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. sen. graham: 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. should send troops to fight isis? here are the results. 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 factor. 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 support it. 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 why 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 they 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, recheck the numbers. there are so few things in american life when you get more than 50% of democrats and republicans agree on anything. super surprising in the context of the world where vladimir putin has come from to play as a giant bogeyman on the world stage. the fact that we are now feeling that we should work with him, it tells you how fearful people are of isis. they recognize this will 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 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. -- in the poll. 53% overall say do not accept any more syrian refugees for the time it begin. -- time being. 28% say we should accept more refugees without any religious screening whatsoever. 11% saying 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 saying 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 a sense of the weakness for the case of more 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.

no surprise, you have all these republican governors and democrats driven by this. and the overall mood of the country saying we at least need a pause or a ban. john: i mentioned the ted cruz point earlier. this is the electorate ted cruz is appealing to fight seeking a federal ban. it's a political maneuver, putting a ban on all refugees except for syrian christians. even in the republican party, that is how small that is for that position. he may not be playing a winning hand there. mark: this evaluation will depend on whether you are a half glass full, half glass empty kind of person. we asked whether they think islam is inherently violent or inherently peaceful? close to 1/3 said inherently violent. not that great of a number, but the fact that 64% say inherently peaceful is surprising. looking at the partisan

breakdown, you may or may not be surprised. 3/4 of democrats say it's inherently peaceful. 61 to preserving -- 61% of republicans say it is 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 sopticism and islamophobia , much bashing of islam and attacks on muslims from a lot of conservative politicians. these are a large 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. saythe survey says -- 40%

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 confident 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 homeland 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 bloombergpolitics.com. we had a piece analyzing these results. more from our poll coming up tomorrow morning on bloombergpolitics.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 isis? plus, the news of the day and politics. all that and more 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 that 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, is it now the case that the attacks in paris have made it unambiguous that hawkishness is the winning political hand in

the party rather than talking about civil liberties and restraint? john: or 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 bomb isis, let them take care of it. that was his posture. now he is up on stage is saying "i want to bomb the crap out of , isis." that is 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 in 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. now when he misses votes were meetings or committee hearings on intelligence, you can bet that the press 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 or 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 united states of america as part of our tradition of compassion. first they were worried about the press being too tough on them during the debate. now they are worried about three-year-old orphans. that doesn't sound very tough to me. mark: then there was john kerry, who at the american embassy in paris, got into a little trouble for saying the terrorists who attacked charlie hebdo 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 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. john: secretary kerry tried to clean up his comments in washington today. sec. kerry: there are no grounds of history -- religion, ideology, politics, economic is advantage, or personal edition that justifies the slaughter of unarmed civilians. the bombing of public laces -- public places 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.

john: 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 creating 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. they 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. is creating problems for them in the country and for the 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 senator joe manchin and former united nations official nancy soderbergh right after this. ♪

john: our first guest tonight are two guests.

nancy soderbergh, a scholar at the university of north florida the united nations official , during the clinton and ministration. she joins us from boston. and from washington, west virginia, joe manchin the member , 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 have 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 humanitarian issue, these are mostly women and children.

everyone will be tightly, tightly screened. it is already a two-year process. 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? joe: 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-circuit the vetting process. two months ago i sent a letter to the president please i know would said you would accept 10,000, but don't short circuit the vetting process. make 100% sure that we have not missed 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? joe: mark, i said this before. in west virginia, we understand the definition of insanity. doing the same thing and expecting the same outcome, it won't happen. all the money and military might will not change anything. i am more encouraged about what happened with secretary kerry in the russian in vienna. 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. -- and defeating 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. it is split into kurdistan, the baghdad andled the , 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 others. the tougher question is syria. there are two questions. one 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 end a civil war, overthrow assad, and restore 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 democrats and republicans say yeah, we should be the military coalition with russians. does that surprise you? and do you think that russia is essential to solving both albums? -- both problems? getting rid of assad, fixing the situation in syria, and dealing with isis. joe: 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 with them -- building a relationship with them if

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 million, which i thought was a fiasco from day one. i did not support that. we saw that was in shambles. the bottom line is the only ones 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 blown 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. joe: russia showing up in vienna, if these talks proved to

be fruitful, then maybe they can help intervene and take assad out. when you say taken out -- nancy: no. the ones you have more influence in syria are both ironic and russia. -- are both iran and russia. assad is there to stay until isis is rid of, unfortunately. john: our thanks to nancy soderbergh 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. ♪ the only way to get better is to challenge yourself,

and that's what we're doing at xfinity. we are challenging ourselves to improve every aspect of your experience. and this includes our commitment to being on time. every time. that's why if we're ever late for an appointment, we'll credit your account $20.

