mark: "with all due respect" to bill o'reilly, this is a no-spin zone. good afternoon and tgi-not quite tax day yet. we are just outside syracuse. a little while ago, we interviewed senator ted cruz. i will show you that conversation a little later in the program, but first, bernie sanders' hail mary. he took a redeye flight last night after debating hillary clinton and went to rome, italy, where he delivered a 15-minute

speech on a "moral economy." sanders also imitated a speech by pope francis, but after making the one-way trek, sanders will leave vatican city tomorrow without any expectation he will meet with the pope. you and i have both been confused about why it made sense for bernie sanders to leave new york and go to rome with the primary approaching. now that the trip is basically in the can, was it worth it? john: after today, having viewed all of his activities and seen the coverage, it still does not extends. he got some decent play. he was on cable during the day. -- it still does not make sense. he was able to go to a different place and make the argument to

world leaders rather than here on the stump, but given where he stands, it would have been better for him to find a place called rome, new york. mark: they have not been good at the stagecraft of politics, in part because the candidate resists it, but i think what they said was true -- bernie sanders wanted to go. he thought it was an honor to be included. he justifies it by mentioning hillary clinton goes to california to fund raise for 40 hours. he left. he got some coverage, but, man, it makes no more sense to me than it did before. i predicted it would be canceled. it might as well have been. john: i knew you would ask this question -- why do i not criticize hillary clinton for going to california for a fundraiser. i do not ink there is anything

wrong -- i do not think there is anything wrong with it, but it's the political context. in her case, she can afford to leave a state where she is ahead by double digits, and she is ahead. mark: if he does not win, he loses. john: he has to catch up. this is not a place he can afford to lose and lose potentially badly. mark: the guy has incredible stamina, but i cannot believe he is going to come back fresh as a daisy. john: he also took his family with him. to your fact about this being a personal thing, i think it really was just a meaningful thing for him. mark: you know what it was? a roman holiday. john: easily the most caustic democratic debate in the cycle. both candidates left the debate bruised but un-bloodied. the raucous crowd was more loudly pro-sanders, but the vermont senator ale to

capitalize on hillary clinton's answers -- the vermont senator failed to capitalize on hillary clinton's answers. clinton: there are certain expectations when you run for president. this is a new win, and i said if everybody agrees to do it -- because there are speeches for money on the other side, i know that. sanders: do you regret your advocacy for the bill? clinton: my husband has apologized. he was the president who actually signed it -- sanders: but it about you, senator? clinton: i'm sorry for the consequences that were unintended and that had a very unfortunate impact on people's lives. sanders: are you prepared to lift the cap on taxable income -- yes or no?

would you lift the cap? clinton: i have said repeatedly i am going to make the wealthy pay into social security to extend the social security trust fund. that is one way. if that is the way that we pursue, i will follow that. sanders: interesting comment, but you did not answer the question. clinton: i did answer it. [indiscernible] john: my question for you -- either in the democratic race, or more broadly -- did the debate last night change anything, and if so, what? mark: it eliminated bernie sanders. two, it gave, i think, the clinton people confidence that he has no tricks up his sleeve. if he had any tricks up his

sleeve he was going to play, he would have done it. three, he gave republicans a lot of confidence that hillary clinton, faced with tough questions, gives ebay's is answers -- gives invasive -- gives evasive answers. donald trump and ted cruz will take advantage of what critics will call clintonian moments. john: i think it basically guaranteed we will not have any more democratic debates. there has been discussion of that going down after last night. i do not think anybody after last night will want to see that again. the second thing is it is clear -- there is an open debate about how easy it is to get this party back together. last night made it harder -- not impossible by any means, but it

makes it harder. bernie sanders, though he was not great last night, the things he is doing and saying are taking a toll on her. she is down to 66% favorability among democrats. six or nine months ago, she had 85% or almost 90% of democrats. that is a problem for her going forward. >> people have doubts about her trustworthiness, if she is a straightforward person. she has a debate like that, a republican steps in and gives azinger, creates a moment, it could be a big thing in the election. here is another example of bernie campaign pulling punches. two tv ads, one for new york, focusing on wall street contributions. another is running in california about sanders' live -- ability to raise donations. neither spot mentions anyone by name. both are pretty clearly aimed, though, at hillary clinton.

