Return to Transcripts main page
New Day
Trump's Grip on the Republican Party; Jemar Tisby is Interviewed about Race; Bomb Threats at HBCU Campuses; Pfizer Vaccine for Kids. Aired 6:30-7a ET
Aired February 01, 2022 - 06:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[06:30:00]
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: Road rage.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: This morning, things feel like they are shifting. That is a quote from a "New York Times" report that says Donald Trump's grip on the Republican Party might be waning. Yes, his political operation just raised a whopping $122 million, but "The Times" write, his long-standing grip on the party is facing new strains.
So, what do the numbers? One man can answer that question.
Joining us now in person, very close to me, CNN's senior data reporter Harry Enten.
Harry, look, Donald Trump is still strong in the Republican Party.
HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: Yes. Yes, I mean, look, before we get into why his grip may be loosening, it's important to point out that when you look at the national polling right now, he is still well ahead in a potential 2024 primary.
[06:35:07]
Look at this, he's all the way up at 53 percent. Ron DeSantis, who's in second, is just at 16. The rest are in single digits, right?
So, look, his grip may be loosening, but he's still getting over 50 percent of the potential Republican primary vote. That's a pretty strong position to be in.
BERMAN: Historical context here is challenging for us, right, because neither of us were around for Grover Cleveland. But what could you compare Trump's position to right now?
ENTEN: No, we were not around for Grover Cleveland, though I did enjoy the pitcher Grover Cleveland Alexander for those old-timey baseball fans.
Look, non-incumbents who polled at 45 percent or above in presidential primaries to this point, there are only two of them. There are only two of them. Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Al Gore in 2000. So, at this point, right, being '98 and 2014. Both of those two won the nomination.
BERMAN: Right.
ENTEN: We don't know where Trump is going, but it's a small sample size that you're going to be polling so high at this particular point and usually it's been pretty successful.
BERMAN: So strong but maybe slipping?
ENTEN: Strong but maybe slipping. So, I think this is the type of polling that folks are looking at, the private polling. We do see some of this in the public polling. And what do we essentially see? OK, do you consider yourself more of a supporter of Trump or the Republican Party, this is among Republicans. And what do we see here? Back in October of 2020, right, only 38 percent consider themselves more a part of the Republican Party than a supporter of Trump, 54 percent were more likely to consider themselves a supporter of Trump.
Now, flash forward to January of 2022, what do we see? Those numbers have flipped. Those numbers are flipped, John. So now 56 percent of Republicans consider themselves more a supporter of the Republican Party compared to just 36 percent who consider themselves a supporter of Trump.
BERMAN: This is a huge shift. This is huge.
ENTEN: This is absolutely huge.
Now, the question is, obviously, Trump has been out of office for a little while, right? So is this just that he's sort of taken back the lime -- you know, given up the limelight. But Trump is -- if you want to find Trump, you can find Donald Trump. He's speaking all the time and he's got now a 20-point deficit.
BERMAN: Well, but some of his support, you think, may actually be because of name ID.
ENTEN: That's -- bingo. So, here's a key thing that's so important when you look at those early polling numbers and you see someone like Donald Trump who's all the way up, say 53 percent in my aggregate of all the national polls. Keep in mind, he is universally known. So his favorable rating in the latest Marquette University Law School poll among Republicans was 72 percent. Compare that to Ron DeSantis, who was in second place, who was only at 52 percent. Now, though, look at those who have an opinion of both of them. What do you see? Look, Trump, universally known, he's only at about 73 percent. Look at DeSantis among those who have an opinion on both of them. He's at about 83 percent.
BERMAN: Wow. I didn't -- I haven't seen this number. So, among people who know both Trump and DeSantis, DeSantis has a higher favorability?
ENTEN: Correct. Among Republicans. And, you know what, this is just one poll. I've looked at multiple ones. Some of them have about this ten-point gap. Some of them have about a five-point gap. But either way it's clear that among those who know both of them, DeSantis is very, very well liked in the Republican Party. At least as well liked in Donald Trump.
