states, not a battleground states. you know, he may be losing from time to time, makes him look weak. but the biden campaign can stand all of their time on the center stage, and that will determine the presidency. that's really, i think, and all the messaging, all of it is about the contrast they need to draw against trump. >> it is so crazy, you said this before, the seven states will determine -- the seven states and the voters inside of those seven states, we're talking about a nation that's got 340 million, and 110, one or 20 million people who probably voted in the presidential election. and it's probably gonna be elections. when you think about it that way, it becomes much more manageable. >> david plouffe, thank you. that is all in on this wednesday night. happy new year to you all. my friend ali velshi in for my friend alex. >> i'm ali velshi in for alex wagner. ron desantis described it as a crisis and a war.

donald trump called it an invasion. with less than two weeks left until the iowa caucuses, today trump and desantis published dueling op-eds in the des moines register. both cast immigration as the most pressing problem facing our country. both candidates promised that they and they alone can fix it. now, what both trump and desantis are advancing in these op-eds are neither actual fixes to our country's border issues, nor are they actual immigration policy, but they are the sort of plans you can tell people you have, and they are articulating them to the public. they want to let fewer brown people in. they want immigration to be as painful as possible. none of that addresses the root cause of migration and the actual problems with our immigration system, which are real. but it is a plan, and it is a plan around which republicans are largely unified. this is video from last friday of migrants including children

and adults carrying children, attempting to cross a river at the southern border in eagle pass, texas. the texas governor greg abbott tweeted this video out today. not out of sympathy for the plight of these migrants you're looking at on your screen or and the harrowing journey but to celebrate the razor wire his government put to make the journey more difficult. he's been fighting about whether it was illegal for him to put the wire up in the first place, but legal or illegal, and it probably is illegal, the cruelty is the point. again, this is not just abbott. this is not just desantis. this is not just trump. today the speaker of the house, mike johnson, led a delegation of 60 of his fellow congress people to eagle pass, texas, the same spot on the border that he say tweeting about. members of that delegation threatened to shutdown the entire federal government if their demands on border policy are not met.

>> shut the border down or shut the government down. >> we are all committed to that. >> now, what would shutting the border down actually mean? again, none of what republicans are proposing is anywhere near an actual tangible solution. but they are putting forward a unified vision, something that has been sorely lacking from democrats, and they are traveling from d.c. to texas for photo-ops like this one to push that division while at the same time republican governors continue to send buses and planes of migrants from the southern border to the united states like new york and illinois without warning using publicity stunt to stick to the blue states. just last month texas passed a new law that would allow state police toiasurp the role of border patrol and arrest people illegally crossing the southern border. the new law would allow local

judges to then deport those people. today the biden administration sued texas to put that law on hold. for reasons we'll discuss in a second texas' new law is unconstitutional. republ in a second texas' new law is unconstitutional. republicans announced a week from today they'll begin impeachment proceedings against the department of homeland security secretary, alejandro mayorkas, for his handling of the border. what exactly secretary mayorkas has done that warrants impeachment, "keystone cuisine." i doubt anyone could actually tell you a reason for it, but republicans are pushing ahead with impeachment proceedings anyway. not a lot of substance in any of the proposals put forward by republicans to fix our country's immigration system, but there is a vision. it's cruel. it's awful. it won't fix a thing, but it is a plan. so what's the biden administration's plan? well, as far as running the

country properly, it's been pretty comprehensive and effective. wages are up, inflation is under control. the stock market is hitting records, consumers are feeling more confident, manufacturing is coming back, and god forbid, if we have another pandemic, our supply chains are strong. america has rallied nato and 20 other countries to fend off russian expansion in ukraine. the north koreans from from blowing stuff up. we have seen time and time again those issues are not registering with voters. biden just isn't getting credit for them. for the most part biden's campaign so far has been about what he said he was running for in 2020, a battle for the soul of the nation. and don't get me wrong, protecting democracy and preventing our nation from slipping into autocracy is actually more important than inflation or the climate or abortion or immigration because without democracy you cannot debate or fight for any of those