the sanders campaign finally puts on ads some describe as tough, but why is he still holding back? if he is going negative, why not go negative and name her gekko -- and name her? john: the people around him would happily like to attack clinton by name, but he has drawn a line and said it's time to characterize, but he will not name her in these ads. i think it is a distinction without a difference that gains in nothing politically -- gains him nothing politically, but that is a line he wants to stick to. mark: they should tell him if that's the way he wants it, they should give the money to charity. they are giving it to television stations to no effect. john: there are a million things you can do, but if you are going to do a negative ad that is not saying her name but basically saying her, you are not getting

anything. we know candidates that do this. most of us cannot see why it is meaningful, but they decide it is and will not. -- will not budge. mark: bernie sanders probably will not be the candidate. his ability to oversee an ad campaign -- with the exception of positive ads -- his ability to debate, you just cannot beat a clinton being an underdog pulling your punches. john: the ads are not going as far as they could go for maximum if act. we have a quick correction. on the show yesterday, we talked about controversy surrounding bernie sanders' surrogate. i made a comment saying that susan sarandon said she would rather vote for donald trump than hillary clinton.

that was not correct. what she actually said was she was not sure she could vote for clinton and that donald trump might be more likely to usher in a revolution. she later tweeted a clarification that she would never vote for trump. mea culpa. that is on me. coming up, donald trump like you have never read him before after this. ♪

mark: most of the political world was focused on the democratic debate last night.

"the wall street journal" made a splash by posting a traditional op-ed piece by donald j trump billionaire, trying to convince voters that the gop elite came in ahead of american families. "have we gotten to the point where politicians defend a rigged election process with more passion than they have ever defended america's borders?" the republican party's national chairman -- or national committee, rather, released a memo defending the freedom of states like their own delegate processes, and the party chairman offered this rebuttal to trump in an interview with nbc today. previous: over 60,000 people a month ago in colorado voted at their precinct level, then went to the county level, then

congressional district level. all the while, all the candidates competed with surrogates in the system without complaining, by the way. i think it's a little too late to complain after the fact that a particular state process is not something that you like. mark: we know why donald trump is driving this line of rhetoric about the system being unfair. what is the rnc get out of having this white -- this fight? john: in the end, if this convention ends of producing a nominee who is not donald trump or who comes in not only without a majority, the integrity of the system will be crucial to the long-term political task ahead for the republican party. in the same way trump is laying down a predicate by attacking the system, priebus is laying down a predicate by defending it. mark: i think they want to throw history out because it is a matter of tract is, not law or

policy, that the rnc and dnc give up and hand over the reins to the de facto nominee -- it is a matter of practice. priebus wants to stay. if trump fires them, they want to prove that they are tough guys and gals and can either back and say, "our system is great. leave our system alone." john: evil are at various levels of extremity, but if you want to do what you are suggesting, which i think is probably right, you do not to become the spokesman for the never trump cause, but you have to convince them that you are a significant player and that you will defend the system by which they will win -- if they are going to win, that is the system by which they will win. mark: the likeliest nominee is basically saying the party whose nominee i want to be has rules that are corrupt.

the rnc has to defend their brand. john: a lot of weird stuff this year. the most interesting thing about the "wall street journal" op-ed was how little it resembled in style and substance the form we are familiar with when it comes to trump, his patented now iconic twitter outbursts. instead of insulting nicknames, exclamatory points, we were treated to the kind of thing any presidential candidate would publish under his name. replete with sentences like the following --

mark, who is this rather conventional prose stylist, and what has he done with the donald? more importantly, what is the meaning of this more polished donald trump? mark: as far as offense go, this one was pretty good. it had some interesting writing in it -- as op-eds go. it is recognition that he can make powerful arguments in a different format on a platform which is quite prestigious, and i believe donald trump to become president must win over the business community. hillary clinton has the potential to be the candidate of

a lot up big business, some small business. trump wants to reach out and basically argue stylistically, "i can be an adult and make a persuasive point that does not end with the word sad, exclamation point." john: you think about the megan kelly tête-à-tête, and then think about "the wall street journal" opening up its pages to allow him in, suggests something is going on in murdoch-landia thinking they do not want to be at war with the potential republican nominee. mark: it would not be unusual for news corp. to make the following judgment -- trump is probably going to be the nominee. he could under some fluke get

elected. why not in the short term do some nice stuff? john: that is the kind of thing rupert murdoch were done and -- would do and has done for years. we will be right back. ♪

john: today, we follow ted cruz up to cicero, new york, not that are from -- not that far from syracuse. we talked a little politics, starting out with his discussion of his empire state strategy. cruz: new york is donald's home state.

