Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Have Pollsters Fixed Flaws After 2016, 2020?; Kamala Harris Sits Down With Bret Baier In Fox Interview; Trump Ridicules Harris, Walz, Schumer At Catholic Charity Dinner. Interview With Two-Time Pulitzer Prize Winner Bob Woodward. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired October 19, 2024 - 09:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:26]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: So who's winning? You can pick your poison. I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia.

We're 16 days from the final day of voting, and we all want to know who will be POTUS 47. You can take your choice of metrics, the betting markets, the stock market, the cultural touchstones, pundits and the conventional polls, they each tell different stories. Let's just take a look at those prediction markets where individuals place bets on the outcome of events. Those placing bets on the popular platform predicted now trading Trump at 55 cents a share, compared to Harris's 49 cents a share. Bettors on the crypto prediction platform Polly market had Trump and Harris deadlocked in early October.

Now have Trump's chance of winning at nearly 60 percent. According to the Wall Street Journal, this rise likely due to a group of just four accounts who have pumped 30 million in crypto into bets that Donald Trump will win. Then there's the stock market. A strong stock market has often been associated with a higher chance of an incumbent victory. If you look at the strength of the Dow Jones, it shows a 72 percent probability of a Harris victory.

That number's up from 64 percent two months ago. Another analysis, John Kenneth White is a professor at Catholic University for the Hill. He opined that pop culture is often more accurate than any of the polls. Take Ronald Reagan, 1984 he won a large victory, while the polls predicted he would win. White says that Reaganite values were also prevalent in the cultural zeitgeist.

The hit show "Family Ties," for example, starred Michael J. Fox as Alex Keaton, a Republican growing up in a liberal family.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL J. FOX, ALEX KEATON IN "FAMILY TIES": Attack is a terrible Harry, liberal monster. Big teeth. And the only thing, the only thing they can stop the terrible tax monster is Republican. (END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: This cycle, Professor White says pop culture favors Kamala Harris, the brat candidate who has the support of Taylor Swift in an era where the kindness and decency of Ted Lasso defined qualities opposite those of Donald Trump.

Are you looking for something more conventional? Numbers guru Nate Silver gives the slightest of edges to Donald Trump right now. And ABC's 538 currently gives Trump a 51 in 100 chance of winning. And then, of course, there are the conventional polls, the only tool that's scientifically designed to measure voters' opinions. The latest CNN poll of polls has Harris leading by one point nationally with no clear leader in the majority of the seven battleground states.

We don't elect presidents by popular vote. If we did, Hillary Clinton could be ending her second term right now. But the national polls are often a tell. In October of 2016, Hillary Clinton led Trump by eight points nationally. Eventually won the popular vote by just two, and, of course, lost the Electoral College.

In October of 2020 Joe Biden was leading Trump by 11 points. Ended up winning the popular vote by just four, while winning the Electoral College. In each election, Trump's vote was underrepresented in the polls. Could that be happening this year?

Nate Cohen at the "New York Times" recently showed what a polling miss, like we saw in 2016 or 2020 could mean in this election. He also analyzed polling data from the midterms. If the polls are mistaken, as they were in the 2022 midterm election, Harris should be in good shape. But if they err, as they did in 2016 or 2020 Donald Trump will win. So, is there this year a hidden vote for Donald Trump?

Joining me now to discuss is Dr. Joshua Clinton, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University. In 2020 he led a task force comprised of media and polling experts from Pew, Gallup, CNN and more. They examined pre-election polling for the American Association of Public Opinion Research.

Joshua, welcome back to the program. Big picture, what went wrong in 2016 and 2020?

JOSHUA CLINTON, POLITICAL SCIENCE PROFESSOR, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Sure. So, well, glad to be here. So in 2016 the problem was -- you know, a poll is only as good as the people you have in your sample. And so in 2016 we saw a big split for the first time based on education that would never appear before. And so, the polls had too many college educated voters in and not enough kind of those with a high school less.

