hope in 2016. and new diplomacy with iran raise hopes but does it hurt relationrelations with one of os allies in the middle east. this is free solo climbing or scaling a mountain without a rope. to us non-climbers, the best free soloist in the world will tell us what it's like to climb a mountain with nothing but your bear hands and chalk. welcome to "consider this." new jersey governor chris christie with an historic win in a big blue state. and in virginia agency race it was a suspenseful night with a race between a democrat and a conservative republican. it's where tea partyers got top billing. we'll take a sneak peek of staying power tha

, and the seismic shift to the left. i'm joined which jeff warren, and bill snyder, professor at george washington university. they're both in our washington, d.c. studios, and here in studio with me is tom doherty, former senior adviser to george pataki. bill, let's start with you. chris christie, a big win. but when you look at the exit polls in a hypothetical match up to hillary clinton he would lose in his own state. >> it tells us that new jersey is still a blue state, and hillary clinton is still a very popular figure there. look, christie won, he was expected to win. he got a third of the democratic vote. that's what republicans can only dream of, a third of the democratic vote. republicans cuccinelli should have won virginia, why? because obama is very unoh popular in virginia. his popularity dropped by a

large number percentage of the vote from 2009 to today. in that situation with obama still unpopular in virginia it should have been an easy republican win. it wasn't because the tea party which is what cuccinelli is closely associated with just doesn't sell in a swing state like virginia. >> let's focus on christie for a second. he has captured the attention of the country. he knows it goes beyond new jersey. here he is on the last night of the campaign. >> you want someone who you elected to office to look you in the eye and tell you the truth even if you don't like the truth being told. that's the jersey way. i know in my heart that what is going to happen tomorrow night is going to send a message not only to everyone in new jersey. tomorrow night america is going to be watching new jersey. >> he calls himself a conservative. most of us see him as a moderate, most analysts do. is that the difference between

him and cuccinelli, does the moderate winning of the republican party gain some new traction today? >> i think just a little bit. but if you're talking about christie for president in 2016, i still think it's a huge long shot for obvious reasons. namely when you get him to the primary season for the republicans, he's going to seem way, way, way too liberal particularly on social issues for a lot of folks. he is a pretty unique character. just listening to that just now sort of thinking i'm listening to tony soprano. brash, catholic, tough guy, he has the vibrato which has played very well and comes interestingly against the backdrop of the state with very high taxes and exceedingly high poverty rate. >> that's true, tom.

>> i disagree with jim. christie is opposed to gay marriage. pro-life. i don't know what more conservative you want on the social issues. chris christie, the one thing he has done and done very well is what republicans throughout the country need to do. you need to reach out to democratic voters. you need to reach out to minority voters. tonight he's going to gather in excess of 40% of hispanic voters. just because he could lose to hillary possibly, the fact that he's competitive means he'll do well in nevada, possibly colorado, certainly in florida, places we've lost over the years that we need to win going forward. >> the exit polls showed that he had 40% of the hispanic, he seems to be doing well as george bush did in his best years and better than mccain and romney did. bill, i see you nodding your head, go ahead. >> what this election proofs proves he's

conservative. in a state like new jersey he has to be. but in mainstream conservative can win a blue state. new jersey. but a tea party conservative cannot win a southern swing state like virginia. that's the bottom line. >> right, is that the bottom line? that's what the republican party has to walk away-- >> bill is absolutely right. the tea party can win races in alabama. the tea party is having trouble winning in states in national elections we must-win to win the presidency. we're still--chris christie is a center is slightly right candidate. he's not center far right candidate. far right candidates cannot win elections in this country. >> antonio, when it comes to virginia there is going to be a penchant to make more out of this than there actually was. just a couple of days ago the "washington post," the esteemed "washington post" was showing us a poll that mcauliffe was 12 points ahead.

this is a race where you have a deeply flawed republican candidate with many establishment money folk staying to the side the likes of karl rove and american crossroads who assumed this guy was going to get his head handed to him by the much better funded terry mcauliffe. and in the end he would lose by only two or three points. i'm not necessarily sure that tells you that all is lost for the tea party in virginia. >> does he have a point? he was much worse funded but there is libertarian candidate who took a substantial percentage of the vote. if even half of the votes that the libertarian candidate got, if it went to the republican, if he got the majority of the votes he could have won the race. >> no question, i don't think the virginia race necessarily came down to tea party but look how fraughted democratic candidate was. this was the ultimate insider

and politician. >> household name. >> but again, you know, at a time when politics is about the--one of the reasons if you go back to the christie side of it is that people want people working with the other party. they don't want the ultimate insider. they don't want the backroom deal guy. the problem in virginia when you have the optics of radical republican, right wing tea party, independent voters shy away from that type of language. that in the end hurt ken cuccinelli. no what he's being called in the airwaves and in the end he was greatry outspend in the end. >> are a month ago we were talking about the death of the republican party, and then the obamacare website fiasco comes in, president obama and kathleen sebelius has not handled this well. they have not given us the numbers who had signed up.