if he does anything other than win with substantially more than 50%, i think it will be perceived as a real loss. we are trying to earn as many delegates as we can and competing on the ground and getting some support. but our campaign is national. we have had an amazing last three weeks, winning 11 elections in a row in numeral or different states, and that momentum is continuing nationwide -- in 4 different states. we welcome every delegate can earn, but when donald came to the state of texas, we walloped him in my home state. any serious candidate ought to be able to win their home state. the person you can trust to defend the bill of rights and also the person you can trust to standing up to radical islamic terrorists and to defend our

allies like israel. john: donald trump and his supporters are going to be disappointed. he will have had the most delegates. what would you need or expect from him to help unify the party if you get your way, coming in with the second-most, leave as the nominee? cruz: it is getting more and more likely with each passing day we are headed to a contested convention. i will come in with a ton of delegates, donald with a ton of delegates -- john: but with more. cruz: we will see what the voters decide on that. regardless, what that means is that in cleveland, it will be a

battle to see who can earn a majority of delegates who were elected by the people. in that context, we will have the significant advantage of being able to assemble and really unite the republican party, and that is my focus right now. if we are divided and fighting amongst ourselves, we cannot win, so our focus -- and it's why i'm so encouraged that we are winning election after election -- we are seeing that role range of republicans -- john: at that point, donald trump would be disappointed. he has sort of sense signals that he would at that point say the system is rigged against him. and hundreds of thousands of millions of people around the country who voted for him or support him -- how do you bring donald trump and his supporters at that point? cruz: i'm not going to predict how donald will react. the test is the same as it has been since 1860.

the only way to win a nomination is to win a majority of delegates elected by the people. whoever the nominee is, that's what they will have to do. if it ends up, as i think probably will happen, a contested convention, it will be important to keep trump supporters engaged. if you look at those supporters, the heart of his campaign demographically has been blue collar workers, the reagan democrats, and the only candidate who has competed effectively with him for those voters has been me. in some states, he has won those voters and others, i have one those voters. we tend to be back and forth. the issues that excite those voters -- illegal immigration, keeping the country safe, bringing jobs back to america from china and mexico -- those issues are right at the heart of our campaign. i believe if i earn a majority

of delegates in cleveland that we will be able to continue to energize and unite those trump supporters. john: you think you can reach his supporters and energize them without necessarily his full support for you? cruz: i certainly hope so. there is no doubt in a contested convention that is something you naturally worry about, having divisions in the party. we will have to work hard at continuing to unite the party. one sign that is encouraging -- look at the 17 republicans who started this race. five are endorsing my campaign now. that really is indicative of the republican party uniting, and each of those was fighting vigorously against me. part of the reason we were able to unite the party was in the course of those battles, our campaign never got personal, never got nasty, never attacked them directly. we had policy disagreements, but

it makes it easier to unite when you do that. i hope the same will be true with donald supporters if then when we win the nomination -- if and when we win the nomination. john: we will be right back with more of our interview with ted cruz right after this word from our sponsors. ♪

♪

mark: we are back with part two of our interview with ted cruz in cicero, new york, right outside of syracuse. it has gotten nasty between you two. donald calls you lyin' ted almost every day. he tweeted that picture of your wife that was clearly meant to insult her. is this all just political theater? if somebody treated me like that, i would never be friends with them. way we would ever be allies again. i would be offended the rest of my life. can this be fixed? cruz: from my side, i try not to take it personally. there's the old adage of the frog and the scorpion, and the frog getting the scorpion across the river and the scorpion stings him. as the fraud is sinking, the frog asks him why, and the scorpion says, "because it's my nature."

