>> "big problems/big thinkers" is brought to you by cisco. there has never been a better time to change the world. ♪ terre: we asked some of the best minds in the world from business, government, the arts, and academia, what are the most urgent problems facing humanity, and how do we solve them? the result is "big problems/big thinkers." >> what is the number one major problem facing mankind? >> i think it is the lack of education. >> politics has been getting dumber and dumber. >> there is a balance of green spirit. >> if we don't have a more sustainable way --

>> everybody has the capability of making a difference. >> remember your humanity. and forget the rest. terre: welcome to "big problems/big thinkers." i'm terre blair. in this series, we confront the biggest problems facing the human race. climate change, nuclear proliferation, social unrest. we examine each issue by asking if there is ethical framework that can help us face these problems and solve them. we will hear from an ordinary group of leaders as they search for answers and perhaps inspire us collectively to take action. episode, these exceptional men and women agree that climate change is one of the top threats to our existence. will we be up to the challenge? will we take action? >> when i was born, 70 years

ago, there were slightly over 2 billion people in the world. now there's almost 7 billion. the number of people on the planet has increased by three and a half times in the life of one person. this has never happened before. >> i often tell my indian friends and chinese friends, combine these two nations. the existing economic system is not sustainable. >> we've only got one planet. we should treat the planet as a nonrenewable resource. the more people we have on it, the more strains we put upon the planet. >> i've argued our planet is getting hot, flat, and crowded. on one hand it is getting hot. that is global warming. we know that is happening.

it is also going to happen faster because it is getting flat. more and more people can see how we live, aspire to how we live, and live like we live. that means people living in american sized homes, driving american sized cars, eating american sized big macs. if we don't find a more sustainable way to satisfy those aspirations, if we don't do it in a more sustainable way, we're going to burn up this planet. that will driving. number of problems -- that will yriad number of problems. >> the greatest threat has to be climate change followed by the possibility of nuclear war. those are the only two things on the horizon that could destroy all of humanity. where people see droughts they've never had them before, floods, storms, much greater

magnitude and frequency. crops are changing. insects are killing trees where they used to be destroyed by the cold weather every year. >> i'm frustrated by the fact that it isn't self-evident that every decision that we make should be working back from the water. of drinkable that is the only thing we can't do without. i don't understand why somebody can't stand up and tell the public, i've been thinking about it and, you know, we're going to reverse engineer decisions from this one point. if we can't drink water, we're not going to be around. >> i think that the number one problem is a resource issue in the world.

whether you look at it in terms of climate change generally, or -- it, food security goes again to the same issue all the time. the individuals, we have to worry as to whether people can survive in more and more difficult conditions. >> it is simple math. if you and acted the most draconian environmental laws you can imagine, the pure population increase over the next 20 years will make it a wash. >> as my friend has written and i've said so many times, we are like a guy who jumps off the top of an 80 story building. for 79 floors, you think you are flying. look at me, fly! it is a sudden stop at the end. >> we're going that way and we always will. as soon as we run out of one thing, we will learn how to live

without that thing until it is "mad max." >> we are not looking far enough ahead. we are good with two or three years ahead, but not 100 years ahead. impacthaving such a huge and we are not quite -- we are about a generation or two behind the curve with our progress to deal with these things. matches, we with might set ourselves on fire. in fact we are setting ourselves on fire. we are destroying the natural world, overfishing the oceans, over farming the land, just one thing after another. the natural world on which we depend for our survival is collapsing all around us. if we don't change our ways immediately, our children and

grandchildren are not going to have much of a future. terre: preserving that future may depend on political leaders in the united states and around the world taking sustained action. but what will it take to get them to act. >> if you try to talk about problems that may manifest 20 or 30 years from now, it doesn't do much for a politician. they have to bring home the bacon tomorrow to their constituents. that is what they focus on. i can understand that. if i had to please some constituency to keep that job next year, i might do a little pandering myself. >> it is very hard not to be swayed by demagogues. life is not simple and people want easy answers. we see it in countries where things aren't going well. some leader gets up and says, i can fix everything, and it doesn't happen. >> i think the biggest obstacle

to solving our problems are just entrenched ideologies. out certainck possible solutions, when your ideology prevents you from even entertaining certain possible solutions to problems, you then got stasis. >> this is a democracy. everything is done by us. we, the people, authorize everything. our constitution is authorized by the people. you voted for the guys who voted for these things. and if you didn't vote, shame on you, because you should be attending to the task of voting. that is the most important political job you have as a citizen. >> politics has been getting dumber and dumber. >> we keep hearing that 2014 has been the warmest year on record.

