director.

I wonder if he'll even bother filling the job now?

I think Maggie Haberman put it best. She said everyone's first day at the White House is their best day. Their best day with Trump it' all downhill from there.

For some people, it takes longer than others. For Mooch, it only took 10 days. For Bill Shine, he lasted the better part of a year. But you end up disappointing the president, having him frustrated by you. There's a lot of reports that say Shine was not living up to Trump's expectations.

But Trump's problem is not communication. It's not Bill Shine's fault that the president is embroiled in scandal. CUPP: Maggie Haberman put it well and Paul Begala did as well. The

Titanic didn't have a comms problem, it had an iceberg problem.

Bakari, it makes sense; why give FOX the legitimacy?

But does this decision make Democrats look weak?

BAKARI SELLERS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Not at all. I think you stated first that RNC -- excuse me -- FOX News hasn't had a DNC debate for a number of year. In 2016, I believe they hosted a town hall meeting.

The flip side is the RNC did not grant MSNBC a debate as well. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

CUPP: Sure.

SELLERS: But I would encourage my friends like Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, to actually go sit down with Chris Matthews and Bret Baier --

CUPP: Chris Wallace.

SELLERS: -- excuse me -- but dare not give FOX News, which was an arm of Trump TV -- which was an arm of the Trump campaign add more fuel to the fire. I just think that's totally inappropriate.

CUPP: Brian, Chris Wallace argues this will give Trump a precedent to exclude certain networks during the general election debate.

STELTER: I don't think the president will need any excuse if he chooses to do that. I don't think he will. He wants to be on TV, in debates, up against whoever is running. I think the argument we've heard from FOX is that they hope the DNC will change its mind.

Yes, there are journalists at FOX News but the opinion arm is what dominates the narrative. The primetime shows are so ugly towards Democrats, I don't understand why the DNC would ever think about going on FOX in the first place for a debate.

Why would you go to the enemy camp if you're the Democrats?

The same is true for the Republicans. You wouldn't have an MSNBC primetime debate with the GOP.

CUPP: Let me put a different spin on this. We have talked about media solidarity, networks sticking together. I almost wondered if this would be a media moment, where other networks, maybe even ours, would say, if you're not going on FOX News, we're not going to have the Democrat debates, either.

Is that all too Aaron Sorkin version of how this would go?

STELTER: We've seen great moments of solidarity, for example, when Acosta was booted.

(CROSSTALK) CUPP: From FOX.

STELTER: In that case FOX supported --

(CROSSTALK)

STELTER: -- if FOX's reporter were banned from the White House, CNN would absolutely stand up for that reporter. When Tucker Carlson's home was defaced by protesters, I spoke out --

[18:45:00]

STELTER: -- and said it was inappropriate. Those moments call for solidarity. What the Democratic National Committee does is, I don't think, related to you. I think that's in the Democrats' court.

CUPP: Go ahead, Bakari.

SELLERS: Every example you gave minus Tucker has to do with journalism. I think you have to have solidarity when it comes to journalists sticking together. What Brian pointed out eloquently as we started is that primetime television over at FOX News is opinion driven. Sean Hannity is not a journalist. In fact, he states that.

He gives his opinion. That's what he is. So I don't think there's any reason for anyone to come together and say Kumbaya.

(CROSSTALK)

CUPP: Bakari, how can Democrats make an argument that they want to reach new voters, maybe even some disaffected Trump voters, if they decide not to talk to any of them where they're at?

SELLERS: No, we can talk to them where they are. Like I said, you can go on Chris Matthews --

CUPP: Chris Wallace.

(CROSSTALK)

SELLERS: I keep calling him Chris Matthews. You can go on Chris Wallace. You can go on Bret Baier, who is awesome, and reach those votes. But you don't have to go into the lion's den.

I think Tom Perez made an awesome decision. Most times, in the past years, we haven't given a reason why we haven't gone on FOX News --

(CROSSTALK)

SELLERS: -- at least he actually gave a reason this time. It's great journalism that gave him this new reasoning. So Chris Mathews and Chris Wallace both deserve a shoutout but if you're going on FOX News, please choose Chris Wallace.