people behave according to their nature. i understand. donald lashes out. when he is scared when he loses. that's when he gets particularly nasty. we are all human beings. we have natural human emotions. the focus at the end of the day is not on donald, not on me, it is solving the problems in this country. my focus is jobs and economic growth, and i think that's the focus of the people in new york. they want to see high-paying jobs back in america. john: could you be allies again? would he need to ask you for forgiveness? again, i would not be friends with someone who treated my wife like that. cruz: lyin' john. i do think families should be off-limits. that has no place in politics. grateful that donald said it was a mistake to do that. my focus -- this should not be

personal. it's not about him or me. it is about the country. it's about who has real solutions. millions of americans are hurting. wages have stagnated over a decade. so what i am focused on every day is how do we bring manufacturing jobs that to new york, see wages rise, see young people coming out of school with job offers. what i focus on every day is lifting the burden of washington on small businesses, passing a simple flat tax, pulling back regulators that are killing small businesses, stopping amnesty and ending sanctuary cities. those are the solutions we need. that is why we are getting so much support across the country. mark: are your taxes done? have you signed them yet? narrator: cruz: i am sending in an extension, which i confess we do every year.

mark: you do not talk about your tax plan in a way i find -- i asked voters what you stand for and i do not hear many people talk about it. cruz: it is a simple flat tax. first $36,000 you earn, you pay nothing, zero. above $36,000, for each additional dollar you earn, everyone pays the same, simple, flat 10% tax. no longer does the gazillionaire pay a lower effective tax rate than the secretary. on the business side, we abolish the corporate income tax the , obamacare taxes. we abolish the payroll taxes. we abolish the death tax, which is cruel and unfair to farmers and ranchers and small businesses. we replace those with a 16% business flat tax that is fair and uniform. no longer do giant corporations with tons of accountants pay nothing, while small businesses get hammered. under this simple flat tax, every american will fill out

taxes on a postcard -- you can see it on our website. you can fill out your taxes on a smart phone. and we abolish the irs. people are thinking about the burdens of washington, and especially with the obama irs, which has been politicized. it has been corrupt. it has targeted citizens based on their first amendment rights. it is time to end the corrupt agency that is the irs, and my simple flat tax will produce 4.9 million new jobs and raise wages for americans across the country. the average family over 10 years will have an additional $7,600 in take-home pay. that's real money for people who are struggling. mark: lots of people according to your calculations will pay less. would any business or individual pay more? cruz: i have not done the projections for every individual in america, but 14% is the

lowest increase, and that was when we were designing it. i worked very closely with the chief economic adviser to ronald reagan, and that was one of the things i was looking for in designing it. it had to help everyone and had to produce growth. the key to every problem we have -- unemployment, deficit, strengthening and preserving social security and medicare, rebuilding the military -- it has to be growth. this tax plan is designed to turbocharge growth so small that businesses take off and so manufacturing jobs come back to america from china, mexico, and back to the state of new york. mark: do you have any idea how much your family would pay under the plan? cruz: i have not run those numbers. john: i believe it is true that you are a country music fan. more country than rock 'n roll? you like bruce springsteen?

cruz: i enjoy bruce springsteen. john: bruce springsteen announced the other day they would not play in north carolina because of the bathroom law. when you hear of an artist doing something like that, did you think that's legitimate or disrespectful? what does it make you think about bruce springsteen. cruz: cruz and everyone else has a free-speech right. i do think an awful lot of hollywood and entertainment latches on to whatever is politically correct and popular at the given moment. my view i am a , constitutionalist, and states have rights to pass laws consistent with the values of their citizens, and it may well be the citizens of north carolina will make a different judgments than the citizens of new york and that's how our , constitution operates. john: you do not feel sympathy or disgust? cruz: he is entitled to be a liberal, and most rock 'n rollers, most of hollywood, they are liberals.