And in 2016 that kind of -- those groups voted very differently. College educated voted overwhelming for Clinton. Those with a high school less voted for Trump. And so the polls kind of missed that. So going in 2020, pollsters kind of identified as a problem.

[09:05:10] And so we thought that we were OK and turns out there's a new problem, which is basically that we didn't have enough Republicans in the polls themselves. And so that's why we saw this understatement about support for Trump. And so, going into 2024, right, pollsters are trying to fix what happened and try to figure out, do I have enough of Republicans and the right type of Republicans or Trump voters in my sample? And so we're going to see what happens.

SMERCONISH: Are the polling misses that you're describing? Are they Trump centric? Or did they extend further down the ballot?

CLINTON: Well, see, it's hard to know because, you know, we didn't see the same kind of polling error in 2022. So, they could be Trump centric, because they happen in presidential election years when Trump was on the ballot. But presidential elections are also different than midterm elections, because different voters vote in presidential elections and midterm elections, right? The less frequently engaged vote in presidential elections and midterm elections, and those are precisely the people that are harsh to get on the phone or come to get to answer polls. And so, we don't really know if it's a Trump specific aspect of it, something about the electorate.

And we don't also know, to be honest, where the polls are going to be better, because we've tried to make a correction. So we look at 2022, the midterms. And so yes, the polls did historically well, but that just means that there wasn't a systematic bias in favor of the Democrats, the Republicans. Like on average, the average poll still understand the margin by five percentage points. So look at Michigan, for example, in the governor's race, like their governor, Whitmer, right, the polling averages either had that tag or her up by five percentage points when she actually won by 10 percentage points.

And so, the idea that the polls inevitably are going to understate kind of Republicans, maybe that's true in the conventional era when President Trump's on the ballot, but it's not a certainty, especially in an election where, you know, 2020 was very weird with the pandemic. You know, this year it's kind of who knows what the elector is going to look like.

SMERCONISH: You would agree with me that if they're wrong this year, they're all wrong because they're all telling the exact same story that it's probably at this juncture a Harris one to two national survey advantage, and in the battleground states, pretty much everything is within the margin of error. Like, if there were a credible poll that were an outlier in my show introduction today, I would have said. But, of course, there is this survey, but there's not one that I'm aware of.

CLINTON: No, that's right. I mean, this cycle, you see, everyone's kind of very, very closely tied. Everyone's essentially getting tied results. Now, if that's because the data is showing that or because we're trying to make adjustments to kind of -- you know, we know 2020 is very close. We think it's going to be closer this time.

And so, it's hard to know, right? And so, but kind of think about the difficulty that pre-election polling faces, right? If I'm trying to call registered voters and I call 100 of them, like, only five of them answer a polls -- answer a poll, right? So right off the bat, I know I've got a small group of individuals, and so now I need to try to make them look like what the electorate looks like. But I don't know that, right?

So I need to make an assumption as a pollster about what I think the 2024 electoral is going to look like. And if I'm wrong with that, right, then my poll is going to be off. And so, it's a really, really hard task to try to get 1,000 people. And you know, we just don't have the precision that we sometimes need in the convention lecture. In its high rates of polls, not going to be able to tell you who's up by one percentage point or not. So it's a very difficult task.

SMERCONISH: OK. So you're -- so you are an academic with expertise in this area. I explained your credentials --

CLINTON: Yes.

SMERCONISH: -- and the role that you played in studying the misfires of 2016 and 2020. Jess (ph), can you put up on the screen today's poll question? I want to see if Josh cares to weigh in on what he would say in response to this. What do you think is the best predictor of election outcomes? The betting markets, the stock market, traditional polling, like we've discussed, pundits and analysts or cultural trends? How would you answer that?

CLINTON: I mean, I would think my best prediction is basically, you know, we're in a very tightly tied country, right? So I would look to see what happened last time, right? In 2020, it was a tied race. And so, right now, my guess is it's going to be something close to that, right, which, you know, and I'm, honestly -- you know, I have no idea, right, what's going to happen.

