mark: i am mark halperin. john: i'm john heilemann. "with all due respect" to mark cuban, you are no longer the biggest character in dallas. ♪ >> good boy. happy belated rosh hashanah. the incredible, bilingual trump and the $18 trillion man. the first anti-trump tv ad has been unveiled by the club, and they plan to spend more than a airing it in iowa. million dollars but if you don't live in the hawkeye state, this is what that particular 1% will see.

>> which presidential candidate supports higher taxes, national health care, and the wall street bailouts? it's donald trump. mr. trump: in many cases i probably identify as a democrat. >> mr. trump likes to play himself as "mr. tell it like it is." but, he has a record and it is very liberal. he is just playing us for chumps. trump, just another politician. john: mark, our patented countdown clock shows we are just a short time away from the gop debate. i want to ask you the very question you raised, can trump be stopped? that was what the piece was called. the question i have for you is -- can trump be stopped, and if so, how? mark: i don't think he'll be stopped tomorrow night. they're all sorts of people on the conservative side, establishment side who wanted

trump stopped. who look for every piece of potential data that suggests he is going down. i think people are glad that club for growth is going up -- a group that recently asked trump for $1 million -- it's not going to bring him down. republican strategists think two may bring him down -- one is saying that he is just like any other politician, and two, saying that he is a liberal. john: i like that you called it coincidentally a request for $1 million. donald trump does not agree with you about any coincidence there. i don't agree that calling donald trump not a real conservative is the way to go. he has this broad ideological coalition, as "the new york times" reported a few weeks ago. he has got moderates establishment people, tea party , people, i don't think the ideological route is the way to do it. it's something that he will do to himself.

mark: the forces that have done research on focus groups. they agree with that point, saying trump is a liberal does not peel away his support. it's going to be hard to take it -- take aim down. the worries some republicans is -- have is that by the time the field gets whittled, trump has won some early contests and kept that broad coalition. john: what will bring him down is if he is shown to just not know enough of the presidency to qualify for the commander-in-chief threshold. mark: donald trump the destroyer is having a rally, literally, on the deck of a battleship tonight in los angeles. the aptly named uss iowa. we will be looking to see if he sounds at all like a conventional presidential candidate. because, last night in dallas, trump had a big rally. and something caught our ear. he showed some flashes of sounding almost like a normal candidate. now, don't get me wrong, most of the hour-long speech was pure and distilled -- un-distilled

trump. but listen to the subtleties of these lines that make it seem like donald trump may be changing ever so slightly. mr. trump: we are a dumping ground for the rest of the world. we are a dumping ground. we have to straighten out our act. we are going to have a great country. we're going to have a greater border. we're going to have a border that is a real border. the world rips us off, and they all hate us. china hates us, russia hates us, mexico hates us, japan hates us. everybody hates us and they are all winning. i will make it so we are doing better with these countries. will actually have a better relationship. obamacare, we're going to replace it and get something good. repeal it, replace it, get something great. our vets are our greatest people. we're going to take care of our vets. we're going to fight hard. we're going to negotiate tough. we're going to do fantastically well. we're going to put our people back to work. you are going to be, if i'm

elected president, so proud of your country again. [applause] mark: we know trump so far has been a successful unconventional candidate. john, do you see him getting better at the candidacy in any conventional way? john: i don't know if he is getting better. i do think there are flashes of conventionality, as you said. when i watched that speech i was amazed at the number of things that i felt like i had heard before. that is a standard practice of most politicians on the stump. trump's is nowhere near that. but, you are starting to hear some repetition and some phrases and themes that any other republican candidate would easily voice, especially stuff about obamacare. he is a little bit more edging into conventionality. but, i still think the main attraction is the unconventional stuff. mark: without a doubt. look, they are never going to try and make trump not be trump. but i thought, for a wild, that -- for a while that if he shows

, more discipline, putting a few more lines in there, that some people not currently in this coalition could seize on. he could broaden his appeal. maybe that is what is going on here. trump is a smart guy. as he goes out and gives speeches, he may be honing it, although most of it was undistilled. john: i used to compare it back in 1986 when pat buchanan used to speak, comparing him to the grateful dead. playing "dark star." the song sounded basically the same, but you hear these tiny differences, tiny bits of the variance. i think trump could head more in that direction, where the greatest hits are still there, but some things are a little bit new and more conventional at the same time. today, john ellis, bush's super pac, is out with a new tv ad in iowa, new hampshire, and soon south carolina that promotes his record as governor of florida. >> the state was florida, the governor was jeb bush.

