mark: i'm mark halperin. john: and i'm john heilemann. "with all due respect" to lindsey graham, whose polling numbers are -- well, let's just say there is nowhere to go but up. was i supposed to say something? ♪ john: stick around for more of that later in the show. but first we have a new bloomberg politics national poll, with findings about how americans feel about the only thing that's been in news from past six days, and that is isis and what to do about it. you will notice there is often

the traditional split between democrats and republicans, as they often are divided on a lot of things. but also surprising areas of agreement. let's start with the biggest question, whether the u.s. stood -- u.s. should send troops to fight isis? the country is split down the middle, 44% to say yes, 45% say no. taking a look at the partisan breakdown. the polarization is so much the driving teacher. democrats overwhelmingly say no, republicans overwhelmingly say yes. mark, what is this to the likelihood of the u.s. muster the ability to do this? mark: the country is surprisingly divided. many saying we should send troops as not. the republicans overwhelmingly supported. jeb bush for the first time aggressively saying yes. the republican party is headed in that direction, but it's still a country divided.

john: it's hard to imagine a country split this evenly getting to the point where it sends troop into the conflict. mark: it's easy to say yes without the specifics. what is holding back even some republicans are the details. how many, what is the mission, how does it work out. this number shows you what republicans are headed in that direction. john: one assumes without taking any partisan point of view, that if you put actual numbers to this, the likelihood that it will change is the yes number going down and the no number going up. mark: this is a national poll of adults what he thought about the possibility of the u.s. a military coalition with russia to fight isis? something very much on the table now as the french and russians meet next week. good idea? 53% of adults. but idea, 35%. let's look at the partisan breakdown, it defies the normal partisan pattern.half of democrats think it's a good idea. 60% of republicans think it's a good idea.

why is there bipartisan unity on this? john: this is odd. one of our pollsters said when you get a result like this, we checked the numbers. there are so many -- recheck the numbers. super surprising in the context of the world b has come to play as a giant bogeyman on the world stage. now feelingat we are no that we should work with him, it tells you how fearful people are of isis. they recognize this will only the one with everyone in the coalition. -- only be won with everyone in the coalition. mark: public opinion drives policy. you might see more public discussion about what is going on behind the scenes, which is a lot of u.s.-russian viagra -- -- u.s.-russian dialogue. john: here is number three. this important question -- what would be the best approach to deal with syrian refugees?

obviously been a huge issue of dispute and debate in american politics. this may be the most newsmaking finding in the fall. 53% overall say do not accept any more syrian refugees for the targeting. 28% say we should accept more refugees without any religious screening whatsoever. ing only christian refugees, which is basically the ted cruz posture. let's look at the partisan split. we are back to the more traditional partisan split. 69% of republicans citing no more refugees. only 1/3 of democrats have that posture. even on the accept with religious screening, you don't even have many democrats on that. this gives you the weakness of the case for morton syrian refugees. mark: you wonder why republican politicians support passionately bringing in refugees, saying at a minimum a halt on bring them in. 70% of republicans say don't

accept any. theseprise, you have all republican governors and democrats driven by this. and the overall mood of the country saying we write now need -- we at least need a pause or a ban. john: this is the electorate ted cruz is appearing -- is appealing to fight seeking a federal ban. it's a political maneuver, putting a ban on all three refugees except for christians. that is how small the supporters for that position. you may not be playing a winning hand there. this evaluation will depend on whether you are a half classical kind of person. we asked whether they think islam is inherently violent or inherently peaceful? close to 1/3 said inherently violent. butthat great of a number, the fact that 54% say inherently peaceful is a surprising. -- 64%.

