the christmas drop started in 1952 in the 54th whether reconnaissance squadron began dropping humanitarian supplies to islands that they would see, flying over small islands in the specific. the 36 -- a lot of overhead to help support, including three allied nations flying with us and to underground providing gun support. we will us actually built the models what we get, there and then for six days, we'll be doing airdrops all throughout the pacific. >> the last thing before we go tonight, operation christmas draft. move over, santa, because earlier this month, hundreds of packages filled with food, books and toys rained down on pacific islands as part of an annual u.s. military christmas could addition. going strong for more than 70, years opposite operation christmas drop is the longest running department of defense

humanitarian and disaster relief mission. reading up to the job, volunteers put up donation boxes, sorting through donations, and gruesome the u.s. partner companies put together pallets of supplies to help decorate them with messages from the holidays. finally, aircrews look at the palace on to the plains and dropped more than 200 packages and supplies and toys to over 40,000 people, living on 58 different islands. the operation took six days to complete and covered 1.8 million square miles. now, that is what i call spreading christmas cheer. and on that no, i wish you all, a very good night. from all of ourolagues across the networks of nbc news, thank you for staying up late with me. i'll see you at the end of tomorrow. end of tomorrow

in the year 2000, george w. bush became the first president in more than 100 years to win the presidency and lose the popular vote. in 2016, donald trump became the second. now, what made both the two responsible at the expense of the popular vote was the electoral college. but in 2000, it wasn't just that electoral college, it was also the supreme court. the 2000 election came down to the state of florida, the margin between al gore and george bush was 537 votes, a number that remain staggering to this day. and even though al gore has won the popular vote by half 1 million votes, whether those 500 and 3700 votes in florida did or did not get counted would decide the race. and after a flurry of legal challenges and appealed, that decision ended up in the hands of the supreme court. >> the supreme court hasn't been asked to decide the election but their decision might do just that. >> here comes our runner math -- >> that decision has been reversed. the u.s. supreme court has reversed the decision of the

florida supreme court. there we go. >> several of the justices take the time to write separately. there's a descent from justice breyer. there's a separate dissent from justice ginsburg. there's a separate dissent from justice souter. so, it will appear that the 5 to 4 vote that we have seen all along is holding. it does appear, as i look through here, to be a 5 to 4 opinion. >> the entire reason we, as a country, and then of electing george w. bush in the very first place was a 5 to 4 vote by the supreme court, a vote along ideological lines, with five conservative justices ruling in a way that handed bush the white house, and four liberal justices dissented. and now, today, even more conservative supreme court could again effectively decide the 2024 election. there are two issues headed imminently towards the court, ones that could set the playing field for the 2024 election. number one is how the court

responds to yesterday's ruling from the colorado state supreme court, the one saying that donald trump should be taken off the ballot in that state because and that section three of the 14th amendment. this one is particularly tricky. section three of that amendment says that no person shall hold any office, civil or military, under the united states, who having previously taken an oath, as an officer of the united states, to support the constitution of the united states shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. now, i say this and it's tricky because very few people have committed an insurrection against the united states, and even fewer of those people tried to run for office after doing so. so there is no real analog here as far as president. so, where does that put donald trump? multiple lower courts have

already ruled that trump himself did personally engaged in insurrection. but a core question and issue here is for whom this insurrection clause was written to? which offices count, which officers count. was it intended for presidents and presidential candidates. or are they somehow exempted? now, the colorado supreme court, state supreme court, goes a long way towards resolving what the authors of this commandment or thinking about when they wrote this, whether they specifically intended this amendment, this section three of this amendment, as a guard rail against presidents and potential presidents who engage in insurrection. the state supreme court did some very, very deep research to make the case that, yes, this sure does apply to presidents. and presidential candidates. and to that and, among the best and deepest cuts cited in this ruling is this one. it is a conversation between two senators in that year 1866, as they were literally writing the 14th amendment. senator reverie johns worried that the final version of section three did not include the office of the presidency.

