tv The Cycle MSNBC November 14, 2012 12:00pm-1:00pm PST
"the cycle." s.e. gets honorary royal status today. >> thank you. finally. >> a busy day for the president today. behind closed doors with the business leaders at the white house. wonder how that goes since the business community went for rrn last tuesday. lots of trouble there for obama. as lloyd blankfein not in the meeting today wrote in "wall street journal" today, the election offers an important opportunity to forge a more productive relationship. sounds hopeful. or obligatory, maybe. the president echoed that tone about 90 minutes ago in the first news conference since winning re-election last week and set out the goal for the week's debt talks. >> there's only one way to solve the challenges and that is together. i have been encouraged to hear republican after republican agree on the need for more
revenue from the wealthiest americans as part of our arithmetic if we're serious about reducing the deficit. the most important step we can take right now, we right away say 98% of americans don't see the taxes go up. 97% of small businesses won't see the taxes go up. if we get that in place, we are removing half of the fiscal cliff, half of the danger to our economy is removed by that single step. >> more on that coming up because questions at the press conference turned to the scandal everyone is talking about. involving former cia director david petraeus who will testify tomorrow at a senate intelligence hearing on benghazi. >> can you assure the american people that there have been no breaches of national security or classified information in the scandal involving generals petraeus and allen? >> do you believe you should have known sooner or are you withholding judgment until the
investigation is complete on that front? >> senator john mccain and senator lindsey graham said today they want watergate-style hearings on the attack on the consulate in benghazi. >> i want to ask about the families of four killed. >> general petraeus is where we begin at the white house. i guess it's a good bet they would be coming up today. >> reporter: yeah. you saw the ap ask it. it didn't dominate as much as we thought. our friends at telemundo asked a question and coming back on immigration. he talked about the fiscal cliff. he laid down the law you saw him there. he wants the tax cuts extended for everybody under $250,000 and got to general petraeus and this whole intertwined story with benghazi, that's when it got really rough. the president took out after republicans namely john mccain and lindsey graham for the criticism leveled at susan rice.
the u.n. secretary, shortly after the attacks that resulted in the death of four americans, she went on "meet the press" and other sunday shows and said what happened in benghazi was the result of a spontaneous protest that morphed in to something else and resulted in the death of those americans. republicans attacking ever since. but now, as susan rice's name floated as a successor to hillary clinton as secretary of state, mccain and graham taken out after susan rice. that, no question about it, it came from the heart and raised the ire of president obama. here's what he had to say. >> if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi and was
simply making a presentation based on intelligence she had received and to -- to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. when they go after the u.n. ambassador, apparently because they think she's an easy target, then they've got a problem with me. >> reporter: and right after that, as a matter of fact, before the president left the podium in the east room there, lindsey graham, the republican of south carolina had ra response. quote, mr. president, don't think for one minute i don't hold you ultimately responsible for mbenbenghazi. sorry. let me get that back. i think you failed as commander in chief before, during and after the attack. given what i know now, i have no intention of promoting anyone who is up to their eyeballs in the benghazi debacle. of course, talking about the u.n. ambassador, susan rice. john mccain also out with a statement moments ago, basically
says clearly the facts as presented and the statements by susan rice on the sunday shows clearly did not comport with the facts on the ground. he's referring, of course, to benghazi. it was an extraordinary situation. the cia came to the defense of susan rice and as the president said, put out a statement saying, susan rice is relaying the information she got from the intelligence community, obviously, there was no intention to mislead as far as the administration is concerned, guys. >> all right. thanks for that, mike. >> okay. >> we have a big treat here today in the studio. former pennsylvania governor red rendell, taking krystal's seat. >> nice to be here. >> let's pick up on the point about susan. that was kind of a gripping, dramatic moment there, that defense by obama of susan rice. of course, the broader issue here is susan rice supposedly at the top of the white house's list to replace hillary clinton as secretary of state. you had today john mccain, you have lindsey graham saying if he
puts that nomination forward in the senate, we'll fight it with everything we have and it would be potentially an ugly partisan fight with name forward but looking at the defense offered today and said if he wasn't sure he was going to nominate her before today, sure seems like he will now. >> i think there's a battle for her reputation. i think the president feels as i do that she's done a great job as u.n. ambassador and unfairly blamed for this. all she did is talk about what the intelligence agencies had given her. clearly there's a breakdown and fault here and should find out who did it. i don't think it's susan rice's fault. as a prakt cll, political matter it is difficult for her to get confirmed. does the president want the make that fight? we'll see. >> governor, i mean, to your point, i read it entirely differently from steve. i read it as, i'm probably not going to appoint her -- >> fighting for her. >> i'll get a defense out automatically so that when i don't we don't have to