president obama has backed down on his promise that people wouldn't lose their insurance plans, and would be able to stay with their own doctors. does the democratic party have to be worried seeing what's happened today? >> yeah, simply because in both new jersey and virginia obama's popularity has really sunk, specifically since four years ago just after he got elected. obama is not a popular figure right now. his national poll ratings are below 40% for the first time ever. he's unpopular in virginia. he's unpopular in new jersey. christie took advantage that have, ken cuccinelli could not do it. what it says to the democrats is that you're in trouble, democrats, but the only thing you have to rely on is the ability for republicans to commit suicide. >> the gallop tracking poll has president obama's approval rating down near his all-time low at 39%. jim, your reaction to what bill just said? >> well, i mean, the polling numbers right now are the polling numbers.

one thing that also helped ken cuccinelli despite the fact that the clintons showed up, obamas show you had in northern virginia in the last week or so the fact that a lot of money was thrown in for very tough ain't obam anti-obama as. that's one of the reasons would why obama will be in dallas. beating the drum against very long arizona. it's hard to predict how it's going to play out a year from now, and it's hard to figure out how it's going to play out three years from now. for the first time there are questions about president obama's competence. there has been ideological qualms, but no one is necessarily questioned his competence. right now that's on the table and that's why you see those ratings going south. that has got to make democrats who have some vague notions of some how winning back the house

and stronger notions of keeping the senate quite anxious. >> yes, i suspect the republicans are feeling a lot more comfortable about what could happen next year, tom, you're a new yorker. let's switch to the other big race of the night. the seismic shift to the left, why? >> i mean, it's funny when we talk about that. we have a six and a half to one enrollment in new york city. giuliani for two terms, and bloomberg for two terms. this is the way it should nobody new york city. this is a far left city. >> with semi republicans in charge. >> you had giuliani in charge because of the failures of the past democratic administrations. people had enough. and then bloomberg spent hundreds of millions of dollars to win an election. a popular bloomberg who i thought did a very good job managing the city barely wins

the election where he far out spent the democratic candidate. this is a far left city. it's not shocking that bill de blasio won. >> he's be an instant national figure. he epitomizes the whole new america that obama brought to power. he's of italian american dissent. his wife is african-american america , aformer lesbian activist. you can't get much more diversed that than. in addition he has put an issue on the agenda had a wil that wit attention , inequality, between the super rich like michael bloomberg and those just scraping by. the issue of inequality has been put on the agenda, and bill de blasio will make sure it stays there. >> he's talking about stopping the stop-and-frisk policy and all sorts of other things. the reality is over the past 20

years you have to acknowledge that giuliani and bloomberg has changed the city. it's a much safer place than 20 years ago and some people consider it the safest city in the country. >> as a new yorker, it's easy to say that de blasio's heart is in the right place, but will his policies be. they may be out of sync to what folks have for "law & order." he has alleged rampant constitutional abuses by that department, and i think that could cause him a little bit of trouble particular if there is an up tick in crime. when it comes to money he wants to do things like universal pre-k. that ain't going to happen. governor andrew coupl cuomo said you're not going to find the money in albany. and then his pals say i think we're owed $8 billion in retro give pay

raises? where is that going to come from. it will be a honeymoon that doesn't last that long. >> we appreciate you being with us tonight. as always. coming up, saudi rain i can't's former chief of intelligence, could we be at danger of losing our biggest ally in middle east. hermela. >> there is talk in iran where there is talk of lifting the four-year ban on social media. what do you think.

>> every morning from 5 to 9am al jazeera america brings you more us and global news than any other american news channel. find out what happened and what to expect. >> start every morning, every day, 5am to 9 eastern with al jazeera america.