3/4 of democrats say it's internal -- inherently peaceful. the fact that the gap is not overwhelming i considered to be encouraging. we have seen the poll findings on this where the gaps have been bigger between the parties. john: particularly findings that had republicans with this number being smaller. maybe because i am a glass half-full kind of guy. in this environment i find this encouraging. especially in the republican side. there has been so much skepticism and islam a phobia, so much bashing of islam and attacks on muslims from a lot of conservative politicians. argee are unknown -- are a lr number of republicans who acknowledge a problem in the string of islam, but not inherent to the religion. that is encouraging. finally we have the fifth question. we asked americans how confident they are that the u.s. has done enough to protect the homeland. the survey says -- a blank screen is what the

survey says. i will go to my card to answer the question. 48% say that we have done enough, 46% say that country has not done enough. looking at the partisan split, we're back to the traditional polarity. 63% of republicans are not confident, they think barack obama has not done enough. 62% of democrats are mostly common -- mostly competent, a mirror image of the polling. an expected outcome on this question. mark: it's probably based that a lot of republicans don't like barack obama. we asked jeb bush, is the home and safe? he said yes, but it can be safer. that will be the view of a lot of republicans. this is where isis meets the question of immigration and these refugees. the question of whether the current posture of the country is safe, given the confluence of those two things. we will see a lot of debate about homeland security in the

campaigns, particularly on the report inside where a lot of people don't feel safe. donald trump has talked about terrorists coming across the border in a way that a lot of people are riled up. john: there has been a big schism in the party in terms of surveillance, in terms of privacy, civil liberties. people like rand paul who have argued that there should be reform. we have seen this debate come out in a vivid way. you will see it come out even more going forward. mark: you can read more about these poll results on a bloomberg politics.com. we had a piece analyzing these results. more from our poll coming up tomorrow morning on bloomberg politics.com. i will talk about it on the show as well. a lot of the presidential race. when we come back, senator lindsey graham, and is president obama creating problems for democrats in talking about isi? plus, the news of the day and politics. all that when we come back in 60 seconds. ♪

mark: america and its presidential candidates having a big debate over the question of u.s. military involvement to deal with isis. today at the citadel, jeb bush made his most direct call yet for sending more american troops to the middle east to fight isis. not the only candidate who has taken a position. republican residential candidates are engaging quite a fight of their own over who is the most hawkish on both defense and intelligence issues. john, it is not the case that the attacks in paris have made that hawkishness is the winning political hand in the party rather than talking about the liberties and restraint. --about civil liberties and

restraint. john: for anything else. i don't know if it's the winning hand, but it's the upper hand right now. the changes so dramatic. it was about a week ago when donald trump was on stage in milwaukee saying if russia wants to go obama isis, let them take care of it. that was his posture. nephews of onstage so you, "i want to bomb the crap out of isis." that is a symbolic of how much the debate has turned in these seven days. trump always bellicose in a totally different way. john: jeb bush yesterday talking our interview about ted cruz and about marco rubio and their failure to support going after syria, authorizing a strike against them. various attacks on ted cruz when he supported civil liberties, when he spoke on behalf of edward snowden. the campaigns are looking at each other and saying, toughness is the order of the day. marco rubio missed votes.

that is been an issue in the past. that has not gained much traction. not when he misses votes were meetings or committee hearings on intelligence, you can bet that the president and other candidates will pay more attention to it. anything in a context of national security is a bigger deal. john: they are stuck with the positions that they have. when we started the campaign, rand paul's brand of isolationism or severe restraint, people thought might be a big market of that in the republican party a year ago. it turns out there wasn't that big of a market before this and after this. mark: it will be interesting to see pressure on the candidates to be more specific about what boots on the ground means. john: as with any war, it is usually accompanied by a war of words. today the scrutiny is on language used by president obama and john kerry. first, the president in the philippines today, charges that he was a little too partisan with republicans trying to halt

the flow of syrian refugees in the u.s. pres. obama: these are the same folks that often times suggest they are so tough that just talking to putin were staring down isil or using additional rhetoric is going to solve the problems. apparently they are scared of widows and orphans coming in to the human state -- to the united states of america as part of our tradition of compassion. first they were worried about the press being too tough on entering the debate. now they are worried about three-year-old orphans. that doesn't sound very tough to me. kerry,hen there was john who at the american embassy in paris, got into a little trouble for saying the terrorists who attacked charlie hebdo had a quote -- had a "rationale" for that violence. sec. kerry: there is something

different about what happened from charlie hebdo, and i think everyone would feel that. there was a sort of ridiculous rise focus -- particularized focus and perhaps legitimacy -- not legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow. it's like, okay, they are really angry because of this or that. tried toretary kerry clean up his comments in washington today. sec. kerry: religion, ideology, politics, economic is advantage, or personal edition that justifies the slaughter of unarmed civilians. the bombing of public pieces or indiscriminate violence toward innocent men, women, and children in such atrocities can never be rationalized, and we can never allow them to be rationalized. barack obama and john