relitigate this again and everyone knows where i stand on my friend susan rice. but you and i talked about this earli earlier, governor and made a bet with a colleague. >> not for $10,000. >> not. >> way more than that. >> you and i agreed against another colleague that if susan rice was put up for nomination we could think of a couple democrats who would oppose her nomination. >> right. >> why would obama waste capital on susan rice when he's got so many other things to worry about right now? >> s.e. makes a good point. the president has to use capital. we need republican cooperation to get anything done in this country, important things. >> right. >> why rip off a scab and an open sore trying to build that cooperation? that's on the one hand. on the other hand, the president i believe, deeply believes that this is unfair but i think his first goal was to stand by susan
rice's reputation and i think he did a pretty good job of doing it here. it would be odd to me if he fought this battle because it does have ramifications if he fought it and susan -- i mean s.e.'s right. i don't think we get 100% of the democrat votes unless the president wastes every bit of capital he has. >> on that. >> i agree with steve, we'll see her be nominated and this was a very passionate defense and it seems like standing up a bully and i guess the answer why to spend the capital, loyalty. known her for a long time and treated unfairly and i want to turn a little bit to the petraeus questions where we saw multiple times asked about the petraeus situation and the question comes back to when did the president know and should he have known sooner and the president gave a clear, lawyerly and felt like "law & order" and very clear lawyerly explanation of why i didn't need to know sooner. if i was told sooner then we would be here saying why did you
interfere in an ongoing investigation. why would they come and bother me with this? i think there's that level and then there's also a higher level where they're trying, people are trying to find a scandal, a real scandal to attach to obama. akin to iran-contra and lewinski and iraq and never finding anything. >> ludicrous because we know if there's a conspiracy theory that this was covered up, but we know that eric cantor knew a month ago. >> right, right. >> if the republicans had a reason to bring it out in the public, there's the reason. i want to go back to a point you made. look. the loyalty's important to the president and any political leader. but you also have to be loyal to the citizens you represent and if loyalty to an individual makes your job harder, elizabeth warren, the president basically let go down the drain without a battle. he's not as close to elizabeth
warren as susan rice. i go back to this is really unfair to susan rice because as the president said, she had nothing to do with the decision making. >> why was she made the spokesperson for benghazi? >> god only knows. >> and then the president comes out and saying don't believe her. >> it was fast moving and someone needed to -- >> five days after and 24 hours after we had differences on the story. >> cia, information in a dynamic, ongoing situation and later find out that -- >> why was she the spokesperson? it was a bizarre moment. >> clearly, if the thrust here is to leave the ambassador and three other americans without protection, susan rice had nothing to do with that decision making. clearly. >> all right. let's get krystal involved. >> just my two quick cents on this. i think now more than ever with
the president launching such an impassioned defense, they'll mean more to liberals and back to petraeus, as toure was saying, the questions seem to resolve around should the fbi have told the president, have told members of the senate intelligence committee specifically before the election? the question for you, governor, if we had known before the election, would it have made any different? not like the president having this affair. you know, it's a scandal but not the president's scandal. would it have mattered in the election? >> i don't think it would have mattered in the election. this is a little bit of insider baseball but if the republicans thought there was an advantage to getting this out, eric cantor one of their leaders knew about it and could have justifiably got it out. the thrust has to be the fbi. the fbi is a disaster in this investigation, in so many different fronts, and ought to be investigated from the very
first decision to go after the second woman's e-mails. i mean, what was it in the first -- in the e-mails to kelley that prompted them to go after the other e-mails? >> should they have told congress? >> congressional leaders? probably so. should eric cantor have told rodgers? >> i agree with you. they sat on it. >> rodgers said he never knew. >> we have an obsessed person at the fbi sending shirtless photographs of himself and the rest of the investigation is full disclosure? >> really many. >> really. >> i'll get a final word in on the susan rice situation. he was politically weak in 2011 and won and feeling the oetds. >> ate his spinach. >> governor rendell, thank you for joining us. glad i snuck in the last word there. more on the president's news conference and why we think he said what he said. [ mother ] you can't leave the table
