♪ john: welcome to this edition of the best of "with all due respect." it was a week in which donald trump and hillary clinton inched closer to becoming the nominees, while the remaining rivals threw everything but the kitchen sink right at them. mark: ted cruz and john kasich tried teaming up to put wins on the board in the upcoming contest. cruz also took the unusual step of naming a running mate before the convention, hoping the promise to put carly fiorina on the ticket will tantalize voters to join team ted. john: on the other side, bernie sanders cap talking tough about hillary clinton, even though he

is laying off staffers. he is consolidating his effort into california. mark: will any of these candidates work? we will hear from the best political strategists from both parties in the business, starting with steve schmidt. john: we are inaugurating a brand-new branded segment of "with all due respect." this segment is called "schmidt happens." we are here with republican strategist steve schmidt, the star of the ongoing series, "schmidt happens." mr. schmidt, you have some experience with vice presidential rollouts, famously in 2008. tell us what you think, the way the hypothetical vice president of carly fiorina was handled by senator cruz. steve schmidt: she is fine, but it will not make much of a difference. his momentum in the campaign is stalled. it is what it is. he is tried to change the story line from trump's domination of these contests.

trying to get some energy in ahead of indiana. it went fine, but carly fiorina is not a surprise. we talked about, we are going to unveil the running mate. a lot of people who followed this stuff would bet with not very long odds, it was likely to be carly fiorina. she had been tested over the course of the last month. at the end of the day, i think the net effect as a practical matter is nothing for her as we wrap up this week and go into next week. mark: one of the biggest things of the week, so much overshadowed, tuesday night, when donald trump asked if he was the presumptive nominee, and he said yeah. he wants them out. if he wins indiana and they don't get out, which i think is possible, what can he do? are the people that can endorse? if trump and corey lewandowski

want to engineer that, what steps can they take to pressure -- steve schmidt: the title of presumptive nominee is one that needs to be bestowed typically by the titular head of the party. in 2008, when it was clear that john mccain was going to be the presumptive nominee, he had a meeting with the president of the united states at the white house. in this case, the titular head of the party is either mitt romney, the past nominee, or is paul ryan, the ranking elected republican in the country. or, perhaps, it could be reince priebus, but some combination of priebus, ryan, or mitt romney saying donald trump is going to be the first valid nomination of the republican party. mark: this tension, is it possible any of those three guys could or would say that or send that signal until trump actually goes numerically over? steve schmidt: reince priebus, and speaker ryan, there is no upside for the speaker wanting to control the house and certainly mcconnell in the senate to damage unnecessarily the the person who will be the nominee of the party. denying the obvious, when he is on the precipice of hitting that magic number of 1237 serves nobody's purpose. mark: so if he wins indiana, could you imagine a world where trump good call reince priebus,

you should put out a statement and send a signal that this thing is over. steve schmidt: it would be totally appropriate for him to do so. i think reince priebus would check with a lot of his constituency, which is the membership of the rnc. if you look at donald trump, to make the math simple, he is at 1000 delegates with the uncommitted in pennsylvania. he will win new jersey, winner take all. let's be stingy in the allocation in california, we will say he gets 150 out of 172 in california. he is at 1200 pre-indiana.

if he wins indiana, he is clearly going to be the nominee on the first ballot in cleveland. the parties should begin to bestow the trappings that it would on any nominee. john: last time, you talked about the fact that republicans privately say that trump is unqualified, etc. so the never trump movement, regardless of whether he gets to 1237, there are people who are in the never trump movement. they will never vote for him. you are donald trump, mitt romney does not show up to the convention. john mccain has said he will not. he could change his mind, but right now the past two nominees are not going to go. they have made it clear they will not ever vote for him let alone endorse him. how do you manage that? some people will endorse him, he will get that. some of the party will acquiesce

and capitulate. what do you do about that? steve schmidt: once you become the nominee, we will see the dissonance with what people have been saying, never trump, i will never support trump, but i tend to support the nominee in my party. that moment is, i think, quickly arriving. i think you will see some republicans who say no, i will not be able to support the nominee of the party. i think he is unfit. but i don't think that is going to be a majority. i think the prominent members of the elected leadership of the republican party, the number that won't support him, is going to be few and far between, because they will be -- you have an elected class in washington that was terrified of the tea party movement. it wasn't a exactly profiles encouraged standing up to the excesses in the last year among the elected republican leadership. and that the notion that these elected republican congressmen and senators are going to take on the trump constituency by attacking donald trump when he