kerry have been getting hammered for these comments. in obama's case, for being too partisan, and in kerry's case, for being too sloppy with his words. what are they actually creating problems for in the democratic party, and if so, what kind of problems? mark: they are crating problems for themselves with republicans. the are creating problems for democrats. it's harder for democrats to associate themselves with the administration's substantive policies on refugees and combating isis when they are engaged in behavior that is their hallmark. president obama being partisan, he sometimes is. acknowledge he is showing his frustration. john kerry has a history of speaking imprecisely on matters of national security. they just can't do it now. it's grading problems for them and democrats. john: obama's lines were ones that were said two weeks ago in a domestic context when he

was talking about the republicans. great line when talking about america. john kerry, you can get away with those at a brookings institution seminar. when you have been president for seven years, and secretary of state, you have to know when you are abroad at this moment, it's different. mark: up next, we will talk foreign policy with former united nations official nancy soderbergh right after this. ♪

john: our first to get -- our

first guest tonight are two guests. the united nations official during the clinton and ministration. she joins us from washington. the number of the armed services committee. thank you both. nancy, we have a new bloomberg poll asking americans how they feel about the question of syrian refugees coming into this country. we have 53% saying that the policy should be "do not accept any more refugees." i believe you disagree with that posture, please explain why. nancy: first of all we taken only 1500. not taking any more means we are essentially not taking any. that is a very shortsighted policy. after paris, people want to be reassured we are going to fully screen these individuals. anytime we try and close our borders, americans suffer as well. this is a human attorney issue, these are mostly women and children. humanitarian issue.

immigration is what keeps this country strong. steve jobs'father was a refugee from syria. john: you got the president to say no more surreal refugees unless he can certify that our vetting process is sound. what are your concerns about the current vetting process that leads you to that request? first, i want to say what nancy is saying is correct. the bottom line is the 18-24 month process. my interpretation of this letter is that you must not short circus -- short-circuit the vetting process. i said to the president, please i know you would said he would accept 10,000, but don't short circuit the vetting process. make 100% sure that we have not something. that is all. make sure that the vetting process is extensive and thorough. make sure that everyone goes

through this. if we don't have enough input on a human being, err on the side of caution. they can't come if we can't vet them. don't short-circuit the process. mark: is the current policy of the coalition determined to defeat isis on track to defeat isis? mark, i said this before. in west virginia, we understand the definition of insanity. doing the same thing and expecting the same outcome, it will happen. ultimately -- all the money and military might will not change anything. i am more concerned about what happened with secretary kerry and the russians, basically trying to move towards a coalition that changes the regime of assad, getting the rebels and making them part of the new leadership, then turning all the forces against isis. to me, that is going to be the solution. putting thousands of troops in is not going to do the job. it might get temporary relief,

but it does not do the job. we have seen this come out before. mark: some people talk about it as a senator just did, getting assad out and end up eating isis. some say defeat isis first and then get rid of assad. is there a correct order or not? nancy: the number one crisis is to stop the cancer from spreading throughout syria and iraq, of which isis controls 1/3 of both countries. you simply cannot defeat isis without restoring the territorial integrity of both countries. in iraq, there is no more iraq that is unified. thet into kurdistan, backup, and the sunnis are welcoming isis because they would rather have them than the militia led by iran. we have to look at working to perhaps even put a few more troops on the ground to iraq. restoring the territorial integrity there, working with the kurds and other.

