>> last night, the road to the white house led through las vegas. tonight, it detours through next day analysis. oneliners front and center. performances right. now, this stage is set for the final republican debate next day analysis this year, and america's opinion is at stake. john: on the show tonight, the 2016 candidates on the attack, and some republicans holding back.

but first, the leaders of the pack, donald trump and ted cruz. some observers thought that last night could finally be the time when we would get a showdown front runners. while cnn try to incite conflict, either cruz nor trump took the bait. i was in arizona for the trump debate rally, where he reflected on his big night. mr. trump: some of the people in the stage i really like. you saw last night that ted cruz was very nice to me, and i was nice to him. actually, most of the people were nice to me last night. mark: john, they held their fire last night after the debate. trump made nice with cruz. my question is what now would the trump-cruz true to break?

-- truce to break? john: i thought it would break. i'm taking responsibility for my wrong prediction. i think it is obvious that there is an explicit or implicit bargain between them, probably more implicit, where they both decided -- cruz decided that eventually trump will collapse and you won't have to take them on, and trump feels that cruz is not a threat to him. they both have an interest in leaving each other alone. mark: it might be more explicit than you suggested. their staffs talk a fair amount, and trump's a political genius on this, and realizes that despite the efforts of some others, that hitting cruz within the context of the republican nominating isn't easy. he did flick at him a little bit at the rally last week. you saw that talk radio went after trump.

i think this thing lasts until january, when, if trump thinks the only way to win in iowa is to go after cruz, he will do it, but i don't think reasonable go first. i don't think cruz will ever go first. john: i also think it's possible that trump will go first all the way through the caucuses, and it might take trump beating him in iowa for trump to say, ok, cruz beat me, i have to take the gloves off because this guy might win. mark: if trump thinks he will lose iowa he will be negative on cruz. but again, i don't think it will be till january. john: i will no longer predicts any violence between these two. having been so wrong on this one. --ald trump hit back from holding back from hitting on ted cruz. marco rubio decided to take an entirely different strategy. he continued to hit those topics today in an e-mail to donors. rubio continued to trend on fox news.

>> all this tough talk, ted up there saying he will destroy isis, anyone can say that, but what are you going to do it with? when you support a budget like he does that cuts defense spending, when you vote against every defense spending bill before you, how can you argue that the bill that pays for the military, how can you stand there and say that? i will destroy isis but i won't pay for it or support it. john: mark, the read on this between those two guys was that it was a draw. today there is still a draw, but more negative about rubio than cruz. i ask you on the basis of that performance last night in the assessment of it, what is rubio currently thinking? what is his current theory about how he can get past trump and cruz?

mark: by being the last establishment candidate standing will still playing the game. christie is dead because if he rises up there will be too many negatives to go after. kasich hasn't caught on. he just has to peel off some of cruz's support in iowa. when he gets down to rubio, trump, and cruz, the establishment will go to the guy. people like him and people will see him as the alternative to trump and cruz, which a lot of people in the party will look for. john: one of the most striking conversations happened last night after the debate. people talked about jeb bush, john kasich, and chris christie, all of them somewhat mystified about why marco rubio thinks at this moment he has to go after ted cruz and why he is not just focused on building on his establishment strength and taking away vote from them. they are delighted but mystified

by it. i don't get the theory that marco rubio has. if i were him i would be going for the establishment vote. mark: it mystifies me, too, particularly because he is scuffing up his brand of being a good guy. let's go on to chris christie. i gave him a b+ last night. i thought he did a good job, as he does in the previous debates. same question given his , performance in the message he is driving now, what is his current theory about how he gets into the finals with trump and cruz? john: he has a very clear geographic theory. it is, do well in new hampshire and do well enough that coming out of new hampshire there are two establishment candidates left. if you has cruz and trump, they can win from that place going forward. i don't know if i think they are right, but that is the theory. that is the theory within christ

ie-world. mark: there is another thing with christie. strength is the key thing. christie is coming off, as he has in the past, trying to be the strong guy on national security, to stand up to all these others. i know christie thinks he is tougher and stronger than kasich and rubio and bush. john: i saw him this morning in las vegas and he was one happy guy. we also saw jeb bush, who was not that happy. you gave him a b+ on your report card. he came out strong against trump last night, called him a chaos candidate. my question to you is the same question about these last two candidates. what is the bush theory about how to get past trump and cruz? mark: jeb seemed pretty happy when i saw him off-camera. it was 3:00 in the morning when we saw him in las vegas where he