SMERCONISH: OK, wait. Wait, that's -- but that's --

CLINTON: I mean, that's a genuine answer.

SMERCONISH: Respectfully, that's not an answer to my question. Which of the metrics that I've just identified do you look at, you know, for your dinner conversation, and say, well, you know, this is the one.

CLINTON: Yes. Well, I mean, I try to look at the polls in some sense, and try to see what they're saying, but you know, I think the margin of error around those things is so, you know, it's like plus or minus five, right? Plus or minus six, which in a tied race --

SMERCONISH: OK.

CLINTON: -- means -- it means --

SMERCONISH: All right.

CLINTON: -- it could be anything, right? So I -- that's going to be my answer

SMERCONISH: I'm putting you -- I'm putting you down for conventional. I'm recording you as voting for conventional polls. That's how I'm recording this vote.

[09:10:02]

CLINTON: Sure.

SMERCONISH: Josh, thank you so much. Appreciate your expertise.

CLINTON: My pleasure. Anytime.

SMERCONISH: Thank you, sir.

Social media reaction thus far. What do we have that we're dealing with here today? Wouldn't it stand to reason that polls are over correcting for past under polling? Yes, John, it would stand to reason. It would stand to reason.

But who the hell knows? I mean, they were way the heck off in 2016, they were off again in 2020, you would have said the same thing, though, right? When I was sitting here in 2020 and I was, and I was probably discussing the same issue, I think we would have said, well, but by now they've corrected for the way in which they couldn't calibrate the Trump vote. But that wasn't the case in 2020. So who knows what I'll be saying in 2028, God willing.

I want to know what you think. I've already shown you the poll question. Go to my website at smerconish.com and cast your ballot. What do you think is the best predictor of the election outcome? Is it the betting markets?

Are you following the money? Is it the stock market, the traditional polling, the pundits, the analysts, or the cultural trends? Go vote.

Coming up, the final push. This week, Vice President Kamala Harris made some media moves. She sparred with a Fox News host but skip the Al Smith dinner. Meanwhile, her opponent taking shots at her judgment calls and how she's appealing to voters. Our political panel breaks down how all of this could resonate at the ballot box as voters finalize their choice for president.

Don't forget to sign up for the daily newsletter when you're casting your ballot at smerconish.com. Scott Stantis is one of our cartoonists.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:16:06]

SMERCONISH: We're in the final stretch of the 2024 race, both candidates now making major moves. On one side, we've got Vice President Kamala Harris just having gone toe to toe with Fox News Bret Baier in a fiery interview, but her decision to skip the prestigious Al Smith dinner drew criticism from her opponent.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: My opponent feels like she does not have to be here, which is deeply disrespectful to the event and in particular to our great Catholic community. Very disrespectful.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Trump attending that dinner, handing out insults. Meanwhile, some Democrats breaking with Biden as they try to attract Trump voters. As voters prepare to make their final decisions, our political panel is here on how this could all resonate with those elusive undecided voters. Back with us, Bakari, who are your people, Sellers, is a CNN Political Commentator. Salena Zito, the Trump whisperer, national political reporter for The Washington Examiner and a contributor for The Wall Street Journal.

Bakari, I want to show a short clip of the Bret Baier interview. I know we all watch, but I want to make my point. Roll it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS HOST: So --

KAMALA HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Bret, I'm sorry, and with all due respect, that clip was not what he has been saying about the enemy within that he has repeated when he's speaking about the American people. That's not what you just showed.

BAIER: He was asked about that specific --

HARRIS: No, no, no. That's not what you just showed. In all fairness and respect to you --

BAIER: No, no, no. I am telling you that was the question that we asked him

HARRIS: You didn't show that. And here's the bottom line, he has repeated it many times. And you and I both know that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Bakari, I thought she did well. I thought that this was a capable and assertive Kamala Harris that I did not see in "The View," that I did not see with Howard Stern, and that I did not see with Stephen Colbert. And my question for you is, did the campaign wait too long to allow her to step into that kind of an environment?