al jazeera america... >>introduces... "america tonight". >>a fresh take on the stories that connect to you. >>grounded. >>real. >>unconventional. >>an escape from the expected. determining using some sort of subjective interpretation of their policy as to whether or not your particular report was actually abusive, because if it doesn't contain language that specifically threatens you directly or is targeted towards you specifically, they may not consider it abuse. they may consider it offensive. and in that case they just

recommend that you block that person. >> i don't want to minimise this, because i mean, there's some really horrible things that are on line, and it's not - it's not just twitter, what has happened through social media and the anonymity of the net is that you see websites, hate-filled websites targetting all sorts of groups, popping up. there has been a huge number of those that exist as well. what happens when social media uncovers unheard, fascinating news stories? >> they share it on the stream. >> social media isn't an after-thought, it drives discussion across america. >> al jazeera america's social media community, on tv and online. >> this is your outlet for those conversations. >> post, upload and interact. >> every night share

undiscovered stories. >> rigorous debate and peer review is critical to scientific process. but should it apply to those at large. it recently removed the public comment sections from beneath its articles. many have applauded the move against intertrolls and spammers who seek to de rail the conversation and discredit the science. but others see the move as overreaction to stifling the public discourse. and it's something that goes from popular science to major newspapers. editor of popular science, and

staff writer for slate magazine who wrote an article criticizing popular screen's decision. thank you for joining us. jacob, science and politics often intertwine. your online editor wrote this when they announced they were pulling the comment section. she said that commenters shape public opinion. public opinion shapes hubble shapes public policy. >> one was the rise of patrols and unpleasantness. and two, a sense internally and studies we reviewed that that kind of behavior really can have a detrimental affect on the public's understanding on science and puts a debate where it doesn't need to be, and lack of resources. given infinite resources we could have done something, but

if we couldn't responsebly patrol the comment section. then we shouldn't have it. >> what has been the response of the reeders? >> it has been very positive. we're not shutting off comment of all time. we're getting it from facebook, twitter. there are a different ways to get comment back to us. it's just not on the site itself. largely it's been positive. but some people feel shut out. >> you wrote that popular science was arrogant and treating their science as gospel, and they shouldn't have taken the comment section out but there was a study that found in effect uncivil comments could actually completely alter the perception people had of the science of the main science. so don't they have a point? >> yes, i think there may be a point there. i took a look at that study that the popular science editor referred to.

it didn't say, though, that study didn't say having no comments at all is better for science. it found when people were exposed to polite science, they come away with a less polarized understanding than if they see see--patrols an --trolls that sort of thing. anyone who has spent time on comment boards there are going to be people who are rude, illiterate and inherent, and i kind can find the importance of getting that off your page. but i feel that the comment sections are the best venue for people to hash out some of their misunderstanding and bringing in outside knowledge that's relevant to the piece that they're discussing. >> there could be learning, but the question is whether there is more unlearning as a result of the negativity here, than is the university of houston study where they looked at the issue

of immigration and they found that 53% of ones that allow anonymous comments ended up being--that 53% of the comments where anonymity was allowed ended up being negative whereas 20% of the comments that you had to identify yourself. is that the way to go? not allowed anonymity. >> i think that's the way a lot of them are going. youtube had notoriously the most disgusting comments. the way they addressed it was linking it to your account. and you could be banned if you're abusive or repeatedly saying things that are offensive. others require the use of facebook accounts to leave comments.

i think anonymity allows people to say things undercover that they don't have to own up to, but getting rid of it entirely is counterproductive. as much as the trolls and insults can detract from the debate, you can also have people who come in there and point to other scientific findings that were not mentioned. you can have original sources speak up and add things to the story. >> there are positive contributions even from anonymous sites, why not find a way to moderating? is it too much money? is it too much time? >> ideally we would have found another way to do it. when you look at cross publishing, there are other ways to do it, the gawker body of science spent millions of dollars an building kinja. we didn't have millions of dollars and several years.

we had to immediately act. >> you could have someone check the comments as they came in. >> the uncivil ones. >> in theory yes, but you have 15 stories a day. many of which in our case are written to be points of reference for the future. so let's today a year old one about contraception, let's say, this actually happen, a piece about contraception. comments down below that began to write the pseudoscientific stuff how condoms don't prevent very nearal disease. misinformation and we didn't have enough active commenters to come in and say this is wrong, dangerous information that you might on a parenting site. and we as an online staff of six don't have enough resources to be tracking down comments from a year ago or two years ago or ten years ago to make sure that that

kind of dangerous information is getting flagged in some way. for us, if we can't--if the comments aren't supporting our main goal which is to produce the best science journalism possible, it was better not to have them at all. >> jacob we found this comment in the comment section of "the new york times" article about popular science's decision. using michael jeffries said i'm inclined to think that no public discussion is about as useless as low quality public discourse. what do you think about that? >> it's a very smart question. i think in our case the idea of sort of discourse that brings out new learnings, and refines the science, i understand that sort of this idea that that could be the case. but with a magazine like popular science where scientists are being made popular to the layman. it's not an academic journal. we're, in fact, trying to simply