did not look the happiest in the world. jeb went after trump and i know the strategy is that they are surprised that rubio and others are not taking on trump. they think the market here, backed by super pac money, is the guy who will call trump out and say this isn't the person who should be our standardbearer. i think bush right now, and i have been saying this a long time, is well-positioned, assuming that what he sees as the flaws of the establishment candidates bear out. they all have flaws. john: we will be in the disagreement zone only because i think there are some elements of -- what i with bush is what you saw with ted kennedy. you solid with hillary clinton in 2008. they become liberated once they realize they cannot win. somewhere deep in his psyche, allow me to be dr. freud with jeb, he knows he will not be the

nominee, but he wants to do one good thing for his own reputation, and that is takedown trump. mark: we will see if the super pac feels the same way. a deeper dive on last night's debate. later the program, we will take a look at other political moves, the fallout from the fed's big rate move. the mistrial in the freddie gray case in baltimore. that and more when we return in 60 seconds. ♪

john: today after a jury deliberated, a baltimore judge announced a mistrial in the case of baltimore police officer william porter. he was charged with manslaughter , second-degree assault,

misconduct and reckless endangerment in the death of freddie gray. he died at 25 years old on april 19, is ago after an , injury to his spinal cord that he obtained while in police custody. immediately after the decision was announced, protesters gathered outside the courthouse in baltimore, and the city was bracing for the possibility of further unrest like the unrest that broke out last spring. mark, this officer was the first of six trials in the freddie gray case. as you know, criminal justice reform in the black lives matter movement were fueled by the freddie gray case and at the forefront of the democratic race. my question for you is, if no one goes to jail in this case, what will be political impact the? -- impact be? mark: well, i think this is a great example of how the presidential race so dominates that it distorts the discourse.

republicans care a lot about national security, because trump has been so interesting, the sanders-clinton race less so. people assume all that matters is national security but there , is no doubt that for tens of millions of americans there are huge issues. it will be incumbent upon clinton and sanders and o'malley to speak up about this, and maybe tell the republicans if people in baltimore and other countries don't think justice is being done. john: we don't know at this point why the jury came down. it is the first of several cases that will be heard. the premise of the question i asked is flawed. we could easily end up with some convictions and non-convictions. i do think that somehow no one is punished in any way, it will be a vaccine in baltimore -- it will be a bad scene in baltimore. more unrest in baltimore would really revive what was a pretty ugly period and would not be

great for national power. -- national dialogue. mark: over the past few days, the focus has been on the republican sprint to the iowa caucuses, but on the sidelines, hillary clinton seems to be playing something of a long game. on tuesday, she laid out her 360 degree strategy to protect the u.s. against homegrown terrorism and domestic radicalization. today she held an event in omaha, nebraska alongside warren buffett, and she backs the so-called buffett rule which , would require anyone making over $1 million to pay a tax of 30%. looking at the symbolism and substance of these events, what do they tell you about how hillary clinton is positioning herself? john: they tell you she has an eye on the general election and on the nomination, but she still has to get through. she said today she would go further than the buffett rule.

she would endorse it strongly and said she wanted to go even further. although we don't think of warren buffett as a left winger, that is a pretty progressive cause to be endorsing. that is aimed at the nomination fight. the speech yesterday was aimed much more about the general election. mark: in the general election she assumes she will be the nominee. she wants to use middle class economics as a big wedge. she wants to have her national security credentials fully furnished. in a targeted way, she wants to do social issues. she wants all three of those, and those are mirroring the three legs of ronald reagan, th national security and social issues, these two events did not get much attention. but they are laying the groundwork to make her a more formidable general election candidate, popular on economic issues and very much focused on

feeding impregnable on national security -- being impregnable on national security. john: i don't disagree. earlier this morning, speaker paul ryan released an agreement for over $1 trillion in tax package. republicans claim some victories like getting a 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports, and taking out some policy writers on syria refugees and planned parenthood. yrianlicy riders on s refugees and planned parenthood. ryan in a press conference today said it wasn't ideal, but it was the best he could do, considering the not so clean barn he inherited. speaker ryan: i said i inherited this process. let me be the first to say that i don't think this is the way government should work. this is not how appropriations should work. we play the cards we are dealt with as best as we possibly can. inheriting a process i know we need to restore for regular order. i believe we have made the best of it. john: mark, that paul ryan and his beard are not declaring victory, but they are declaring something. do you think they struck a