BAKARI SELLERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: No, I don't think that's the case. But yes, she was very capable. I'm going to tell you one other place that you actually saw it, Michael, which was actually the debate stage, where anybody who's intellectually honest will tell you that she showed command and she actually won that debate as well.

I mean, I have a great deal of respect for Bret Baier. That may get me castigated on Twitter, but he tried to --

SMERCONISH: Me too. I do too.

SELLERS: -- but he tried to gotcha moment and he failed. And most people, when they're in that moment would realize that's the wrong clip. It happens to us all the time on T.V., apologize and try to play the wrong -- the correct clip, he didn't do that. He tried to gotcha moment and failed. But Kamala Harris is doing extremely well.

And whether or not it's the best interview she's done all cycle, which was with Charlamagne tha God, which MSNBC and CNN played in full or Bret Baier or her town hall with Anderson Cooper, the narratives are completely flipped, Michael, because you have someone who is now avoiding those things, who's skipping out on CNBC interviews, or NBC interviews, or 60 minutes, or the Shade Room, refuses to debate again, refuses to release his medical records, who meanders on stage, who talks about incoherent statements and then says it's the weave in Donald Trump. And so those --

SMERCONISH: I'm going to get to him.

SELLERS: Well, I'm just saying.

SMERCONISH: I'm going to get to him.

SELLERS: But I'm just saying those are the narratives.

SMERCONISH: But let me just ask you this.

SELLERS: Yes, sir.

SMERCONISH: OK. So, let me ask you this. You would agree with me she made a mistake in not going to the Al Smith dinner.

SELLERS: No, not at all. So, listen, that's not where voters are. I mean, she -- it's funny --

SMERCONISH: A lot of Catholic voters are represented in that room.

SELLERS: In New York, right? A lot of Catholic voters in New York. The irony in this, in the irony and shaking your head, both of you all to this, is that in 2016 Hillary Clinton made one of the biggest fumbles in political history, which was not going to Wisconsin, and you blasted her. I'm sure you did, Michael, I'm sure Salena did as well. Blasted her for not going to Wisconsin, particularly after the results were called.

She went to Wisconsin. She was in Wisconsin on this day. She made not one, not two, but three stops in Wisconsin, meeting voters where they are.

[09:20:01]

And so, my problem and my pushback is simply this, if you want to say she's disrespecting Catholics by not going to the dinner, then what do you say to someone who, you know, cheated on their wife with a porn star and paid hush money? Or actually lead an insurrection?

SMERCONISH: No, I'm saying -- no, I'm saying --

SELLERS: I don't --

SMERCONISH: OK.

SELLERS: I think those are totally different.

SMERCONISH: That's like saying that when Trump goes into a barbershop in Queens, he's only speaking to the Black men in that Queens barbershop.

I got to get to Salena. Salena, let me focus on Trump now. I thought that he was undisciplined and largely unfunny. And here's a clip that stands out in my mind. It's him talking about Bill de Blasio. Roll it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We have another former New York City mayor with us, frankly, easily the worst in our history. And it's not Michael, that, I can tell you.

I'm surprised that Bill de Blasio was actually able to make it tonight, to be honest. He was a terrible mayor. I don't give a (bleep) if this is comedy and he was a terrible man.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Salena, just another of those episodes where I say it would seemingly have been so easy for him to just rein it in and take the win. She wasn't even there. Your response.

SALENA ZITO, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, WASHINGTON EXAMINER: I thought it was funny. I'm going to be that person. I thought it was funny. Look, it's a roast. A roast is a lot of insults.

And as a Catholic and someone who, you know, before they were ever politically aware, you always kind of watched and paid attention to the Al Smith dinner, and you're like, why? Well, because the biggest benefit from the Al Smith dinner is Catholic Charities. What does Catholic charities do? It helps the homeless, the displaced from natural disasters. It feeds food pantries.