that makes watching tv even better. if your tv were a hot dog zeebox would be some sort of fancy, french mustard. when they magically unite, people would think, "woah, this two dollar hot dog tastes like a fancy eight dollar hot dog." download zeebox free, and say "woah" every time you watch tv. option one, if congress fails to act by the openend of year, everybody's taxes will go up. that doesn't make sense. the other option is to pass a law right now to prevent any tax hike whatsoever on the first $250,000 of everybody's income. by the way, that means every
american including the wealthiest americans get a tax cut. >> president obama there previewing the fight to come over spending cuts and tax cuts. let's take that now to the table and i would say the two big takeaways from the press conference regarding the fiscal cliff, number one, the political posture that the president is taking is definitely that. we should extend the tax cuts for everyone except the top 3% right now and that puts republicans in a box because they don't want to defend just the tax cuts for the wealthy so i think we'll be hearing in terms of political posture but the other thing that's interesting here is in response to a question actually from our own chuck todd, the president admitted that there wasn't a hard red line on going back to the clinton era tax rates for the wealthiest individuals. he left a little bit of wiggle room there, kind of the first time he's shown any willingness to consider other options. it seems like the principle here is, though, you have to make up
as much revenue from the wealthy individuals as you would if you did bring the tax rates back to the clinton era levels. >> so steve, i had a nice conversation last night with wall street guys who watch the show and i wanted to talk to them about the fiscal cliff and to your credit they're like, yes, it is more of a slope than a cliff and they down loaded the information about the market and we know that most people for "the washington post"/pew poll is that most people are afraid a deal won't get done and their fear is baked in the mark. the market hates uncertainty and problemistic and that fear is already there in the pricing. right? so the market is a distillation of future potential and if the market feels something averse will happen it's baked in to the price. people won't wake up and say i'm surprised they won't make a deal. they don't wait to sell off. they're already afraid the deal won't happen and so the market's
going down and the leaders of wall street are like, it's okay. we can take it. we want the better deal for the long term and economy short-term dip corrected in the long term in january or february. so, the market abhors uncertainty and can deal with this level of uncertainty and will be a slope-like reaction, not a cliff-like reaction, and the leaders of wall street will help john boehner to make a better deal rather than pressuring him to make a deal that's bad for the economy and the fear that we don't get a deal will lead to getting a deal because the pressure correctly applied. >> the issue here is will we go over the cliff? i stopped saying cliff. sorry. okay, okay. but i think the question is do we get to the grassy gradual slope or not and then level roonlg. this is the first time since 2010 that's obama's had the
leverage with republicans and saying there, you mentioned that poll yesterday adding to the leverage because, voters, you think to go over this so-called cliff and referring to the nervousness. who will you blame? >> republicans. >> republicans. that's more leverage of obama on that question and look at. yeah, he didn't draw that red line as krystal said at the beginning but as close to be an absolutist for incomes over $250,000 as he can be. this is an issue that he ran on. this bothers him ruled by republicans two years ago and taxes are not where they should be historically on the wealthy. it bothers him the deficit taken up so so much of the conversation and talking about, you know, solving it with republicans this is always off the table for them and saying there, look, trying to foster the air of discussion and cooperation but, you know, he's got to be something really bold to replace my demand for letting the rates expire. >> one sentence in the press
conference, more voters voted agreed with me on this issue than voted for me. sounded like i'm saying i earned political capital. this number of people voted for me. even more agree on this. >> only so much to say about this fiscal cliff/slope. i think all of this is dog and pony show. i think you're right. democrats have the leverage and doesn't accept anything that doesn't raise tax rates. >> on the richest. >> this in between is just sort of a lot of hyper ventilating for no reason and needs to be pointed out is that, look, despite expansion of welfare programs, poverty and income and equality, i've said it before, exploded under president obama. and we haven't heard much about the poor. it's been all about the middle class. not unimportant. but i'm wondering if this is sort of seen as an attempt at -- raising taxes on the wealthy going to help solve poverty and
reduce income inequality or just about reduction deficit and figure out poverty and income inequality later? >> but the poverty issues are structural. right? they're long before obama. these issues. he actually decreased federal taxes on the poorest fifth of americans by 80% so he's trying to do something there. but -- >> everything he's done in poverty according to his own website is within the stimulus bill. >> hold on. s.e. what you have done here -- >> i totally changed the subject. >> here's a new problem. so let's not raise the taxes on the wealthy. >> that's not what i said. >> obama did not talk about poverty. >> right. >> in a way that maybe liberals like to say. >> what i'm hammering is comprehensive tax reform and address problems under the middle class. >> i'm -- here's the thing. we have negotiations over the tax cut rates and you can resolve that issue and a shame he didn't talk about poverty and doesn't mean we should let the discussion go on the -- >> i didn't.