the tougher question is syria. there are two questions. when is a nato-led force to restore the territorial integrity, which i don't think is happening. or to beef up the forces on the ground, which is unfortunately the assad regime. this is hard for us to swallow, but working with the russians and iranians to make that happen. i don't think you can overthrow assad and expect an undefined and yet unformed regime to take that over. i think it is a bit of a two-step process. restore the territorial integrity and work with diplomacy do have some type of plan to restore, to end the civil war. it's very hard to and a civil war, overthrow assad, and restored in territorial integrity. we need to focus on getting rid of isis, restoring territorial integrity. we cannot have isis with a safe

haven in both iraq and syria. we have seen in paris the result of that policy. john: let me ask you what nancy just brought up, which is russia. another question we asked in our poll is whether americans would like to see a military coalition with the russians. somewhat surprisingly, given the bogeyman that vladimir putin is on the world stage, 53% of americans, more than half of both depressed and verbal against say yeah, we should be the military coalition with russians. -- half of the democrats and republicans say yes. the problems you have identified, but getting rid of assad and dealing with isis. >> pressure is very much entrenched in that area. -- russia is very much entrenched in that area. we found out that relationship with syria when they intervened with chemical weapons, as you recall. we should use building a relationship with them is possible. we should build a coalition and

work through this regime change. we have a civil war going on. we were supposed to give weapons and try to find friendlies, spending $500 billion, which i thought was a fiasco from day one. -- spending $500 million. onesottom line is the only that will turn their guns on as are the kurds. we have not given them as much of support as we should. it's imperative to have the russians working with us. they had as much at stake. they had their jet one out of the sky. they have had more infiltration in their country. yes, they should be one. we have the same common goal to get rid of isis. nancy: we don't have the same common goal of getting rid of assad. that is where we have to work out on the diplomacy side. russia showing up in vienna, if these talks proved to be

fruitful, then maybe they can help intervened and take assad out. when you say taken out -- nancy: no. the once you have more influence in syria about iran and russian. assad is there to stay until isis is rid of, unfortunately. john: our thanks to nancy and joe manchin. we will have you back at some point real soon. up next, now that bobby jindal is out of the race, who could be next to leave? we will talk about that and more when we come back. ♪

i just had a horrible nightmare. my company's entire network went down, and i was home in bed, unaware. but that would never happen. comcast business monitors my company's network 24 hours a day and calls and e-mails me if something, like this scary storm, takes it offline. so i can rest easy. what. you don't have a desk bed? don't be left in the dark. get proactive alerts 24/7. comcast business. built for business. mark: there is a poll that is getting a lot of attention today. pulling people in colorado, it it is a bit of an outlier.

dr. ben carson in first place, followed by marco rubio in second, then donald trump is third place. do not even ask where jeb bush is in this poll. ben carson leading by 14% over hillary clinton. she also runs behind other republicans in colorado. what do these colorado numbers mean? look, rick santorum, you remember quite well. he won in colorado. a very christian, very evangelical party there. the general numbers may have under sampled hispanics. mark: they look to paul's like this -- polls like this.

me intoothers forced becoming the carson spokesman at times. he is showing a lot of strength and growing strength in a lot of places, including with democrats. john: i would never force you to be a spokesman for anyone. if you were playing a drinking game, it is time to pour one out for bobby. .obby jindal has quit the race he is the third republican to bail. decide toelse might depart before we get to the iowa caucuses? mark: 50% of the vote held by trump and carson. the assumption is neither will be the nominee. i thought everybody would hang around. stick around and see what

happens. the fact that three guys dropped out, it it means to me that other people make it out. mike huckabee, rick santorum, rand paul, lindsey graham code. majorot think any other candidate of the top seven will get out before iowa. of people thought rand paul would be a major candidate. paul, i would seriously consider getting out. i'm interested in the mindset of rick santorum and huckabee, both of whom are not performing well inthe state they both won 2008 and 2012. i do not see much rationale for the two of them anymore. mark: if you talk to activists in iowa, bobby jindal is getting more and i what. -- in iowa.

both santorum and huckabee have learned how to run without much money. it is a fascinating thing to see folks drop out. you would think they would stick it out because we are close enough to wireless. i still think most of the people, maybe all of the people left, will stick it out. john: i am betting to more will be gone before the caucuses. mark: we have not talked much about the democrats this week. the headlines have been out of paris. there is a lot going on somewhat need the surface. bernie hit -- bernie sanders has been going hard at hillary clinton. clinton says sanders wants to raise taxes on middle-class families. the sanders campaign has been countering saying clinton is fromg to distract everyone questions about her debate performance.