It's always been a point of pride among Catholics that something that is part of our faith is so charitable for people in need. And a roast is a roast is to roast. It's supposed to elbow you. It's supposed to take a punch. And to be honest, I heard this from Catholic voters -- they -- their thoughts were she did not roast Trump in her video when -- because she didn't go, but she roasted Catholics. And I didn't think about that.

SMERCONISH: Look, I'm not a prude.

ZITO: Yes.

SMERCONISH: I am not a prude, and I am a cafeteria Catholic myself. I'm taking some and leaving some on the tray, OK? I just thought that he was tone deaf in many respects.

I want to play another clip. Here's something else that Donald Trump said. Roll that tape. I want to ask Bakari. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Mayor Adams, I'd like to poke some fun at Eric, but I'm going to be nice. I just want to be nice because I know what it's like to be persecuted by the DOJ for speaking out against open borders. We were persecuted, Eric. I was persecuted, and so are you, Eric. Don't let it. Bet you're going to win, Eric.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Why was Donald Trump being so kind to New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who's now under indictment? Put up on the screen, please, the Axios chart showing the support of Black men. Kamala Harris, Bakari Sellers -- can we get that graphic? She's got an issue with Black men, and I thought that was a way of him making some outreach. I'm showing, I don't know if you have returned, but I'm showing Donald Trump on the verge, perhaps, of getting 18 percent, 19 percent, 20 percent of Black male voters. Why is he doing so well?

SELLERS: So there are a couple of things. And let me just take a moment and take a deep breath with the question. The first is Donald Trump and Eric Adams are not persecuted. They're prosecuted. Those are two vastly different things.

My father was persecuted in 1968 when he was protesting in the Orangeburg massacre and went to prison, that's persecution. These two men are being prosecuted for their crimes. That's first.

The second thing is, if you think you can make inroads with African- American males in particular by talking about some similarities with criminality, then you're ignorant and you're intellectually dishonest. And so if you want to say that I am going to make inroads with African-American males because I've been indicted and I've been found guilty or I have a mug shot, then that actually--

SMERCONISH: Do you think that's what he was doing?

SELLERS: No. I don't even think --

SMERCONISH: Do you think that's what Trump was doing?

SELLERS: No, no. I actually think that he --

SMERCONISH: You don't?

SELLERS: No. I think -- I don't think he's smart enough to do that, one. I think he and Eric Adams have two things that are in common, which is they put their ego above anything else. And I just think he was identifying with someone else in the room who happened to be there who's under indictment. I think he looked around the room and there was nobody else in the room that was either under indictment or facing charges. And let me just tell you something about the --

SMERCONISH: Salena, 30 seconds, I'm out of time. Salena, I need you to quickly respond to this issue. Why is Trump seemingly doing well with black men? What's the problem with Harris in that regard? [09:25:04]

ZITO: Because voters are not voting by identity, they're voting by circumstance. And you see it not just with middle class blacks, you see it with middle class Whites, Hispanics, name the ethnic group that is, people are voting more like that. And it's sort of a blind spot, I think that we have in the media, because we always put people by race, and sometimes people vote economy and community. This is what -- I live in this community, my community is having a hard time. That's how I'm voting.

SMERCONISH: I appreciate both of you. I wish we had more time. We'll come back and do this again, I hope before the election.

And I want to remind everybody else, go to the website at Smerconish.com this hour. Answer today's poll question, which is the best predictor of the election outcome? All the choices are on your screen right now.

Still to come, your best and worst social media reactions to my commentary. Up ahead, legendary journalist Bob Woodward is here to discuss his new book. It's called "War," which is already making headlines after unveiling a behind the scenes look into the Biden administration's handling of global crises. And while you're there, sign up for the newsletter. Jack Ohman drew this for us this week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:30:47]

SMERCONISH: You can find me on all the usual social media platforms. Follow me on X, formerly known as Twitter, and everywhere else. And we love hearing from you during the course of the program.