that is their culture, frankly, it is the easy thing to be a liberal. everyone in the entertainment field -- it's the chic, hip thing to do. you do not often see rock 'n rollers or movie stars address the fact that income inequality has grown under the obama economy. the rich have gotten richer, and those who are struggling have gotten worse off. you do not often see entertainment industry or hollywood address the fact that we have abandoned israel and that radical islamic terrorism is growing like crazy and this president and hillary clinton, for that matter, refuses to acknowledge it, much less to defeat it. mark:. : isn't the case that you're about to start vetting vice presidential candidates. cruz: we are less than 100 days away from the convention. you have to do that. we are in the process of assessing. it really is a nice situation on

the republican side because there are an abundance of good choices. terrific governors. : you have to vet them. am i right that you are about to start the process? cruz: there will not be a vice presidential nominee until we win the nomination, so our campaign is earning the vote from the people to earn delegates to go to cleveland. this is going to go on a fast, accelerated timeframe. mark: our thanks to senator ted cruz. after our talk, we got the chance to foos with cruz, foosball, that is. you can catch our epic face-off with the senator on this program on monday. you will want to see it. up next we get into the , nitty-gritty of new york politics with a couple of folks from the syracuse area.

that is right after this. ♪

♪ john: we have pulled up two chairs to talk to two chairs from upstate new york. joining us now is the cochair of donald trump's team. and the cochair of hillary clinton's team. and syracuse mayor, stephanie meyer.

i can't do the county, and i can't do the name. donald trump is going to win the state, right? >> he is. john: we understand donald trump is a new york city phenomenon. >> he was considering running for governor a couple of years back and i was part of a small group trying to recruit him to do that. upstate has struggled for decades with job loss, population loss, high taxes, and that is a message that is gravitating and getting donald trump a lot of support. john: hillary clinton came up here when she ran for senate and this was part of how she won the first time. she had to reintroduce herself to this part of the world, having been not a new york politician for a decade? >> no, i don't think so. she was here two weeks ago when we made our run.

had a great day, lots of positive feedback. people were anxious and hopeful and grateful that she had the opportunity to come back. we knew her as a senator, and she started her listening tour here, and that was the exposure we all started with her. she was a very hands-on senator, a workhorse, not a show horse. the people up here had first-hand experience with that. you to talk amongst yourselves on this topic. we have had years now of all editions in both parties trying to revitalize the economy. what is left to be tried that has not been tried? meyer: we have gone into a global marketplace. you have to compete not just against the south and west but china and mexico. the way you do that is having innovation, high skilled engineers, people that can problem solve, and too many politicians have been thinking about doing it with quick one-shot answers. just cut taxes, or just give a development break. you need to have a more

sustainable approach to economic development. dadey: i think that is one reason donald trump has caught wildfire. he is a strong leader and is build a tremendous company. he employs a lot of people, and jobs and taxes are big issues here in upstate new york. for decades, it has been going in the wrong direction. mark: do you know any republicans who will support hillary clinton? >> i do not know any republicans. mark: do you know any democrats who will support donald trump? >> i don't. i know a lot of republicans who will support hillary clinton. i have talked to them. >> we will have a lot of crossover support. rank-and-file union person, and they are just frustrated with what is going on. one of the reasons trump is is doing so well is because for

decades, we have been sending the same people to washington, and nothing is getting done. when they see donald trump coming to town or see the organization he has built, they know he can get results, and that's what they expect to happen when he goes to washington, d.c. minor: i know lots of people supporting donald trump, and their primary emotion is frustration. you almost can't talk to them beyond that frustration. frustrated with folks in leadership across the board. when you try to talk with them about the solutions they do not , want to hear that. they just say they want someone who goes in and just blows it all up. dadey: people are frustrated, and i think that's one of the reasons you are seeing bernie sanders do so well in hillary clinton's adopted home state. john: and a general election -- let's assume donald trump and hillary clinton are the nominees. presumably, new york will be -- two new yorkers competing for the votes of the state. make the argument for why this part of the world should favor donald trump over hillary clinton. not over the other republicans. dadey: donald trump was born and

raised in new york. he was born in queens. he will do very well in new york city. he does not need to win new york city. he just has to do better than our statewide candidates have done. he is going to do well on long island and the suburbs. he will have a lot of support in upstate new york because there have been a lot of issues over the last couple of years -- there's a reason why there is a lot of voter frustration. he is going to make it a very competitive race. he's going to put new york in late in the general election in november if it is donald versus hillary. john: why is he wrong? minor: one word -- substance. when you start voting for president of the united states, that's a very personal vote. people want to have someone who is steady, knows substance, has already talked about policy and implemented those policies. dadey: donald trump has a very successful record of building a company and creating jobs. that's what we need here in upstate new york and that's why , he will do so well in upstate new york. mark: we have less than 30 seconds. are you both proud that two of