i asked the chair, you know what this is? it is a snowball. >> you want contending parties. but there is such a thing as too much. interest groups are a vital part of democracy, lobbies, it is in our constitution. and there is such a thing as too much. we've entered the land of too much in the last decade. it became partisanship for its own sake. we are also responsible. we elected these knuckleheads. if that is who we elected, then we reelected them, then shame on us. >> what will it cost us? what are the consequences? >> the ultimate consequence is we are all dead. consequencesterm higher medical costs, much more costs for companies and building owners. you will see much more severe

consequences of our impact on the environment, bad ones. that will give more encouragement to the, let's do something or we are all going to be dead. terre: but can we agree on what? there have been recent signs that are, well, hopeful. that is next on "big problems/big thinkers." ♪

feel aing the planet can little crowded at times. you are constantly reminded that

you are just one among many and you own a share of the environmental, economic, and social challenges keeping humanity viable. but you are just one among many. what can you possibly do to make a difference? turns out that as one of 7 billion connected people, you can do a lot. when everything is connected, our ability to create positive change grows exponentially. cars and pedestrians can be recognized by l.e.d. streetlights that switch on only when they are needed. when we are connected, parking spots in cities can find you instead of you finding them. highways are smarter when they are connected. generating real-time traffic updates, weather reports, and video to deter traffic jams, like on the austrian autobahn, which has digitally connected roadways and tunnels. the places we live and work can create positive change too.

smart buildings have motion sensors that talk to lighting systems, temperature control systems. these conversations allow us to more efficiently light, heat, cool, and ventilate our buildings. they are more enjoyable places to be. you would be surprised what else is getting connected to make a better world. the fields where our food is grown, how it gets to market. individually, none of these improvements can stem the tide of climate change, but if we apply the power of connected technologies to generate solutions, we can make a measurable difference. there's never been a better time to change the world. ♪ al gore: the crisis we now face is not simply climate change, or

ozone depletion, or the loss of living species at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural rate of extinction. it is, in my opinion, a spiritual crisis which has to do with the relationship between human civilization and the ecological system of the earth. terre: welcome back to "big "big problems/big thinkers." i'm terre blair. the 1992 earth summit was the largest meeting of leaders in history. 117 heads of state, 178 nations in total, gathered to discuss how to balance economic development with protecting the earth. despite the disagreements between industrialized and developing nations, the summit made sustainable development a more pressing item on the world's agenda.

mr. cardoso: from that point on, i believe that the brazilian people became more and more aware of the importance of environment. so in 20 years, the change was like that. in 2002, it was already clear that the brazilians had much more awareness of the problems of environment than other people. on the other hand, we were burning our forests. it took 20 years to realize this is no longer acceptable. mr. bloomberg: governments are responsive to citizens' demands. you don't think so all the time, there is some friction in it. but fundamentally, governments only exist with the consent of the governed. and so, if the public demands cleaner air and cleaner water, and less traffic and whatever, the government will deliver it.

and if you say you do not believe that, just take a look at china. the 10 biggest cities, all of which are well over 10 million people, you can't see across the street. you are breathing that air. it is disastrous for your health. everybody knows it. and the communist party that runs the country is very sensitive to the demands of the middle class that they have created, the 150 million people they have brought out of poverty, and those people say fix it, or we are to change the government. and they are doing that. they are closing power plants, they are closing steel plants, they are banning smoking in beijing even though the chinese government owns the tobacco companies. it really does work. thomas: china is really is the people's republic of deferred gratification, and we are the united states of get it now, instant gratification, and we have got to change that equation. terre: that can get a little painful. thomas: it is going to get painful. the only question is if market or mother nature or political leaders, but the pain is coming. terre: do you think we have time