i started by saying there's only so much you can say and i think raising the tax rates. this is the topic that does not get discussed. >> clearly -- >> what i can say here, guys. >> box obama in to a difficult time talking about the poor. >> he hasn't. >> the fruit -- when you call him the food stamp president, saying that he's taking away the work requirement from welfare, these are things that box him in to make it difficult to talk about poverty. >> he hasn't talked about it. >> but the lies they're telling about him -- >> there's a royal we but at this table it's reality and the reality is poverty has exploded. >> let's dial 617. >> number one, there is no limit to how much to talk about the fiscal cliff, s.e. you are dead wrong there. >> i'm over it. >> but number two, i mean, look. there's a fair point to be made about poverty and the fact of the matter is neither side talks about poverty because poor people less likely to vote and they don't have super-pacs and
give money in the political process. that's a problem. but it totally separate issue of deficit reduction and by the way is an issue that republicans not democrats push to the forefront. all right. next up, we continue our series tackling the nation's big issues and today the issue is health care. sfx- "sounds of african drum and flute" look who's back. again? it's embarrassing it's embarrassing! we can see you carl. we can totally see you. come on you're better than this...all that prowling around. yeah, you're the king of the jungle. have you thought about going vegan carl? hahaha!! you know folks who save hundreds of dollars by switching to geico sure are happy. how happy are they jimmy? happier than antelope with night-vision goggles. nice! get happy. get geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more.
that help us pull it all together. from the things that hang and shine... ...to the things that sparkle and jingle. all while saving the things that go in our wallet. more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot. right now, get an assortment of martha stewart living ornamen,s free when you purchase select artificial trees.
i think the election changes that. it's pretty clear that the president was re-elected. obama care is the law of the land. >> say it again, john. obama care is here to stay. after more than 30 attempts to fully or partially repeal the president's landmark health care law, house speaker john boehner has got to admit to put that goal on the back burner and this comes to support to repeal the law drops to 33% lat, the lowes level since the president signed
it in to law. with washington conceding obama care will remain the law of the land, today's issue is health care. because there are important questions remaining, how do we control costs? remember, this law expands care to virtually all americans and doesn't expand the choices in buying coverage. we have got a good start but how can we build on the historic legislation? we have someone, valerie r. cush, still sits on the board of directors. doctor, how are you? >> i'm great. great to be back. thank you. >> so now that we have accepted even in boehner land that obama care is the law of the land, do you think that this will make the american health care system better? >> absolutely. i think that we are entering a period of time where we can get down to the very hard work that needs to be done to improve the health care of nation. and now that we are past the
election and all sides agree that the affordable care act is the law of the land it gives the patients in the country, this country a much greater deal of certainty and security that our health care system is going to be there for them if they need it. >> well, arkoosh i think in addition to the fact we live in a nation where we're taxed for merely existing, there are still some people who aren't decided about obama care. in fact, politico had exit polling after the election showing the country's split down the middle on whether obama care should be repealed, partially or interly or kept. "forbes" has an article out called "five ways to protect yourself against obamacare." a concern is a doctor participate in a mass exodus. should we be worried of doctors leaving practice because of obama care when. >> well, first, s.e. i would want to point out when you look at the polls how the public feels about the affordable care act and asking that general
question, yesterday, 33% said they would be for full repeal. but when you actually start asking americans about the specific components, when's in the law, overwhelming majorities of people regardless of political bent are for the provisions in the law, things like preventing law, no co-pays, things like being able to cover preexisting conditions as a requirement of health insurance. when it comes to physicians, i have to tell you that in my career and i graduated from medical school in 1986, what i am seeing is incredible enthusiasm and optimism among all of my colleagues and the reason is that many of us had been very frustrated by our current health care system. we don't think that our current health care system allows us to deliver the kind of coordinated care that we would like to and it's put a lot of barriers in to spending the amount of time we want to spend with patients and under the affordable care act