the leading candidates are new yorkers? minor: i am proud to be supporting hillary clinton -- dadey: wasn't hillary from arkansas or illinois? mark: no state pride in this. > minor: seeing the things that donald trump has said, the way he has that it has not made me feel proud at all. dadey: very happy that he is. mark: were you surprised? dadey: she is not a new yorker. john: great to meet you both and great to have you on. when we come back, we will give you the blow-by-blow of what happened in the ring last night at the brouhaha in brooklyn. ♪

♪ mark: we in the media love to draw comparisons between politics and pugilism, so that's why we like to say candidates sparred or suffered a beat down in a debate. with everyone calling last night's prizefight the brooklyn brawl, we thought we would send our man to a boxing gym to see the latest debate through their eyes. >> i think they are evenly matched. >> who one is a different story. >> bernie kept coming back, "you did not answer the question." >> i thought bernie took it by a little bit. >> it was sort of a brooklyn brawl. >> bareknuckle brawl.

>> that just look like a sparring session. you,e person is hitting you have no other option but to rock back. you saw hillary sticking him and , he would try to come through, and then just bam, bam, bam again. just don't let her dominate you. don't let her jump all over your words when you are trying to respond. that is what she is doing. she's trying to pound him, pound him, pound him, then he comes back with a qualified response. >> i'm sure a lot of people are very surprised to learn that you supported raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. >> it's like one big solid right. likewas thinking this is boxing without gloves. >> secretary clinton was busy giving speeches to goldman sachs for $225,000. >> senator sanders did call me unqualified. >> you are going to hit me, and

i am going to hit you back. a lot of raised voices, a lot of yelling. that's how it is in boxing. who is going to dominate the time and get the right hits in before the round is over? >> one of those dirty fights. it was not as friendly as in the past. clinton: this is one of those phony attack designed to raise questions when there's no evidence or support. >> some of those jabs that hillary was doing were just little taps, trying to make points, but not doing any damage. >> maybe the next one, they might do another muhammad ali float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. mark: we will be right back with some late-night comedy stylings after this. ♪

♪ while donald trump test his remaining rivals are taking a sometimes goofier route, appearing on late-night tv. john kasich was on with the great seth myers, ted cruz on "the tonight show" starring the great jimmy fallon. >> are you watching the democratic debate? >> no i'm watching the princess , bride for the 843rd time. >> inconceivable. kasich: i am a blue-collar guy. i am like a person that is frustrated about things in life.

my father carried mail on his back. >> it is illegal if you take somebody else's mail. >> that's a good point. mark: both those guys have done late night before, but how do you think their comedy chops are developing? john: everyone expects john kasich to be good at this. he is a goofy guy. ted cruz did pretty well last night. mark: i think they are both really funny privately and both not nervous on the shows. that's the key. you've got to be game to do it. they were both pretty game. the cruz thing where jimmy fallon played trump was great. john: it's hard not to be nervous, but they had it down. mark: on monday, you will get to see some comedy and competition when we show our foosball face-off with ted cruz. politics to bloomberg

right now. coming up, emily chang sits down with arianna huffington. we will be back monday with more from our foosball match with ted cruz. mark is so excited he decided to skip ahead and tease it before i had time to tease it. mark: we came up with a lot of good nicknames for ted cruz. john: we did. almost trump-ian i would say. ted cruz, not a lot of banter. mark: if you want to see the eye of the tiger, watch monday's episode. john: thanks for watching. time to say sayanara. ♪

♪ announcer: "brilliant ideas," powered by hyundai motors. ♪ narrator: the contemporary art world is vibrant and booming as never before. it is a 21st century phenomenon. a global industry in its own right. "brilliant ideas" looks at the artists at the heart of this. they have a unique power to inspire, astonish, provoke, and shock. artists like kyuchul ahn. ♪