mark: "with all due respect" to donald troop and ted cruz, save it for the convention, fellas. ♪ mark: this is going to be the kathleen turner episode. trust me, we will get to trump-cruz in a while. first, we have new numbers from our latest bloomberg politics national poll. our big findings, the key candidates who have seen the most good news are also the two candidates least likely at this point to become their party's nominees. that is bernie sanders and john kasich. on the democratic side, despite his deficit, sanders has closed the polling gap with clinton.

they are in a statistical tie nationally. in general election matchups clinton beat donald trump and , ted cruz, but she loses to john kasich 47% to 43%. sanders, like clinton, beats trump and ted cruz in a hypothetical contest, but unlike clinton, he beats john kasich. 46% to 44%. and yet, both sanders and kasich are getting pressured to leave the race. sanders and hasek -- and kasich often out. why isn't that argument breaking through? john: this is going to be a dream for you, i'm going to speak as little as possible because my voice is gone. but i will say, electability is an argument that does not resonate much with voters. they all say they will elect a nominee, but what they care more about is can people get things done, what are their ideologies, their passions about issues they care about? not the app stack -- the

abstract question of who will win in the fall. where the nominee is is likely to be electable. mark: it does beg the question of why clinton is doing worse than sanders. i also wonder why kasich is doing so well. i wonder if it is because people know about him and like him, that he has a record in ohio. or is it simply because he is not cruz or trump. same with sanders. it is a strange thing. electability, it does not matter much to voters. but as we get down to it, and particularly on the republican side, if kasich can fight, electability at the convention might matter. if trump has not improved his standing and cruz has not improved standing, and kasich can get himself to the convention in a position to be the nominee, electability will matter to those voters. john: certainly to those, not only the delegates, but referring to polls like that

will be important. if sanders closes the gap against hillary clinton, superdelegates in the democratic party have one reason to stay with someone. that is that they are unelectable. if sanders can point the polls say that he will beat any republican, including doing better than hillary clinton, superdelegates might more be inclined to make a switch. mark: a pretty good achievement for those two guys to be ahead the way they are. but wait, there's more. in the same bloomberg politics national poll, we ask the voters about a topic that has been a big part of the campaign, international trade. it turns out that both republicans and democrats, not big fans. when asked if the u.s. should have more or fewer restrictions on foreign goods, there was bipartisan agreement. 67% of republicans said there should be more restrictions, 57% -- 66% of democrats said the same.

john, it is rare in any polling question to find democrats and republicans thinking the same way. they do on this. what are the general election implications of this bipartisan consensus on trade? john: the first, it is likely that whoever the republican nominee is, most likely donald trump, but whoever it is, they will be the first in a long time that is not a staunch free trader. on the other side, it means hillary clinton on the left on trade, will be forced to stick with those positions which a lot of people have doubts. they do not think that she is a free trader too. so you will have basically a more or less protectionist argument going on between both parties. never seen that before in our lifetime in politics. mark: but there are other republicans who are restrictionist. trump is out of step with the leadership and elites of his party, not just on trade, but on a temporary ban on muslim immigrants, etc. kasich and cruz are both free traders. cruz is somewhat inconsistent. i think we have never had a

general election between two people who are moving toward the protectionist side. we might, if it is trump versus clinton. we will have them question the current trade deals on the table. john: or trump versus sanders. and these battles for white, working-class voters is where a lot of the action will be. especially where trump is the nominee. clinton will not be able to move an inch away from her now it newly hatched opposition to tpp and other matters. mark: on the assumption that many voters are hopeful that donald trump will modulate his positions to more electable ones on other issues. this shows that trump is right with both parties on trade. if you are on twitter, and we know you are, you have not been to avoid the slings and a rose between donald trump and ted cruz -- even more personal. on the very off-chance a you have missed what is happening the last 24 hours, we will catch you up real quick.