to change? tarja: i hope so. we kind of know that whether it is already too late, but if we postpone it tomorrow, at least it does not help the situation. so it is time to act now. ♪ tarja: i think so that our children and grandchildren will say that, mommy, granny, did you really think that you did not see this? it cannot be solved at your desk. it has to be also taking a risk to try, try to make an effort in practice. and learn by doing. be ready to say that we tried enough, but now perhaps it is a new way. so i mean to take a risk to make a new action. >> we have to think of ways of incentivizing people to do the things that would be good to do. we have to give tax advantages to green businesses so that the

technologies develop, which means that industries are on the side of making money, now are making the world's carbon neutral technology and so on. so i think these are manageable things. they need time, and we need to transition out of the old things. as you take some of the old harmful practices out, people's jobs disappear, communities get affected. you need to make sure that the benefits of the new which are shared among everybody aren't bought at the experience of destroying a particular community. mr. bloomberg: it is true you lose jobs and, for example, coal mining, although that is pretty automated in the u.s. so that is not that many jobs. every single job you lose is tragic to the person losing the job. but we are creating a lot more jobs in clean energy, solar and wind, than we're losing in coal.

the real conundrum for us is we have got to find some ways to help the people who lose their jobs get the jobs that we are creating, and the difficulty is the different skill sets, they are going to be in different parts of the country and there are different compensation systems, so you just cannot net them out. there are no easy answers. there is disruption that takes place as the world changes. that is always going to happen. and it is not going to be easy for everybody. and sadly, there will be people suffering. there will be plenty of people that benefit, but it is also true you are not going to slow it down. wishing that the tide does not come in does not work. warren: prosperity can work to solve the population problem. the data show that prosperous countries tend to hit replacement value, replacement rates were slightly below, when

people do not think of children as being their social security. if you think that you need seven kids because five of them are going to die, and you need the remaining two to take care of you later on, you will keep having kids as fast as you can. but as countries have become more prosperous usually, the fertility rate has gone down significantly. ted: our only hope is that great leadership will rise to the occasion, and that the majority of people will be persuaded that it is worth -- that the world and the future is worth making a few sacrifices for today, so that our great-grandchildren will have the same kind of life that we have had. president obama: the growing threat of climate change could define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other. and what should give us hope, that this is a turning point, that this is the moment we

finally determine we would save our planet. it is the fact that our nations share a sense of urgency about this challenge and a growing realization that it is within our power to do something about it. terre: the cop21 conference in paris in 2015 produced a landmark agreement. 195 nations committed for the first time to lowering greenhouse gas emissions. later generations may well look back and say this was the turning point, the moment when rising carbon emissions that began with the industrial revolution finally began to slow and then fall. mr. bloomberg: what came out of cop21, i think something like 440 cities signed something called the compact of mayors, where they agreed to annually provide environmental data about their city on a comparable

basis. and the idea is, if you cannot measure it, you cannot manage it. and if you think about it, most of the climate change causes come from cities. why? because that is where people are. so we may have a power plant outside the city that pollutes the air, but if people in the city reduce their energy consumption, you can reduce the pollution there. so the pollution that comes from trucks, buses, cars, that is in the city, that is where the people are. so the cities are were the problem is and the cities are where the solution are. and in fact, it is cities that are leading the charge, far and away, compared to federal governments and state governments around the world, cities and individuals. individuals are really making a big difference here. they are buying cars that are more fuel-efficient. a lot of places, they paint their roofs white which reflects off the sun and reduces the cost of air conditioning. if you think about it in the united states, the only country, the only major developed country, that has reduced greenhouse gases the last couple of years dramatically.

why? because we have closed 200 out of the 500 odd coal power plants. why did we do that? because the public went upwind and said to the power company, i am going to stand outside your door and i do not want a truck to path through here unless you stop killing my kids and polluting the air that we breathe and the water we drink. and in fact, because of the public, pulled together by the sierra club, funded by bloomberg philanthropies and others, they really have closed or announced the closing of over 200 out of the 500 power plants. that is the only big change. terre: so you are saying individuals can make a difference. mr. bloomberg: i think individuals have shown they are the only ones willing to make a difference. in the united states, closing 200 power plants literally saves about 7000 lives a year because the modeling says 13,000 people were dying from the effects of coal-fired power plants, the pollutants in the air, so now down 6000 or 7000 instead of of