translate science for everybody else, we figure if we just can't--if we can't bring the necessary resources to make sure we're doing that as well as we can then we think it really is worse to have bad comments than itself to have no comments at. >> you will it has been described as an online inhibition effect because of their anonymity, they can say bye bye to any constraint on their behavior and throw those bombs out there. if it's going to hurt people, isn't it better not to have it at all. >> for very small sites that can't afford to do any moderation of their comment section, you don't want someone putting up dangerous information and you don't see it for three days, a week, and you just don't have the timing to through that. on the other hand i would argue that popular science even nor more

than an academic journal has a responsibility--i won't say responsibility, i think it would be wonderful if popular science were a place where people, where they would put in the investment required to build a strong community of people who could make intelligent comments, of people who could ignore the trolls. there is a saying where we have a comment section on slate. i love reading the comments on my own stories because i get a sense whether i've effectively communicated. >> if they upset you. >> they're upsetting on a regular basis. on the other hand, once in a while you get really useful information there. i wrote a story one time about efforts to build the hover board. a real life hover board. i had a researcher in france who was working on hover boards and working on doing this and comment on the comment section identify himself and linked his work and i learned about a new technology that way. i would love it if popular science did put in the little bit of effort to do some

moderation, maybe get your own community to help you out by flags posts that were offensive, and have a great comment section. >> i point we're not doing away with comments. to meish, the idea of comments blow an article is a vestige of the premedia era. they were invented by publishers to drive up page use. we decided there were better venues, twitter, facebook and the facebook conversation that went on got over 200 comments one of the best most spirited discussions i've seen yet, and nobody called each other bad names. >> as you said, it does generate page views. there is a sacrifice for people who decide not to have public comment because they'll have fewer people going to those website. but as james of the atlantic said, he doesn't allow people to go on his articles and post comments because they get ruined by bullies, hot heads and trolls. let's hope those people stop posting. thank you both for coming in and

having this important discussion. straight ahead, what would possess someone to scale the side of a skyscraper with no safety equipment whatsoever. we asked one of the preeminent free soloists in the world. >> they say they did it because they were trying to protect my children. they didn't protect my children, they traumatized them. >> fault lines examines why so many native american kids are caught in the child welfare system. >> any time they see a social worker its like seeing a police officer. the immediate response is, "they're here to take my kids". >> from the indian perspective who sees this in terms of history, this is as about as adversarial as it gets.

>> al jazeera america is a straight-forward news channel. >> its the most exciting thing to happen to american journalism in decades. >> we believe in digging deep. >> its unbiased, fact-based, in-depth journalism. >> you give them the facts, dispense with the fluff and get

straight to the point. >> i'm on the ground every day finding stories that matter to you. >> in new orleans... >> seattle bureau... >> washington... >> detroit... >> chicago... >> nashville... >> los angeles... >> san francisco... >> al jazeera america, take a new look at news. >> today cashing in on the gender divide over success. 30 years after "mr. mom" showing the husband and the wife switching the role of the breadwinner we may not have evolved than you might think. her success made her partner feel worse about himself than her failures did.

his ego took a hit when his female partner succeed. women's self esteem was uneffected either way. the male competitiveness was published. it is a growing issue. women in their 20s who work full time were making more than men. that had never happened before, but we'll see an increasing number of couples where the women make more than men. on average women make significantly less than men nationwide but the percentage of wives who make more than their husbands have shot up 18% 25 years ago to 28% in 2011. with that kind of progress men have to grow a thicker skin. maybe they should just chill out and enjoy the extra money that's coming in.

coming up, what is it like to climb thousands of feet up a mountain without a rope? the world's best free solo crimer joins us next.

>> audiences are intelligent

>> what's it like to scale a mountain with nothing separating you from sinner death but chalk and a lot of courage? alex is widely considered the best free soloist in the world. that means no ropes, no safety harness, no real gear other than that chalk to keep his fingers dry to scape the wall. he's 5'11", 160 pounds, but he has reached heights no one has before, and he's back on the move for a new thrilling challenge. his popularity has also climbed. he he is featured on the cover of the december issue of our outside" magazine. we're pleased to be joined by alex from francisco.

