well, we might give you a little border security. this is the kind of stuff -- >> it's a negotiation -- >> -- that is crazy. and this is why republicans -- >> let him finish. >> but the president won the election. and the republicans won the election. and the democrats can't say, well, we're going to take everything you give us, much more than every republican in that congress wants, and by the way, you've got to give us some more. [ all talking at once ] any time you concede, they take that concession, bank it, and then start all over again. >> if that's your view -- >> that's exactly what happened. >> then i think john's right. but here's the reason that democrats are taking the position we're taking. 90% of americans agree with us. and the majority of republicans agree with us. but let me just say something about that speech -- >> because this goes back to our discussion earlier. because you framed the debate. who's against a dreamer? that's why the president said americans are dreamers too. you know what? that's why the president made the case that this is about american workers --

this isn't just about -- >> let me just go back to the kennedy speech. >> he needs to redefine the speech. >> here's a difference that i think is important. you just did that division thing, is this about american workers or is it about -- and what that young kennedy just said is it's about both. and i think more americans are with him -- i thought he did an extraordinary job. >> false choice. >> how many? how many? should we bring in 10 million? 20 million? 30 million? should we open the border and let everybody in? this is the problem with this argument. the problem with this argument is, well, we should just accept the people here but what about the next million and the next million and the next million who come here illegally while millions of people sit on the sidelines waiting -- >> here's what i would like to say about both of our parties. the same people in both of our parties already have a bipartisan solution and have compromised and it got blown up by this president. it got blown up by this president. >> that's the most generous offer i've seen -- >> but, rick -- >> rick, i would just say this, you and i both come from immigrant families. my father was an immigrant. >> so was mine. >> and i go back and i read what

was said back when he came in 1924 marked the curtain coming down on immigration. >> yep. >> and the same things were being said about my family and your family. the same arguments, that american workers were suffering, that it was going to dilute our culture and so on. this has been part of the american story for a long time. i do want to say something about this speech, though, because one thing that was struck was a generational contrast here that was very, very evident. there was a lot of energy in kennedy's speech. i agree that it was a tough speech. i mean, when you say bullies may land a punch, they may leave a mark, but they have never, not once in the history of our united states, managed to match the strength and spirit of a people united in defense of their future, that is a call to arms. but it was -- the contrast was very, very stark, and i think -- >> sure. listen, that was a very bernie-esque speech. you can have free education. you can have it all. we don't have to make choices. >> bernie's a different generation. >> what i'm saying, the speech.

if you look at the crowd, the bernie crowds, very young. skewed very young. because he was promising a lot of things to everybody. you don't have to make any tough choices. >> you just described the tax cut package. you just described -- >> exactly. >> you give all this money away to rich people and we're going to -- >> gloria. >> doubling the middle-class -- doubling the standard deduction to $24,000. how many folks do you think that helps? >> i'll tell you, more people would have been helped if half of the benefits of that tax cut hadn't gone to the top 10%. you'd have had more people helped. and they could have kept that tax cut longer the way the corporations are going, to and it wouldn't have hurt our budget as much if we'd done it responsibly in a bipartisan way. if you want to talk the tax thing, we can talk about it. but i think that -- >> gloria? >> i just want to go back to rick santorum here for a minute on this immigration part of the speech because something you said struck me, which is leadership of the president. now, we've heard what the president said tonight. we heard what he said a couple of weeks ago in that open meeting, that extraordinary open

meeting where he said i'll take the heat, meaning i'll get it from my base. >> and he is. >> well, but he added in the -- ending the visa lottery and -- >> he's always said four things. >> mccarthy -- congressman mccarthy had to remind him of that at the meeting if i recall. but where is he going to lead on this? if he really wants a deal and conservatives are upset and democrats are upset about this, where does the president step in and say and maybe at some point in order to get over 39% popularity he's going to have to take on his base a little bit. >> he is taking on his base. >> and maybe he can't afford to do that even a little bit more to give the democrats a little bit more what they want is what i'm -- >> but close to 2 million, a path to citizenship for close to 2 million folks, that's bigger than what president obama offered. >> i'm asking what can he -- >> you're proving my point,