he stated, this amendment does not go far enough because past rebels may be elected president or vice president of the united states. so, he asked, why did you omit to exclude them? i do not understand them to be excluded from the privilege of holding the highest offices in the gift of the nation. senator lot moral fielded this objection. he replied, let me call the senators attention to the words, or hold any office civil or military under the united states. this answer satisfied senator johnson who stated, perhaps, i'm wrong as to the exclusion from the presidency. no doubt, i am. the senators who literally wrote the 14th amendment specifically meant for it to apply for the presidency. it does not get any more

originalist than that, my friends. and that is exactly the point here. adam serwer argues in the atlantic today that this ruling from the colorado supreme court is going to put the court's conservative between a rock and a hard place. the court's conservative justices often justify their decisions to through the legal philosophy of originalism, or trying to interpret what the founders meant when they wrote the constitution. the colorado supreme court ruling is calling the bluff of the u.s. supreme courts originalist's, forcing its conservative justices to choose between their purported legal philosophy and the partisan interests of the party with which they identify. so it would seem. now, trump has until january

4th to appeal the colorado state supreme court decision. and his campaign says it plans to. and when that happens, it would put the issue on hold until the supreme court makes its decision, meaning trump would likely be on the colorado republican primary ballot, but whether he is in the general election ballot and colorado, potentially in any other state that could follow colorado's lead. all of that will rest once again in the hands of the supreme court. that is not the only big call they have to make and soon. today, trump's lawyers filed their response to the special counsel's motion asking that supreme court to immediately take up trump's question of presidential immunity. trump's lawyers have been trying to argue that the entire federal election interference case should be thrown out because trump is protected by presidential immunity. the special counsel asked the court to take up the issue immediately to prevent the appeals process from delaying a trial that is currently scheduled for march 4th. in today's filing, trump's lawyers urged the justices not to rush to decide. the supreme court is likely to decide in short order whether to take that case or to punt it back to the appeals court.

and that decision could either keep the trial date on track or delay it, potentially past the 2024 election. and both the 14th amendment case and this presidential immunity case, the supreme court, he had again, finds itself in a position that can make or break this election for donald trump. joining me now, george conway, contributed to the atlantic magazine. and mark joseph stern, senior writer covering the courts and the law for slate magazine. thank you both for joining me. george, i really think adam serwer is on to something in the way that this state supreme court ruling is gonna test the bounds of originalism that clarence thomas and sam alito and justice roberts, all the conservatives on the bench say they are beholden to. what do you make of this? >> yeah, i don't think there's any way you can construe section three of the 14th amendment to exclude the presidency. and the fact, the dissent in

last night's opinion did not bother with that argument, which was very, very transparent, and very, very weak, on part of the district court which otherwise found trump to be an insurrectionist. i mean the fact of the matter is, you don't even have to go into the congressional record, or the congressional intent here. you only need to look at the language. and the fact of the matter is, when it comes to origin listen and textualism, the sort that scalia has taught us all. it's, if the language is clear, you don't have to go any farther. and the fact of the matter is the reference to the officer of the united states clearly includes the president because the constitution elsewhere refers to the office of the presidency. so it will be precious, it

would be totally bizarre as a district court in colorado did that an officer of the united states does not, you know, is someone who is, a person who holds an office of united states is not an officer of the united states. and it just makes no sense. you don't even have to look at the legislative history in congress. >> you don't have to. but then, you wouldn't be able to talk about senators, senator johnson and locked morrill in the year 1866, mark. i mean, georgia's point that the constitution cites the office of the presidency, i think 25 times in the ruling that they mention. but this anecdote between these two senators as they are literally drafting the amendment, maybe it's gilding the lily, i don't know. it seems like they truly understand their audience here which is a supreme court group of conservatives obsessed with the writings, talking's, and theorize asians, and legislating of that white men, largely lead to the 19th century. >> absolutely. and because this is the case of first impression, there might be some temptation to dismiss the supreme court's decision as absurd or overreach.

but once you drill down to that analysis, and you have already, it's really difficult to find fault with the reasoning. and that reasoning is in fact rooted in constitutional text in history, to a truly extraordinary degree. i think you are spot on that this majority, despite being quite liberal, was aiming its decision at the supreme court conservatives, almost lobbying the conservatives to say, look, you guys hear your textualists, you guys say you are originalists. we have spent more than 100 pages now walking you through exactly why the original meaning of the 14th amendment disqualifies trump from the ballot. and if everything you say is true, that you only look at text, you only look at the original public understanding of the constitutional section, then this is an easy case. all you have to do is apply that original meaning, and trump must be knocked off the ballot. really not just in colorado, but in every state. i think the best argument to

