from our studios in new york city this is charlie rose. begin with the leak in politics. hillary clinton when on the offensive delivering a foreign policy speech that was highly trump.l of donald mr. goldberg writes frequently on foreign affairs for the atlantic magazine. may people are saying this very well be a decisive factor change moment. jeffrey goldberg: i agree. where shee moment went on the offense. she pivoted first of all to the

general election. bernie sanders was not a character that speech. there was only one character that speech. it was a pivot to the general election. a pivot to the offense. it was the introduction are almost the introduction of the new strategy. what i mean by that is the following. it's a foreign policy speech. in a foreign policy speech in a presidential campaign it is usually going through the prism of you are too liberal your conservative this candidate is to interventionist this one is too isolationist this was very different. this was, i am sane and my opponent is insane. it was done almost in a psychiatric way rather than a policy way. charlie: and let me present you, please, with a psychological profile. he does this, this, and this. charlie: it was more of a psychiatric profile than an analysis of his policy. and what she did cleverly was to say i cannot really critique his policies because he has no policies.

his ideas are not coherent in the way you are used to hearing from politicians. also, by the way, there is no record. he has never practiced foreign-policy or national security policy, which is the kind of direct attack in character you usually get later in campaigns, on the mental health of the opponent. what is the fear when you talk to foreign-policy analysts and other analysts? has he thought through what he has that? a lot of people say they hope he hasn't and that he will still come around to certain viewpoints. others say he has thought through this, and this is where he's at. this is what got him the

nomination, so he is going to plow ahead with this unorthodox style. charlie: what do you think was the most damaging? mr. golberg: that hillary said? charlie: of the overall psychological takedown. mr. golberg: first of all, let's deal with the obvious. remember, american voters -- this is what she is saying. remember, american voters, that this man will be in charge of our nuclear arsenal, his finger on the button. this is the 3:00 a.m. phone call on steroids. watch how he behaves with people and then ask yourself, do you want this person to have more power than anyone else on the planet? charlie: do you want him to get us into a war? mr. golberg: that was the crucial point. do you want a person who is so thin-skinned, volcanic, so easily hurt, that he will get us

into a war because someone says something and he doesn't let anything slide? the other part of this that i think is effective is that this is a very deliberate attempt to go him into saying things that are even harsher than what he has said. this is offense. and offense in this case means getting under his skin. charlie: my suspicion is that he knows that, but that he may not be able to help himself. that's who he is. you strike me, i strike back. mr. golberg: harder. by the way, if you want to boil down his foreign-policy, that is his foreign-policy. it's the jacksonian approach. this is the appeal he has to his voting base. the appeal is we don't want to be involved in the world.

we don't want to mess with anybody, but we don't want anybody to mess with us, and if they do, we will hit them so hard they will regret the day they were born. it is, in essence, his foreign-policy. charlie: but also, in the foreign-policy circles you know, in terms of should europe and nato carry a larger portion of the responsibility, do we depend too much on nato, should we give weapons -- should saudi arabia have weapons, and if they do, what does that due to the middle east? mr. golberg: you are right and you have opened an interesting and uncomfortable discussion for the current white house. donald trump, in some cases, is amplifying, maybe exaggerating feelings the president himself has expressed. they have discussed his resentment of free riders,

allies who take advantage of our largess. it's the same critique. charlie: but this is the interesting thing. neither of them want to assume there is any similarity between what they say. people are inward looking now in a way they haven't been for a while, are not that interested, that syria is the perfect example. president obama has told our allies for months now, you have to understand, i am under zero pressure from the american public to get more involved in your problems.

trump is articulating this in a different way, but it's the same articulation. charlie: he is saying you are in part responsible for syria because this happened while you were president. and that's true impart. he is partially responsible. because of the country that he represents in the power, economic and political, and military. mr. golberg: i will see to the point, but i would counter by saying that one of the things he has learned, that all presidents eventually learn, is that when it comes to the middle east especially, we have the power to make things worse, not just better. by the way, any president will eventually learn that. just because you want to do something doesn't mean it gets done.

president obama would look at you and say in response to that, you don't understand, i am protecting america from our own best intentions. charlie: that is so artfully laid out in your piece in the atlantic. mr. golberg: the dirty little secret of all of this is that there are no good options in the middle east. charlie: my impression is -- they will take falluja, mosul, and maybe even the trifecta. obama would say unless you can hold it -- mr. golberg: it's not a permanent fixed your problem. charlie: and even if you take out isis, you still have bashar al-assad. mr. golberg: this goes to another hobby horse of mine. discussing these issues as if president obama has not done anything in the middle east, when, in fact, we are at war.