BERMAN: So, in this metric, you can made the case DeSantis, in a way, is leading. There's another metric you have too where he has a slight edge.
ENTEN: Yes. So, you know, why would you vote for Ron DeSantis over Donald Trump if you're a Republican? It's because you really don't like this gentleman. You really don't like Joe Biden. You want to beat Joe Biden. You can remember in 2020, it was electability, electability, electability.
Now, look at this, this among all folks nationwide. This isn't just Republicans. If you look at the favorable and unfavorables of Biden and Trump, you can see, look, 42 percent better than DeSantis's 29 percent. But, again, that's name ID. Look at the unfavorable ratings. They're 20 points higher than Ron DeSantis'. So, the net favorability ratings, just minus two for DeSantis. Basically, breaking even. Biden and Trump at minus 11.
So, the argument would be, if you're a Republican, why should I vote for Donald Trump, who at this particular point is about tied in the national polls with Joe Biden and is very unpopular when I can vote for Ron DeSantis, who's much better liked and has a better chance of beating Joe Biden.
BERMAN: Yes, and, look, it may be why this guy is scared of this guy right now.
What I was scared of this morning, Harry, on a completely different note.
ENTEN: Yes.
BERMAN: When you walked on the set, Harry Enten says to me, I'm wearing your pants right now.
ENTEN: This is true.
BERMAN: And I want you to explain this frankly to me and America because it still is somewhat alarming to me.
ENTEN: Yes. So, essentially what happened was, we have been going in flash studios, right, and it's cold out in New York. So I've been wearing sweatpants. I have been wearing sweatpants and then going into a flash studio. You can only see me from the top up.
All of a sudden it turns out I'm told, no, we're allowed back on set. I produced a negative rapid test. But I didn't have any pants. And my office was locked. The office that I normally have them in was locked. There was no key around. So I needed to get a pair of pants. So I am wearing your jeans right now, which I can get away because I'm youth and wonderful.
[06:40:01]
And these aren't even my socks either. These are not my socks. These are our producer's socks. And it all works out for me.
BERMAN: I understand that. So you walked into my empty office and put on my pants.
ENTEN: Yes. That is correct. I walked into your empty office and put on your pants.
BERMAN: Y Es.
ENTEN: You are in better shape than I am. But I've got some years on you, so it works out. It looks pretty good, right, folks?
BERMAN: I have to process this right now. But thank you for at least laying out exactly what happened.
ENTEN: I give you politics and I give you -- I'm now a fashion model, too.
BERMAN: My attorneys and maybe my doctors will be in touch.
ENTEN: Thank you.
BERMAN: Harry, thank you very much.
ENTEN: Thank you, sir.
BERMAN: So --
KEILAR: I'll going to be more alarmed when Harry comes into my office and puts my pants on.
BERMAN: Yes.
ENTEN: I -- you know --
BERMAN: It's all -- I think he would.
KEILAR: If they look better on Harry --
ENTEN: Whatever it takes.
BERMAN: Yes.
ENTEN: Whatever it takes, Brianna.
BERMAN: Necessity is the mother of invention.
ENTEN: That's the bottom line. I'm a man of the company. I'm a CNN man.
KEILAR: Yes. I'll be really mad, though, if they look better on you, Harry. And that -- that might just happen.
ENTEN: You know, I've got a good body. I'm not -- I like my body.
BERMAN: All right, a significant sign --
KEILAR: It's a -- it's a -- it's a lure of the show.
BERMAN: And a significant sign that the end might be in sight. The news about the vaccine for young children.
KEILAR: Cannot wait for that.