the contrary is that such a decision, knocking trump off the ballot, could be quite destabilizing to the 24 election. and, frankly, i agree. i'm quite concerned myself about the implications and consequences of knocking trump off the ballot in colorado or anywhere else. but that's not a constitutional argument. that is a policy argument. and the roberts court has told us over and over again, we do not bother with policy. if you don't like what the constitution says, you should change it. our only job here is to interpret and apply the law as written. and if that is the case, then again, the court has an easy job ahead. i'm not sure that it will do what the colorado supreme court suggested. but i think it will be a tougher call for some of these originalist's but a lot of spectators -- >> it really makes them put their money where their mouth is, for a lack of a better

metaphor, george. in the wake of this times reporting about how the political considerations that in a supreme court made in hiding the case from the docket, and otherwise making, you know, decisions that seem very clearly, very political, very clearly partisan in taking up the dobbs case. it really makes you question the very notion of their strict constitutionalism, and whether or not that is long ago been trump's bipartisan affiliation. i wonder how do you think it all shakes out if the supreme court ends up taking it up? >> i beg to differ just a bit because there is nothing in the constitution and the united states from which you can imply right to an abortion. the only basis for maintaining roe was this. and i think they've done that because the decision was 50 years old. but there is no textual basis, no historical basis for the right to an abortion. nonetheless, here, it's quite, quite different. the language is unmistakably clear. and as mark says, he says that there is really no legal basis to ignore section three of the 14th amendment. and in fact, in the supreme court, emblazoned in the marvel,

there is a latin saying, forgive my inadequate high school latin pronunciation. it goes like -- [speaking in a global language] and it means let justice rain. though the heavens may fall. in other words, you have to let the chips fall. the conclusion is indisputable which i think it is here. and there was no contention by the dissent here that the legal conclusion was wrong. and no contention here that the facts did not, were not shown by proof in the court. i don't know how to get around it. and i wrote an article today in the atlantic saying exactly that. the dissent last night showed that the majority opinion was quite correct. >> i will not re-litigate the dobbs decision with you, because we don't have time for it. >> we can do that for a week.

>> we'll do that on another segment. the point i am trying to make, this court is not immune from political consideration, and the very way that they had the tops decision on the docket, suggest that they had to put a full ramifications of that. but to your point, mark, this court has proposed that it is not a political body. it is not political policy consideration, just looking at the constitution. the state supreme court ruling goes back and quotes neil gorsuch and the ruling. it is specifically targeting a decision that near gorsuch made, a ruling he made in 2012 as an appellate court judge in colorado, where he recognized is in a states illegitimate interests to protect the integrity and practical functioning of the put of a process that permits the state to exclude from the ballot, candidates who are

constitutionally prohibited from running for office. and addition could be constitutionalists, these justices tend to love to send these things back to states and be proponents of state rights. >> right, we heard this after the 2016 election, when people complained that donald trump had lost the popular vote. the conservative response was, where we are a republic, not a democracy. really, the states are in the driver seats when it comes to federal elections. that really should cut both ways for republicans in 2024, because if the states are in the driver seats, if they are the ones making these decisions, i don't see why a state should not be able to apply the 14th amendment as we're in and say, you know what, there are not many qualifications to be president. you have to be 35, a natural born citizen. you can't have engaged in an insurrection. it's quite reasonable, even in our federal system for a state to have the authority, through

its supreme court to say, we are not willing to let this guy on the ballot, because he lacks one of the few constitutional qualifications to from. i want to add one point to what george said though. i think we should look at this through the lens of politics. politics can be in consideration. i also think we need to consider whether these justices can or should look at outcomes of a case. when the court decided a big second amendment decision last year, where the court declares that most restrictions on firearms are unconstitutional, there is a lot of healing on the other side that this would lead to more -- the conservative majority response was, a big shrug. they basically said, that is not our problem. our only job is to decide what this means, and the chips will fall where they may. and in consideration of the results or outcomes, that would be kind of biased judging that has no place in our judiciary. if that is true of guns and so many other things, corporations buying elections, women having

bodily autonomy, it should obviously be true of trump's qualification to be president as well. so, i think that this will be a moment of truth, not just for the original lists in terms of their principle of how to apply the constitution, but how they should be judged, as how they should exercise their authority, the extraordinary authority that they have been given to have a final word on the law. today evolve and check now and say that it's too radical for us? or do they acknowledge that the 14th amendment was kind of radical and still is and applying it as we're in may lead to some kind of fearful results. that is the courts job, and it's our job to respond. >> i am just looking for giant fat heads outside the supreme court with -- johnson and lock moral. that is my contribution to this case. george conway, mark joseph stern, please go back, we have more to talk to you guys about in the days and weeks ahead. i appreciate time tonight. >> thank you. >> we have a lot ahead this hour including an arizona judge