believes they have ratcheted up in terms of what they are doing. perhaps his footprint is a small footprint trying to do a lot. mr. golberg: one of the differences between hillary clinton and barack obama is the way they talk about america and its role in the world. the speech yesterday, the foreign-policy speech she gave this week, the foreign-policy speech she gave could have been delivered before the iraqi war or before vietnam, for that matter. it was america is the greatest, indispensable power.

there was no acknowledgment, and barack obama will never give a speech without acknowledging that america has done things we regret. charlie: with the exception of hiroshima. mr. golberg: he sees it as a lesson. he is very careful. charlie: she is more hawkish than he is. mr. golberg: she believes good action will have good consequences. charlie: and who does that appeal to in the american barack obama, donald trump, or hillary clinton, it's hillary clinton, absolutely. she will be more prudent when she gets into office. she will listen to her advisers. but they have a basic view of american indispensability.

charlie: back to the campaign. the clinton campaign said enough of this. we have to take him on. we have to get into a general campaign mode. if he is going to say all of those things, we have to take him down in a smart way. what interesting is trump has said bad things about almost everybody, so whether it's crazy bernie, lying ted, crooked hillary, she seems to be saying whatever he has said about me, i am saying something much more substantial.

and it should not be confused with general attacks on character. this is of a different order. what was interesting about her speech, i thought, is how good a time she seemed to be having delivering it. she does scorn very well. a lot of democrats are looking at this and feeling a level of relief. she can fight. she can take out the knives and start slaying the sky. there are -- the decision within the campaign was this is an unconventional opponent, smart, wiley. think of what donald trump has done. he defeated a field of the best republicans the country had to offer. he knocked them all down one by one. within the hillary clinton campaign, there is great respect for his abilities. remember jeb bush?

charlie: and no one thought he would make it through the primary season. to have it wrapped up before the convention -- mr. golberg: they have respect for that and they also have respect for his unconventional behavior. there is probably a little bit of a war room saying how do we fight this unconventional behavior? charlie: he believes that's the horse he rode to victory and he's not going to change now.

charlie: while i have you here, let's talk about what it's going on around the world. israel. i never thought they would find a defense minister more to the right of the existing defense minister, but they did. mr. golberg: our new world. you know, it's interesting. charlie: they do not believe in a two state solution, and i don't know what he believes. mr. golberg: to get really complicated, if you don't mind, the previous defense minister was a pro two state solution general who was disillusioned by the peace process and then became very hawkish. the new guy is extremely hawkish, comes from the right, lives in a settlement, but also has a reputation for being a pragmatic politician. he has said if you give me a deal that works, i will move out of my settlement. charlie: is such a deal possible? mr. golberg: not right now.

i mean, peace is possible, but it's not available at the moment. anything we could think of as peace. charlie: his definition of a deal is --? mr. golberg: the maximum that israel can give does not meet the palestinian minimum, so it's not even worth trying. charlie: what is a think about iran at this stage after they have had a chance both in iran, in the region, and in europe, to think about the deal the president made? mr. golberg: iran is holding to the letter of the deal but not the spirit, according to the president. the iranians argue that there is not a spirit, there is a deal. we do this and you free up the money you are holding in your banks.

you lift certain sanctions. there is an interesting split within the administration, i think. i don't think president obama is starry eyed about the potential for change while the supreme leader is still alive. there are people in the administration who are more hopeful than obama was that this would set in motion a process by which the moderates would become empowered and eventually replace the hardliners. charlie: the moderates in iran argued to the hardliners, give us a chance to make this deal and it will create other opportunities. the hardliners didn't believe it, and now they are saying see, we told you, it didn't lead to anything other than us getting the money.

mr. golberg: i tend to think everything that has happened is predictable. iran does ballistic nuclear tests to prove they haven't buckled under american sanctions. this causes people in washington, understandably, to say that iran remains a threat, so we are not going to do business with them. you enter the same sort of cycle. the mechanics of the iran deal, we have to wait five or tenures years to see whether this was actually the right bet. ♪

mr. goldberg: the only subject anybody wants to talk about his donald trump and what he thinks. hillary clinton is the most known quantity oversees other than the president himself. charlie: and they are ok with her? mr. goldberg: our allies are very ok, our allies in europe, asia, and the key regions of the middle east. charlie: the chinese? mr. goldberg: the chinese are interesting. i am talking about allies. she is quite hawkish on china and understanding their motivations. if you are a john mccain kind of hawk, hillary is not going to be fooled by the chinese.