things. but republicans are bringing the issue of immigration front and center for 2024, so what is the democratic party's vision here? what is the plan joining us now are the former 2020 presidential candidate and julian castro and the political staff writer at the atlantic katelyn dickerson, an immigration expert. secretary castro, let me start with you because when you ran for president in 2020, you did make this central. you actually -- one thing you have in common with republicans, you said this is really an important issue to us as americans, and you had sort of -- you had plans about how you would deal with both the border and the concept of immigration, which are different things. in fact, you even thought about what to do about the countries from which many of these migrants were coming from and how to help them, you know, move forward. none of that has materialized

into real policy for democrats. >> unfortunately, often democrats are afraid to talk about the issue. because of that they're offensive on it, try to avoid, don't really spend any time talking about the details of that or putting forward an overall vision based on the values we share as americans, that this is a country of immigrants that says we can manage migration effectively and also humanely, we can both deal with the flow of people today and also make sure we address the root causes of immigration so people can find safety and opportunity at home so they don't have to seek it in the united states. in that vacuum that exists, republicans fill it with boogeyman politics, with fear mongering, with all of the kind of dog and pony show politics we saw speaker johnson engage in at

the border today. they do it over and over and over, and democrats need to fix into a mode of going on offensive instead of being offensive or else republicans are going to buy what republicans are selling. >> you have the distinction between immigration policy, border causes, and why people are coming. if democrats really wanted to lead into a solution on all this, all they need to do is read your stuff. what can they do to oppose this issue instead of constantly being on the offensive about it? >> what i hear from voters is this same question you're echoing loudly right now. what i hear from officials on the democratic side including the president is just these noes, no we shouldn't get rid of asylum, no we shouldn't close

the border, no we shouldn't enact mass deportations. then what should we do instead? i think what all americans agree on is they want a system that work, and what most americans agree on is they want a system that is humane, and i think starting from a place where you have a functioning system, you address the immigration court backlogs, you have a place for people to apply to get a legal pathway into the united states if they've gone through vetting processes, that seems to be the baseline. and i agree that democrats have been too scared to put forth any ideas as to how to go about doing this. i mean there are a lot of resources being spent on border security and a lot of resources being spent on immigration, and there are people who know how to reorganize them to make this system work. it's just a matter of coming out of that defensive crouch that democrats are in currently and actually putting forth a

position, a plan. >> secretary castro, you know, you talked about creating a pathway to citizenship for people who come into this conetry. we have a 3.7% unemployment rate, wages have done nothing but go up for the last two years. this strange argument immigrants make wages go down has been disproved several times. i remember talk to john huntsman when he was governor of ohio many years ago. he was a number who wanted to get migrants in for manufacturing work and construction work. the need for immigrants is acute in this country. it doesn't seem see hard to figure out what's the system we'd manage that, determine who it is we'd like to let into the country, determine the pace we let them in and fix the proble

caitlin is talking. >> there are a lot of industries that rely on thooz immigrants for labor and jobs unfortunately americans don't want to do. that's the reality. whether people like it or not, that is the reality out there. and this area of the need for this immigrant labor and our economy, i think that's an intersection where you may see some progress in the years to come. the business end of the republican party has not had a strong voice when it comes to mustering support for these kinds of measures, compromises on immigration reform. in fact, you don't hear that argument very often anymore, but it is a reality. we know it here in texas. we know it border states and throughout the country and places like utah like you mentioned. my hope is that as congress continues to pursue potential

legislation, the economic needs of the country as it involves these immigrants will be under consideration. >> caitlin, one of the things you and i talked about for a lock time this has been a decades long failure by both parties. this could have been fixed a long time ago. but this cruelty was not a hallmark of the republican party. in fact, former president bush, jeb bush of florida, they all have views about immigration and immigration policy that are much more in line with mainstream viewsch the cruelty is not part of the way they see thing. they do see things as the secretary says from a sort of an economic perspective, that we need these people in our country. we don't give birth to enough people to supply our workforce on an ongoing basis. what's the shift in the republican party? and why has that worked so well? i know some of it was sheriff arpaio and trump when he was

coming down from the trump hotel when that happened. >> i would say the shift has not just occurred with republicans. i think the entire country has moved today the right on immigration. i think that starts with donald trump's rhetoric running in 2016. and i think that it continues today because as you've said republicans have so well-harnessed this message. and when you combine very scary rhetoric with feeling of scarcity which is always an issue in this country when we're talking about moments of unemployment is higher or talking about being in a pandemic, we've got a lot of social issues in this country, a lot of people feel like they need help. when you have a scapegoat put in front of you pointing a finger of blame, it's a powerful message and convincing one. joe arpaio was famously unpopular but not someone who could have run for president and