it's our promise to you. we're doing everything we can to give you the best experience possible. because we should fit into your life. not the other way around. ♪ mark: there is a poll that is getting a lot of attention today. polling 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. then the general election matchup. ben carson leading by 14% over hillary clinton. she also runs behind other republicans in colorado. what, if anything do these , colorado numbers mean? john: the colorado people will tell you it's== 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 polls like this.

you and others forced me into 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 "with all due respect" drinking game, it is time to pour one out for bobby. bobby jindal has quit the race. citing -- saying "it is not my time." he is the third republican to bail. mark, who else might decide to 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. cut your budget, fire your

staff, get people to work for free, and stick around and see what happened. 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 could. i do not think any other major candidate of the top seven will get out before iowa. john: a lot of people thought rand paul would be a major candidate. if i were rand 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 in the state they both won in 2008 and 2012. i do not see much rationale for the two of them anymore. i don't get any sense psychologically that they are getting ready to get out. mark: if you talk to activists in iowa, bobby jindal is getting more in iowa.

his decision to give them piout gives them a bit of a room. 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 two 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. they have impacted zero public and race a lot more directly. -- they have impacted the republican race a lot more directly. there is a lot going on somewhat beneath the surface. 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 , trying to distract everyone from 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. the conventional wisdom is that she stabilized her lead, maybe a lock. does all of this activity out up to the notion the democratic socialist may be on the offense? john: no. i mean, yes. is trying to get on offense. the overwhelming macro factors, i am not saying because it is in in the bag, 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 on a subject of great strength

for her, and he will give a speech on a topic of vulnerability for him. 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 college and 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. that is going to be dominating the debate. mark: he will never be stronger than her in the voters' minds on national security. he has ideas for fixing the economy. on the cross tabs on most polls, he is not doing particularly well. he is not going to beat her on national security. diffuse that issue. if he is going to be the nominee, he will have to win iowa and new hampshire. john: she is way ahead of him. in the areas where he is ahead of her, he is not that far

ahead. the externalities played to her advantage. mark: the fact is, we have seen engagement that has been quite unusual. the clinton campaign put out the first press release they put out naming bernie sanders and criticizing him. 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. 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. in the sports world, being on the cover of rolling stone means that you are doomed shortly

after. is being on the cover of rolling stone, given the sanders coalition, helpful to him? mark: i am not sure if it is as 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. and a lot more after this word from our sponsors. ♪

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. you cannot give away a full battle plan. there isn't one. talk about what you think u.s. troops would do in conjunctions with allies on the ground. what with the mission look like? sen. graham: destroy the caliphate. take mosul back. take ramadi back. put up by its roots. -- played 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. this is the reverse of what we have done in the past. 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. they don't believe the television would invade their

countries -- they don't believe the taliban would invade their countries. everybody in the region sees isil 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. different enemies. american president has gotten those countries to commit to significant troops. -- no american president has gotten those countries to commit to significant troops. sen. graham: bush 41 did. money.hey only got sen. 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 existential to their existence. they want to put aside on the table as the price of admission. -- they want to put assad on the table. it is in their interest to do it, but we have to be part of the team.

mark: the authorization is sweeping. not time-limited, not geography limited. all of the other authorizations right now are considerably -- -- considerably less sweeping, and yet there is not political support for them. first of all, how do you hope to overcome that political resistance that exists to get your more sweeping one through? sen. graham: if you think isil is being contained, 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. i think they are a direct threat to the homeland, even greater

than al qaeda. john: why is hillary clinton wrong when she says the current authorization is not sufficient? sen. graham: they are wrong to not understand that isil is different than al qaeda. they hold territory the size of indiana. they have a next essential strut -- existential threat that al qaeda does not propose at this moment. 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, given their behavior. mark: we have a new poll we talked about. 53% of democrats and republicans say military cooperation is a good idea. you disagree with that. the french think it is a good idea. they are having a meeting next week with the u.s. as well. why are others wrong?