her presence would reassure. donald trump's presence would do the opposite of reassure. by the way, that's something a lot of american voters think is good. making our allies feel loved and valued is useful for america. charlie: are these the same values that you wrote about that the president feels are overrated? mr. goldberg: i want to be very careful here. donald trump and the president -- i am not equating them -- but they are different parts on the same continuum. why are the saudi's our friend? why are we so close to the saudi's? that's a classic example.

charlie: why can't we get them to talk to each other? mr. goldberg: why do we constantly have to referee a dysfunctional iran and a dysfunctional saudi arabia? trump takes that to a whole different level, but the anxieties being produced by the obama policies would be amplified by a trump presidency. charlie: donald trump is coming at hillary clinton from the left and the right. mr. goldberg: and up and down. charlie: he will say she supported the iraqi war, i didn't, even though i think he did. but this is what he will say. mr. goldberg: it's fascinating, because she is planning the whole time to be running against a republican hawk, jeb bush, marco, even ted cruz.

and here she has a guy who is coming at her from the left. that's why there is an elegance to what she did in in this anti-trump speech. she is not arguing with him about ideology. she is arguing about basic character and mental fitness. it's a resurgence of the craziness and approach to foreign policy. obama does not believe in that, the trump does. leave everybody guessing about your intentions. this is what kissinger recommended. he would go to people and say, i don't know, the president is a little crazy. he would use that in a negotiating way. president obama doesn't believe in that approach. donald trump, to the extent he

has a defined foreign policy, believes that projecting unpredictability is in america's interest. donald trump is all spleen, all gut. the perception of president obama is that there is no gut because he is always rationalizing. he got in trouble for that repeatedly. donald trump is so different from barack obama in this. he is all emotion, all visceral. the president is all cool rationality. charlie: there anything that could happen that would change president obama's place in history vis-a-vis the world?

mr. goldberg: well, something could happen tomorrow. coming back to the question about israel, are they going to, on his way out the door, laid out new parameters of what they think the middle east should look like? charlie: an idea with particulars? mr. goldberg: new parameters to replace the old clinton parameters. barack obama is frustrated that he could not reach the promised land, to put it in biblical terms. he is standing on a mountain and saying i could not deliver peace. i tried, but i could not deliver it, but i am at least going to tell the world in very specific terms how i think it should look. that's one thing that could happen.

right now he is fixated on handing a clean barn to his successor. and that means getting the isis problem to a manageable state. he knows that he will be judged in part on how well he dealt with this problem in his last year, so that is something he is focused on. charlie: the judgment of history on his foreign policy will be what? mr. goldberg: it's too early to tell. he is a gambler. he really is. the iran deal more than anything else will prove this point. in 10 or 15 years, if iran is nuclear, then president obama will look like a sucker. charlie: and if the saudis are nuclear? mr. goldberg: then you have a big set of problems around the world. china, managing china's rise. that is why the last asia trip

didn't get huge amounts of coverage, but lifting the arms embargo in vietnam was one of the most historic things he did. charlie: there's a huge opportunity to do really remarkable things with a bunch of countries, some in asia, some in other places, that are open to new ideas, being different, and a whole new level of leadership that separates them from their history. mr. goldberg: as he put it to me, america pulls at 80% favorability in vietnam. charlie: beyond the fact that they like us, he believes there is an opportunity. mr. goldberg: and demographics. there are more people in vietnam than there are in germany.

asia, to him, represents america's economic future. any time -- this is a successful trip for one underlying reason. nothing terrible happened in the middle east to draw attention away from it. he got some stuff done. he also went to hiroshima, which was something he wanted to do, close that taboo. that was a big one. iran was one. burma was a small example, but it was a taboo. lifting the arms embargo to vietnam. this is all about taboo breaking. charlie: how do you define the relationship you have with him? mr. goldberg: i started talking to him when he was a senator about pacific middle east issues. i enjoyed those conversations tremendously because he is a guy

who knows his stuff and has done his homework. he reads the same things -- look. if his life had taken a slightly different course he would be a foreign-policy analyst on pbs. charlie: i would be interviewing him instead of you. mr. goldberg: he would be heading the council on foreign relations. he has an analytical mindset that people who do analysis find pretty appealing. so you can have substantial conversations and one thing leads to another. i am interested in these issues of where america is in the world, and i think he is as