run. and now the entire slate of republican candidates hoping to run against president biden are repeating these messages with donald trump. you asked me earlier what works, what should be on the table for consideration. deterrence and in particular policies that are really, really harsh and cruel, you know, taking people's children away from their parents, subjecting them to awful conditions at detention centers for months at a time, these deterrent measures do not work. >> they're just cruel, and they don't solve the problem. >> right, exactly. >> secretary, when you and i met, you were the mayor of san antonio. the mayors in this country are in an interesting situation. there are democratic mayors in cities that either consider themselves officially sanctuary cities or don't, but they generally have positive views on immigration who are now feeling squeezed because of these buses and airplanes showing up in cities around the country. these are cities governors now are pressuring the federal government to say you've got to solve this problem because now

these migrants are in our towns and our states. again, it's a rouse, but it's working. it's republican governors like desantis and abbott causing north eastern mayors and governors, democrats to put the squeeze on the federal government. >> yeah, i mean it's using these migrants as political pawns. it's cruel, but it's not dumb, pure politics if we're just analyzing the politics of it. and it has had the desired effect of making these mayors pressure the biden administration to come up and resources. here's the thing, ali, the biden administration has pushed for more resources for whether it's new york or chicago or other places and also for some fixes like allowing these migrants to be able to get work permits more quickly so that they can provide for themselves while they await an answer on their asylum claim, but republicans won't go along with that. at every juncture they actually

block potential solutions, and then they scream about how broken the system is. that is the tragedy. that is the folly here, and that is the hypocrisy of this republican party. >> i'm going to ask our viewers if they haven't done so to look up everything caitlin dickerson's written. recently how had a remarkable piece that earned you a pulitzer prize. it's not a solution that doesn't have answers, not an unsolvable problem. thank you again. you have made this a major issue when you were running for president. you are two of the best people to talk about this important issue. former presidential candidate hulgen castro and former staff writer at the atlantic caitlin dickerson. coming up we'll talk to biden's campaign manager about the plab to use january 6th to draw a contrust with donald trump. but first the former president asked the colorado supreme court to help him out on the primary

ballot. he says let the people decide. we'll get the legal analysis on that next. we'll get the legal analysis on that next.

in order for small businesses to thrive, they need to be smart, efficient, savvy.

making the most of every opportunity. that's why comcast business is introducing the small business bonus. for a limited time you can get up to $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet. yup, $1000. so switch to business internet from the company with the largest fastest reliable network. give your business a head start in 2024 with this great offer. plus, ask how to get up to $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet. here's why you should switch fo to duckduckgo on all your devie duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie. and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today.

tonight, donald trump's lawyers are asking the united states supreme court to reverse the colorado supreme court's decision to remove him from that state's ballot. in december the state supreme court ruled that donald trump should be removed from

colorado's primary ballot because of his involvement in the january 6th violence, violence that the colorado court called an insurrection. the colorado supreme court was the first to issue such a landmark ruling citing a post-civil war constitutional amendment that prohibits insurrectionists from holding office. the courts said trump had engaged in an insurrection and consequently is disqualified from holding the office of the president. now, just a few hours ago trump's lawyers asked the united states supreme court to weigh in on this as expected. his lawyers say the colorado supreme court got it wrong. they write, quote, it was not insurrection, and president trump was in no way engaged in insurrection. they say the question of trump's eligibility is reserved for congress not the state courts to decide. they want the united states supreme court to, quote, return the right to vote for their candidate of choice to the voters. colorado's high court is not the only one grappling with this question. last week maine's secretary of

state barred trump from that state's primary ballot. and trump's candidacy is being challenged in 17 other states. the supreme court 6-3 conservative majority is expected to take up the question of whether trump is constitutionally eligible to run for president and its decision could reshape the race. joining me now is barbara mcquade, former united states attorney for the eastern district of michigan and an msnbc legal analyst and author of a new book coming out next month titled "attack from within how disinformation is sabotaging america." can't wait to get my hand on that. thank you for being here. donald trump's lawyers are latching onto something that has been popularized in the media recently, and that is notwithstanding the constitution, section 3 of the 14th amendment which disqualifies someone who has taken an oath from running for office. the people should decide. and that's an interesting question because there are many like judge luding, jamie raskin,