>> donald trump, ted cruz, here is what happened. aprove cruz super pac used photo of melania trump. >> he wrote back that the picture was not from him, you're more cowardly than i thought. trump counters, "lying ted cruz denies he had anything to do with the post of melania." cruz went on to the enlisted aligned from the -- wnet on and lifted a line from the president. cruz steals lines from the end michael douglas." trump tweets "make america great again." cruz is ready. "donald, real men don't attack

women." trump says mean things about cruz. cruz calls trump a sniveling coward and tells him to leave heidi the help -- the hell al one. mark: that brings us up-to-date on this battle. who is winning? john: it would be hard to say that anyone is winning this ugly, pathetic, childish, unseemly back and forth between these candidates. but if one of them is losing more, it is donald trump. he has a history of not treating women very well and plays into the stereotypes. mark: in the short term, trump is winning. it is crowding out. it narrows out any chance to make a substantive argument against trump. as long as he can't focus a negative frame on him -- if they are arguing about their wives, that will not get him to be a nominee. john: at this point, trump

should be looking at the general election. every time he does this, he builds the case that democrats can make against him as a misogynist, which hillary clinton can use against him in the fall. mark: people say he is losing, hurting himself in the general. in the abstract that may be true, but we don't know that. people have predicted that he is hurting himself. in general, trump hasn't been. time for a merrick garland update. trying to up the obama administration's pressure to support the nominee. joe biden gave his speech in washington at the georgetown university law center. calling on republican senators to give obama's pick a fair hearing, or hearing at all, really. he said a failure to vote on the nominee could risk "a genuine constitutional crisis."

the vice president also accused republicans of mischaracterizing the speech he gave in 1992 about supreme court nominations made in presidential elections. >> senator majority leader, and my friend mitch mcconnell, and other republicans today, have been quoting selectively from remarks that i made in an attempt to justify refusing chief judge garland a fair hearing and a vote on the florida senate. they completely ignore the fact that at the time, i was speaking of the dangers of nominating an extreme candidate without proper senate consultation. they completely neglected to quote my unequivocal bottom line. so let me set the record straight. i said "if the president consults and cooperates with the

senate, or moderates his selections, then his nominees may enjoy my support, as did justice kennedy and others." mark: the vice president made a valiant effort, but didn't reach the debate about merrick garland. john: i think it is just a distraction. one argument republicans have made, but the ultimate delegate lists they are making has nothing to do with the biden rule or speech. there are places where you can see the pressure to give garland a hearing is making some headway. this is not one of those moments. mark: i continue to say it, and people might get bored. it's all about chairman grassley of iowa, if he wants to hold a hearing, if he is feeling pressure to do it, i think he can force mitch mcconnell to do it.

it is a one senator game, they need a hearing. the only way to get a hearing is for grassley to hold it. john: i will also point out that although we love joe biden, the argument he made about what he said in the past was not compelling on its own. mark: as we say in delaware, nice try. coming up, what do wisconsin and new york have in common? the upcoming contests in both parties that we're watching very closely. we will take a look at the political calendar in our near future, coming up after this word from our sponsors. ♪

mark: april is nigh, time to flip through our calendar cards and review where we stand. first on the democratic side, there are three caucus states this saturday, alaska, hawaii, and washington state. next up, wisconsin on april 5, and two weeks after that on april 19 is new york, followed by a whole bunch in north, eastern, and mid-atlantic states. that is connecticut, maryland, april 26, pennsylvania, and rhode island. john, what are you looking at in this democratic calendar? john: the most important thing, one, alaska, hawaii, wisconsin, wyoming, new york, six contest in a row. some states bernie sanders can and should win.

the question is by how much and what it will do to pledge delegates. hillary's lead is daunting in that area. if he wins six in a row, heading into that big holiday, he is going to pick up some delegates and have a huge wave of momentum at his back if he can go on that run. mark: and he proved it this weekend, or tuesday, even though he did lose arizona, he could win states, and win them big. so let's just look at this again. i think people assume he will sleep on saturday. then wisconsin, let's put a pin in that for a moment. he will win wyoming caucuses. winning wisconsin, which some people in clinton world thing could well happen. if he comes into new york having won the next five, and beats her in her home state, which is not out of the question given the nature of the electorate, if he

does that, five in a row, two primaries, and goes on to 26 with five northeastern states with cash on hand, big crowds, i am not saying he is the nominee, but if he does five in a row and then wins five more in a row on the 26th -- that is not great for hillary clinton. it changes the race, resets the race. she still has a big pledge lead, but the superdelegates and all these states will have to answer. how can you go against the voters of your state? john: one thing both the clinton campaign and sanders campaign agree on is that new york is in play. people forget it has now been a long time -- 10 years since hillary clinton ran for senate in the state. her connection to the voters is not as strong as you would think a former senator from new york would be. mark: he has got to win wisconsin if he puts his back in momentum. let's look at the republican lineup. lots of eyes on that wisconsin april 5 primary in a little less than two weeks. colorado has republican caucuses on april 9.