well. charlie: absolutely. my point is we are all better because of this, because of people having conversations with him, and in your case, we can read about it. but do you send e-mails to him? are you on the phone with him? mr. golberg: no. charlie: i am curious. mr. golberg: you are friends with everybody around the world. do you go bowling with putin? charlie: of course not, but i am curious how people do it. mr. golberg: for the record, charlie rose does not go bowling with vladimir putin. charlie: but i would. and i would go bowling with anybody else. mr. golberg: put that in your memoir. there it is. charlie: but access and capacity, if you do your homework and be smart about it, i have learned more about barack obama in your article in the atlantic then and everything i read before hand. that's not me saying that. my point, jeffrey, is it's what

we need in some capacity. to understand how people see the world and to be able to be explained to you why they did it this way rather than that way, and when you say yes but, they come back to you. mr. golberg: let me make a point about journalism. the atlantic magazine published that article at 19,000 words. we live in the age of twitter. it was counter intuitive, and it succeeded. something the president understood was that the atlantic magazine -- which abraham lincoln credited with helping him win the civil war, incidentally -- that the atlantic magazine has a history of doing serious journalism. he felt he could talk to me and have his views accurately represented. in this age of journalism in which we live, that counts for

something. charlie: i know of no one who is not glad you did that interview to try to comprehend the world, the world we're living in, and the future. mr. golberg: well, i'm glad it worked. charlie: when will we see another book? mr. golberg: not soon enough from my publisher's perspective. i hope the next time i talk to you, you have my book sitting on the table. charlie: good to talk to you. jeffrey goldberg from the atlantic. back in a moment. ♪

al: we are joined by a two of americans premier pollsters. whit ayers is the author of "how republicans can elect a president in the new america. peter hart has done the same for democrats for decades. he conducts focus groups around the country this election season for the university of pennsylvania's annenberg school. neither is associated with a presidential candidate this time. we are pleased to have them both with us. thank you both. before we get into the presidential race, described in

a few words the mood of the election. whit: angry, frustrated, two thirds of the country thinking the country is on the wrong track. they want to change. they want a change in washington, in the government, in the direction of the country. peter: ditto, ditto, ditto. and we tend to think this just happened. but the fact of the matter is this has been there for 15 years. all of the instability in the campaign, all of the sense of the hollowing out of the middle class, all of this has been going on. al: at the same time, barack obama's numbers go up. he has a net favorable rating, higher than any other politician. peter: two things.

i think he has had the best seventh and eighth year of any president in my lifetime. and you can go through them all. basically, he has been steady. he has handled the economy. he has dealt with the social issues. al: is he responsible for this 2016 race? peter: i don't think so. i think the times have shaped the race, but i think barack obama will end up being the most important character in the 2016 election. i think he will do for hillary clinton what bill clinton did for barack obama at the convention. he will help to launch her campaign. whit: i think there is one more component to barack obama's improving job approval. it started going up about the time that donald trump and hillary clinton became the presumptive nominees of their

respective parties. both of them have overwhelmingly more negative views ban positive views. i think in comparison to donald trump and hillary clinton, maybe some people started thinking barack obama looked a little better. al: not as bad as we thought. peter, if hillary clinton asked you if she should run as a third barack obama term or striker distance, what would you tell her? peter: neither. i think in the primary, she has helped herself by being tied to barack obama, but the country is looking for change, not continuity. i think she needs to show that she will have her own path and her own direction. a continuation of obama but much will change. al: from what you have seen, does she have a clear message? whit: there is not much of a clear message yet that i can discern, but the interesting

aspect of this environment is that we have two very powerful, opposing forces at work in the 2016 election. on the one hand, we have a desire for change that we have talked about, that is overwhelming, and it's very difficult for hillary clinton, who has been part of this system for the last quarter century, to hold herself out as a candidate for change. on the other hand, we have donald trump. every year since bill clinton's reelection, the proportion of whites in the national electorate has on down 2, 3 or more percentage points. we are likely to have the lowest percentage of whites in the electorate that we have ever had. that helps hillary clinton because she does so much better among nonwhites than donald trump.

al: in 2012, the electorate was 72% white and of the 20% nonwhite, mitt romney got only 17%. donald trump's theory seems to be ok, it will be 31% nonwhite this time, i can make it up. whit: if he does better than mitt romney, and at this point he would be lucky to do as well, he would need 65% of the nonwhite vote in order to win the popular vote. that is better than anyone has done in the history of polling, with the exception of from own 1984. i'm not saying he can't do it with this overwhelming desire for change, but it is a huge force in hillary clinton's favor.