13,000. terre: which is good. mr. bloomberg: yeah, going the right direction. >> i believe that the key question for human beings is the capacity to take decisions. so you have to have choices. but what makes a man compared to other on the planet, animals? the fact is, a man can make a choice. and the man have awareness, they are choosing. of course a dog can make a choice. he choose also, but not awareness. in our case, we can anticipate the future and make a choice. thomas: 95% more on this planet with this richness of flora, fauna, clean water and clean air, that is a huge part of what i enjoy about life. god save us if we do not pass that on to our kids either. ted: let's say the human condition right now is like a

baseball game. and if it was a baseball game, it would be the seventh inning, and we are down by two runs with two innings to go. it does not mean that we are beaten. we are way behind right now, we are behind the eight ball. but we have not lost yet. we have time, if we hold the other team right where they are. if we all of a sudden wake up tomorrow, and we decide that we are going to do everything right instead of half the things right and half the things wrong, we used to be doing everything wrong, but basically. now doing about half the things right and half the things wrong, but the conditions call for us to survive, we have to do everything right. terre: the urgency of global climate change is now recognized by almost every nation. what is needed, as we have heard, is global action for our ailing planet and from our leaders to inspire us with wisdom that looks beyond today's headlines.

and we need to help those human beings who are displaced as the paradigm shifts. we have the knowledge to succeed and the ethical markers as well. now, do we have the will to act? that's a question for all of us. i am terre blair, and thank you for watching. ♪

♪

"big problems, big thinkers" is brought to you by cisco. is brought to you by cisco. >> hey how's it going, hotcakes? hotcakes. this place has hotcakes. so why aren't they selling like hotcakes? with comcast business internet and wifi pro, they could be. just add a customized message to your wifi pro splash page and you'll reach your customers where their eyes are already - on their devices. order up. it's more than just wifi, it can help grow your business. you don't see that every day. introducing wifi pro, wifi that helps grow your business. comcast business. built for business.

>> with all due respect mike thee, he seemed to forget main thing is the main thing. >> i appreciate the you're hired, you're fired ring. >> the whole putin thing -- >> you with doubt the whole mexican thing again. out the whole mexican thing again. --if it is not one thing or it's another. mike pence feeling good. 36 million people watched pants kaine.kane -- pence vs

fewer eyeballs versus paul ryan and joe biden. of mild-mannered defense donald trump and criticism of hillary clinton and her worldes, the political declaring that at least when it comes to debating skills, donald trump may have been upstaged by his number two. it was a narrative hence -- down,was trying to knock calling trump the winner. trump was in the mood to take credit for putting mike pence on the ticket. watch they of you vice presidential debate last night? job pence didn't incredible . i am getting a lot of credit, because that is my first

so-called choice, that was my first higher, as we would say in las vegas. he was a good one. he was phenomenal. he was cool, he was smart. take a look at him. he was meant to be doing what he is doing, and we are proud of governor mike pence. thank you, mike pence. speculation and reporting the notion he would call -- be called not as good of a debater is mike pence. how do you think trump is reacting personally to mike pence's good reviews? element,re is another which you mentioned, the defense of trump's policies. trump didn't really defend a lot of his own policies and mike pence didn't defend a lot of his policies. he didn't tweed in the middle of the night. today, maybe he was protesting too much, over praising mike

pence. on the basis of what we have thinkand what i know, i it has been overblown, the notion that trump took offense to the way mike pence played it. if donald trump realizes -- john: if donald trump -- mark: one of the smartest things his staff convinced him to do is to talk about the debate as a .in of ideas ideas. lower taxes, smaller government, smarter foreign policy. if trump is focused on that, in reaction to mike pence, i think he is doing fine. from what i have been told, it is overblown, and trump doesn't have the best poker face. he seems pretty happy with mike pence. john: it is generally the case the nominees don't like to be overshadowed by their understudies. but there have been instances,