allowing a defamation lawsuit against republican kari lake to move forward. the latest proof that the big lie comes with big consequences. but first, trump supporters appeared to care about whether he is convicted but not in the way that donald trump would like him to. we'll have more on that right after the break. but this is just right. and i don't like anything. but i like this. get a light scent that lasts with no heavy perfumes or dyes. as americans,

there's one thing we can all agree on. the promise of our constitution and the hope that liberty and justice is for all people. but here's the truth. attacks on our constitutional rights, yours and mine are greater than they've ever been. the right for all to vote. reproductive rights. the rights of immigrant families. the right to equal justice for black, brown and lgbtq+ folks. the time to act to protect our rights is now. that's why i'm hoping you'll join me today in supporting the american civil liberties union. it's easy to make a difference. just call or go online now and become an aclu guardian of liberty. all it takes is just $19 a month. only $0.63 a day. your monthly support will make you part of the movement to protect the rights of all people, including the fundamental right to vote. states are passing laws that would suppress the right to vote.

we are going backwards. but the aclu can't do this important work without the support of people like you. you can help ensure liberty and justice for all and make sure that every vote is counted. so please call the aclu now or go to my aclu.org and join us. when you use your credit card, you'll receive this special we the people t-shirt and much more. to show you're a part of the movement to protect the rights guaranteed to all of us by the us constitution. we protect everyone's rights, the freedom of religion, the freedom of expression, racial justice, lgbtq rights, the rights of the disabled. we are here for everyone. it is more important than ever to take a stand. so please join us today. because we the people means all the people, including you. so call now or go online to my aclu.org to become a guardian of liberty.

loving this pay bump in our allowance. wonder where mom and dad got the extra money? maybe they won the lottery? maybe they inherited a fortune? maybe buried treasure? maybe it fell off a truck? maybe they heard that xfinity customers can save hundreds when they buy one unlimted line and get one free. now i can buy that electric scooter! i'm starting a private-equity fund that specializes in midcap. you do you. visit xfinitymobile.com today.

numrows=2> i mean, look, if somebody is convicted of something, of some of these things, there was no trial on at this. they basically said, you can't be on the ballot. how does that work? >> we don't have judges making these decisions, we need voters to make these decisions. >> i do not believe that donald trump should be prevented from being president of the united states by any court. i think he should be prevented from being the president of the united states by the voters at this country. >> donald trump's opponents say that they want voters and not the courts to decide his fate on the ballots. new polls from the new york

times just a sizeable or minority of republican voters are only willing to support trump before now, while he can still say he has not been found guilty of a crime. nearly a quarter of trump republican supporters say that he should not be the party's nominee if he is convicted. another 20% say that trump should go to person, if he is convicted. and 23% say that they believe the former president committed a serious federal crimes, twice as many as -- joining me now is staff editor at new survey for the new york times. messianic, thank you for joining me. i am very curious about these numbers here. the shares of republican and republican-leaning opinions believe that donald trump has committed a crime, has increased to 27% from 17%, as well, 23% of trump supporters, they believe he has committed serious federal crimes, which is up from 11% in july. what do you think is driving

that and i will pretend that we have not been talking about it at nauseam, just to hear what the pros have to say. >> yeah, it's really kind of remarkable to see that number jump from that percentage ally. we've been tracking this for over a year and the number of suffering around orange around six inches percent. now, it's quite high. at the same time, these are people who are trump supporters. they intend to beat trump supporters so they think that he has committed federal crimes but they are not particularly concerned with those federal crimes. -- >> do you have a sense of the timeline in which that number has increased. has it been recently or steady throughout the summer when there were indictments and there was trump at court houses in front of the court steps, et cetera? >> it's hard to know, but there is a lot of reason to believe -- we did a survey of battleground states, not a national survey. it's hard to compare, but we