better deal than his predecessor john boehner would have in the same circumstances? mark: i think he got a better deal for america and for the republicans than boehner what have. he had to delay the deadline, but i think ryan is using the leverage he got, taking over for boehner. republicans say he's cleaning up the barn. i think this is yet another example of why republicans and a lot of democrats ryan is the right speaker, at least through the election, to deal with these issues that are otherwise intractable. john: i will go further than that. to me, it is simple. a deal is a good deal. keeping the government open is a good deal. it's a good deal for republicans, democrats, and america. i don't think boehner could have gotten a deal at all, given the dynamics in the house caucus that drove him out of the speakership. no doubt that this is a better deal than what boehner would have struck. i tend to agree with

you on the fact that there is some reason to hope that this is just a first step toward a much more productive speakership. mark: we hear a lot of democrats and some republicans in washington talking about the kind of deal that speaker ryan and president clinton could strike. people are saying it could be a lot of business if that ends up being the combo. coming up, more about last night 's republican debate, trumps performance, cruz versus rubio, and everything else you saw on your television screen. andre joined by your friend ours, al hunt, after this word from our sponsors. ♪

john: we are back with al hunt, jr. always incredible to have you, especially on the day after a big debate. wish you had been there at the blackjack table. let's start with donald trump, the front runner -- good night ? bad night? something in between? >> there was that sneering, rooted bullying exchange, and he had no earthly idea what the triad was. it's at the centerpiece of american national security policy but it won't matter, because it doesn't affect him. john: al, what is it that makes him impermeable to suffering any kind of damage whatsoever from making what , would be considered horrific blunders? forget about the provocations

and controversial things he has said, just something basic like the triad. why does that not hurt donald trump? >> i think because he is that were that you can't say, "you." people like that so they don't even care about whether he has even skeleton knowledge of national security or the other things he said about people like john mccain or megyn kelly or muslims. it sends a message of "screw you." mark: i'd love to hear you weigh in on this rubio-cruz thing. rubio for so long was saying i will not say anything bad about anyone, and now he is aggressively going after cruz. what is your sense of why he's doing that? al: as you all mentioned, he wants to be the establishment alternative.

they all make the assumption that somehow trump will falter. i don't know if that is right. i think he is lining himself up. he is very attractive on television. just watching him last night, he more than held his own. that will come back to haunt him. when you talk about the disagreement over nsa, eyes glaze over, they are not quite sure with the new ones is. -- with the nuance is. but when it comes to immigration where marco rubio was on the right side in 2013, but not many grassroots republicans will concur with that, i think he's going to be hurt. john: if you want to be the establishment candidate, why go after the cruz voters? it requires him on some issues to attack from the right, but also emphasize more socially conservative decisions, which may not help them be the establishment candidate. al: i'm not sure it's a smart strategy but the thinking is that he galvanizes anti-trump

, anti-cruz crowd. instead of splitting behind four others, they say, let's rally behind marco. john: there was a consensus view last night that both chris christie had a good night and jeb bush had the best debate he's had all cycle. those two guys are clearly establishment game players. who will come out better? al: neither one. if jeb bush had been that figure four months ago he would be at 5% today, but it is too little too late. chris christie i think is overrated. he has a one state strategy in new hampshire. he does not have much going after that. i don't think he has to do well in new hampshire, he has to also win it. and i don't think he's going to. john: we just talked about the problems of marco rubio. you just said jeb bush is dead and that chris christie is way overrated. have you come to the conclusion that no establishment candidate is likely to be the nominee?

al: yes, i think it is unlikely, at least at this stage. that doesn't mean one won't be a finalist and if i had to i'd bet i would bet on rubio. isn't herman cain or newt gingrich or others from years past. there has been a steady, solid block of support for the anti-establishment wing of the party, whether it is cruz or trump or carson. mark: no more debates this year, the holidays are coming quick. do you anticipate any super pac outside group or campaign running negative ads in december, working think they will run in january? -- or will they run in january? and who goes first? al: i think they will start in january because christmas is a hard time to do it. there will be some anti-trump

stuff going on. iowa is interesting. will anybody go after cruz? i think cruz has a formidable lead, so who is going to go after the front runner? you mentioned earlier, will trump go after him if he thinks he's going to lose iowa? that will be a fascinating field. let me say one more thing about the debate -- carly fiorina is a sworn enemy of facts to say that david trias -- that they did the trias -- and jackd petraeus keane resigned because they disagreed with barack obama it's as big a whopper as donald trump has ever told. john: al hunt, god it's great to have you on the show. it makes me so happy. stephanie ruhle will join us live in the studio to talk about the fed decision in just one moment. ♪

john: janet yellen announced the main interest rate will be raised by .25%.