that is when you're told, a non-winner take all on april 19. a week later, like with the democrats, they go to the polls in connecticut, maryland, delaware, and rhode island. in the republican three-way race, what do people look at in this calendar? mark: we know there will be a donnybrook in wisconsin against all three candidates playing hard for three weeks. it is not a must win for john kasich, but it is in the vicinity. he must either win that race or show very strong or the rationale for his continuing -- mark: he has got to be a huge player in the state. john: and you go to new york, similar in that clinton-sanders race. this is donald trump"s home state. it will make for a combustible atmosphere. donald trump on one side, hillary clinton on the other. it is not 100% obvious trumped

will win new york state. -- trump will win new york state. mark: i think there will be pressure on kasich to get out, and on cruz to get out if trump wins wisconsin and new york. based on momentum and the demographics, i think he will sweep on april 26. the normal physics, if he won wisconsin and new york and say four out of five on the 26th, everyone would be turning his delegates over. the reality is, a lot of people in the party want to go to that last date in june to make trump earn a majority. the question is not can he win those states, but if he does, does he force those guys out of the race? not mathematically, but like a normal nominee, he is declared the de facto nominee long before he actually has the majority. john: this is why kasich matter so much.

if you can survive through wisconsin and new york. i think in a competitive three-way race, if he is really at par with the other two in terms of money and credibility, kasich can win a lot of those states. it is not inconceivable. but if he is out of the state, ted cruz can sweep those states. mark: trump and kasich agree, trump and casey agree cruz , cannot compete in the northeast. up next, a deeper dive into wisconsin, the land of cheese and beer, after this. john: beer! ♪

mark: there is a new emerson university poll out today, in ted cruz and donald trump in the battle for first among wisconsin with voters. ted cruz basically tied with trump at 35%. john kasich trailed third at 19%. on the democratic side, they prefer clinton over sanders. here to talk this through, a state that he knows well, is craig gilbert from the "milwaukee journal." greg, let's start with their republican race. why does trump underperform, as compared to how he has done in other states?

greg: his negatives have been high compared to other places. it may be cultural, he has not done great in the rest of the upper midwest. he is obviously a hard personality for some people to take. and there is also a unique situation, the reddest part of wisconsin, the most republican county outside milwaukee. conservative talk radio has lined up against donald trump in a way that you don't see nationally or in other parts of the country. it is very influential. that happens to be the part of wisconsin where he is doing the worst with republican voters. mark: what do they say about him? what are those talk radio hosts talking about him and positive about ted cruz? greg: everything about him, from his history, his background, his discourse. they argue he is not a real conservative.

and, there is a lot of strategic and tactical arguments being made to republican voters in wisconsin right now. kasich is making the argument he is electable. the argument that ted cruz is the guy you have to vote for in order to stop donald trump. that is what you hear on radio. mark: is the kasich wise to play there? can he make this a pier 3 way? craig: i think it is tough. he has a shot in some of the congressional districts like the democratic congressional district in milwaukee and the one in madison, where republicans are more moderate. i think it is difficult for him to win the state outright. mark: at this point, he needs some wins, but you don't see that? craig: i would not rule that out. there is a lot of crazy stuff going on in the state. i think he is squeezed on both sides. trump does well with rural and blue-collar voters.

a bigger play for the more suburban vote in wisconsin. he is getting squeezed on both sides. mark: i will move to democrats quickly. hillary clinton, this poll has her leading by a little bit. it seems that demographically, it is an open event and people can vote in either primary, it seems like it could be a good state for sanders. craig: it ought to be, when you think of the states history of voting, a white state. vote is5 or 95% of the going to be white on april 5. the open primary is huge. sanders has been doing much better in other states and in wisconsin polling with independent voters with partisan democrats. -- than with partisan democrats. she is competitive and will do well in milwaukee. sanders will do well in madison. there will be a battle for the rest of the state. when you compare wisconsin to other states that have already voted, it is a much friendlier

place for him then the market states. -- for him than the march states. mark: what is the economy like there? how much will sanders benefit on the democratic side from those who are distressed about the economy? craig: there are those were distressed in certain parts of the state, but he will also benefit from political distress. potentially, democrats are very angry and frustrated. they have been out of power, powerless under scott walker since 2011. a lot of bad things from their point of view have happened. in that climate, you can see bernie sanders' message resonating. mark: some state endorsements -- you have scott walker suggesting he will be for ted cruz, tammy baldwin leading democrats for hillary clinton. do those endorsements matter in that state? craig: i don't know if on the republican side it matters more than talk radio. on the democratic side, they certainly have the endorsements for sanders.