like when john mccain was seeming to be upset over sarah palin. trump recognized he was on a bad run. stopped the slide they were on. athink the framing of it as battle of ideas, there were a lot of foreign-policy issues, especially foreign-policy issues, where mike pence effectively took exception to trump. mike pence is in a different place than trump. he hasn't adopted trump's policies. john: he has -- critiquings on hillary clinton. this is the best day they have had in a while. the reality, mike pence wasn't talking about the indiana miracle. john: he wasn't talking about himself. mark: donald trump might feel a little out about it, but mostly, feeling good.

john: he has held it in check. the second part, this sunday, in the gateway to the west, the home of the fallen red birds, the giants and the mets are playing a few miles from here. we are talking about st. louis. we have seen trump practicing new moves on the trail in advance of the debate. there are a few tips you might be able to take from mike pence's performance. unlike trump, mike pence turn the modern questions into opportunities to attack clinton. the cameratraight at and spoke directly to the american people. >> honestly, senator, you can role of the numbers on the sunnyside, but people in scranton know differently. people in fort wayne know differently. the economy is struggling. >> he mentioned border security. that is how washington plays it. >> i can make it clear to the american people, after traveling

millions of miles, after being the architect of the foreign-policy of this administration, america is less safe today than it was the day barack obama became president. john: that is a good debater scale. donald trump didn't do it much. mike pence did it last night. trump can clearly learn from that. mark: amazing that senator tim kaine failed. he was trying to fight with the moderator and mike pence. john: he didn't know which camera to talk to. have the democrats effectively tried to turn make america great again into a negative slogan. donald trump sees it as an optimistic thing. mike pence is good at, despite the liberal media calling him do ur, he has been good at optimism. if trump talked like more --

like this on sunday. >> if donald trump becomes president, when you hear him say he wants to make america great again, when we do that, i truly do believe the american people will be standing tall. they will see that real change can happen after decades of talking about it. when that happens, the american people will stand tall, stand together, and they will have the kind of unity that has been missing for too long. the kind ofs message trump could adapt. he got so caught up in negative -- negativity against clinton. john: democrats are right about this. trump's book, he says america is in a hellhole, and i need to fix it. he wants tois that improve the country, but his view of where america is is very dark. it would be hard for him to be as sunny about america as mike pence. but he has to try. another thing mike pence did

well, he is folksy and plainspoken. i think trump could learn something from the colloquial way in which mike pence talked. i am a small town boy from a place not too different from farmville. i grew up with a cornfield in my backyard. my grandfather immigrated to this country when he was my son's age. my mama dad built -- mom and dad built a family and a good name in a small town in indiana. john: a couple things. it is a colloquialism. is biographical major, he talking about himself in relatable terms. i didn't feel that from donald trump. mark: trump likes fast food and was born in queens. is not an ordinary person. his life has been anything but ordinary. at the same time, i think he is

yet to, in a compelling and talk about people he has met him the campaign trail. in the town hall, if trump can't talk about react to people asking questions that says he understands them, he will be on the short end. about his family. he loves his kids, his grandkids. he couldn't talk about is granted for more than a minute. john: both of the candidates, hillary clinton had this problem, they need to be able to talk themselves -- talk about themselves in a human way. mike pence was a model for anyone in a debate like this. so far, we have talked about style. on substance, the governor, who likes to borrow ronald reagan's line about facts being stubborn, had truth telling problems. fact checkers pounced on the claim that the clinton

foundation spends less than 1/10 of its donations on charitable causes. the real number is more like 90%. and that the clinton campaign is in favor of open borders. the media and fact checkers jumped on when hence disputed -- when mike pence disputed assertions about positions trump has shifted on. others are about semantics. tim kaine was sometimes not having anything but trouble with the truth. he said hillary clinton "worked a tough negotiation with nations around the world to eliminate the iranian nuclear program to your cow john kerry negotiated the deal. mike pence stretch the truth on more occasions than his opponent. and yet, he was declared the winner of the night. is the media wrong to focus so much on style as opposed to