And "The New York Times" buys the popular word game Wordle, which we here on the show are addicted to. How much did they spend? And what does this mean for us? Are we going to have to pay for this? I think that's the big question.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[06:45:35]
KEILAR: It is no secret that U.S. history is full of dark moments and turmoil. Slavery, the genocide of indigenous Americans. But if Republicans in the New Hampshire state legislature get their way, students might be spared those grizzly details because of a proposed bill that would ban teachers from promoting concepts that portray American history in a negative light. The so-called Teachers Loyalty Bill states that no teacher shall advocate any doctrine or theory promoting a negative account or representation of the founding in history of the United States of America in New Hampshire public schools, which does not include the worldwide context of now outdated and discouraged practices. Such prohibition includes but is not limited to teaching that the United States was founded on racism.
Joining us now is Jemar Tisby. He is the author of "How to Fight Racism: A Guide to Standing up for Racial Justice."
Your reaction to this proposal.
JEMAR TISBY, AUTHOR, "HOW TO FIGHT RACISM: A GUIDE TO STANDING UP FOR RACIAL JUSTICE": Well, I find it very dispiriting that proposals like these are happening at all, let alone right now. It's February 1st, the first day of Black History Month, and yet it's that very history that is under attack here.
But let's think about what's really going on. These legislatures and the people who are supporting these bills probably aren't expert historians. So, I think what's really happening here are loyalty tests. Loyalty not to the truth but loyalty to this myth of American exceptionalism that the United States has been on this inevitable march toward progress and aside from a few missteps here and there that society largely works equally and fairly for everyone.
Well, that's simply not true and it's awfully -- an awfully convenient narrative because that means that whatever issues, whatever struggles that black people, indigenous people and other people of color face in this country is due to their own flaws and shortcomings and it lets people off the hook for doing things on a system-wide, a law, policy or practice level to make things more equitable.
BERMAN: So, my understanding is this New Hampshire proposed law is based on red scare type stuff where initially, you know, the law is, you can't teach communism or Marxism in New Hampshire classrooms and this bill is just repeating what that one says. You, I also understand, are a former middle school principal, right?
TISBY: That's right. That's right. I was a sixth grade teacher and middle school principal, yes.
BERMAN: So -- so how does this hit you? So as a principal, what would your reaction to this be?
TISBY: It's shocking. It's appalling. It's -- it puts a chill on the passion and joy of teaching. Most educators get into this because they love students and they love the content that they're teaching. But what this law does is essentially deputizes anyone from students to adults to be able to tattle on their teachers about any content that they find uncomfortable. And what must that do to an educator who simply wants to teach the curriculum the best way they know how and it makes it very difficult -- I think we're going to have recruiting problems for teachers. And, unfortunately, these are people who are already overworked and underpaid. They've been dealing with the pandemic for three school years now. And then you layer this on top of it all. This is extremely frustrating and it shouldn't be happening.
KEILAR: Yes, what do you think is at the heart of this? Because, you know, you can still love your country and look at its blemishes and learn from mistakes. I mean that's one of the things that is amazing about America and that, you know, in other places people can't do.
TISBY: That's right. That's right. Martin Luther King Junior said there can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. And so those of us who are disappointed in the history of this nation and many of the present injustices, it's because we have a deep appreciation for where we are. It's been said that you will know the truth and the truth will set you free. Well, they're hiding the truth. They're denying the truth.
And the reverse is true as well. If you tell lies and if you believe lies and myths, then those lies will imprison you. And so we can't truly make progress in this nation along the lines of racial justice until we face the truth, which is something that so many people in this country have become experts at denying and avoiding.
[06:50:10]
But the truth will out no matter what.
KEILAR: Look, we are lucky we have this amazing right to explore all of these issues. And it just seems kind of anti-American that people are saying people shouldn't do it.
Jemar, we always appreciate you coming on for such an insightful conversation.
Jemar Tisby, thank you.
TISBY: Thank you.
KEILAR: Who is threatening HBCU campuses with bombs? That is what the FBI wants to know.
BERMAN: And big news for parents with young children. Kids under five could be approved for the Pfizer vaccine as soon as the end of the month. Or authorized, I should say. Dr. Sanjay Gupta joins us with this breaking development.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[06:55:01]
BERMAN: This morning, the FBI is investigating a series of bomb threats Monday targeting at least six historically black colleges and universities.