but i don't know if that matters to his voters. the republican establishment is interesting because it is the state of scott walker, reince pr iebus, who have crossed ways with donald trump in one way or another. mark: thank you very much. when we come back, the great andrea mitchell joins us. here on, we will talk about the the week in politics and foreign policy after the break. ♪

john: we would be willing to stand on a crowded rope line in the snow for hours.

just to ask to our guest, heread, somehow we tricked to talk about foreign policy in politics, two topics that nobody knows better. a foreign course -- foreign affairs correspondent from msnbc, covering president obama's trip, the great andrea mitchell. andrea: i would give up my time any day to have that kind of introduction. john: it looks like hillary clinton and donald trump are going to be the nominees of their respective parties. in this week,, of big pollen -- this week of foreign policy stuff, tell us a preview of a general election between those two could be like. andrea: and if it is ted cruz, it is the same contrast. you have donald trump and ted inz seizing on the events brussels talking about a muslim , ban, trump talking about pulling back from nato and

pulling back from european alliances. at the same time where you have hillary clinton at stanford giving a very centrist "thoughtful" discussion. our need to help our allies, but europe needs to do more itself with specific examples about how we get flight manifests now to europe since paris. we give better flight manifests, in regards to isis and the immigration crisis. the european countries, the european union's 28 countries can not even share intelligence adequately or flight manifests with each other. they need to cooperate better. those were her pushes. of course, she is now going after both ted cruz at donald trump, but in particular, donald trump. mark: if you go up to 30,000 feet and you look at hillary clinton as a presidential candidate, are there elements of hillary clinton's for a would be different than the current

president? andrea: sure, more interventionist. she would have taken action in syria. if she had had the moment in 2013, if she had been secretary with the red line, she would have been pushing as hard as john kerry would have been pushing. mark: but that is a specific case. but can you take from that specific instance, a doctrine? andrea: let's take a look at libya. that is a policy that has her fingerprints on it. i am not talking about benghazi and all of the stuff that happened, but i am talking about the initial decision to go into libya. to say that it was in our national interest to do that with our allies. at the time, we are hearing cries that we are leading from behind because there were french and british planes up there and we were not the only one in the engagement. john: we talked about donald

-- we interviewed him on tuesday. he talked about sending him patrols to all of the muslim neighborhoods in america, he talked about nato being obsolete, and he would not take nuclear weapons off of the table. he says one of the chief attributes he would bring to national security was unpredictability. people should not know what president is going to do next, that is a good thing and will affairs, according to donald trump. his image as a strongman has played to his advantage in the republican nomination. can it play to his advantage in a general election? andrea: here is the deal. according to all of the polling, was the number one issue among republican primary voters and leaders. by 2-1 over democratic voters. the economy and jobs was the number one issue with democratic voters.

that was the high point in our december nbc newls wall street journal poll. issue.sm is a wedge i really think that if something happens at home like paris or like brussels in the weeks leading up to the election, it really plays to the strongman image that donald trump projects. i think it hurts hillary clinton. i think she has some weaknesses on foreign policy. as much as she understands the connections and has all of the language, and has a deep knowledge of it, she can be criticized for libya now, for the middle east for not doing enough in the middle east, for only going once to iraq. she was really hands off. that was joe biden's account. one saturday she went to iraq

for half a day really. that was the only time she was in iraq. the only failings she has with iraq or afghanistan can be laid at her feet in certain ways, i am not saying it is fair, but that is what the public could see it. -- that is what the republican candidate would do. mark: among the many things you do is cover hillary clinton, and you hear her a lot, but a centerpiece of her campaign, if it is trump versus clinton, do you think that this could change? i was the chief diplomat of america, and i am doing better than this businessman's reality tv show star? andrea: that's what she talked about in miami when we were all there last week when she was celebrating her victory in florida. she talked about donald trump as talking tough and saying it is not smart, going after muslims is not smart, if this doesn't show strength, it shows that you are inexperienced, and also, ted