constitutional experts who say that's not an either/or thing when it comes to the constitution. you could say the court got the interpretation wrong, but if the constitution says "x," you just decide we'll let the people decide. >> yeah, this is an argument i think has some appeal at a gut level. we think about our democracy everybody gets to cast a vote and choose who they want for president, but the constitution itself is created by the will of the people. even the 14th amendment had to be approved by two-thirds of congress and then three quarters of the states. so we created through the democratic process the qualifications for being president. there's an age limit, there's a term limit, there's a citizenship limit and also you cannot be an insurrectionsh. the idea we disregard the 14th amendment and say put it to the people i think is the weakest argument in the competition. >> the slightly less weak

argument, the one actually a court can consider is whether january 6th was an insurrection and whether or not donald trump took part in it. the colorado supreme court didn't -- sort of didn't take the easy way out of this thing. they really, really examined it. they looked at various ways in which the term rebellion in the constitution could have been interpreted and given care and comfort to those who participated, and could be interpreted. and they deliberated. they came out with a decision that they said donald trump did participate in an insurrection. it's interesting because a lot of the republican argument is that there's been no adjudication of that matter. >> yeah, i think this is the weakest part of donald trump's new petition. in kind of a single paragraph he says an insurrection means waging war against the united states like the civil war, and since this was instead a peaceful protest that got out of hand, that's something completely different, end of story. i don't think it's as simple as

that. i think you have to look at the language. and of course the supreme court in its current make-up is very big on original textualism. and so what was the common public understanding at the time of the 14th amendment, and there's certainly some debate at that time that said we want to make sure this doesn't apply just to our current situation with the civil war but all insurrections that may come in the future. it's a hard question, but i don't think donald trump's brief tackles it with the seriousness it deserves. >> let's just put some meat on those bones. when this amendment was written and ratified after the civil war, there was a pretty clear idea what rebellion looked like because it had been the civil war. is donald trump's team leaning into the fact you can't compare january 6th to the civil war, or he didn't raise an army? i've heard all of these sorts of arguments. >> yes. i mean they say this was not an insurrection. an insurrection only stands if you're waging war in the united

states. even if it was an insurrection, donald trump did not engage in it, which is the words of the 14th amendment because all he did was give a speech and that is protected by the first amendment. some of those same arguments we've heard before. one of the arguments i've heard is that due process requires that he be found beyond a reasonable doubt to engaged in insurrection, and that certainly isn't the case. and even he doesn't make that argument. i think in most civil matters preponderance of the evidence is the standard that could be used and so looking as the colorado supreme court did to the january 6th house committee hearings seems to be perfectly appropriate for determining whether there was or was not an insurrection. >> there's a sense those who had been proponents of the 14th amendment, section 3 that the colorado case -- there are 17 states that have a view on whether or not donald trump should be disqualified from running, but the colorado case was the strongest. how do you evaluate that? i've heard people ask me aren't they all equal?

isn't the same constitution applicable in all states? >> yes, it is. but each of these states is looking at it at sort of a different procedural point. i think people think and i agree the colorado case is the strongest because they actually had a trial, they brought in witnesses. they had some of the police officers who were there at the capitol on january 6th testify, and they had expert witnesses testify. in some of these other states they have either relied solely on the record of the house committee or have decided this on the basis of some procedural issue. so this one seems to be the one that is the appropriate vehicle for the court to look at this question, and i do agree with one thing in donald trump's brief, which is this is a significant public question that requires the promptest decision by the support. >> trump's lawyer said on fox news station something interesting. she said trump is deeply concerned that the supreme court justices particularly the ones he appointed may shy away from

being pro-trump because they're trying so hard to look neutral. now, i imagine that's not a legal argument but there's some messaging intended to get to the supreme court justices to say don't overdo it, don't bend over backwards to not like you're not. i don't know how a lawyer in your experience would evaluate a statement like that. >> i think they're working the refs. certainly this court has a conservative world view. i don't know they're in the bag for trump, but i do think it may be easier for them to find some off-ramp to avoid finding the question, and donald trump's brief provides them with a number of off-ramps, for example, the office of the presidency is not covered by the 14th amendment. or the other one they raised is new to me which i hadn't heard before, which is the 14th amendment does not talk about whether someone can run for president, whether they can hold the office for president. so all of this is premature and