You're an idiot. It's widely known those betting markets are highly suspect. Do for job.

Hey, Doug, I gave you like, what, four or five different alternatives? That was one of them. And I have to say we had a great guest here recently, making the case that the betting markets have actually been more reliable, than have been the other components that we offered you.

And we noted that relative to the one market, you know, crypto seems to have made a heavy push from just four different accounts. So, I'm giving you all the data. You can pick your poison. What's next?

Polls for direction. They always underestimate the GOP. Trump was exceptionally hard in 2016 because so many non-voters stepped in, but that's baked into the cake now.

Right except, Lisa Marie, you would think that if that were recognized post 2016 then 2020 would have been more accurate and it wasn't. I mean, you can pick your different survey that you're relying on. But at this stage -- at this stage, in 2020 the Biden victory looked like, in the popular vote, it was somewhere between nine and 11 percent, and it ended up being four. And at this stage in 2016 the Hillary victory in the National Popular Vote looked like it was somewhere in the six percent range, and it was two.

So, it didn't self-correct. Now, where are we today relative to that? Nobody seems to know. More social media reaction.

None of the above -- right. I didn't give you that. I didn't give you that.

This has to be the most difficult election to predict by any predictor. A statistics professor in college said, you can make statistics show anything you want. Why bother?

Gigi, Kelly -- jeez, we've got like four different people -- three different people involved in that one. But they'd all have to be wrong. They would've -- I said to Josh, my guest in the first portion of the program, they're all telling the same story, which is why when this ends, which we hope is two weeks from Tuesday, they're either going to have a banner cycle because we will say, well, the polls really nailed it, well, they're all going to be off course. Because I, for one, can't identify a reputable pollster that is saying something totally different from all the others.

One more, if we've got time for it. I think that we do. Maybe even two.

What is the point of pre-election polling? Seems like it's just entertainment. Maybe we should focus on what's known.

It is partly entertainment. It's also a guideline that the candidates are using as they decide where to spend their time, their money. Remember, if you want to know what they think don't look at what they're saying, look at exactly where they're traveling, and where they're spending their money.

You know, different candidates at different times in this cycle have tried to say that this state is in play, or that state is in play, but they don't spend money there, and they don't spend time there. And that's how you know that's not the case.

OK. One more, here it comes. More social media reaction.

Kamala was too smart not to attend. Trump was vindictive and nasty, not at all in the spirit of the dinner, cursing like a drunken sailor.

Listen, Denise, I'm not a prude. I love a good roast. You're looking at somebody now who watched that Tom Brady roast on a loop, and it was 100 times more ribald than the Catholic charity's Al Smith dinner.

I thought two things. He missed the moment. He was too nasty. He didn't need to be. He could have risen above. He was the same way that he was in 2016 when Hillary was in the room, and I said it then.

And as for the vice president, she should have been there. Politically, it was just unwise not to be. It's perceived by -- as disrespect by, you know, upwards of 20 percent of the electorate in this case.

I disagree with Bakari with whom -- for whom I have the utmost respect. It's -- it's not just Catholics in New York in that room, you know, it was a prism to see Catholics nationally. We'll see.

Still to come, two-time Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Bob Woodward joins me to discuss his revealing new book. Don't forget to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Which is the best predictor of the election outcome? On your screen are all the choices.

When you're voting, sign-up for the free and worthy daily newsletter. Steve Breen drew for us this week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:39:29]

SMERCONISH: For over five decades legendary journalist Bob Woodward has chronicled presidencies from Richard Nixon to Joe Biden. Made famous by his Watergate reporting, he's a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and the author of 23 books. His latest "War" gives a behind the scenes look at the Biden administration's handling of global crises, from countering a potential nuclear threat to navigating simultaneous conflicts in Ukraine and Russia.

The book made headlines with the allegation that at the height of the pandemic, former President Trump privately shipped COVID tests to Vladimir Putin, spoke to him as many as seven times after for he left the White House in 2021.