did see a slight increase around their. it's slightly more misleading than this. >> as to whether or not they believe that he should actually still be president or a candidate, the numbers there are interesting. 20% -- 24%, a quarter of trump supporters, say that they believe he should not be the party's nominee if convicted. the caveat to that is that if he is convicted, it's likely to happen before his potential nominee. i do want to get a sense of how firm the commitment was, and whether there was any sense that this quarter of trump supporters is even aware of the alternatives, not necessarily in the republican party, which will happen after trump was made nominee, but as a third party candidate or even, dare i ask, president biden. >> yeah, it's really interesting actually that the number one quarter is of trump 's general election supporters. when you look at trump primary supporters, it's closer to 15%. a practice that is only about 4% of primary voters that could swing in one direction or

another, not really enough to change the trajectory of the primary, where trump is up by 50 plus points against his closest opponent. but even, then there is a lot of reason to believe that those switchers are not that solid on it. i think they are waiting to see what happens, for our respondents again and again that if he is convicted, they might change their minds, but they are waiting to see what happens. i think it also depends on which case he is convicted in. >> and what is interesting to me is given how in other cases, we're told that trump support calcifies. as the stakes get higher, they stand stronger with their man, for lack of a better freeze. what these numbers suggest is that they are open to seeing what happens to potentially change their support for donald trump, and that a fifth of them believe that he should go to person, if he is convicted in the january 6th case. >> yeah, yeah. i think that person number is particularly interesting. one thing in the survey that

was in a previous one, we conducted with six battleground states last month, we asked people in the battleground states, where it really matters for the general election, if he was convicted and sentenced to person, if they might switch their vote to biden. we saw that 6% of people say that they would do that. which, in battleground states, that's enough to make a difference in the election next fall. >> we know it will be a tight one, so all of what looks like marching calls really matters. thank you so much for your time. >> thanks for having me. >> still to come this evening, trump campaigns on anti immigrant fearmongering, while the state of texas offers us a glimpse of what a second term might look like. and election denier, kari lake, loses her bid to get out of a bit of a lawsuit by a election official. what this means for other perpetrators of the big lie, coming up next. for long-lasting cough and sore throat relief. try new robitussin lozenges with real medicine and find your voice. you know? we really need to work on your people skills.

the first time you connected your godaddy website and your store was also the first time you realized... well, we can do anything. cheesecake cookies? the chookie! manage all your sales from one place with a partner that always puts you first. (we did it) start today at godaddy.com

are you still struggling with your bra? it's time for you to try knix. makers of the world's comfiest wireless bras. for revolutionary support without underwires, and sizes up to a g-cup, find your new favorite bra today at knix.com i got this $1,000 camera for only $41 on dealdash. dealdash.com, online auctions since 2009. this playstation 5 sold for only 50 cents. this ipad pro sold for less than $34. and this nintendo switch, sold for less than $20. i got this kitchenaid stand mixer for only $56. i got this bbq smoker for 26 bucks. and shipping is always free. go to dealdash.com right now and see how much you can save.

while i am a paid actor, and this is not a real company, there is no way to fake how upwork can help your business. upwork is half the cost of our old recruiter and they have top-tier talent and everything from pr to project management because this is how we work now. here's a question, it's

this definition or freedom of speech? >> these two guys, they don't -- they don't like voters or candidates who question the raid elections that they run. the incredible lengths that these two bozos wind to trample and steal our vote, rig our

election and dance where in frauds who are destroying arizona. they have created the wrong image on the ballot, on election day, so that the ballots would intentionally be spent out at the tabulators. >> that was election denying maga republican kari lake earlier this year at a rally, where she lied about the rate 2022 arizona governor terrell election that she lost. lake name checked and show pictures of these two men repeatedly, maricopa county officials, bill gates and stephen fisher. both are republicans. kari lake made incredibly specific and baseless claims about how the two men conspired against her and her campaign to mess with ballots and break the election. one of the officials, stephen ventura, says that lakes lie

hurt his professional life and harmed his reputation. he says the maricopa county sheriff's office has had to do regular patrols of his home and workplace, because of how many threats, including death threats, he has received. so, earlier this summer, steven richer sued kari lake for defamation, claiming that her lies about him crossed a line. in court, lawyers for kari lake tried to argue that all of the bogus claims about him should be protected, that they are free speech, they argue that lakes claims were, quote, rhetorical hyperbole, and they asked the judge to throw at the defamation case in its entirety. today, a judge ruled on that and flatly denied kari lake's request to throw at the defamation claims against her. the judge ruled that if lake statements about stephen richer approved to be false or defamatory, they do not deserve the protection of the first amendment. now, kari lake is not just a republican candidate for senate