proven conservative, real results. jeb. john: at the same time, jeb's official campaign shows a video of him speaking spanish and his wife speaking english. [speaking spanish] >> we go to church every sunday, we have celebrations with the family. we keep our traditions. at the end, it is just as, -- it is just us our faith, friends , and family. john: mark, in the past couple months, jeb bush has been beaten bloody by this campaign. do the messages in these

ad/videos constitute the road to recovery for this man? mark: this is not an audible reaction to trump. this is exactly what the strategists have been planning in his campaign all along. they coordinated before the separation of the two entities. the idea was the super pac would tell people about the jeb bush gubernatorial record in florida as a conservative reformer with results, and that the campaign would focus on his personal story. if there is a path for jeb bush, and i think there is, they're going to have to burn these messages in. because, everybody agrees that voters still don't know that jeb bush was a conservative governor with a lot of success, and he has this family story. john: there are a lot of other strategists and campaigns. you look at what has happened with jeb. they say, the problem isn't that jeb isn't seen as a conservative, the problem is jeb. the problem is how he has

performed in the stump. the problem is he seems like a candidate who doesn't really want to be president. that is not something that any number of tv ads is going to solve. mark: to go back to our first topic. at some point, when jeb bush is more established, that super pac will have to take out some of their rivals, including trump. not yet though. john: coming up, round two of the republican debate. we go to this videotape after this word from our sponsors. ♪ ♪

mark: everyone is excited for the cnn debate. we figured the best way to prepare for it is to watch the tape of the previous game, just like they do in the nfl to figure out what works and what didn't for the players on the field. let's start by watching how rand paul went after donald trump. rand paul: the republican party has been fighting against the

single-payer system for a decade. i think you're on the wrong side of this if your are going for single-payer. mr. trump: you're having a hard time hearing me tonight. john: when you watch that, what do you learn from it? mark: that you have to take him on in the flow of the debate. i think both in terms of the moderators wanting to exhibit control, and in terms of trump's ability to lash back at the rules, take them on when you're confident that moderators will give you time to get out the last word. in this case, trump got the last word. i don't think rand paul laid a glove on him. john: there is a stature gap in terms of rand paul, who seems small compared to donald trump. if someone is going to take him on effectively here it will have to be someone a little bigger on that stage, someone who poses a more significant challenge to him. someone like ben carson, if he decided to go that route. john kasich or something else. i do know they will, but it has to be someone that can go

toe-to-toe with trump. mark: the one exception is carly fiorina. i think the cnn moderators will give into the bloodlust that a of the media people have that , they want to see a trump-fiorina face-off. john: let's look at the breakout stars of the first debate, which is john kasich, owning an unpopular decision that he made as governor. john kasich: i had an opportunity to bring resources back to ohio, to do what? to treat the mentally ill. 10,000 of them sit in our prisons. it costs $22,500 a year to keep them in prison. i would rather give them medication so they could live a decent life. medicaid is growing at one of the lowest rates in the country. finally we went from $8 billion in the hole to $2 billion in the black. we have cut $5 billion in taxes and we have grown 350,000 jobs. [applause] john: mark, there is no doubt part of the reason that went down so well is because it was in cleveland, ohio, john kasich's state.

if you have a choice between embracing, hanging a lantern on your problems, or disowning the previous stance, this is the right way to go. i think it worked for kasich and it can work for others. mark: it worked stylistically because he was comfortable. he wasn't a deer in the headlights, he wasn't backpedaling or trying to evade. there are people like walker, rubio and bush who can learn , from him. when they are pressed, they look less comfortable than he did. john: you have to be less sheepish. if you're going to do it you have to be like "yeah man, i did that thing. here is why i did it, let's agree to disagree." that is the only way to go, i think. finally, it wasn't all fireworks in cleveland. here's how one of the most soft-spoken candidates, ben carson, now on the rise in every poll, made it work. ben carson: the most important thing is having a brain and to be able to figure things out and

learn them very rapidly. [applause] experience comes from a large number of different arenas. america became a great nation early on not because it was flooded with politicians, but because it was flooded with people who understood the value of personal responsibility, hard work, creativity, innovation. and that is what will get us on the right track now, as well. [applause] john: mark, i will confess when i saw that in cleveland, i thought it was ineffective and low-energy. i wrote so at the time. i watch it just now, i still feel the same way. i find it baffling in some ways that dr. carson has risen on the back of that performance. what say you? mark: carson has his own unique style. i think if any other candidate on that stage spoke in that style, they would get absolutely panned. i think there is all this debate

and you and i engaged in some of the earlier about why trump is doing so well. carson in some ways is even more of a mystery to those in politics. i hear from it all the time, "i don't get it." i don't think anybody else can borrow that style. john: can you imagine if jeb bush, another "low energy" candidate decided to go that route? mark: it would be campaign-ending. john: brock 'n roll -- david brock will tell us about his new book about hillary clinton and the clinton phenomena after the break. ♪

♪ mark: it's like footage from an old-time baseball game. our guest is david brock, whose new book is called "killing the messenger." the right-wing plot to derail

hillary and hijack your government data. thank you for coming back on the show. i'll ask you a question that is not about the book to start off. you have a group that is called "correct the record," who sent an e-mail to the "huffington post" attacking bernie sanders, linking him to hugo chavez, suggesting that he was sympathetic to hezbollah. senator sanders came back with this statement, saying "it's the kind of onslaught i expected to see from the koch brothers." how do you respond to that? david: we are doing due diligence on secretary clinton's primary opponents. our job is to help elect hillary clinton. you are in the media, we move a a lot of information in the press around about republicans and about hillary clinton, a -- and her democratic primary opponents. i don't think there is anything