al: his theory seems to be that you dance with the girl you brought in. he's not going to change. what advice would you give him? whit: no matter what advice i would give him, he would not pay attention to it, so there's no point in wasting our breath. he is what he is. he has made that clear. the two seem to be fairly equal in power. the polls have them close at the moment. peter: i guess what i would tell him is america is looking for a commander in chief not an insulter in chief. when i do focus groups, the biggest problem with donald trump is not necessarily where he stands on issues.

he may not know a lot, but his stance does not bother the american public. what bothers the public is his persona, the way he acts, and it never changes. it may deviate for a half a second, but it always comes back around. that's his biggest liability right now, and he's not curious. al: but peter, your focus groups also show similar problems with hillary clinton, and especially with younger voters. what can or should she do about that? peter: she has two problems. leaving aside integrity, which voters have questions about, and recognizing that they see tremendous competence with her, her biggest problem is likability. and here is a woman who has a vast array of friends forever. where is that being shown? where is the light side of her

life being shown? somehow, they have to change the focused. this focus. she is always out there talking, lecturing to people, and there is no sense of camaraderie. i don't know if donald trump has any friends. i know hillary clinton has friends going all the way back to her college days. that has to be brought into the campaign. whit: you can't imagine her having fun. barack obama plays golf. w did a bunch of things. but -- al: they are both going to pick a running mate in the next month or so. some people think the choice of a vice presidential pick is exaggerated. is it this time? does it matter? whit: it frequently is exaggerated. most of the time, if the candidate doesn't screw up the choice, it doesn't matter. peter: and sometimes even when they do.

whit: you can't even count on a vice presidential nominee to carry their state. john edwards was on the ticket in 2004 and lost north carolina. al: paul ryan lost wisconsin. whit: exactly. i think it may be different this time. the vice presidential pick will be donald trump's first governing decision. if he picks someone who is widely admired in the party, widely seen as a credible potential president, that may give some republicans who currently have caused about voting for him, a little bit of reassurance. on the other hand, if he picks someone not deemed to be qualified to be president, that would reaffirm some of these doubts.

al: someone like bob corker? whit: a credible candidate, widely admired on capitol hill for his foreign-policy knowledge and business acumen. al: you're not going to tell me who you think would not be a good pick. whit: i don't think that would be a wise thing to do. al: what about hillary clinton? peter: i think she will pick in a smart faction, a tactical fashion. she will be safely on the green, close to the hole. al: she doesn't have to worry about appealing to the bernie people? peter: i think she will probably go left of center, but i don't think she is going to choose anybody that is going to really ruffled feathers or be a problem. whit: her choice will show whether or not she things her main problem is uniting the democratic party by going left

on her pick to pick up the bernie people or whether she sees her opening as more disaffected republicans and independents with a more mainstream pick like a tim kaine. i think that's a strategic decision she has to make as well. peter: my guess, listening to the campaign and following things, i think she will have to go left. there is work she has to do with the sanders coalition. al: you may be right, peter, but it has always been my view, at least in recent years, that the pick works when people say that was a good choice. that happened with dick cheney and joe biden. i think even if she pick someone who is not in the left-wing with bernie, if people can say that was a good choice, even disaffected liberals, so what? which convention is more fraught

with peril, philadelphia or cleveland? peter: cleveland. and the problem with cleveland is not necessarily inside the convention hall. it's outside. those are the people who will be protesting everything that's going there. more importantly, it's all the people who won't show up. they will be trying to get a shot of romney and all the people who are not there. they will be on the air morning, noon, and night talking about why they are not there. al: the freshman congresswoman from northern virginia, i asked her where she would be in cleveland, and she said she would be at fairfax station. do you think cleveland is more fraught with peril? whit: it depends on what bernie does. what if bernie gets really upset and says i am going to run as an independent?