is trying to get the nomination, after he becomes the clear nominee, is fanciful? it will not happen. john: so mitt romney goes to the election? steve schmidt: no. john: how do you manage that piece of dissonance? if the past presidents, george w. bush will not be there, what do you do when you are donald trump and you are trying to bring the party together? mark: bush and cheney always seem to be busy. if trump wins on tuesday, we all go back to these people that said, i am not going to vote for trump, but he will not be the nominee. once he is the nominee, we will face a choice. i think it will go about 80-20. they will say the former party chairman, what is he going to do? not vote for the nominee of his own party? once he gets bush 41, and if they don't show up in cleveland and protest, what does it really matter? steve schmidt: once you have a

nominee of your party, typically you indict all that is wrong in the world and america completely on the other party. history begins for republicans in this scenario on the moment that barack obama took office. donald trump is not like that. he will indict the failures of both parties, multiple administrations, going back to the 1980's. i think the last and arguably successful president we had was ronald reagan in this country. he will indict both parties, the leadership of both parties, and he is going to say there is an upside to doing that with the millions of democratic voters who are as upset as republican voters, that could cross over as reagan democrats. john: you are basically saying for him, by his calculation,

party unity could be overrated. when you play that game, that is the way you can alienate large parts of the republican party. if you attack the republican establishment and democrat establishment, a lot of republicans will not rally around my message. steve: he is not going to go out of his way to make enormous concessions. one of the things that would be smart to do is reach out to paul ryan upon winning indiana, if he does that, and say, what does the legislative package i send up to the congress on january 21 look like? what is the first 100 days of legislation that you can pass, i would like you to partner with me in drafting this legislative package. that is how he does the reach-out to establishment republicans, through paul ryan, through the policy operation. but getting the favor of washington, getting the lobbying class, the political establishment such as it is, not really important. mark: i thought he would get

bush 41. really important. mark: i thought he would get bush 41. if you were on trump's team, who would you be worried about that would follow romney's path who would say, i will vote for hillary or someone else. who would you be concerned about? steve: what we want to avoid is a critical mass of national security figures who are respected. mark: petraeus. steve schmidt: general petraeus or stan mcchrystal. the generals of our most recent wars. but going back, henry kissinger, foreign policy doyens of the last generation, if they raise the temperament issue. mark: meet me at this camera. i'm telling you right now, and brooklyn, they are going hard right now for many of the people on the list that steve mentioned. the clinton campaign will try to

get endorsements from the very kind of people you are talking about early on to break trump. john: coming right out of that, is it imperative that trump puts someone on the ticket that has national security experience? steve schmidt: it is not imperative, but he could send an important signal with who he picks to be the vice president. and i think it is absolutely blue skies, open space about who or what credentials that person is going to have that is on the ticket. we have no idea. is it going to be a governor, someone outside of politics, the military? who knows. john: i think it's got to be someone with national security experience. he does not have that in his portfolio. mark: and there will be deflections he will have to counter back. steve schmidt: the key will be the debates in the fall.

they will be the most watched global television programs, probably since the moon landing, and we will, those will be determined. we will determine who the president is. john: still ahead, the state of the democratic race with two-party veterans. james carville and anita dunn. ♪

senator sanders: it would be a great idea to have a woman as a vice president, something i would give very much thought to. mark: any women who would be qualified for that job? senator sanders: yes, there are many women who could be qualified for the job. mark: can you name any? [laughter] bernie sanders: no, it is too early. but there are people, elizabeth warren has been a real champion taking on wall street. mark: that was senator bernie sanders on "morning joe" this morning. we are back with james carville in new orleans, and joining us from washington, former white house communications director in

the obama administration anita dunn, not affiliated with either campaign this year. if you wear advising the hillary clinton campaign, and she called and said, what is the best proper role for bernie sanders and my convention, assuming she gets the majority, what would you tell her that role should be? anita: i would tell her, let him make his primetime speech. let him talk directly to the country about differences between the two parties. mark, as you know, primaries are about fighting for the direction of the party, but general elections are about fighting for the direction of the entire nation. i think that senator sanders' primetime speech let him lay out the indictment of the republicans and the difference between the political parties and speak directly to his supporters and the people attracted to his message. mark: james, what about you? james: it will be her