why is cooperation with russia a bad idea? sen. graham: if the price to get russia on board is to keep assad in power, it is a terrible deal. a good deal would be the world fighting isil including the russians, because they are a threat to mankind, not just the region. mark: can you just beat isil first and deal with assad later? sen. graham: to get the russians involved, they will say this regime has to stay involved. that is terrible for us. the region won't accept it. the syrian people won't accept assad as their leader. mark: defeat isis and change the plan. sen. graham: you can't do that. you have to look at two things that once. if the iranians dominate another arab capital, that is bad for us. power, theays in syrian people will not accept that. mark: you want u.s. forces to go and get assad. sen. 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 iranian influence in the region. i do not want russia to dictate the terms of syria by force of arms. john: there are some very hardheaded people who think that going in and taking out raqqa would be enough. that would make isil or the islamic state, it would make them look like losers. sen. graham: i do not reject the idea. you have ramadi, you have mosul, and you have raqqa. if you could take the capital of the caliphate down, that is a good step forward.

what i am looking for is their destruction. we have to build up young people. the terrorists offer a glorious death. i want to offer a hopeful life. most young people in the region don't accept what isli is selling. their review -- very few parents want to turn their daughters and sons over. i am in it for the long haul. over time, building up societies is the goal here. that is what destroys radical islam. mark: we will take a quick break. back with you in a moment. ♪

john: we are back with inherent chatterbox south carolina senator lindsey graham. mark: no respect for the commercials or the bumper. john: the man just keeps on chatting. i want to play something you said back in september related to refugees. then we will talk about the refugee situation. >> what should be the u.s. response to the refugee crisis? sen. graham: 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. we should take the statue of

liberty interior down. -- and tear it down. because we don't mean it anymore. john: i know you say there is a world before paris and a world after paris. . nonetheless, you experienced -- you appreciate the seriousness of isis. you have changed your mind on refugees. how was that not inconsistent with your view? sen. 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. nobody benefits by letting a terrorist sneak into the refugee flow. i am not saying we will never take any refugees. there are 20 ways to get into the country. refugee status is just one. most of the attackers were citizens of the country in question. i want to destroy isil. that is what makes us safe, not

stopping refugees. john: john mccain came out strongly yesterday saying people like ted cruz were saying there should be a religious test. ban the muslim refugees, except the christian refugees. sen. graham: did he really say that? this is an odd construct. do most americans really care if the child abused is muslim or christian? i don't think so. this idea that we would only take christians is not prime suggesting -- is not what i am suggesting. let's have a timeout, let's take people who are vetted regardless of their religion. how about a safe haven in syria? mark: the graham surge has not occurred yet. sen. graham: it is 2% in new hampshire. it's a start. mark: how would you characterize the race? sen. graham: i do not want to peak too soon.

it changes almost weekly. donald trump's vision of the world is going to be challenged post-paris. ben carson is a fine man, but his foreign policy will be harder to understand post-paris. you have four people -- trump, carson, rubio, and cruz. and you have jeb, and i am at the bottom. after this attack, people will be looking for experience. having experience will matter more, not less. in the year of the outsider 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. with john saying that lindsey graham has the best plan to defeat iso-tuesday before --did feet -- to defeat isil before the attacks on tuesday. mark: have they been senators long enough to have national security credentials? sen. graham: ted cruz is all over the board.

he has no consistent vision. 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 assad crossed the red line. 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 in the air force. i am better prepared to lead at 60 than i was up 44. john: people will flock to experience in this moment of instability. sen. graham: i do not know if they will flock, but slowly walk. stumble. john: why does it all just benefit donald trump?

-- why does it not all just benefit donald trump? sen. 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. i have energy with understanding. that will matter overtime. john: who is going to be your secretary of defense? sen. graham: i will get back to you later. i am thinking about that later, not now. i'm joined to get up to 4% in new hampshire. the day that i do, i will be on this program. john: when you come back, please bring a list of all of your cabinet. we will quiz you on that next time. thank you senator lindsey graham. we are back right after this.

♪ don't forget, tomorrow we will

be rolling out the next phase of our national poll. we will have the republican presidential horserace numbers. they will be up on bloomberg politics.com at 6:00 a.m. a lot of stories and analysis from our team of reporters, including a donald trump-ben carson comparison on issues. also how marco rubio matches up with republican voters to ted cruz. john: this poll is really hot. we will be back here to talk all about it at the same bat time, on the same bat channel. until then, time for us to say sayonara. ♪

♪ emily: he is the owner of the world's very first model s, and ker of elonck l musk's tesla and spacex. he has amassed one of the biggest private space collections in the world, and pondering thedays future of artificial intelligence and self driving cars. joining me today on "studio 1.0," steve jurvetson. steve, thank