then it's up to congress to decide whether he can get seated in january 2025. >> note to self if you ever get invited to a constitutional convention, words matter. barbara, thank you as always. we've got a lot to get to tonight including joe biden's election reset. a campaign advisor joins me later in the hour to discuss. new developments are shedsing light who was behind the deadly explosion in lebanon this week that killed a top hamas official expected to be directly involved in the october 7th terrorist attack. more on that after the break. h k more on that after the break just like that go to shipstation/tv and get 2 months free i'm jonathan lawson, here to tell you about life insurance just like that through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85 and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three p's. what are the three p's?

the three p's of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54. what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80. what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. options start at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate-lock, so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information, and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling,

so call now for free information.

your best defense against erosion and cavities is strong enamel- nothing beats it. new pronamel active shield actively shields the enamel to defend against erosion and cavities. i think that this product is a gamechanger for my patients- it really works.

the power goes out and we still have wifi gamechanger for my patients- to do our homework. and that's a good thing? great in my book! who are you? no power? no problem. introducing storm-ready wifi. now you can stay reliably connected through power outages with unlimited cellular data and up to 4 hours of battery back-up to keep you online. only from xfinity. home of the xfinity 10g network.

got some important developments related to the ongoing war between israel and hamas and the broader region. there are images from an explosion this week in the southern bearerate, lebanon's capital that killed the commander of hamas' military wing in the west bank and the-deepty chairman of the group's political bureau. he is suspected of being directly involved in the october 7th terrorist attack againsteral that killed more than 1200 people. nbc news is reporting tonight israel did not notify the united states in advance of the strike but did inform washington as it was under way. that's according to two u.s.

officials, a u.s. defense official, and a person briefed on the operation. israel's prime minister, benjamin netanyahu, who has suggested in the past that he was a potential target. israel's military has vowed to hunt down all hamas leaders involved in the october 7th attack. as of now israel has not claimed responsibility for monday's assassinations, but today israel's musod spy chief said he was committed to, quote, settling the score with hamas. adding, quote, let every arab mother know if her son took part directly or indirectly in the october 7th massacre his blood is forfeit, end quote. it comes at a time when officials across the region and here in the united states are worried about the war in gaza igniting wider regional conflict. ala werei was a key figure who

helped repair lumaus' relationship with iran. his death according to experts could now be perceived as a warning to tehran which has been financed over the years. iran's islamist proxies in the middle east including hezbollah in lebanon has already vowed to retaliate. quote, this crime will not go unpunished. hezbollah's leaders also claim today nine of its fighters have been killed in clashes with israeli forces in the past 24 hours, and that raises it to 148 hezbollah fighters since the october 7th attack. 1,600 miles east of beirut, a second incident shocked a region already on edge. two explosions minutes apart killed nearly 100 people who were attending a memorial for a senior iranian general

assassinated in 2020 by a u.s. drone strike. the first of the two explosions hit around 3:00 p.m. local time near his tomb. 15 minutes later a second explosion went off about 2,000 feet away. iranian tv footage showed people running, bodies being transported from the scene, and ambulances leaving through large crowds. the iranian government said it was a terrorist attack. it's unclear whether the blasts in iran have anything to do with the israel-hamas war but the white house today denied any involvement in them. they also said they do not believe israel was behind it. u.s. officials and experts consulted by nbc think the attack could be the work of isis given the militant's long running conflict with tehran and the relatively unsophisticated but lethal way in which the blasts were carried out. still ahead tonight, president biden is statistically deadlocked with trump in the polls. the question is will it work.

i'll talk with biden's principle deputy campaign manager about that next. principle deputy campaign manager about that next. i'm jonathan lawson, here to tell you about life insurance through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85

and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three p's. what are the three p's? the three p's of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54. what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80. what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. options start at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate-lock, so your rate can never go up for any reason.

so call now for free information, and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling, so call now for free information.