CUPP: Bakari, Brian, thank you both.

Be sure to watch Brian tomorrow. He'll speak to the author of that "New Yorker" article. We'll be right back.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:50:00]

(MUSIC PLAYING)

CUPP: Remember this old chestnut, as Ohio goes, so goes the nation?

Ohio's long been a bellwether state in American presidential politics. It was not always thus. Believe it or not, Maine held that distinction from 1832 to 1932. Others have held it since.

But Ohio might be inching away from swing state status to Republican stronghold. At least it seems like that's what Democrats think. This week, a very influential Democratic super PAC, Priorities USA, released its 2020 targeting. And Ohio was downgraded to GOP watch. Check this out.

Phase 1 of the priority investment and phase 2 of their priority investment, Ohio is conspicuously absent. A spokesman for the super PAC tells cleveland.com, quote, "It's not in our initial spending plans. It's in the states to watch and see if an investment is worth making."

Also this week, working-class champion Ohio senator Sherrod Brown announced he would not be seeking the Democratic nomination for president. He would have been the most prominent candidate from the Rust Belt in the Democratic primary.

Hmm, what's going on here?

Joining me now CNN Politics senior writer and analyst Harry Enten.

Harry, the last president to win without Ohio was JFK.

Is Ohio no longer a bellwether?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I don't think it actually is. Look at the midterm results, the governor's race, Mike DeWine, Republican, easily wins. Look at the House races, Democrats didn't pick up a single House seat there.

And if you take the cumulative House vote, Republicans won it by 4 points. It's very different from Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, the rest of these Midwest states that are traditionally swing states. They look like they're holding on to that status. But Ohio, not really.

CUPP: Do you think that Priorities USA is hinting at something here, that Ohio is now Trump country?

ENTEN: I think they are. I think they recognize if they get to 270 electoral votes, there's better pathways than going through Ohio. If you look at the 2016 results, you saw Trump winning there by 8 points. I don't think it'll be that much different in 2020. It could be a closer race but there are other states will get the Democratic candidate to that threshold first.

(CROSSTALK)

CUPP: I'm just remembering Hillary Clinton was criticized, I think rightly, and mercilessly for not going to states like Wisconsin enough, for example.

Can Democrats really afford to take any state off the table?

ENTEN: I wouldn't take states off the table, right?

But from a mathematical, electoral math point of view, there are better places to put your money than Ohio.

Obviously, you know, there are candidates who can potentially get them to 275 winning Ohio but probably not the first --

(CROSSTALK)

CUPP: Think about someone like Joe Biden. If Joe Biden gets in, I think he has a shot at winning a state like Ohio. If he doesn't and now with Sherrod Brown not running, who really speaks to those voters from the Democratic Party?

ENTEN: I think the only other one is Senator Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota. That's another midwestern state; that's not the same as Ohio.

(CROSSTALK)

ENTEN: It's a little different. But she's won huge margins in Minnesota. She won by 24 points last time. She won by over 30 points in 2012. She won by 20 points in 2006. She's the type of candidate that I think, if it's not Biden, who could put Ohio in play.

CUPP: She's sort of positioning herself as a moderate but I don't think anyone speaks Rust Belt than Joe Biden.

ENTEN: I think that's probably right. You know, Scranton, Pennsylvania.

CUPP: Yes.

ENTEN: -- Uncle Joe but we'll see what happens. States move. Remember Hillary Clinton won the Ohio primary in 2008 and everyone thought she was the candidate. Look what happened eight years later?

CUPP: Interesting. Thank you so much for --

[18:55:00]

CUPP: -- joining me and talking through it.

Appreciate all of that insight. Up next, make sure you stick around for Van Jones, "The New Generation of Congressional Democrats" is making waves in Washington. Van goes head to head with five of the most interesting among them. They talk presidential oversight, the direction of their party heading into 2020 and where they're hoping to make a change.

You don't want to miss that. Stay put. It's next.