talking about the substance and truth of what they said? john: there is a balance to be struck. anyone who doesn't think style matters, that this is not a performance, is nuts. that is part of what this is about. it is why they spend time working on. mark: it is part of what being president is about. to talk is appropriate about style. on the other hand, talking about what is accurate and not accurate, the fact checking industry seems out of control. businessy are in the of fact checking. everything is an opportunity to overstate the extent to which something was wrong. longer.so, it takes right after the debate, we have an impression of how people performed in terms of performance skills. it takes longer to go back and do the fact checking. in mike pence's case, the notion he denied a lot of things is

sinking in. mark: we should focus on it. we should focus on both. critics shouldn't be so impatient. john: right. mark: we need to think about what is meaningful that was wrong, not fact checking for the sake of saying, you got this wrong. but saying, here is what you need to know. when this candidate said this, you should realize that wasn't true in this is why it matters. mike pence, because he was dealing with a lot of complexity, said more things that were meaningfully true, but it wasn't a giant mismatch. john: it was out of proportion. mark: it was a mismatch. john: a big mismatch. another thing that has been in the political bloodstream, mike pence may have his eye on a white house bid in four years. that may have been animating a lot of what he did in terms of distancing himself from trump. many floated the theory that

pence -- mike pence is 2020 bound. >> he was going to play his own game. the debate was going to be 42020. >> he had his own agenda. it almost meant he was auditioning for 2020. >> my guy is going to be great. what we saw is, vote for me in 2020. >> he is running in 2020. he threw trump under the bus. primaries running the in 2020, he had a strategy to promote himself. mark, the mike pence 2020. mark: mike pence is trying to get donald trump at himself elected to the white house. he realizes the performance last his general role leaves him as strongly positioned as anyone to run in 2020. -- saying herow

would throw trump out of the bus, he did as best he could to defend trump. that was not his primary sense of what he was doing, and i think anybody who thinks other -- otherwise isn't paying attention to choices he is making. john: mike pence has thought president,ng for would like to run for president. if trump loses, he likely will. mike pence did not defend donald trump in the aggressive way, and line up shoulder to shoulder with donald trump in the way tim kaine did with hillary clinton. ofy disagree about a lot things, and trump said a lot of things that are hard to defend. he hadis too much to say a strategy, a conspiracy where he was trying to throw donald trump under the bus. mainly think he was guided by that. but all those other things are truth. mark: he is disagreeing because

he thinks it will help the ticket. up next, 2016 goes back to the 90's. 's next big-name surrogate out on the trail after this. ♪

♪ john: hillary clinton's team is cleaning up a bit of a mess after her husband criticized the affordable care act on monday. bill clinton called obamacare "the craziest thing in the world." now they plan to roll out former vice president albert gore, who will reportedly hit the trail

for the democratic nominee in a couple weeks. he's going to talk about global warming, as he often does, but about third-party spoilers, a topic he knows about. the drama between the clintons and the gores were a centerpiece of 1990's politics. mark, my question for you, is hillary clinton courting trouble by getting this particular band back together? mark: if that is the most politically difficult thing bill clinton says, they are lucky. they will put a system in place to keep bill clinton from causing these problems. al gore is not going to break through to young people. i don't think many millennials have heard of him, or just associate him with global warming. there are two messages the clinton campaign needs to get out. every vote counts, especially in florida. one candidate cares about climate change, which matters to millennials. gore may not do that directly, but there is a bank shot, but is -- that is, he will get press coverage. that allows them to make the case in the media on the two

issues which are vitally important to her chances in florida and elsewhere. john: i don't see the downside in doing this. this is an all hands on deck moment for hillary clinton. she is ahead and would like to sew this thing up where she has a somewhat safe lead. no reason not to bring gore out. but let's be clear, "an inconvenient truth" came out 9-10 years ago. many millennials were 10 years old when it came out. although he cares a lot about climate change, he's not someone who is going to rally millennials in a way that bernie sanders does. i see no real risk in that. you are right about bill clinton. this is collateral damage. you have bill clinton on your side -- 90% of the times can be -- he can be great, and and 10% of the time he's going to call problems. mark: there may be bill and hillary psychodrama, there may be other psychodrama going on. hillary clinton entered team have been a -- done a good job of keeping it below the surface. it is not affecting the campaign

in public. john: i like how you say there may be psychodrama between those people. just that you're keeping it under wraps. coming up, strategists, strategist, and more strategists. strategists more than we know what to do with. after this. ♪