shipstation saves us so much time it makes it really easy and seamless pick an order print everything you need slap the label on ito the box and it's ready to go our cost for shipping, were cut in half just like that go to shipstation/tv and get 2 months free 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. in 2017 we saw klansman and white supremacists and neo-nazis come out in the open and that's when we heard the words of the president of the united states that stunned the world and shockeded the conscious of this nation. he said there were, quote, some very fine people on both sides. very fine people on both sides? if we give donald trump eight

years in the white house, he will forever and fundamentally alter the character of this nation. >> that was how joe biden launched his campaign for president four years ago, citing the 2017 white supremacist riot in charlottesville, virginia. now joe biden is poised to face-off against donald trump a second time, and he's returning to similar themes. on friday president biden will mark the third anniversary of the january 6th attack with a speech at valley forge, pennsylvania. then on monday biden's going to visit mother emmanuel ame church in charleston, south carolina, where nine church goers were killed by a white supremacist in 2015. part of what "the washington post" reports is biden's new election year push to try and center his campaign on a central message that american democracy would not survive another trump presidency. the message is stark, but the stark message has effectively been the central case against donald trump for the last four years, and yet polls continue to

show biden and trump in a dead heat. those who do not think this election is a battle for the soul of america or for the future of democracy appear to be unmoved by those arguments. and if those voters remain unmoved, then the future of democracy and the nation itself may be at risk. joining us now is the deputy campaign manager for joe biden's 2024 re-election campaign. thank you for being here tonight. i do not envy you and your team and the job you be to do because that's a hell of a lift. if you cannot look at the last four years or three plus years of what donald trump has been up to and worry about the existential nature of our democracy, i don't know what it is you plan to tell people to convince them otherwise. >> well, first of all, thank you for having me. look, it is a lift. the one thing i can assure you is that our team is well-prepared to do it. we have to make the case donald

trump does continue to pose an existential threat to our democracy. he did four years ago as you all heard president biden lay out. donald trump is telling us every single day the type of person -- the type of president he would be if he was able to gain control of the white house again, and that's being the dictator. and so plain and simple, we have to make this case to the american people. >> it's not even obscure, right? he just says it. he says the words. he says words hitler used. he says words that mussolini used, and yet the message about trump as a threat to the soul of the nation which worked in 2020, arguably that threat's worse because now his team is smarter, now he says the quiet parts out loud and yet the polling doesn't indicate that the fear is breaking through, so what do you do -- i meet regular people who say donald trump didn't really break everything, he just talks

a big game. what do you do to tell people he's going to break it? >> we continue to say we're going to take this case directly to voters. we continue to put ourselves in a position to remind them. look, for the past four years as donald trump has been out of the spotlight, american voters have been focused on the things that really matter, kitchen table issues, the economy where joe biden has created 14 million jobs, drove inflation down, drove costs down, the cost of living, created jobs. voters have been paying attention to that, but we do need to remind them. just because donald trump hasn't been unt forf the camera for the past four years, this doesn't mean he's not a threat. and the list goes on and on. they are a danger to everything we have built. and the fact we called back where he gutted social service programs that millions of

americans depend on, those are threats to democracy. these are tangible things donald trump has done. i remember what it was like to go into an airport during donald trump's muslim ban, the rhetoric he was using then and it's the same type of rhetoric he's using now. we're going to make that case and make it every single day from now until the end of election day. >> 2020 had a coalition of people across the spectrum politically including progressives and young people. how worried are you and let's not pretend we're on tv here. give me an honest answer. how worried are you about the loss of progressives or groups who are feeling this administration is not sort of putting itself forward on certain issue they care about, whether it's climate or whether it's the israel-hamas war, which continues to affect people, and the administration feels the administration is not taking a nuanced enough view on this. >> well, look, first of all these voters you mention, the

coalition joe biden and kamala harris put together, has been the largest coalition of voters in presidential history, they be the most at stake. young voters, voters of colors, minorities. we are under no illusions this is going to be a close election. when it comes to issues and accomplishments, joe bide has the largest investment in climate history. he's done marvelous work on the economy. when it comes to the israel-hamas situation he's approached it as commander in chief, which is in stark contrast to how any republican alternative would approach it. but, look, we have to double down and do the work. we have to commit. i think these voters know exactly what's at stake. when we talk about going near valley forge to deliver this speech, i think it's fitting because it's the place where our founder brought together a disorganized bunch of colognia militias to fight for our democracy, and that's exactly what we're going to have to do to fight for these constituencies you mention and