this is historic because it is the first time the fed has raised rates in 10 years. it seems like the fed feels the country is finally seeing recovery after the 2008 financial crisis. with us now to talk about what all of those words mean, host of "bloomberg ," stephanie ruhle. hi stephanie. stephanie: janet yellen nailed it today. she nailed it because the last thing we need is more uncertainty and volatility. the street liked it. it was steady as she goes. why do we like that? the election is coming. 1.375% is where it should be by the end of 2016. the number is still very low. john: yeah. stephanie: what does this mean for the general economy? the number is still very low. it is about confidence.

we finally have a sign that things are getting better. we saw the jobs number improve. as the slack gets absorbed, we can get some wage growth. think about middle america, all of those people getting behind cannelton's -- behind candidates like donald trump because they are frustrated. they might have a chance where they can start a business, get a job. john: the reason this happens is because the fed decides the economy is growing strongly and maybe there is some risk of inflation. stephanie: some inflation is good. john: for most people, the interest rate is a fact of life, but also a psychological thing. people have gotten used to zero. these rates are still going to be super low. is there not some risk at a psychological level? consumers are going to go, whoa, wait a second, i'm not going to buy that house now, i missed my moment. stephanie: i would say no.

the unintended consequences of having rates as low as they have been for so long is the risk. all of the savers have been punished over the last few years. rich people continue to benefit. is it janet yellen's job to only field the market? the fact that we did not get volatility, that is what we need. listen, even if we are the prettiest girl at the ugly dance, or whatever phrase you want to use it shows another , sign the united states is stronger in the world. we have a china slowdown, europe is still in recovery, brazil is a mess. john: i was on a plane on the way back from vegas when janet yellen gave this press conference. i was trying to think back to -- she was very explicit about what the target and timing is. is that a normal thing for a fed chair to do?

i think back to alan greenspan. he was like the oracle at delphi, every time he spoke it was unclear what the hell he meant. this seems remarkably plainspoken. stephanie: because they communicate so much, they are backed into a corner. if you look at the volatility -- what are you laughing at? john: the way your legs are all twisted up, you're like a contortionist. stephanie: your legs are like 11 miles long. john: you look like houdini. [laughter] stephanie: if you think about janet yellen, she is put in a tough position because she has to communicate so much. voice their opinions. -- all the members of the fed voice their opinions. the market is saying, exactly what are you doing, and exactly what time? think about the markets in the last week or so. they have been pretty volatile. could janet yellen have backed off again? not really.

she said so clearly, it's time. john: you are saying the markets do like this. they like the clarity. from the market point of view, getting certainty is a good thing. stephanie: yes, it is a good thing. the problem is it is like you are set up to fail. when you're not obligated to give every last detail of information you leave yourself , no wiggle room. john: does any republican or democrat have a reason to attack janet yellen? stephanie: janet yellen nailed it. right now, no. they have enough time to attack one another right now. john: bipartisan happiness. stephanie: no such thing as that. john: stephanie, thank you for joining us. next, the x's and o's from last night's debate. we will roll the videotape right after this. ♪

mark: pretty broad consensus that the debate did not change the rank order. that doesn't mean that there were not some telling moments. john, we will start the man who clearly ate some nails before he had breakfast. that would be john ellis bush. jeb bush: he's great at one-liners. he is a chaos candidate. he would be a chaos president. if you think this is tough that you aren't being treated fairly, imagine what it's like dealing with islamic terrorism. this is a tough business. donald trump: you are a tough guy, jeb. mark: i love the notion of a chaos president.

i will do research to see what that means. you suggested this was his last gasp. trump seems to agree with you. what do you think that no one else on the stage even tried this tact? john: i think jeb feels liberated by not having the burden of having to compete to win. there was not a word that came out of his mouth that i did not agree with. i was glad someone was out there saying it. i did think, i was surprised more people -- a few people did go after trump a little bit. rubio, rand paul. they went after him right from the jump on his opening statement. i am still surprised one of the weirdest things this year, yard donald trump being the front runner the next weirdest thing , is he has been the front runner and nobody attacks him. i do not have an explanation for it. i don't get it.