we're finally moving to systems that will pay for the quality of care that we deliver rather than the quantity of care. so, although i have heard the same reports you have about some physicians being concerned, i think the majority are very optimistic and others learn more and more about it, they will be largely optimistic, as well. >> doctor, i see a stumbling point. obama can implement at federal level and key is the medicaid expansion at state level and the first couple of years the federal government kicks in almost all of this and the states take on more of the responsibility but in the supreme court ruling that upheld the mandate, you have states to opt out and opposed to obama care and who have a lot of pressure to sort of appeal to constituencies to fight it and tend to be in many cases poor states and where it's most important and do you see an issue there where these states are just not going to implement the medicaid expansion? >> i think we might see a
short-term issue in some states, but over time, i suspect that this will follow the same pattern of the children's health insurance program where in the beginning there's sort of slow take-up and then a program available to help vulnerable children in every state in the country. so, we might not see everyone out of the gate at the beginning, but the billions of dollars that are going to come in to the states that do expand and the incredible number of people that will be helped in each of those states is hard to turn your back on. and my own state of pennsylvania where i practice, about -- estimated about 650,000 pennsylvanians could gain insurance by the expand and it's very, very important in each and every state. >> well, doctor, let's talk about the path forward. i personally am very pleased that the affordable care act exists and here to stay and supporters like me said it's a great first step. we'll need to do more but it's a great first step and in
particular when we see how rising health care costs really drive the deficits and problems in the country, what do you think are additional improvements on top of the affordable care act to make the system better? >> well, krystal, i think everybody in the country agrees the health care is too expensive and the affordable care act casts a pretty wide net looking at possible solutions to that. it's going to do a lot to rein in the cost of private health insurance. we have already seen the lowest average increase from last year to year we have seen in 12 years and making insurance more affordable for people. and then on the health care system side, many of the work that many colleagues and i are working on are things that will help make health care more efficient, make sure that each patient gets the right care at the right time, and will reduce a lot of redundancies in our system so all of these things together i think slowly over
time going to reduce the cost of our care and if those things are not enough we have to continue to look for additional ideas but there's now flexibility to make that happen. >> all right. doctor, thank you so much. >> thank you. >> be sure to join us tomorrow when one of the favorite guests is back, sister simone campbell. the issue will be inequality. up next, the research is in. the numbers guys spotted a link of where you shop and who you voted for. yes, starbucks versus walmart. it's that kind of nation and a professor segment. heading to break, a shout-out to my little dude happy fifth birthday to my son hendricks. with the spark cash card from capital one,
olaf gets great rewards for his small business! pizza! [ garth ] olaf's small business earns 2% cash back on every purchase, every day! helium delivery. put it on my spark card! [ pop! ] [ garth ] why settle for less? great businesses deserve great rewards! awesome!!! [ male announcer ] the spark business card from capital one. choose unlimited rewards with 2% cash back or double miles on every purchase, every day! what's in your wallet? that was me... the day i learned i had to start insulin for my type 2 diabetes. me... thinking my only option was the vial and syringe dad used. and me... discovering once-daily levemir® flexpen. flexpen® is prefilled. doesn't need refrigeration
for up to 42 days. no drawing from a vial. dial the exact dose. inject by pushing a button. flexpen® is insulin delivery... my way. levemir® (insulin detemir [rdna origin] injection) is a long-acting insulin used to control high blood sugar in adults and children with diabetes and is not recommended to treat diabetic ketoacidosis. do not use levemir® if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which may cause symptoms such as sweating, shakiness, confusion, and headache. severe low blood sugar can be serious and life threatening. ask your healthcare provider about alcohol use, operating machinery, or driving. other possible side effects include injection site reactions. tell your healthcare provider about all medicines you take and all of your medical conditions. get medical help right away if you experience serious allergic reactions, such as body rash, trouble with breathing, fast heartbeat, or sweating. with flexpen®... say good night to vial and syringe. ask your doctor about levemir® flexpen. covered by 90% of insurance plans, including medicare. find your co-pay at myflexpen.com.