new or surprising about this. john: senator sanders did not say a negative word about hillary clinton so far. hillary clinton has not said something negative about senator sanders. why compare him to these unsavory folks? david: there are three issues from economic inequality to reigning in wall street that both senator clinton and senator sanders are campaigning on successfully. you're going to have to draw some contrasts. john: do you think bernie sanders resembles hugo chavez? david: the research doesn't say that, no. john: but by raising the comparison, it seems you are saying that. david: the research is fact-based, people can look at it and weigh it. john: is that the beginning -- do you see it as your role to do the dirty work for the clinton campaign that they don't want to do against bernie sanders directly? david: this is no dirty work-- john: hugo chavez is pretty dirty work. david: it's just the process. it's a democratic process that

we are going to go through. john: what is the contrast you are drawing with e-mail? david: we are pointing out parts of senator sanders' record. most of my book is about the media coverage of hillary clinton. part of our function, i think, sometimes is to do the media's homework for them. we supply research and facts. mark: what is the contrast? you are saying, what about bernie sanders compared to hillary clinton with that e-mail? david: i am for greater scrutiny by the press of everybody in the race at the level they are doing to hillary clinton. bernie sanders is doing well in the primaries. i don't hear much coverage of his substantive record. where's the investigation of donald trump's finances? john: the last time you were on this show -- mark was talking to

you about hillary clinton's e-mails. you said "hillary clinton handled her e-mails perfectly." that was the quote. secretary clinton has now apologized for her handling of the e-mails. my question is whether you still believe that she handled her e-mails perfectly, even when she seems to admit that she did not? david: that was either day 2 or 3 of what i consider to be a phony scandal. we are now six months into it. i can speak for myself. i do know about others, but i never thought we would be six months into it and still be talking about e-mail, e-mail, e-mail. there are two answers. substantively, it is clear she followed the law. the department of justice now agrees with me. she followed precedent. she was transparent. here is what i was wrong about -- what was not perfect, was the politics of it. as i said, my book tries to predict a lot of the republican playbook. but even this would have

surprised me. that they would have been able to milk this for six months. clearly i didn't think it would be as successful as they happen and actually raising concerns that are real-- john: but think what you just said, that it was not handled right is the politics. are you saying that the campaign mishandled this issue in terms of communication? david: no, i'm meaning she handled it on the substance, and when i was wrong about was a political judgment i made when i said it was perfect. i didn't realize it would be handled in this way. clearly she thought it was easier to use the one device that wasn't the best choice. mark: i'm desperate to talk to you about your book. but i still want to pin down this thing you said about bernie sanders. i agree that he needs more scrutiny. all the candidates do. i agree that he has gotten less than hillary clinton. simple question, let a civil -- love a simple answer. what was that message you are trying to send about bernie sanders?

what are those lists of names, those associations, what do you want people to take away from that? david: mark, when a democratic strategist talks about their strategy, nothing drives me crazier. i'm not going to talk about the framing or the thought behind it. john: you said the point of it was to make a contrast. what is the contrast? david: i am laying the facts out and you can make your conclusion. john: you're putting this research out there -- i asked you to provide a contrast, what is that contrast? so clinton is "a" and sanders is "b." what is a and b? david: i'm not going to characterize it. mark: bernie sanders is upset by that e-mail. do you want to apologize to him? david: this is just standard opposition research. mark: in the book you write about what happens with your party's nominee, john kerry, the swift-boating.

you claimed that he didn't defend himself enough. is it possible that you will look back at this. in the clinton campaign and you will say that clinton have not defended yourselves in on this e-mail issue? david: we have done everything we can to defend her on those e-mails. some of it is not breaking through. it is an uphill climb. it is a hard slog. we are doing everything that we can. john: you write about media organizations about animus towards the clintons, and there has been forever. you were a part of that for a little bit when you were on the other side of the isle. you say she can be a unifying figure. why, if there is so much institutional animus, if she is president of the u.s., are we not in for more bitterness and vitriol, the kind that you diagnose inhabiting in the last 20 years? david: i'm talking about the endless talk within the new york times. i believe she is a unifying figure for the democratic party.

she also has a history of working across the aisle with republicans on certain issues in the senate. she is the clear progressive champion for the democratic party. that is why i write in the book that i don't necessarily see so much logic in a significant primary challenge to her. she has been there on these issues. i'm a book about this 20 years ago about her passionate progressive advocacy. you know the story. way back. john: hard to imagine a world where the new york times and the conservative hate machine are backing out and giving her time to govern. david: i just hope we get some fair coverage. john: david brock, thank you. the book is called "killing the messenger." the right-wing plot to derail hillary and hijack your government. we will be right back. david: thanks a lot. john: thank you. ♪

♪ john: tune in tomorrow, everyone.

we have a one-hour special at the reagan library in california. mark: until tomorrow, thanks for watching. we will see you from california. sayonara.

emily: salesforce kicks off to dream force with a big data and at -- some unconventional partnerships that have some new investors talking. ♪ emily: i'm emily chang, this is "bloomberg west". coming up, then a venture capitalist sounds the alarm on a tech bubble. plus, snapchat discovered a new revenue stream. and nasa's plan to send humans to mars. salesforce's