double down in this fight for our democracy. >> you're totally right some of these folks who are discertified with the biden administration do have the most to lose, and in fact would not necessarily be served by a trump administration, particularly people who are frustrated about this administration's handling of israel and hamas. i'm not sure how they think it would be better under a trump administration, but it's a real issue. you're telling me you've got to go out and talk to these people. but what will you actually say? if someone says to you 23,000 people are dead in gaza funded by american weaponry and given american support, some people are calling it -- it looks like a genocide. what's your answer? what would you say to them? >> i would say joe bide wakes up every day thinking about this issue and joe biden has approached this issue not from a political one but from the sper spective as commander in chief and from the outset of this

situation and has stayed steady and held a steady hand in foreign policy, something very little of the republican parties know about, and he approaches this. the other thing the president does and routinely tells us we have to engage with people even when they disagree on policy matters. but i want to be explicitly clear about this, that at the end of the day this election is a choice between somebody who has had four years to show us what they would do and has riffed away rights and freedoms, put us in a position where they're bragging about their rights and freedoms, women's right to choose and decide their own body or joe biden and kamala harris who are waking up every day thinking how they can put america first, and make lives for people in america a little more easier. and we have to do that. we have to build toward that progress. when it comes to hamas, it's not a political one. it's one about the safety of america, the safety of the world in a global standing, and, you know, that's simply it. and we would put that up against

anything that the republicans are doing, and joe biden and kamala harris' record on come economy here domestically and foreign policy related with everything that's going on. now is not a time to put someone back in office who had four years and fell asleep on the wheel and made a mockery of america on a global stage or any of the other republicans who are running who don't understand where half of these places are in the world. so, look, at the end of the day we're very confident about what this president and this administration have done for the american people, and when it comes to foreign policy there's no difference. >> good to talk to you tonight. thank you for being with us. principal deputy campaign manager for joe biden's re-election campaign. appreciate your time tonight. one more story for you tonight. republican presidential hopefuls not naming donald trump, less than two weeks out from the iowa caucuses. we'll tell you next. out from ta caucuses we'll tell you next.

with less than two weeks to go until the iowa caucus, the republican presidential candidates trailing donald trump are in the hawkeye state trying to move voters. in nikki haley'sclase trooez she's trying to cleanup her words after trying to mention slavery in questions about the civil war. this is her answer today. >> without question slavery was a part of the civil war. it goes without saying in south carolina. we know it. we hear about it in school, where we live. it's just a deep part of south carolina. we know that. i should have said slavery right off the bat. i took that as a given. >> okay. nikki haley's home state was the birthplace of the secession that sparked the nation's civil war over slavery, so her false framing over that is confusing. it also doesn't square with her actions when she was the governor of that state to remove the confederate battle flag from

the state capitol grounds after the deadly 2015 mass shooting at mother emmanuel ame church in charleston. nikki haley made that decision, a brave decision of learning of gunman dylan ruth's fixation with that emblem. vivek ramaswamy he claimed today while denying the existence of white supremacy that he has no clue who dylan ruff is. >> the closest you could find is jussie smollett. >> how could you cite when people like dylan roof exist? >> i don't know who that is. >> republicans showing little awareness of one of the deadliest racist massacres in the united states is jarring especially as the need grows for this nation to have more nuanced

conversations about race and about equality. and unless you think rivek rom swauly's embrace of right-wing talking points is an aberration, just listen to what he thinks about his latest endorsement. >> i anyhow know what, they hit me for it yesterday, but i'm proud of it. that i got steve king's endorsement in this race, someone who's actually a patriot. >> yeah, that steve king, the former iowa congressman who once baselessly claimed immigrants had, quote, caves the size of cantaloupes from smuggling drugs into this country, whose white nationalist rhetoric became so toxic his white national republican colleagues stripped him of his committee assignments. he found himself in an awkward face-off with a voter who thought he was too soft on trump. >> can i be honest with you? >> sure. >> okay.

for one, why haven't you gone directly after him? >> what do you mean gone directly after him? >> in my viewpoint you're going pretty soft on him. >> but what do you think so -- because we -- i've articulated all the differences time and time again on the campaign trail. i think there's just a narrative that -- i think the narrative is this. i think what the media wants is they want republican candidates to just kind of like smear him personally and kind of do that. that's just not how i roll. >> ron desantis would rather talk over an iowa voter than speakous forcefully against donald trump. hey, it's two weeks away. that's our show for tonight. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is up next. the art of the