in arizona or a governor for that matter. her name has been floated out on donald trump shortness of candidates for vice president. in fact, donald trump has already test drive the kari lake defense, claiming that all of his election lies, we're just free speech. so, this case has significant implications for what we as a country allow election deniers to get away with. georgia election workers, ruby freeman and shaye moss just won a 140 million dollar judgment against their defamation case against rudy giuliani with their 2020 election lies. whether we will see the architect of the big lie held accountable is very much still an open question. much more ahead tonight, including the unusual calling inside the biden campaign, as everyone everywhere else goes insane. but first, donald trump's relentlessly attacking markets on the campaign trail, and texas is listening. we talk to julián castro about that next.

% effective, shingrix is a vaccine used to prevent shingles in adults 50 years and older. shingrix does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients or to a previous dose. an increased risk of guillain-barré syndrome was observed after getting shingrix. fainting can also happen. the most common side effects are pain, redness and swelling at the injection site, muscle pain, tiredness, headache, shivering, fever, and upset stomach. ask your doctor or pharmacist about shingrix today.

there is a lot of information out there. hamas oppresses the people of gaza, uses civilians as human shields, and steals their basic supplies to use them in a war of terror. even when given the chance at peace, hamas broke the truce. our community needs to stand against hamas and stand with palestinians and israelis for basic human rights. focus on the truth. i got this $1,000 camera for only $41 on dealdash. dealdash.com, online auctions since 2009. this playstation 5 sold for only 50 cents. this ipad pro sold for less than $34. and this nintendo switch, sold for less than $20. i got this kitchenaid stand mixer

for only $56. i got this bbq smoker for 26 bucks. and shipping is always free. go to dealdash.com right now and see how much you can save. let's get right to the drone images right now. on fox news, our aerial team, live over eagle pass, where they have been getting absolutely buried in illegal crossings today. we are talking thousands of people who have crossed over illegally. they continue coming in from all over the world. large amounts of adults coming in from africa.

>> this week, fox news zeroed in on the uptick of southern border crossings, taking special note of monday's record breaking 12,000 apprehensions at the border. that record and the migration trend has become emanation for some of the most extreme part on immigration policies and rhetoric today. donald trump has repeatedly spoken on the campaign trail about his plans to expel immigrants en masse, promising to be a dictator and closed border on day one, defending his stance on what he calls blood purity. trump did it again, last night, before a crowd of more than 1000 supporters. >> they come from africa, they come from asia, they come from south america, but not just south america, they are all for the world. they dump them on the border, and the border to our country. it's crazy what is going on. they are ruining our country, and it's true, they are destroying the blood of our country, destroying the fabric

of our country, and we are going to have to get them out, get a mass number of these, especially criminals, coming from jails, prince, coming from, mental institutions. >> texas is already giving some of trump's immigration plants a run. this week, texas governor greg abbott signed into law legislation that makes crossing the border illegally a state crime and allows local law enforcement to arrest undocumented immigrants. meanwhile, in d. c., congress is reportedly in talks with the biden administration, as they consider legislation docket up and the country's asylum system altogether. joining me now is julián castro, former housing and urban development secretary and current msnbc political analysts. julián, thank you for being here tonight. hearing trump's words on the campaign trail, which could have just as easily came out at the mouth of hate off hitler, which he is not that shy about, by the way. the sort of parallels. the reality is, as a

distasteful and abhorrent as you and i may feel they are, there is new polling out from marquette that says that more people trust donald trump on immigration than joe biden. what do you make of that? >> i think that is downright scary for our country, alex, that you can have somebody like donald trump, who presents a real threat, because he has put these policies into place before and is neck and neck in the polls right now, with president biden, saying these kinds of things, based on his track record, and he has so much support amongst the american people. it makes you think what is going on with us? what is going on with the american people? not anybody, by any means, but enough people, this is striking, and it's worrisome and dangerous. the kind of language that he is using, we know the result of this. this foments hate, prompts violence, like we saw in el

paso in 2019, when somebody goes from dallas to a paso, because he believes there was a hispanic invasion. that is the kind of thing that happens when you use this type of rhetoric. >> i do wonder, the residents of the rhetoric, the fact that people are listening to it and buying it, does that suggest to you that some of the attempts by republicans to dehumanize or migrants to use them as political pawns, governor abbott chief among those folks. he just sent his first flight of migrants from apostle to chicago with 120 migrants last night. this is something that ron desantis likes to do. are those tactics actually shifting public opinion, do you think? >> do you remember in 2012 in that debate, i think in january of that year, where romney said that he was four soft deportation. everyone said, that is