convention, but generally the other candidates will be allowed to speak. i'm sure that will all be negotiated going into the convention. but i would not discount the possibility that sanders would have a speech at a important time during the convention. he's got a lot of voters. he's registered a lot of people that the democratic party needs to, and they need to be spoken to. i don't have a problem with that. john: james, you are for hillary clinton. one thing that is clear is that senator sanders has spoken to young democrats, young voters, in a way much more powerfully than clinton has so far. what can she take from bernie sanders? what does she have to do to get the affection, the enthusiasm of those voters? james: i am around young people a lot. i am a college professor now. i think sanders has a critique of the system that, in my opinion and a lot of other

people, is kind of superficial. but it is appealing to people. they are coming in the party and have enthusiasm. i think any political party once young people like this. the democratic party has a huge advantage of people under 35, and he will make it better. she wanted to incorporate these people and have enthusiastic members of the democratic party, which i hope she can do, and i think she can, but it will require some political skill, dexterity, and patience. all of those things she has demonstrated she has. john: we have talked in the past about issues that matter to millennial voters. what can hillary clinton do while staying true to herself on policy and in terms of temperament and tenor to connect those voters? anita: i think it is interesting because the issues bernie sanders is talking about our issues i think hillary clinton is very comfortable talking

about. hillary has about 30 years of experience of what happens when you have money interests ganging up against progressive issues like health care, for example. she can speak to that about as well as anybody. i think she can speak to education about as well as anybody. she led education reform when she was the first lady of arkansas. what hillary clinton has is a lot of areas of agreement with bernie sanders, and she also has a passion for a lot of things he has been talking about in terms of making lives better for regular people. i think that needs to come through in the general election. and what james was saying is absolutely right. she needs to talk to them, but at the same time i think she's got a lot to say. james: i think the young people, like a lot of people, can either agree, or they can think the system is rigged. she has got to convince them she understands that and she is about leveling the playing field.

she needs to be an advocate for that point of view. people around the country, and particular in young people, think the system is being corrupted by money. she has got to be able to speak to that. i think she can do that, she believes that. they are going to have to do that. she will have to talk about that. that is what young people think, it is rigged, stacked, and bought off. to some extent, i can't blame them. mark: anita, once upon a time there was a war room in little rock, arkansas. they had a sign on the wall that said, change versus more of the same. don't forget health care. and that other one said, it is the economy, stupid. one of the three things that should be taxed on the clinton war room, what are they? anita: i don't think they are a bad place to start. change versus more of the same, i would change that a little, change versus going backwards, more of the same versus going

backwards. i think that is the way she will match up against republicans. and the second, it is the economy. but it is about jobs and your life. the third, it is about them. it is about people. those three things, not dissimilar to what james tacked up in his war room in 1992, are really the core precepts of them forward. mark: james, what would you put up? james: i would say the change we are going to bring about, we are going to have a government that works for you. and we are going to take on the kind of people that are working against you. it is a level playing field out there, and i am going to level it, i will be to your person in the white house. it is change is going back. trump wants to go back to 1958. that is not the way to go. she has got to do that and talk about how she wants to level the playing field, and about how all of her life has been about being

an agent of change and being on the cutting edge of change. she can do that effectively. i look forward to it. mark: we come back, strategist alex castellanos and steve mcmahon are explaining why some in the republican establishment are finally warming up to donald j. trump. ♪

♪ mark: two guys we call the purple people. steve mcmahon and alex castellanos. together, they are the founding partners of purple strategies, our polling partners, and two people that know a lot about politics. thank you for coming in. alex, you have had a troubled relationship with the prospect of donald trump being your nominee. are you fully accepting the reality, or you are hoping people could intercede? alex: i am vowing for president trump. he had this thing won in march. he nearly lost it. he has won it back. you are seeing the republican

party becoming more comfortable. the price of denying trump the nomination is so clear to everyone in the party. it would be so destructive. that is part of the bandwagon effect, rallying the party around him. it is not whether he has earned the nomination. it is, would it destroy the party denying it to him? mark: is there anything where he has talked about solidifying his hold, this is a guy that could win a general election? steve: i think he has gotten more depth, more presidential. this corey lewandowski thing that goes back and forth, is paul manafort making him more presidential, or is corey lewandowski allowing him to revert to his old self. he is a little more presidential. you can see him maturing. but then he goes off like he did last night and seems to regress. if he runs a temper-tantrum

campaign, he is going to get destroyed. but if he runs a really good campaign, he is going to get beat. alex: i think hillary clinton has never run against anyone with 10 arms and a legs like donald trump's. i think the odds of donald trump winning the general election are better than 50-50. john: so could you tell me about what happened today with ted cruz and carly fiorina? what do you think about that? alex: it was a clear strategy by ted cruz to get her delegate. i don't think she has any. i have no idea. it makes no sense. this guy has asked a girl to the prom, she said no, he is still making dinner reservations. it doesn't do anything. i think it demonstrates how irrelevant he is becoming. cruz had value for one reason, he was an alternative to trump. nobody actually wanted cruz. but it turns that when donald trump either succeeds or fails, you don't need ted cruz. he is now irrelevant.