sanders has been hitting clinton on health care. finally, tomorrow, both candidates have very big speeches. clinton in new york city will discuss how to combat isis. sanders is giving a speech at george washington university about democratic socialism. clinton is way ahead in the polls. out upl of this activity to the notion the democratic socialist may be on the offense? john: no. i mean, yes. the overwhelming macro factors, i am not saying because it is in the back, this paris event, there is no way you can make an argument that it is better for sanders than it is for clinton. tomorrow, she will give a speech

-- she still has the winning hand in this race. mark: i think sanders will have to improve. if he does, and if he can get the focus on things like collagen health care and wages, there is a possibility. john: on the issue of the day, he was terrible on saturday night. his performance on national security was horrible. mark: he will never be stronger than her in the voters minds on national security. he has ideas for fixing the economy. he is not doing well there. he is not going to beat her on national security. if he is going to be the nominee, he will have to win iowa and new hampshire. way ahead ofwet of him.

in the areas where he is ahead of her, he is not that far ahead. the fact is, we have seen engagement that has been quite unusual. the clinton campaign put out the press release. the fact is sanders campaign routinely does things they never would have done a few weeks ago. which is engage clinton in press releases. as he has said, this is not about personal attacks. it is about issues contrast, record contrast. he is not the favorite. what if he has a chance to beat her, he is framing is better than he was before. john: he is on the cover of rolling stone right now. is being on the cover of rolling stone, given the sanders coalition, helpful to him?

is asi am not sure if it iconic with the young people. john: you are exactly correct. if he was on the homepage of pitchfork, we would have a different conversation. mark: the guy from our cold open, lindsey graham is here to talk about his plan to defeat isis. ♪

mark: south carolina senator lindsey graham has been calling

for american troops to be put on the ground in syria for months. he plans to introduce a resolution to authorize military force against isis. cannot give away a full battle plan. talk about what you think u.s. troops would do in conjunctions with allies on the ground. senator graham: destroy the caliphate. repair the damage. put up by its roots. i am not a military planner, but i can say a modern army exists in egypt. turkey and saudi arabia have a large army. normally, we have gone into afghanistan with large western forces. i do not think anybody believed in jordan or saudi arabia that saddam hussein would take over the government and cut their heads off. everybody in the region sees isis as a threat to their

leadership and their society. the neighbor next door would generate more interest than any other war we have had in the middle east. mark: i understand what you are saying. no american president has gotten those countries to cigna -- to commit to significant troops. senator graham: this is a different threat. one of the top leaders of saudi arabia told john mccain and myself, you can have the army. they understand the threat is sexist and show to their existence -- is ask essential -- existential to their existence. it is in their interest to do it, but we have to be part of the team. john: the authorization is

sweeping. geographyimited, not limited. all of the other authorizations right now are considerably -- there is not political support for them. first of all, how do you hope to overcome that political to getnce that exists your more sleeping went through? sweeping one through? senator graham: if you think isis is being contained, it you are misinformed. the american family came together after 9/11 and said, we will get al qaeda. all i am doing is taking the al qaeda resolution and inserting isil. john: why is hillary clinton

wrong when she says the current authorization is not sufficient? senator graham: they are wrong to not understand that isil is different than al qaeda. the caliphate has to be destroyed. it cannot be contained. the region is ready to be led if we will do the leading. the 2001 resolution is completely tied to what happened in afghanistan. isil deserves a resolution of its own even their behavior. mark: 53% of democrats and republicans say military cooperation is a good idea. you disagree with that. with the russians. the french think it is a good idea. why are others wrong? senator graham: if the price to

get russia on board is to keep asaad inpower, -- power, it is a terrible deal. mark: can you just to beat isil first and you with basher al-assad later? graham: to get the russians involved, they will say this regime has to stay involved. you have to look at two things that once. there are two threats coming out of syria. dominate another arab capital -- mark: you want u.s. forces to go and get assad. graham: i want to get a

regional army to go in and destroy the caliphate. i want us to turn and say, assad cannot stay. let the syrian people pick the next leader. what i want to do is neutralize a rainy and influence -- iranian influence in the region. john: there are some very hardheaded people who think that going in and taking out raqqa would be enough. that would make isil and the islamic state would make them look like losers. do you reject -- senator graham: i do not reject the idea. if you could take the capital of the caliphate down, that is a good step forward. what i am looking for is their --cretion -- description