ridiculous, it was outside of the norm at that point. they have stretched the so-called window massively. i have to say, alex, part of it for me is a discipline with a lot of mainstream democrats, because the reason that it got so stretched is because democrats don't push back hard enough a positive vision for immigration. when i say positive vision, i don't mean they don't concede that we need to address the issue, they need to be specific about how it should be addressed and then speak to the values of our country. this is a nation of immigrants, and put up the positive issue. if you don't do that, if all you do is backtrack and then, perhaps, we're on the cusp of senate democrats accepting what would have been considered ridiculous, extremist policies, right before trump came in, but now buying into them, like the reinstatement of title 42, and doing away with parole, where does that leave the american people except to think, well, maybe the extremism is okay?

that is what you get when you don't push back. >> can you talk more about that, because, there are closed door negotiations going on in the senate. the biden white house is involved in them. it's unclear what the specific terms, are only that there may be some a very significant concessions to the right wing on immigration policy, asylum policy. do you think that it's too late to stop that? because it's been happening in secret, it's hard to know where the negotiations are, other than what is being reported. >> it is, there are some provisions, including bringing back title 42, essentially, expanding the powers that the president to expel individuals, doing away with the opposite, which would be what is called parole, which allows these immigrants to otherwise allowed otherwise innocent inadmissible to temporarily be allowed in. we don't know, what will come

up with a. i got a feeling at the under the day, because this is sort of a botched process, the congressional caucus have pushed back hard on this, because they weren't brought in early, having been part of crafting this, i don't think it will go anywhere. but it might, and if it does, this will remake our asylum system in the image of stephen miller and donald trump. that is a terrible thing to happen. i wish that democrats had republicans that they could actually negotiate on this, that would allow them to invest in resources at the border and get asylum claims adjudicated more quickly, so that people will not get asylum, and they can be on their way. but republicans keep blocking the, so this puts president biden and democrats in a real bind, but you can set up policies, and you can't solve the country that we are, even if it means being on the brink of supporting our allies. >> yeah, you can't allow greg abbott and donald trump to establish the narrative about

people who are fleeing very dire circumstances, four brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers and children, just like we were and are. julián castro, thank you for your time and expertise tonight. when we come back, new york magazine correspondent gabriel benedetti on his deep dive into the biden campaign. why they are not scared about the presidents polling numbers, and what everyone else should do about it, that is ahead. [dog barks] no it's just a bunny! only pay for what you need. ♪liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty.♪ sure, i'm a paid actor, and this is not a real company, but there is no way to fake how upwork can help your business. search talent all over the world with over 10,000 skills you may not have in house. more than 30% of the fortune 500 use upwork because this is how we work now.

the winter play was really coming together. until... disaster struck. luckily, replacement costumes were shipped with fedex. which means mr. harvey... could picture the perfect night. we're delivering more happy for the holidays. [coughing] copd hasn't been pretty. it's tough to breathe and tough to keep wondering if this is as good as it gets. but trelegy has shown me that there's still beauty and breath to be had. because with three medicines in one inhaler, trelegy keeps my airways open and prevents future flare-ups. and with one dose a day, trelegy improves lung function so i can breathe more freely all day and night. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler

for sudden breathing problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. ♪ what a wonderful world ♪ ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy for copd because breathing should be beautiful.

you're probably not easily persuaded to switch ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy for copd mobile providers for your business. but what if we told you it's possible that comcast business mobile can save you up to 75% a year on your wireless bill versus the big three carriers? did we peak your interest? you can get two unlimited lines for just $30 each a month. there are no term contracts or line activation fees. and you can bring your own device. oh, and all on the most reliable 5g mobile network nationwide. wireless that works for you. it's not just possible, it's happening. a new york times has a pull

out this week that shows president biden as he did not run by two points, 40 60 44% in a hypothetical matchup along registered voters. but, when likely voters were asked that same question, likely voters, the results flipped. biden wins by two points, 47 to trump's 45, which is to say, this far out from 2024 election, anything goes, and that