cruz, she was really going after them on all those issues. mark: if it is a clinton-trump general election, she will elevate her resume and positions on national security as part of the contrast? andrea: absolutely, and she will try to show the contrast, i am the grown up in the room, i am experienced you cannot trust him , because he is so erratic. that will be her take. it plays to her strength. she is not the best retail candidate. she would be the first to say it. she's trying to make a virtue of that fact/ unlike my husband or barack obama, that's not what i do well, i'm this serious studious person that knows her stuff -- that is the person she is trying to portray. john: one thing that president obama was criticized along with this week is how he behaved in cuba, not just going to the baseball game, but eyeglasses and even the hand wave thing. and then he went to argentina and you have the tango thing. even among democrats, a lot of

people were like look, the optics here are terrible. is that the kind of thing that either now or soon or eventually hillary clinton will find herself criticizing obama for or from? andrea: i don't think she will criticize something that is on optics, the photo op. i think she will and she already has on the trade deal. she has separated herself completely on the trade deal even though she supported them. she will find other isues -- economic issues which are the issues that white male voters care about. now she really has to worry about possible crossover votes. if you are running against donald trump his appeal could be , in ohio, or michigan, or pennsylvania. that is where she would be vulnerable against donald trump. you know, knowing i was coming over here, i checked with the

white house in argentina and again, they said that there was no one in that white house, and certainly not the president, who is second-guessing this. as much as a lot of us even watching the baseball game, look, it was a huge hit there. raul castro went with them to the airport, saw them off, it was derek jeter and joe torre thereckie robinson played in 1947. i'm a crazy baseball fan. i thought there was a way to do it without the sunglasses and a chewing gum and slapping everybody on the back. but the crowd just ate it up and similarly, they said, this is a new argentinian leader, we are planting our flag in latin america, we have ignored it for too long, we are declassifying the cia's bad deeds during the dirty war on the 40th anniversary of the military

coup, and we are really making friends in an important continent -- mark: the tango. andrea: the tango. i still want to know whether he really practiced oit and knew it was coming. they say he did not. john: andrea, thank you very much. of next, what it's like to have your court nomination blocked by the united states senate. we will hear from one man's experience more than 10 years ago next. you can listen to us as well on the radio on radio bloomberg. 99.1 f.m. ♪

♪ mark: back in 2003 after two years of very partisan deadlock,

mr. estrada withdrew himself from president bush's supreme court nomination. yesterday estrada spoke with al hunt about obama's supreme court pick who faces similar opposition now. >> i don't think anybody has any doubts about george gar -- judge garland's qualifications. it's pretty much unanimous that by temperament, experience, and background, he is a very suitable person for the supreme court. the argument about the vacancy is entirely political. it is whether the republicans in the senate are willing to accept somebody who may be a centrist democrat instead of spinning the wheel of the election in hopes of getting someone who is qualified to be sure, but more on the right of center side. al: let me ask you this, you

also supported elena kagan, so is ideology ever a factor that should be considered? obviously you consider competence, but what else? mr. estrada: i think it is one of these aspects, but one of the disparaging things that we have every couple of years is that both parties give lip service to to the supremacy of merit and qualifications. but neither party is willing to accept the qualified people from the other party. we saw this when judge alito was up in 2005. he was just as qualified as judge garland is today. he was one of the leading judges in the country by temperament, experience but there were 25 , democrats who would not give him the vote. i find it not necessarily constructive.

appealing to the political base of the respective parties. that is appropriate, but i think even within the political considerations, there are a lot of those in this country that watch every day who tell their children that merit really matters in this country. they really want to strive for a society in which we come to recognize people that have merit. al: would you acknowledge that if you should be concerned -0- if he should be confirmed, that judge garland would replace your old boss justice kennedy as the swing vote towards the liberal direction? mr. estrada: perhaps, but it is very difficult to say things in a very general way, because even justice scalia was someone who was viewed as on the right of the court is one of the leading right of the constitution and law who gave us a lot of criminal constitutional law favorable to criminal defendants. a lot of people don't focus on that, a lot of people don't know

it. he was involved in a lot of due process cases and fourth amendment cases and also on the first amendment. and so he was somebody who was distinctly liberal in his votes on a number of things. one of the things that people misapprehended about the court is that is that while people come with different philosophies, they come while trying to judge on the merit. al: on issues of affirmative action and voting rights and executive authority, certainly the court would be more likely to be sympathetic to a "liberal point of view" with merrick garland as compared to justice scalia? mr. estrada: i think that is likely. i think justice scalia was such a unique history figure in the court that i could name, i