onto another big moment of the night, the tale of two 44-year-old first-term, first-generation american senators. first, on immigration. marco rubio: you support legalizing people who are in this country illegally. ted cruz: i understand marcio wants to raise confusion. it is not accurate what he just said. i led the fight against his legalization and amnesty bill. there was one commentator that put it this way -- for marco to suggest our record is the same, it is like suggesting the firemen and the arsonist have the same record because they are both at the scene of the fire. he was fighting to grant amnesty. not to secure the border. john: this was the most interesting thing of the night. in terms of substance, style, and politics. go a little deeper than we did at the top of the show. mark: neither of them have clean hands on immigration. vote on their past records and in future policy. -- both on the past records and in future policy.

rubio worked for amnesty and worked with chuck schumer and other democrats. rubio did a good job. i think it will come back in advertising and it is a problem that rubio has not addressed yet. he is coming back hard at ted cruz. the national security fight may have not been as good for cruz as they seemed in the debate because of this kerfuffle over the potential revealing of security information. john: cruz is also a chuck schumer guy. his work on the usa freedom act was with schumer. rubio was a little less confident defending himself on immigration. mark: absolutely.

cruz did not spend his entire night battling. he and trump went out of their way to be nice to each other. let's look at the moment where ted cruz bearhugged donald trump. >> he has a wonderful temperament. he is just fine. [laughter] ted cruz: that is a judgment for every voter to make. what i will tell you is that all nine people here would make a better commander-in-chief than barack obama or hillary clinton. john: what do you think of voters think when they see that? does it help both those guys? john: it looks a little phony. i am not sure that they love it. i think there is something to what john kasich said last night. although it was an obvious point to make a rhetorical point. the notion for a lot of voters,

there is too much screaming and yelling and politics. seeing somebody pat somebody on the back is a welcome sight. mark: anyone linked with trump is going to be in the storyline. part of the challenge for all the other candidates, cruz and trump having this buddy picture, it won't get as many attention as if they were fighting. it will still crowd them out with fascination as to why they are getting along so well. john: especially why they are getting along so well after donald trump called him a maniac a couple of days ago. i did not really mean that, no problem. mark: he is not a maniac at all. i learned more about him. you've heard the one about the republican and the democratic strategist who walked into a bar? you are about to. more on that after this. ♪

mark: joining us now, two very smart people. campaign strategists, one democrat and one republican. joining us now, bill and katie. thank you for coming in. bill, watching the debate and surveying the republican field, if you were hillary clinton, who would you see as the most formidable general election candidate? bill: hard to tell. last night, i did not think anybody popped out as somebody i could see on the stage with hillary clinton. they are still awfully tentative. other than jeb bush last night,

everybody is spending their time trying to figure out what to do with trump. bromance, no bromance, whatever. they you're spending all their time focused on trump, and if he keeps up, trump will be the nominee. mark: did the debate last night enhance the republican brand? katie: i do not think the debate last night was any kind of a game changer for any of the candidates. it was very clear following the debate and during the debate who the democrats feared the most. i was looking at debbie wasserman schultz's twitter feed and she literally assaulted marco rubio throughout the debate. she didn't call any of the other candidates out by name. i thought that was pretty interesting. the democrat talking heads have those talking points as well. they really came out swinging against marco rubio. was several of the candidates

made the decision that they had to climb over him to get to the nomination. he came under tremendous fire. i think he held his own pretty well. he tangled quite a bit with senator cruz. ultimately that is who we will come down to is those two. it will be an interesting several weeks. john: i will ask you to play a little political fantasy football. if i was going to make you a campaign manager for one of the non-trump candidates, whose campaign would you want to manage? tell me what you would do, what your strategy would be for taking down donald trump. katie: this is a tricky question. [laughter] as i think you probably know. i think marco rubio is our best shot as republicans because of the challenge he presents to hillary clinton. of course, i would want to be for him because i would like to be for the nominee and the person who takes hillary clinton out. that said, i am not sure it is up to these candidates to take down trump.

what they need to do is show their ability and their expertise and the way they can connect to a lot of really disenfranchised voters out there and differentiate themselves as very serious candidates from somebody, who as jeb bush said is a chaos candidate and does , not represent the hopes and dreams of the republican party, but instead represents the fears and all of us. i don't think that is a message that when. -- a message that wins. john: tomorrow, i make you hillary clinton's campaign manager in iowa and you are looking at the "des moines register" poll and you have a nine point lead over bernie sanders. are you comfortable with that? or are you nervous? bill: i think you get nervous. iowa is a complicated process compared to the primaries. you have to really deliver organizationally as well as message and communications.