destruction. we have to build up young people. the terrorists offer a glorious death. investing in a small schoolhouse in a remote region will do more to the taliban that a bomb. i am in it for the long haul. over time, building up societies is the goal here. mark: we will take a quick break. back with you in a moment. ♪

back with inherent

chatterbox south carolina senator lindsey graham. the man just keeps on chatting. i want to play something you said back in september related to refugees. we should take our fair share. we are good people. i understand among them can be terrorists. we have to watch that. the vast majority of little boys and little girls and good people who have been kicked out of their homes by the most radical movement since the nazis. i do not see how we can lead the free world and turn our back on people seeking it. .his is our response

john: i know you say there is a world before paris and a world after paris. you have changed your mind on refugees. inconsistentnot with your view? senator graham: it is apparent one of the terrorists was able to slip into the refugee flow. you always worry about these things, but it is no reason to stop the process. i want to do a timeout so that we vet people well. i am not saying we will never take any refugees. there are 20 ways to get into the country. is just one.s most of the attackers were citizens of the country in question. i want to destroy isil. john: john mccain came out

strongly yesterday saying people like ted cruz were saying there should be a religious test. senator graham: what kind of test you give them? ifmost americans really care the child abused is muslim or christian? let's have a timeout, let's take people who are vetted regardless of their religion. forget about taking -- how about a safe haven in syria? mark: the surge has not appeared -- occurred yet. how would you characterize the race? graham: i do not want to peak too soon. it changes almost weekly.

a fine man, but his foreign policy will be harder to understand post paris. you have four people, trunk, carson, rubio, and ted cruz. after this attack, people will be looking for experience. having experience will matter more, not less. people will say, when it comes to commander-in-chief, do i want an outsider? over time, i will do well in new hampshire because john mccain endorsed me last week. we put a commercial on the air. tuesday, before the paris attack. mark: have they been senators long enough to have national security credentials? senator graham: ted cruz is all over the board. he has been just about as wrong

as rand paul. he objected to a no-fly zone and a safe haven three years ago when it mattered. he objected to using force when line.crossed the red he objected to helping the libyan people. i think he has been completely misunderstanding. marco is a good guy. i am 60 years old and i've been to iraq and afghanistan 35 times. 140 days on the ground. 30 years on the air force. i am better prepared to lead at 60 then i was up 44. john: people will flock to experience in this moment of instability. lindsey graham: i do not know if they will flock, but slowly walk. why does it all just

benefit donald trump? lindsey graham: there is a difference between a strong man and somebody who is loud. he has high energy and bad ideas . he has high energy and does not understand what the hell he's talking about. john: who is going to be your secretary of defense? senator graham: i will get back to you later. back, pleaseu come bring a list of all of your cabinet. ♪

mark: tomorrow, we will be rolling out the next phase of

our national poll. we will have the republican presidential horserace numbers. analysisstories and from our team of reporters. including a donald trump-ben carson comparison on issues. john: this poll is really hot. we will be back here to talk all channel at the same bat , at the same bat time. time for us to say sayonara. ♪ you used to sleep like a champ.

then boom... what happened? stress, fun, bad habits, kids. now what? let's build a new, smarter bed using the dualair chambers to sense your movement, heartbeat, breathing. enter the sleep number bed with sleepiq® technology. it tracks your sleep and tells you how to adjust for a good, better and an awesome night. the difference? try adjusting up or down. you'll know cuz sleepiq® tells you. give the gift of amazing sleep. find our best buy rated c2 queen mattress with sleepiq. only at a sleep number store. know better sleep with sleep number. emily: i'm emily chang and you are watching "bloomberg west." paris authorities are trying to determine if the alleged planner and a suspect are among the dead. the exchange of gunfire was so

intense, commandos fired 5000 rounds of ammunition. seven men and a woman were arrested. police are sifting through the rubble for more casualties. islamic state group says it has executed two hostages, one of them a norwegian and the other chinese. this after demanding a ransom for their release. most americans are against the president's relocation program for serious refugees. that is the result of our exclusive bloomberg news paul. more than 50% of those surveyed once the u.s. to abandon plans to resettle syrian refugees here. the nation is divided about sending ground troops. nigeria's boko haram is the world's deadliest extremist group.