steve: he got jealous because he heard john kasich was actually interviewing vetted. and having vice president shall candidates cruz did not want to lose anything to kasich, so he moved quickly and decisively. john: help, hurt, or just a wash? help him, hurt him, or is it a wash? steve: he is so irrelevant, and probably hurts him a little bit, because it reinforces the fact he is desperate and irrelevant. john: so you think that donald trump is going to be the nominee, no question. he is going to get to 1237? steve: i have been hoping this would be the case. alex: this year, the impossible is already happening, so who knows what could happen tomorrow? could he lose indiana? could a meteor hit? something? yeah, there is a chance he falls not only a handful of votes short, but maybe they steal 200

votes from him and deny him the nomination, the party blows up. i don't think that will happen. it looks like donald trump will be the republican nominee. mark: rick scott said the stop trump movement is just helping hillary clinton. do you think that will become more of a consensus view in the party? alex: i think you are right. the governor of florida is at the leading edge of that debate. but it is beginning to sink in that the cost of denying trump the nomination is chaos in the party. political parties are like the stock market. they can go up or down, but you want to avoid uncertainty. right now, the republican party wants to bring certainty to this process. that is the trend for the next two months. steve: i completely agree with him in terms of the trump supporters walking out of the convention angry. on the other hand, a lot of mainstream republicans are very worried about what happens if he

is the nominee. does the senate go under, does the house of representatives lose 30 seats and go democratic? i say, go donald because all of alex: but if i were a senate candidate and i had a choice in having ted cruz above me in the ticket or donald trump, i would have a better shot of being my own person, my own candidate under donald trump. ted cruz is the narrowest possible expression of being a republican, but he is one. donald trump is, the circus has come to town, and i am the circus. look at me. john: a former ambassador gives us his take, next. ♪

♪ mark: talk more about donald trump's policy speech he gave in washington. we heard a lot from the public

in front runner who says what is wrong with america's current foreign-policy and something dramatic about what we are doing about america's standing in the world. here is a quick highlight reel of some of his ideas and positions. donald trump: the countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense, and if not, the u.s. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves. we have no choice. our president has allowed china to continue its economic assault on american jobs and wealth, refusing to enforce trade deals, and apply leverage on china necessary to rein in north korea. i believe in the easing of tensions and improved relations with russia from a position of strength only. it is possible, absolutely possible. and then there is isis. i have a simple message for them. their days are numbered.

i will not tell them where, and i won't tell them how. [applause] we must, as a nation, be more unpredictable. mark: a little bit more from that speech, joining us to talk about what trump said today, the former political ambassador at the united nations during bush 43's administration. thank you for joining us. let's start with the last point. trump has said it before and the clinton people jump all over this, being unpredictable is good. trump says they are sending advisers into a place. he says we should not be giving stuff away. is there a notion in respected foreign-policy circles that unpredictability is a good idea? stuart: there is a difference between unpredictable behavior versus keeping your cards close in terms of how you carry out certain policies. nixon surprised everybody with normalization of relations with china.

that wasn't unpredictable in the sense that it makes sense to the national interest, but it was a surprise. he is looking at vladimir putin in the way he gained and got an edge on certain regional issues, seeing us from plodding along and not being nimble. john: a lot of people look at trump, and their criticisms are that he is un-serious. do you hear a serious person in that speech about world affairs? stuart: i actually do. you know, i think what i see is , somebody who believes that american leadership in the world is somewhat eroded. that is not uncommon among american republican candidates. but i see the link between economic diplomacy and leverage, there has always been the effort to engage diplomatically over here, and then sanctions, but but you really don't do anything to link economic consequences. he is a negotiator. he is thinking that you can use economic leverage to achieve political and diplomatic

outcomes, which is hard. mark: some people look at what he is proposing, reagan tried to do this. clinton tried to do it. is there a reason to believe he is not beholden to the state department? do you think that stuff like that actually could change under president trump? stewart: we saw with president obama's cairo speech, the president is a powerful bully pulpit. if they do the burden sharing, it is going to get a lot of attention. a lot of leverage. the question to me is not, do you shock somebody out of nato because they cannot pay their bill, but how do you link what they pay for to their own national security? is there a smart way to get them over the 2%, which there are only three or four in this country that are actually paying? john: what strikes me about the speeches that there are a lot of apparent inconsistencies where he seems restrained, hawkish.