possibility is revealing what new york magazine gabriel bennett that he calls a glaring, cognitive split at the top of the democratic party. while commentators and many strategists are gassed at biden 's polling slide, desperate to see a course correction, the presidents aids at the white house at the reelection if you have every indication that they consider the election very much under control. joining me now is gabriel the benedetti, a national correspondent for new york magazine and the author of this week's cover story. gabe, thank you for being here. i found it fascinating and intriguing, one of the first things that bears mentioning, according to your sources, no one's really paying attention, yet. can you talk a little bit more about what you heard as you reported at the story? >> absolutely, one of the essential dynamics here is that when you look at polling numbers like the ones that you are just talking about, but also a lot of the ones that have been coming in for the last few weeks, in particular,

they painted a dark picture for the president. his approval rating is already low, and a lot of the head to heads with donald trump in a lot of the battleground states, the numbers look really bad for biden, and that has led to a lot of henry up across the governing party, lots of people demanding, what is the plan here? i talked to a lot of people in the white house, within the campaign headquarters, and a point that they made time and time again was, within a year to the election, basically 11 months and, right now, most voters, in fact the vast majority simply are not paying attention. why that is important is because they're not conceptualizing this is a clear choice between biden and trump, which is almost certainly what is going to be. one person who i talked to quite frequently for this story pointed out to me that they had seen one poll that showed that

when fit the voters, again, according to this internal research, even thought that trump would win the nomination of the republican party. that's in a republican primary that he is leaving by a huge margin. the essential article of faith for people on biden's, the numbers that we're looking at right now in the battleground states are not really indicative of what it will look like in a few months, let alone in a year, because most voters are not conceptualizing this as a real rematch, let alone the idea that we might get trump once again. >> the average swing voter thinks about politics for four minutes a week, and they are not waking up for another 12 months. oh, could be a swing vote, or i guess. the other thing that you talked about the resources that the biden team has allocated to fight the battle ahead. i wonder if you can talk in more detail about the way in which they are using outside democratic organizations like the dnc to house some of their best and brightest, fuel? >> totally, it's a great question, because it is underappreciated, how much they have used the dnc, by day, i mean the biden operation, for a long time. even before biden became president, when he was running in 2020, and some of his top

aide sat down and said, what will this alternate into once it because president, if he does win. if he does run for reelection. starting, then even before the transition to the presidency back in 2020, they started putting money and resources into the dnc, making plans for what the reelection might look like, so during the midterm time period, you had democrats led by the white house, biden's white house, the resources and a lot of the swing states, and building up their data operations, digital operations in an attempt to try to -- one of the deputy campaign manager said to me earlier this year, he said all the republicans are going through the messy primary, while everyone is focusing on other things. it's important that this is the time that we are building up and really relying on our allies like the dnc to be able to fight the fight, once it becomes a one-on-one race next year. they give you an example, there's one guy running a digital operation of the biden campaign in 2020. he left that campaign after it was over to go work at the white house. he then left the white house again, just a few months ago to go work on this campaign.

now, he's the deputy campaign manager. when he walked into this job, he had 55 staffers waiting for him. they had been sitting at the dnc, building the digital and data operations for the last three years. >> that is not nothing. 55 staffers, three-year program, already in progress before biden is really beginning his reelection campaign in earnest. gabe, what is the biden campaign worried about in terms of outside x-factors? i would ask, no labels and their effort, or third party candidates. can you talk a little bit about that? >> absolutely, there is a lot of potential for chaos with a lot of the third party candidates. that is definitely a major point of concern. another one is a more fundamental one, which is they don't know what the battleground will look like in a year. often, people said to me, to make the point, well, things will get better, at this point, in 2019, we did not know what covid was, and trump had not been impeached yet. that is true, but these things

camper both ways, and as they stand now, they do have problems where there are a lot of democrats, including young voters, who are either looking at the third party candidates or are not happy with biden and might sit this out. a lot of this has to do with outside factors like, for example, the war in the middle east, but also to do with the perception of the economy, which a lot of people around biden believe is going to get better over the course of next year but, right now, simply, it's true that the message is not breaking through, that biden's message that the economy is improving and people are getting more money in their wallets, that has not broken through, and that is something that there is not an obvious answer for right now. they are hoping to figure that out. >> well, it is a great, fascinating read, and i would say, reassuring to some people, maybe hand wringing at this moment in time. gabriel debenedetti, thank you give you time and writing. that is our show for this evening. now it is time for the last word with ali velshi in for lawrence. good evening,. ali that was a fascinating conversation.