it's good to be nervous. you do not want to be a front runner who is not nervous. be nervous. mark: same question, tell me the thing you most wonder about how it will turn out between now and iowa. katie: i think the biggest question, of course, is who actually shows up. so many of these polls, particularly the national poll, are focused on a widescreen of what a republican voter is. some of them just call themselves republicans. some have not indicated any intention to actually vote, let alone having a past voting history. the question is, who shows up at the polls? barack obama was very successful as getting nonvoters to show up for the caucus in iowa. it's much harder to do than those people think. that is the big question, who

actually turns out any primary and caucus states? you inet me from it for a slightly different way. -- frame it for you in a slightly different way. if you think about the potential tactical or strategic changes that any of these republican campaigns could make between now and february 1, who are you expecting to see, or wondering if you're going to see a dramatic change in tactics? bill: the most illuminating thing last night was cruz and rubio going after each other. they got each other on the defensive. immigration is where their records are complex. cruz is doing a great job mechanically and a very good job of finding a constituency, but he does not have a big message. rubio is better on the message stuff, but his early state polling numbers are not that great. both of them have challenges ahead of them. one of them has to be better organized and the other has to have a better message. we will see a real challenge to

which one of them emerges as a finalist to trump. john: mark and i were talking about this a little earlier in the show. why is it that marco rubio thinks that at this moment, given his status as the emerging may be on the verge of establishment candidate, why is he going after ted cruz? what is the logic? katie: for starters, the best defense is a good offense and he knows ted cruz is going to come after him. secondly, people keep referring to marco as the establishment candidate, but he earned his chops by taking out the ultimate establishment candidate, charlie crist. the guy that washington had rallied behind. marco was at mike -- was at 4% in the polls and took out

charlie crist. how he has become this so-called establishment candidate is interesting. he is trying to be the candidate that has the broadest appeal and is able to consolidate some of the establishment support and able to reach back to his tea party roots. i think he has some real significant policy disagreements with ted cruz and feels he needs to bring some clarification there. john: bill, what do you think now about bernie sanders' strategicctical and objective ought to be between now and the caucuses? bill: he has got to get himself back into the fray. after the white flag on the e-mail controversy, he shrunk down to, this is a good candidate who has a good message, but he is going nowhere.

he has to convince people that he is for real. i think that is going to be a very difficult task. right now, most people think, nice guy, great message, i like the income inequality stuff, but nobody is saying he is a real contender. that will cost him at the polls. there will not be a lot of energy for bernie sanders, primary days. -- come primary days. mark: leave the candidates aside for a moment. what is the best thing the republican party has going for it in terms of a chance of winning the general election? katie: i think hillary clinton is incredibly vulnerable. everywhere i go, everyone i talk to says, i do not really like her. people who are traditional democrat voters, they do not trust her, they are not excited about her. her real possibility is that the republicans nominate somebody that is completely unacceptable.

we have a real opportunity here. the lack of enthusiasm and energy that could hold up hillary clinton is astounding to me. i think we have a real opportunity if we nominate somebody that can carry a very positive republican message. mark: bill, what would you say to that? what do the republicans have going for them in a general election? bill: obviously, you have eight years of democratic administration. very hard to win a third term for an incumbent party. that is the strongest thing they have going for them. there is a lot of trouble in the world. economy is still flat. what they do not have going for them is a good strong convincing candidate. there is a strong likelihood that they could have someone that is totally an exceptional to the american people. -- totally unacceptable to the

american people. mark: thank you to you both for joining us. we appreciate you coming in and sharing your wide wisdom. we will be right back. ♪

john: we are on television twice a day, 5:00 and 8:00 p.m. eastern time. we are live 24/7 on bloombergpolitics.com. we have all of your postdebate analysis. until tomorrow, mark in arizona, i hope to god you are about to go have some of that pizza that we both love. sayonara. ♪

and this isrsday "trending business." we are going to be live in mumbai, tokyo, and jakarta. but first, here is what we are watching. a sense of calm in asia. markets greet the fed decision positively. there is a growing conviction that u.s. economy can withstand a higher cost of borrowing to read the dollar is surging again.

the yen is at its weakest for 5.5 years. china confirms what everyone has been thinking. the economy will slow further next year. the russian is, will it meet the president -- the question is, i'sl meet president x goals? joining inonesia is on the rally. here is heidi with a look at the markets. heidi: we are looking good so far today. investors in asia are feeling ok about the fed deciding to go ahead with the interest rate hike. talking about the basis points, saying the trajectory will be gradual. as a whole, conditions remain