with the parents and the cute little baby triplets... well wait until your triplets move back home after college. we were enjoying our empty nest. and now it's just a nest full of laundry. lucky underwear. we were going through so much of that bargain detergent... and the clothes didn't look as good. but since we switched to tide, we use much less. their clothes are looking much more...uh... what's the word? clean? employable. [ female announcer ] one cap of tide gives you more cleaning power than 6 caps of the bargain brand. [ mom ] that's my tide, what's yours? so if you followed the election closely this year, kind of felt the year of the geek.
>> true story. >> something i guess i shouldn't complain about. numbers guys and data crunchers were the rock stars of the presidential race, not just for identifying trends but in many cases like the two nates, they correctly predicted the way our electoral map would end up. >> so did toure. >> i didn't at all. >> i got more than 40. >> so did krystal. >> she did really well. >> thank you, s.e. >> i said your name before and i didn't get credit for giving you credit. >> i love reading the tell prompter when they tell me. a key observation is an idea of two americas. a cultural divide far stronger than an ideological or political divide. our next guest may have found an example of that very divide in the link between where you eat and how you vote. joining us now is the numbers guy and house editor for the cook political report, he is david wasserman. dave, so, basically, you have crunched the numbers and you found a link here involving cracker barrel and whole foods.
tell us about it and what it says about our country. >> you hear about how polarized we have along political lines, gender lines, racial lines but unless you look at the cultural data, you miss what's going on in the electorate. last summer, i devised the whole foods cracker barrel indicator. in 1992, president clinton winning election won 60% of counties with a whole foods market and only 40% of counties with a cracker barrel old country store. but in 2012, president obama won 77% of counties with a whole foods market and 29% of counties with a cracker barrel old country store. a 48-point gap. i was going over the statistic in arlington, virginia, and i had a young woman in the audience raise her hand and ask me, excuse me, did you meet crate & barrel? i've never heard of a cracker barrel.
i think it speaks to mentality of looking for $11.99 organic juice are living in. >> yeah. i was thinking about this. now, i come from massachusetts. i come from blue america. there is a cracker barrel, i grew up near lowell, mass. they voted by 27 points for obama. maybe not so much to this and then i remembered in virginia, we were there in the election, betsy is a virginia native and brought me for the cracker barrel for the first time. i actually liked -- i liked it. smelled like a fireplace probably because there was a fireplace and we got out to the parking lot after and i knew i was in -- obama care and there's a lot of republicans down there and a jeep next to us with the impeach obama bumper sticker, a romney sticker. >> inclusive. >> there's something to this. dave, i wonder, are there more stores and establishments to look to to find a similar pat snern. >> although they scored highest
on the indicator when i merged the database, we can also look at similar patterns with tractor supply company verse trader joe's. with apple store versus golden corral. there's hiypocrisy. in whole foods, looking at the parking lot, there are many more gas guzzling german cars than priuses. people who you think have a green e thos and meanwhile at the cracker barrel, old country store section of the store, you're going to find a lot of patriotic usa swag, proud military dad hats and t-shirts. guess what. they're made? southeast asia. so what the brands have done is centrally market not just a product or a series of products but an entire life style and politics is increasingly coming down to life style and culture, not policy. >> so dave, i mean, what is behind these trends? i have to say i like cracker
barrel. i am not such a big fan of whole foods and playing against type there. but you know, are we self segregating ourselves in to different neighborhoods depending on the political affiliation? are brands better at locating near the customers and customers happen to tend to be in certain political demographics? what is actually behind this trend that you're seeing? >> fantastic question, krystal. when i speak to bill bishop, what he really found is that a lot of these consumer retail locations, whether they're whole foods, cracker barrels, they really act as magnets and they begin to attract a certain type of voter, a certain type of neighborhood with a common set of values. and we have more and more neighborhoods that vote 70-30 or 80-20 in favor of romney or obama than neighborhoods 60-40 or 50-50 between two presidential candidates and we