[09:40:04]

Trump's campaign denies those claims, though, when asked about those reported phone calls this week, Trump said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If I did, it's a smart thing. If I'm friendly with people, if I have a relationship with people, that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: The book also explores the political and personal wars that Biden fought during his presidency culminating with his decision to drop out of the 2024 presidential election. Joining me now by phone is Bob Woodward. Nice to have you here.

Given your stature, your book has been widely reviewed. Everybody seems to pick out a different nugget. Bob, I'm putting on the screen some of the headlines that the book has drawn. I would think most notably it's your reporting about what Mark Milley said about Donald Trump, calling him a fascist. Or Putin and the COVID tests.

What I've wondered, having read the book and I have, by the way, an answer to this question of my own, what is it that you think "War" pertains that others -- that others have missed and are not talking about that you thought they would have?

BOB WOODWARD, AUTHOR, "WAR" (on the phone): Well, there's a very famous quote from John Adams which he says, power always thinks it has a great soul. And that's what we see operating here with Trump. Trump thinks he has a great soul, that he knows what he's doing, and that he's on top of things.

But if you really study it, and I've done three books on him, I spent the year 2020 interviewing him 19 times, you see he does not have -- to be successful in anything you need to have a plan. He does not have a plan. He just comes up with whatever comes into his mind, thinking that, you know, he's powerful, he's got this great soul.

And the other problem he has is there's no team backing him up. We know -- you have to have producers. I need to editors. You can't do any of these things alone. And Trump is trying to do it alone.

And it's not working for him politically. It is tragic that somebody would think they can be president by themselves and never really having anyone back them up.

SMERCONISH: Here's my answer to the question of, what is in Bob Woodward's book that people should be spending more time discussing? I'm going to give you two things that really jumped off the pages to me.

First of all, how close we came to nuclear conflagration with Russia in 2022 when it seemed that Putin was going to go so far as to detonate a dirty bomb for cover so that he could use a tactical nuclear weapon. And the likelihood of that happening was put at 50 percent by those around President Biden. Will you speak to that?

WOODWARD: Yes, it wasn't just people around President Biden, it was the intelligence assessment. It turns out that we have excellent intelligence. In fact, much better than I think -- well, as I know, is generally published.

And so, when they saw there's a 50 percent chance in the White House and the National Security Council they say, that -- that's a 50 percent chance. It's a coin flip.

One of the key people in the Biden National Security Council was saying, my god, this is a situation like the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 that we could have detonation of some sort of nuclear weapon. And also, the dirty bomb which would not -- would just spread radioactive contamination but that's enough of a disaster.

So, what I found from my reporting is much more dangerous time, much higher risk. And Putin did not use a tactical nuclear weapon but he certainly said kind of publicly he would. But then when the intelligence people got good information about what was going on in the Kremlin, they were horrified about how close we were.

[09:45:08]

SMERCONISH: Something else, Bob, that I learned from your book that I don't think has received the attention that it warrants, frankly, because there are so many other significant things in your book, is that four days after the 10-7 attack, the Israelis had bad intel and they were convinced that they needed to launch a preemptive strike against Hezbollah.

And you say for five hours and 12 minutes Jake Sullivan believed that we were in inches of the outbreak of an all-out war in the Middle East. Will you quickly speak to that?

WOODWARD: Yes. I made -- what was very evident that Prime Minister Netanyahu was arguing that Israel needed to conduct a preemptive strike. And, of course, that would start a major war in the Middle East.

He claimed he had intelligence that showed this, and that paragliders were coming in. And when they finally got down -- so this is the risk of making snap decisions turned out they weren't paragliders but birds.

SMERCONISH: Birds, incredible. Hey, the point I was trying to make is that this new book of yours, for which I congratulate you, is chock- full of revelations. And people ought not to go by those stories that say, here are the five things you need to know about Bob Woodward.