that opens the door to a credible center-right candidate running as a fourth candidate, and opens it up to the house. i never seen a less stable political environment that we have right now. in my career, anyway. we are talking about two presumptive nominees who, an overwhelming majority of the country has an unfavorable opinion of. the left-wing of the democratic party upset. many mainstream republicans upset at their presumptive nominee. it creates an incredible instability, and i don't know how that plays out. it suggests to me that we are better off expecting the unexpected at this point. al: let me ask it this way for both of you. you are two of america's great

pollsters. are there any bellwether questions over the next months that you will look at as particular indicators of what going to happen? peter: for the nbc wall street journal poll, we are going to continue to have the generic pairing. do you want a democratic president or a republican president? that has been exceptionally helpful over the last year. the race has suggested it's going to be far apart, but the generic pairing has suggested it's going to be close. looking for continuity versus change, and at what stage of the game does the american public say this is too far, too much, i am afraid of this kind of change? or do they look at the continuity and say we are not going to see anything different. finally, likability. over the course of time, we have

watched candidates sometimes grow in acceptability as we get toward october. will that happen for hillary clinton? will there be some sort of alienation among the trump voters where they will start to have doubts? al: what questions will you be interested in? whit: i basically agree with what peter said. i think the real question here is which candidate is going to produce the kind of change that you the voter really want to see? we know trump will be a change agent. the question is whether he is a change agent in the direction voters would like to see, and that is going to be a critical question. we know the demographics are going to work against trump. the question is whether he can make change work in his favor to overcome the demographics. al: i read a column this week by one of my favorite authors who

said you want to take these people at their word about what they are going to do. presidents try to do what they campaign on. but our issues going to matter in this campaign? it seems now it's going to be much more about character than about taxes, foreign policy, health care, some of the really important issues. whit: in some ways, this feels like a second or third world election that is dominated i personality far more than issues. it's your strongman versus our strongman -- strong woman. whatever they believe is what i believe. in a certain sense, it feels like that right now. the personalities, the temperament, the attitude, the likability of the two principles that may just dominate this far more than issues. al: do you agree?

peter: yes. and one of the things that is fascinating to me is that when i am out there talking to people, nobody expects donald trump to build the wall. it's a nonstarter. they don't believe it. that it doesn't necessarily turn them off. it says he is going to be tough on immigration. nobody thought nixon had a secret peace plan. al: they didn't expect bill clinton would do something about gays in the military and he did. i think it would be very hard for donald trump to say, you know what? i was just fooling about the wall. peter: maybe, but they don't expect that. hillary is giving you a lot of four-point programs. people don't know what they are. she needs to be able to hone down the message so that when it comes back, you know exactly

what she stands for. you know what donald trump stands for. hillary is a question mark right now. al: given the extremely high negatives of votes nominees, what is the upside for a third-party candidate, gary johnson, bill weld, libertarians have never gotten more than 1% of the vote. usually, we just write them off. could this year be different? whit: potentially. it depends on if a johnson-weld libertarian ticket provides a safe haven for disaffected republicans and democrats, for that matter, and then it depends who they take more votes from. but in certain states, it could be very, very close. 1, 2, 3% could affect the outcome. al: if they get 4% or 5%, what could happen?

peter: it would hurt trump much more. al: young weed loving voters in colorado will be attracted to them. peter: we will be looking for them. right now, it comes down to turn out. turnout is a huge question. if there is a light turnout, you tell me what going to happen. the only thing i am certain of is that the election is ahead of us. events are going to happen. how they are handled will determine much more about the election and how it turns out than anything else. al: great pollsters this year. what kind of grade would you give the polling community this year? whit: i think it has been a lot better than some of the headlines suggest. the problem with predicting trump wasn't that we didn't have

the numbers. the problem was we didn't believe the numbers. i remember back in september, the highest favorables were marco rubio and donald trump. one was higher, ben carson. we looked at those numbers and said they don't know anything about politics or policy, when the lights come on, we will see. we were right about carson, wrong about trump. peter: we judge and industry as a whole. there are very few industries they get lumped together. if a bad movie is made by paramount, nobody says the movie industry has fallen apart, but a pollster has to face the numbers. al: you are a graduate of davis in college.

you must be paying a lot more attention to the playoffs and steph curry than the presidential race. whit: steph curry is amazing, and the fact that he came out of a small, liberal arts college north of charlotte is even more amazing. al: it is. peter, i love colby college, your alma mater, but the mules have not produced any steph curry's. peter: i am right with whit on this one. al: i want to thank those of you for an interesting discussion today, and thank all of you for watching. ♪

>> i am mark crumpton. you are watching bloomberg west. president obama plans to formally endorse hillary clinton as early as this week. that is according to a person familiar with the president's plans. the timing of the endorsement has not been set, but the president is speaking at a democratic fundraiser wednesday in new york city. a democratic congressman has written an open letter to donald trump, calling him a racist. telling him where to place his proposed border wall. he called trump's attacks on the mexican-american federal judge in the trump diversity lawsuit despicable. the chinese vice premier met