are self sorting not only in to like-minded districts and that has indications for congress today. >> yeah. exactly. building on that, the question i'm not going to ask is tractor supply. that's not a real thing, right? >> oh, yeah, it is. >> are you kidding me? >> tractor supply stores? oh yeah. >> what you have written about before is people are redistricting with their feet and moving to live among like-minded people. and the corporations are moving in to take advantage of that which makes sense. but i think part of what's happening, right, leading to situations where this leads to extremism, right, that we get to the season where the primary is more important than the general election and leading to more and more and rewarding more and more extremism in politics especially and congress. right? >> well, you're absolutely right because voters become easier for political strategists to gerrymander in to like-minded congressional districts so this
is a real problem especially at the house level where we at the cook political report measure that swing districts between the 40 yard lines has down from 164 in 1998 to 99 in 2012 which means that less than a quarter of the house is really competitive by the time november rolls around. most of these house elections are really determined by the primary. and that's what we're seeing in congress is a lot of members looking over their shoulder at the next primary. >> dave, i don't want to say like i'm dismissing this entirely because i'm not but i have to ask, you know, this really does assume that everyone makes a choice and has a choice between where they grocery shop and, you know, do they go to whole foods or go to walmart? >> i think most people worried about gas especially go to the place that's closest to them. and they go to the place with the best deals or they make decisions based on convenience. does it really have to do with political ethos guiding people
toward starbucks or dunkin donuts? >> you know, s.e. that's a great point, but at the same time, it's a little bit of a misinterpretation. what i'm not arguing is if you love to spend $100 on 3 ounces of cheese you're a liberal democrat and if you love to pay $7.39 for a heaping plate of chicken and dumplings you're a republican. but if you live in a neighborhood in a county or a precinct where that brand of fresh and natural and organic has taken off over the course of the last 10 to 20 years you likely live in a place with more democratic. but if you live in a place where that brand of nostalgic and going back to the way things were and traditional values have taken off in 10 to 20 years you likely live in a place that's more and more republican. >> all right. dave from the cook political report, thank you for joining us. up next, the president has spoken but we can we actually expect from washington moving forward? is there hope? i'm inspired which means let's
bring on joe crocker. lists all done. raise the roof! no one says that anymore, mom. [ woman ] raise the roof! ah? raise the roof! [ male announcer ] it's our biggest toy rollback of the year. find hundreds of rollbacks on the season's hottest toys in stores now, from america's gift headquarters, walmart. something this delicious could only come from nature. new nectresse. the 100% natural no-calorie sweetener made from the goodness of fruit. new nectresse. sweetness naturally.
that do so much for us. on november 24th, let's get out and shop small. because they provide solutions for all situations. how? they work with vmware to provide virtualization and cloud solutions tailored to a company's unique i.t. needs. so, you're my caddy. what solution would you provide for me now? well, you're 30 yards away from the green. you've got a bunker to the left of you and a bunker to the right of you. and remember, this is client golf. there's only one one way to solve these challenges and that is to do it together. as i've said before, i'm open to compromise and i'm open to new ideas. and i've encouraged over the past week to hear republican after republican agree on the need for more revenue from the
wealthiest americans as part of our arithmetic if we're going to be serious about reducing the deficit. >> we look forward to making this divided government productive for the and we have, of course, as everyone well knows, a lot of challenges here at the end of the year. i'll be meeting with the president and other leadership to talk about the way forward. we look forward to being a part of the solution to these significant problems. >> a decidedly optimistic time from gop leadership and the president today about working together. but is it delusional? we'll see when obama and gop leaders meet friday. house republicans re-elected john boehner as speaker so he's sure to be a major player in negotiations again. time to "backspin." we have all the same people in power. i want to start by saying, look, i do not have the appetite for the fighting that we saw over the past four years.