other places where he seems less so. is there a worldview here? and identifiable realist? neocon? stuart: i think it is realist. he sounds like somebody who views democracy promotion and idealistic -- you talk about universal values versus american interest, tthat is what takes me back to the 1970's in terms of how we viewed the world. i also did hear inconsistencies. it is tough to have it both ways, be robust militarily but not intervene. i think the timeframe he laid out for prosecuting the struggle against islamic extremism indicates that he has got this view of this as the new communist threat. he used containment, the term containment, against this. building and putting resources

behind that is going to be important as well as getting everyone to foot the bill, help foot the bill. mark: less than 30 seconds, he did not take questions from us, if if you could ask him one question now about his foreign-policy, national security, what would it be? stuart: when he would decide to use military force. he left that up in the air. we talk about american national interest, our allies. we have treaty obligations, the south china sea, south korea. when would we act, and under what circumstances? that is invariably the highest responsibility of the president, and we don't know where he exactly where he stands on that mark: still ahead, crashing the one. two party system. we talked to investor turned political activist, peter. ♪

♪ mark: john and i recently sat down with peter ackermann, the chairman of the group known as level the playing field. he wants to make it easier for

third-party candidates to participate in presidential debates. he was also the founder of americans elect, which was trying to get a third-party candidate on the ballot in 2012. we start off by asking mr. ackermann if the success of donald trump and bernie sanders this year runs counter to his argument that the two-party process is closed off to outsiders. peter: if you look at bernie sanders and donald trump, the thing they don't have together is they don't represent the independent voice that is simultaneously attractive to democrats and republicans who are moderates and independents together. that coalition is not represented in either of them. what we really need is a pathway so people who can represent the , coalition have a fair chance to compete. mark: are you sure there is room for someone to be a distinctive voice and an important voice between the two major parties, as opposed to bernie sanders on the left and donald trump on the populist right? peter: when you try to

conceptualize the third as the ideological crease between them, you are missing the point. basically has a whole range of preferences tempered by the feeling of those preferences. when you put that all together in terms of portfolio of interest, and desires they find , the two parties are not suitable to match, one of the other, to match what they really want. this is why 80% of the country would love to see a viable john: third. we remember americans elect and what it was trying to do, get people on the ballot. talk about leveling the playing field and how it grew out of that experience, and what you are actually trying to do right now. peter: when we created americans elect, the idea was to create an internet-based voting system that would nominate a nonpartisan ticket, not republican, not democratic, that would be on the ballot in all 50 states. we got a lot of that done. we did the largest signature drive in history.

we basically created the ability for 40 million people to vote. but frankly, and this is my problem as the leader, i underestimated the difficulty of getting into the debates. when we went to candidates and asked them to consider running, and they would go to their friends in the two parties, they would find a finger pointed at their chest saying it would be bad. they go back and say, pete, if i put myself out, i am going to get negative blowback. if i win, i will be on the ballot, but how do i get through to the debates? after two years of planning, i thought it was easier than it was. we found there was mathematically no chance of somebody getting into the debates who wasn't democratic or republican, or a self-funded independent. even they would have huge risks of what is required to be in the debates. if i said to your viewers right now, let's create a law that

only democrats and republicans can be president, i would say every one of your viewers would have said that is terrible, unconstitutional. it is probably obnoxious to suggest. but mathematically, that is precisely what we are going to get. right now, we are fighting that. we have a motion for summary judgment against the fec to force the rules to be changed. john: so level the playing field is strictly focusing on the debate issue. peter: and the things that come before it. the ballot access rules and the imbalances, and how to raise money. if you are a democrat or republican, as george clooney is, you could raise $834,000 a person. if you are an independent, you can raise $2700 a person. if you need to get on the ballot, which nominees don't, every single state is $15 million. i have been through it. if you are really at $2700, the reality is you are gathering.

before you get any nomination, use it with people like i am doing, you need to sit down with 150,000 people, assuming they all said yes. if half say yes, it is 300,000. that is why no individual who is not a billionaire has ever made it on the ballot for president. that is a defect in our system that must be rectified. mark: i understand what you are doing. as i suggested, i have a great intellectual sympathy for it. but isn't the reality that however much progress you have, until there is a person who can actually do this, has the political ability, the issues, the matrix, the funding capacity, nothing you do will matter. and if there is such a person, you might be paving the way for them, but they won't really need this. they will be able to make these things happen on their own. peter: with the current rules, there is no chance.