Thank you, Bob. I appreciate your being here.

WOODWARD: Thanks so much.

SMERCONISH: Checking in on your social media comments. What do we have? It's a great book, by the way.

Just curious, if Trump was so unfunny in your opinion, what kind of jokes would you have preferred to hear? In my opinion, they were appropriate for this event. Even the cardinal was laughing -- no.

Get off your high horse -- no, I'm not on a high horse. OK? I have -- I have a rather profane and ribald sense of humor. I just wouldn't have said in front of the cardinal and other Catholic dignitaries the things that he said.

And, by the way, some of the lines were funny. OK? But some of them, if it were SNL and they did like the Wednesday read, they would have said, we're not doing that skit because that's a bomb.

And like nobody in Trump's orbit, I guess, told him so or was he willing to listen to it. It just -- it just didn't need to be nasty. He could have risen above and claimed victory based on the fact that the vice president wasn't in the room. And I think that was a blown opportunity. And that's my opinion. And I'm sticking to it.

Go vote at Smerconish.com on today's poll question. We'll give you the results in just a second. Which is the best predictor of the election outcome? You got all choices there.

When you're there, subscribe to my free and worthy daily newsletter. You'll get exclusive editorial cartoons. Rob Rogers drew for this -- drew for us this week that cartoon.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:52:43]

SMERCONISH: So, there are the polls results thus far. Let's see, 26,910 votes, which is the best predictor of the election outcome?

I am surprised by that, a plurality, 40 percent go with cultural trends, and then traditional polling. And then the stock market, the betting markets, and the pundits. I thought that the stock market was going to be the preferred measure. But cultural trends, really?

So, you're looking at the music. You're looking at the television. You're looking at the vibe of the country, and you're saying like, here's the national mood, and which of the two of them seems to suit it or fit with it. Interesting.

Keep voting if you haven't -- if you haven't. Social media reaction from today's program, what else has come in?

Michael, betting markets are the best predictor because people have skin in the game and are not just betting -- yes, that's that was what Harry Crane said to us when he was a guest here within the last couple of weeks. That when you've got skin in the game, it takes kind of the emotion out of it.

Although, I have to say just parenthetically that Jake Paul is a pretty heavy favorite by the oddsmakers against Mike Tyson. But the betting markets favor Tyson. And I think it's -- it's a bunch of like older guys like me who are making an emotional bid for Tyson because we love the fact that Tyson is getting back in the ring. Maybe I'm wrong about all that.

More social media reaction. What else came in?

Why do you think Trump is doing so well with Black men? I get you're saying he's doing better than he did last election but 20 percent is hardly doing so well. Please be honest with your choice of words.

I hate to do this. Do you have the graphic that we used? It was from Axios where it showed what's going on among Black men in this election. If -- just tell me, yes or no. Can you put it up on the screen real quick, if you do? Yes? No?

OK. It's coming. Is he doing great? No. But if he ends -- there it is. There's where he is. He's somewhere in the 19 to 20 percent range. And look at the decline -- look at the decline between 2020 and 2024, going from 79 to 70 percent. If those numbers hold and if turnout is where it has been traditionally that will decide the election. That's the basis for my statement. One more, please, social media reaction.

[09:55:01]

What do we have? Maybe even two.

Like the last football AP poll, there's only one that matters, and that is the last one.

Yes, Greg, you're absolutely right. The election wraps up two weeks from Tuesday, and more than 10 million have already voted. So, please get out there and cast a ballot. Don't rely on any this. I agree with that observation.

One more. I think I can get it done, real quick. Here we go.

Why are you upset she didn't appear at the roast? Trump didn't even attend Biden's inauguration for Christ's sake.

Well, Teresa B., if you were tuned in to my program back then in 2020, you would know that I was offended. That he did -- why can't I call balls and strikes and tell you when each side is mistaken and not just one, because that's what I seek to do. I'm not equating the inauguration with Al Smith but each should have attended both of them. See you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)