♪ mark: welcome back. our next two guests are riled up, fired up and ready to go. trump campaign senior advisor and democratic strategist lis smith. and the deck -- the deputy campaign strategist for martin o'malley's campaign, and the director of rapid response for president obama's reelection campaign.

all right, you too. let's start with this. if you were looking for a data point that would suggest that donald trump is ready to have a stronger second debate, what would you point to? lis: are you looking for a number? or a data point? mark: just something that has happened. lis: maybe watching mike pence and learning from him. i don't think that is one of donald trump's strong suits. but look, mike pence we were , talking about this. he always had this reputation of being this blowdried good presentation on tv type of guy. and it came through last night. i think donald trump could learn from it. i think that's it. mark: what would you say? what is something that you have seen or heard that makes you say, he gets it, he knows he needs to improve? >> first of all i think we are continuing the trajectory from last week. we are leading in the race, and

we will continue doing that in st. louis and las vegas. the swing out west has been great. the visit doubt the west, starting in virginia, was great. great speeches and great crowds. he is energized and ready to go. we are ready to talk about national security, the economy. i think the town hall format very much lend itself to donald trump. he is authentic, she is robotic. leading in theu polls? john: a monmouth poll puts trump ahead in ohio, and a reuters poll puts her up by six points nationally. every national poll in every battleground state for the last five or six days has showed her picking up speed. >> we are up in the l.a. times, we are up in the rasmussen. timeonmouth poll, the last they took the poll in august, we were down that has trended four. toward hillary clinton. mark: big fan of the upi poll. >> i did not know there was still a upi poll. [laughter]

>> polls are coming out now measure intensity. the polls coming out now nationally are driven by the media spin from the previous debate. i am not concerned about that. john: or what some would call donald trump's poor performance in the first debate. >> i would say media spin because i thought it was a good performance. i'm excited for the one in st. louis. performance,t poor i call it a reenactment of the hindenburg. >> wow. >> quite the metaphor. >> that was as rehearsed and spontaneous as a line from a tim kaine debate. >> my lines are not reversed. i don't have prepared zingers. how was tim kaine last night? how did that go? john: what did you think? >> unhinged. mark: you said mike pence did well. how did tim kaine do? >> there are two metrics by which he is judged how people perform in debates.

on style, points to mike pence. his demeanor was good. he stayed calm throughout. in terms of substance i think tim kaine got the better of it. we are seeing it in the coverage. last night all the coverage was, , mike pence won, but people are now focusing in on how mike pence would not defend donald trump's offensive comments. >> that is not substance. that's style. let's talk about substance. let's talk about iran. >> let me finish. >> he would not defend the muslim ban. he would not defend the deportation path that donald trump laid out. >> on what topic do you think kaine was stronger than pence? there is not one. on iran, iran is a joke. >> you articulated -- >> kaine said that because of hillary clinton we no longer have nuclear weapons. we know that in that agreement there are loopholes for them to keep uranium.

at the end of 10 years, they can do whatever they want. we also know that $1.7 billion have gone to iran. to be honest, part of that was ransom. hillary clinton failed in iran, failed in russia, failed on libya, failed on everything she has done as secretary of state. if there are topics -- >> let's talk about russia. john: we have less than 30 seconds. >> $500,000 for a 90 minute speech in moscow. that is what hillary clinton charges. thanks for watching. "trending business" is next. ♪

♪ rishaad: it is thursday, the sixth of october. this is "trending business." ♪ rishaad: tokyo and singapore are some of the destinations we are going, with samsung jumping to an all-time high, despite the note 7 being blamed for a plane evacuation in america. in the converse, shares plunging an extended trade. reports that google does not have plans for a bid. and walmart is doubling its stake in