CNN's Joe Johns live in Washington with the latest on this.
Joe, what have you learned?
JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, John.
Well, we're seeing more reports of this stuff going on this morning, including one report from our affiliate, WJLA here in Washington, D.C., about another report of a bomb threat at Howard University.
We've seen two rounds of these bomb threats now and it is attracting attention at the highest levels. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said yesterday that the president himself is aware of it, the white House and its interagency partners, including federal law enforcement plugged in on it, which means the FBI, the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, not to mention all the local and state law enforcement responding to these events.
The bomb threats have all turned out to be hoaxes with no explosive devices found. But the problem is the sheer level of disruption on multiple college campuses up and down the East Coast from schools in the DMV, here around Washington, D.C., all the way down to Southern University in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
The House Intelligence Committee has requested a briefing. The co- chairs of the House HBCU Caucus put out a statement, essentially words of encouragement to the schools. You're resilient and we will not let terror disrupt or demean the academic excellence of our HBCUs.
For the record, though, law enforcement has not weighed in on who they think is doing this or what they think the motive is.
John.
BERMAN: Any sign, obviously, when you see a number of these in the same period of time, you think there's a connection. But has anyone said that they are directly connected? JOHNS: No, no one has said they're connected. But, I mean, if you just look at the patterns, Howard University has gotten two or three of these. So, you can't help but ask the question whether they're all related.
BERMAN: And I will note, as Jemar Tisby did in the last segment, it is Black History Month now. So, when we're seeing this happen right now, it has particularly troubling meaning.
Joe Johns, our thanks to you for that report. Appreciate it.
And NEW DAY continues right now.
KEILAR: Welcome to our viewers here in the United States and around the world. It's Tuesday, February 1st. And I'm Brianna Keilar, with John Berman.
We do begin with some big, breaking news that could signal an end in sight to the pandemic as we know it. Pfizer is expected to ask the FDA to authorize its Covid vaccine for children under five as early as today. CNN has just confirmed this first reported by "The Washington Post."
BERMAN: So, if Emergency Use Authorization is granted, children as young as six months old could have access to a two-shot regimen by the end of this month.
I want to bring in CNN chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta.
Sanjay, this is welcome news for a lot of parents, but it's also a little bit quirky.
Can you explain?
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I -- it is a little bit quirky because you remember last year when we talked about this, end of last year, we thought maybe this was going to be sort of second quarter of this year. Back, you know, a couple of weeks ago Dr. Fauci said this sort of authorization request may come within the next month. So it was the first time we sort of heard the maybe accelerated timeline. And now we hear that the request at least for authorization is imminent. It could happen really today, any day soon now. And if that happens, possibly by the end of the month there could be an authorized vaccine for children under the age of five, which I know, Brianna, you've been thinking about a lot lately. A lot of parents out there have been.
I think there's a couple of things that have been going on here. One is that I want to show you the dosing, first of all. When you look at the dosing for children under the age of five, compare that with dosing for older people, they wanted to try lower doses, understandably, for these young kids, and they wanted to get the right number of doses as well. What they found was that in six months to 24 months, two-year-old children, they seem to have good immune response based on this dosing. It was two to five-year-old children that they thought maybe, look, do we have to add another dose, a third dose? And that was originally what was sort of pushing the trials a little bit later.
Now there's -- I think what they're basically saying is, why don't we go ahead and apply for the authorization for the two doses. We're continuing to get data on three doses. That data should probably be here by the end of March. And at that point, you know, you should have a lot of children already able to get access to the vaccines and then they'll determine later on whether a third dose is necessary.
It's kind of what happened with adults as well, if you remember. So, it seems like that's what the thinking is there. Lowest dose possible, figure out the right number of doses. That data is still forthcoming. But the two-dose authorization request may come in very soon.
[07:00:01]
KEILAR: So, what do you think parents will do here? We've seen some reticence of folks to get their kids vaccinated, you know, for some people.