bernie sanders was asked by chuck todd, you are on independent socialist, why are you running as a democrat? he said, because you would not be interviewing me today. he also understands that donald trump has $2 billion in free earned media. in the two parties, you have a process you follow, brilliantly. the both of you. there is an anticipation of events, and you talk about it every day, and that creates media. mark: take trump. at trump decided last may to run as an independent and willing to spend his own money and raise money, he would be on all 50 ballots and in the debates. peter: the important take away like we are seeing now with the two parties is that we are seeing how obscure rules that we don't think about until the moment we think about them actually can impact and election

so much so that people are saying, this is a rigged game or it is not democratic. john: coming up, what is like to be a trump supporter in a deep blue state. we go on the ground in connecticut. ♪

♪ john: donald trump is expected to win the connecticut primary tomorrow. we sent our filmmaker 135 miles north to a rural, economically depressed area of connecticut to learn one thing. what is it like being a donald trump supporter in connecticut these days? >> what are you hearing? birds, nice breeze. it doesn't get much better than this. reporter: jeff ennis lives in rural eastern connecticut.

>> how are we going to retire? what is our quality of life going to be? it is tougher and tougher every year, and it is all about family. my wife and i babysit our grandson four to five days a week, because we are trying to stay even and get ahead. reporter: the largest town in this area is wyndham, population of 125,000. >> historically, it is an old mill town. >> the mills moved out, so the population can't find jobs. >> we have high unemployment. eastern connecticut is still suffering. reporter: windham county has the lowest income level in connecticut. >> costs are going up, but incomes are not going up. >> you are a documentary filmmaker. anything that surprised you about the people in the area? >> maybe i am surprised about how nice everyone is. i am already speaking on the radio and i have only been here for minutes.

[laughter] reporter: donald trump leads in connecticut by at least 20 points. >> i really think donald has the inside track on jobs, he knows what needs to be done. we need to wipe the slate clean, go back to the constitution, and rebuild this country. >> we have conservative values. you can see it on the streets. rural.quite rule -- if you go to windham, they are extremely, i want to say liberal. i lean more towards john kasich because he is more middle of the line type of guy. >> right now, i am for bernie. he has actually accomplished things for climate change and has a plan. >> i think hillary clinton will do a wonderful job. and it's about time. reporter: it doesn't feel like a political battleground. >> there are a lot of people that don't like to wear the politics on their sleeve, but they definitely are. they are worried about being harassed. one of the things that brought me to donald trump is he says what we are thinking. he says it.

i really think donald trump can go down there, shake it up, and bring a revival back to washington. >> here we are, where i get to tell the rest of the town and the rest of the state that they are traveling down route 66, who i am interested in. >> a lot of people will not put signs in the yard. i lose anywhere from two to three signs at night. -- a night. i don't know if it is the opposition or somebody that wants a sign in their yard. john: there are not that many republicans in our lifetime. how is it that trump, do you think, put himself in the position where his appeal crosses all the traditional red state blue state, geographic divides? mark: he has struck a message that plays across different geographical areas and different

groups of people that are frustrated with the established status quo. the media often paints them as crazy and unreasonable. like all candidates, he has some that are crazy and unreasonable. john: what technology that. mark: but people like -- john: let's acknowledge that. mark: but people like that are as big a part of trump's coalition as anyone else, and that is a guy that cares about his coalition, family, lives in connecticut. you wouldn't think it is trump country, but it is a state that he is likely to win tomorrow. john: it is funny that donald trump, if he is nominee, will not win connecticut. it is a blue state. but it is interesting that the republican party of connecticut, which could not be more different than the republican party and a lot of other places, donald trump is the dominant figure. to a large extent, trump has a lot of appeal across a lot of different parts of the republican coalition. mark: another pivotal and action-packed week in the 2016 race.

thanks for watching. we will see you back here on monday. until then, sayonara. ♪

♪ emily: he is tech's biggest outlaw, under house arrest after a massive raid by new zealand commandos. kim dotcom is known for his outrageous personality as he has trotted the globe from germany, to hong kong, to new zealand. now he is the target of the biggest copyright case in history, accused of trafficking in pirated music, movies, and tv shows, as he awaits an extradition hearing to decide his fate. joining me today on this special edition of "studio 1.0" from auckland, new zealand, megaupload founder and and self-proclaimed ruler of the kimpire, kim dotcom.