jimmy has also climbed mount everest, guys, he joins us from san francisco. i'm safe saying we've never had anybody as brave or as crazy as you guys are on our show. it's great to have you both with us. alex, watching films of you climbing is breathtaking. how do you manage it when i have problems managing it just watching you. >> there is not so much adrenaline involved. when i'm in that situation i've put in a lot of preparation. i climb because i want to. >> yes, you said it's easy not to be scared if you know you're not going to fall. but how do you feel so confident despite all that training. i know you've been doing this since you were a little kid for hours and hours every day practice, all kinds of situations, but you face all

these variables when you're up there. not just basically a 90-degree but sometimes worse than that mountain that you're climbing. you've got wind, rocks that can fall. crumbling sides of the mountain. you even have a mouse in the middle of a climb. how do you deal with that all? >> well, those kinds of conditions you experience climbing with a rope all the time. because i'm climbing nearly every day with normal partners with ropes i've experienced the full range of conditions on a daily basis so i'm prepared for that kind of thing when i go out a rope. when you're climbing a lot, you get used to it. >> jimmy, you're on ropes filming this guy. are you scared watching him? >> there are moments that i'm pretty nervous. but i've worked with alex a good amount. i have a lot of faith in his ability. >> now, how do you get up on the

wall with your gear? >> it depends on what kind of shoot, but oftentimes i'm working with a few different rigors. i've spent a lot of time climbing in a lot of areas that alex is climbing. and so i have some familiarity, and a lot of times you have to have that familiarity in order to plan for a shoot. >> but it must be tough having to carry even if you do have the ropes and other equipment, you're carrying a lot of stuff with those cameras. >> yeah, i am. it's kind of like alex says. you kind of had a bit wait to the things that you do, and you carry. i'm very used to carrying a lot of camera equipment. >> i'm sure, alex, i know you're looking at expanding your horizons. you're looking at going after one of the tallest buildings i soon, and to have a steve show around it.

what building are you looking to climb. >> i evaluate urban climbing, it has to be something that captures the imagination. you have to see it and think wow, that's something i want to climb. >> keep us posted where you end up climbing. jimmy, i want to ask you the chicken or the egg question. i know climbing is second nati e to alex. are you filming these guys because they're going to the extremes. or are these guys going to the extremes because you're filming them? >> i think it depends. it could be both. it could be either. you know, ultimately i think what alex does is really inspiring, and you know, they're not like normal athletes that we think about where you can watch them in the stadium or in a court and have love a lot of

people watch the human potential. a big part of that is what i'm inspired to capture and share with people. >> it really seems like alex goes well beyond what would seem humanly possible. now we've got a social media question for you. let's go to hermela for that. >> alex, how do you get health insurance and do you have life insurance? >> oh, i do not have life insurance, a and high healt do you have life insurance. >> i do not have life insurance and my health insurance is bear bones. >> it would seem the obsession with climbing might be the ultimate pre-condition. >> yes, it might be. i've heard you say that you would train for three hours a day, six days a week since you were a child. what kind of training do you do when you face-- >> it's not fair to call it training. as a kid i just called it playing. it was just fun, a big game to

swing around and holds and enjoy. >> now when you go up against some of these mountains that nobody else has climbed and the way you climb them, what do you do to prepare? do you climb them with ropes first? >> offense times i'll climb the root route with ropes so i know the climb. most of the time i prepare like that beforehand. >> and what about strength preparation. >> my day-to-day life is climbing so i have a pretty good measure of my own fitness. >> jimmy, what is the relationship between the climber and the photographer when you're in these very dangerous situations and you're thousands of feet up in these mountains? >> well, there certainly needs to be a strong level of trust. as a photographer and a filmmaker you don't want to be a liability. and so i think the athlete has to also trust the photographer and the filmmaker as well, and having a background in climbing you kind of know where their

head is at and what they need and what might get in the way. >> alex, you have reached new heights, no pun intended but you've gotten major sponsors, a lot of fame, you've been on "60 minutes," but you still live out of a van throughout the year, why? >> i live in the van when i'm in the u.s. when i'm traveling overseas i camp. the van allows flexibility with traveling, good conditions, climbing areas. at important part of climb something going to the rocks. that changes with the weather so i have to stay mobile. >> alex is considered the best free soloist in the world, is he an unique situation? >> yes. i would say so. >> pretty simple. pretty simple answer. >> yes. >> alex, where do you think this will take you? how long do you think you can continue to do this, and really risk your life as often as you

do? >> well, i mean, i would say that i'm not really risking my life on this kind of thing. i don't climb anything that i feel that i'm grabbing o gambling on, i only climb where i'm feeling comfortable with. i'll climb until i'm no longer motivated. >> how do your parents feel about this? >> they're supportive. they trust me to use good adjustment and follow my passion. >> it's incredible to watch what you do, and i encourage people to look you guys up and see more images of what you've done because it really is phenomenal, and i hope you keep us posted on what building you do climb, and we can talk about it when that happens. alex, jimmy, i appreciate you coming on the show and stay safe out there. >> the show may be over but the conversation continues on our