won't, i could, who if appointed by president obama, also could be said to move the court to the left. you have to take each and not ask, how are my issues going to turn out on the basis of this appointment? whether this is a forthright person who will bring intellect and principal to each case. i think he is a very moderate person and an incrementalist. i would not expect merrick garland to get on the court of the united states and take a hatchet to relatively recent binding case law. this again can be explored at a hearing. these are things we should ask our nominees. we want them to be faithful to case law and precedent, that we cannot assume a priori that they will come in with a wrecking ball. i may not agree with all of them all of the time. but i think the popular

conception of our judges that they are politicians in robes and that is misguided. that we do little to enhance the legitimacy of our justice by contributing it to seeing it in left and right terms. al: how do you think it is going to play out? will judge garland be on the supreme court by the end of the year? mr. estrada: i think so. al: you do? mr. estrada: i do. al: would that happen in a lame-duck session because republicans have gotten themselves out on a limb? perhaps.da: once we see how the election shapes up, and if the republican party has a candidate likely to win in november, you will see change in the attitude in a number of republicans in the senate. if it is clear we are going to have a disputed convention and that the opposition to even considering a nominee could affect races in the senate -- it

may be that the political calculus may change. there may be some states of that may have to persuade their voters that not even giving a hearing to someone of this quality would be good policy. mark: our thanks to miguel estrada and al hunt. ♪

mark: now it is time for our "by the numbers block." we are going to the box office with our crackerjack pollster from iowa to give a review of some of the hot films from iowa.

anne, thank you for lending your team eye. we hear that you have a review at"trumptopica," i look future events predicted in our bloomberg politics poll. what does "trumptopia" tell us? anne: we look at people who had either already participated in the nominating contest and those that expect to in the future on the republican side. when we divide those up, what does that tell us about the future? it is our own crystal ball. what we see for donald trump is is that he not only wins plurality of support, that number gets even bigger with those that expect to vote in the future. suggest that his future looks brighter than even his past. you also saw the hit movie "deadpoll," and what challenges

does hillary clinton face if she faces john kasich in the general? ann: you know, we did general election matchups. these are people who are likely to vote in november with hillary clinton and donald trump, hillary clinton versus -- hillary clinton wins. hillary clinton and john kasich, john kasich wins. you keep hearing him say, i'm the only one that can beat hillary clinton. and these numbers bear that out. if we look how he did that, he wins majorities and in some cases, substantial majorities with key groups. he beats her with married parents, with whites, among catholics, and among men. he has put together a broad spectrum of constituencies that you need if you're going to beat

hillary clinton as the nominee. mark: finally, one more blockbuster i think gives us insight into kasich versus clinton. it's called "clinton has fallen." the plot is confusing, so walk us through it without any spoilers. ann: it is. okay, this is about party stickiness. what we did is that we looked at the people with sanders and a kasich matchup. what would those people do if it turned out if it was hillary clinton versus john kasich? 19% of those sanders supporters defect to john kasich. the same situation with ted cruz, they voted for bernie sanders, and 11% goes to ted cruz. and the smallest number of defectors go to donald trump. keep saying there is this unity, something alike between donald trump and bernie sanders. our data say quite the opposite.

bernie sanders supporters are least likely to affect the donald trump -- to defect to donald trump in the case that their guy is not the nominee. mark: 15 seconds left, many people say that they would vote with john kasich over clinton. that is a big number, over 1/5. ann: that is a big number. but bernie sanders would have to -- sorry, john kasich would have to win the nomination for that. and that's step one. mark: ann, thanks so much. love going to the film cinema with you. we will be back with who won th e day. ♪

mark: in the immortal words of john mclaughlin, "quickly,

quickly, who won the day?" john: sadly, the same guy won today as he did yesterday. yesterday he took phife dog and others. today, gary shandling, so i would say the person who took the day was the grim reaper. mark: before we go we would be remiss to take a moment to remember in a more dignified way -- the great gary shandling, the actor and comedian who died at the age of 66 today. "larryer of the great sanders show." bloomberg politics has all the latest news on the web. of next, bloomberg west. until monday, sayonara. ♪

♪ erik: welcome to "the africa opportunity." i'm erik schatzker in cape town. we came here to south africa to give you a close look at the extraordinary potential and the enormous challenges this continent offers companies and inventors worldwide. we brought together government and nongovernmental leadership from around the globe to discuss , debate, and in some cases decide the future of african business. from infrastructure to agriculture to technology, how will africa attract the capital it so desperately needs but avoids the pitfalls of waste and , corruption, and