>> good. >> thought it was childish. i do not think compromise, the "c" world is a dirty one. the idea there's a mandate is a little flawed, for a number of reasons. the mandate for obama to go forward was certainly rubber stamped by his voters, but clearly romney's voters would say there's a man daylight for t -- mandate for the republican voters as well. they voted for that message. and when people voted for obama and people voted for romney, they were both saying these are the messages we want you to put forward. if obama moves to the right, who's he representing? not the folks who voted for him. if romney moves to the left, who's he representing? not the folks that voted for him. coming to the middle seems arbitrary like you're representing no one. i think the real thing to say is that both parties need to
represent their constituents and their values but do it in a more compromising way. >> well, yeah, that's the idea. you acknowledge not everybody in the country voted for you, and therefore, you'll try to incorporate other sides. and i genuinely reject the idea of mandate. in a highly specific way, this was a mandate. obama campaigned on a very specific thing. to address it, you need to raise income tax rates on those over $250,000. he campaigned on that, won on that. that is a clear mandate we can say came out of this. >> all right, then. >> well, one thing i would say is i actually don't buy that much into the idea of mandates in general either, but if there is any mandate out of this collection, it has to be that we actually have a working, functional government. you know, if you look at congressional approval ratings, which have been rock bottom, i think voters, first and foremost, just want to see people be able to get things done. >> yeah, i think there was quite a clear mandate sent. the president won a decisive victory.
how could we argue, you won but we don't have a mandate. that's strange to me. >> i don't believe in them. i think you need to represent everyone. a cat has nine lives but apparent house leaders do. steve kornacki on the future of nancy pelosi. ♪ [ male announcer ] why do more emergency workers everywhere trust duracell...?? duralock power preserve. locks in power for up to 10 years in storage. now...guaranteed. duracell with duralock. trusted everywhere. without freshly-made pasta. you could also cut corners by making it without 100% real cheddar cheese. but then...it wouldn't be stouffer's mac & cheese. just one of over 70 satisfying recipes for one from stouffer's.
the house and never anything more. that's because nancy pelosi announced she's staying on as house democratic leader for another two years. that means hoyer, who is 73 years old and would have moved up to replace her as democratic leader, is stuck in the number two slot. again. this has been happening for years. decades, really. the pelosi/highwoyer rivalry ha been intense, unexpected turns and goes back a half century when they were interns together. the one common thread is this, no matter what happens pelosi always seems to end up on top. it really all started in 1998 when they began angling for a spot in the democratic leadership. their campaign was contingent on democrats taking back the majority, which didn't happen in '98 so the campaign was off. they picked it up in the run-up to the 2000 campaign but democrats fell short so there was never a vote. it was starting to get heat. lines were drawn.
pelosi was the choice of liberals, hoyer favorite of new business democrats. in 2001 there was an opening for whip, number two spot. the campaign got ugly. vote was called, pelosi won it. a year later dick gephardt stepped down, and she became democratic leader. that opened number two spot for hoyer, a consolation prize. pelosi filled her inner leadership circle with allies, eyeing hoyer and crew with suspicion. i stood in the cannon building in 2006 and i watched as the results for caucus vice chairman, number four position were announced. the guy everyone thought had the votes, hoyer's guy, lost to a guy no one thought had any votes but turned out had been pelosi's secret choice all along. everyone was stunned. later that year when democrats, pa loycy tried to take out hoyer and recruited john murtha.
for pelosi's allies it was too cold. they stuck by hoyer. pelosi who was the speaker, and hold the gavel for four years. when democrats got clobbered in 2010 and lost majority, pa loycy stayed on. hoyer thought his chance had arrived. she was supposed to step aside but she didn't. maybe he's not surprised by today. at this point he's probably just used to it. that does it for us on "the cycle." martin bashir, all yours. >> thank you, guys. good afternoon, it's wednesday, november 14th and battle is joined. ♪ the president lays out his plan. >> we should not hold the middle class hostage while we debate tax cuts for the wealthy. this shouldn't be a surprise to anybody. this was -- if there was one thing that everybody understood was a big differe b