gloria. we now bank the huge concession and now what else is he going to do? no. he made a big concession. >> let me ask you a question. let me ask you a question. is it -- what exactly is the -- who is the concession to? dave, dave, just a second. who is the concession to exactly to say that young people who were brought here not of their own volition, who don't know any other country, should not be -- especially because the vast majority of them are big contributors here now and have enormous potential, we all want to honor merit. who's -- who are we making concessions to? it seems to me we're making concessions to american values. >> and i would disagree with you heartily on that because what we do when we do this, and you've seen it in the last several months at the border is you're going to have a whole bunch more unaccompanied minors coming into this country. you're going to have more and more of a problem of people

coming into this country. why? because we're going to let young unaccompanied minors always stay here. >> isn't that what the deal about border security is supposed to be about? >> but there's the point. the problem is democrats won't vote for border security. >> no, they'll vote for border security. they've said they'll vote for border security. it's the cutting legal immigration in half as part of the package that they won't vote for. >> well, hold on. what we're talking about is getting rid of the visa lottery, which was in the bipartisan bill that the democrats put forward under barack obama. number one. so this is not a big deal. number two is we're talking about ending chain migration. chain migration is parents, uncle, aunts, that type of thing. what we're saying is you can bring the nuclear family together. yes, it will reduce the number of legal immigrants in this country. we can have a discussion on whether we can increase it on a merit scale. but the idea that the two things that the president's asking for are not things that democrats have voted for and agreed to in previous bills is just not true. he's not asking for a big lift from the democrats. >> i think john has been proven right.

this is going to be a very tough issue. there were other issues, though. there were other issues. and some of them maybe won't be as tough. 38 words on criminal justice reform. that's a positive. you have democrats excited about that. you have republicans -- jared kushner apparently has been behind the scenes. so i do want to point out -- >> that was one of your flags. >> listen, i play it fair. i said if he puts criminal justice reform on the table, that's a good thing. you have too many people in prison for too long for dumb stuff. it's breaking the bank. it's breaking up families. it's against the values of both parties, taking away liberty from people. no justice. so that is something to build on forward positively. that's something. i was disappointed on the other hand to see nothing said about the nazis. he could have fixed that. nothing about the white terrorist movement that's growing. and he didn't say anything -- he didn't say enough about the gun violence. he had the one throwaway line at the top about the people sprayed with bullets, but he didn't talk about the gun violence.

so, there were some missed opportunities there for the president. but i will say if he wants to do criminal justice reform, he's going to find a lot of democrats want to work with him. >> and on infrastructure. as long as it's done in a way that's not privatizing all of the roads and bridges. right? i think that there is another area -- >> the reality isn't -- not to pick with dana and jake over there. but the idea that the president would lay out his proposals and say things that the other side would disagree with, name one president who hasn't done that in any state of the union address. every state of the union address -- i've sat through 16 of them. i can tell you that half the time the republicans are up and the other half the democrats are up. that's just the way it goes. the idea that trump was somehow different -- >> i thought -- >> i thought he actually had a much more outreaching speech using the narratives that he did with the people up in the audience was very disarming. it made it less charged in policy. >> i agree. >> it made it more folksy, we're an american family. so, you want to talk about together, i think those narratives up in the gallery

were -- >> i saithat. >> again, at the beginning, it's a monument to the american people speech. >> he did it throughout the speech, which i thought was very effective. >> what he also did throughout the speech was take credit for stuff that he just didn't -- i know you can say that but it also gets right to the point of his credibility. when he took credit for the auto industry coming back, well, the auto industry has 7,000 fewer jobs in it from the start of -- the end of 2016 to today. i mean, it's not -- there's a few little things. but it's not about regulatory reform. let me just say, he credited the cap -- >> i want to -- >> i want to bring in -- >> chrysler got new plants. >> right. >> i want to bring in jake for the point of reference. jake. >> it's just my prerogative having been invoked. >> i thought you were lonely over there. >> i wanted to bring you in. >> by my fellow pennsylvanian who i think is upset because western pennsylvania doesn't have a team in the super bowl this year. i just want to say of course

president trump is going to bring up policies that democrats don't like. perhaps i wasn't expressing myself as clearly as i should have. what i meant was some of the framing i think by president trump of the immigration issue, not just the policy proposals by the framing, i think was likely to, and i think we have heard and seen on twitter and facebook, to alienate the democrats with one hand as i was saying he was reaching out to to work with and with the other hand he was getting a different message. i think the framing of using the parents who had that horrific story of their two girls being murdered by ms-13, i think a lot of that risked alienating the same democrats that he was specifically trying to appeal to. and again, of course, he's going to have policy differences with the democrats. that's all i was trying to say. i apologize if i didn't say it clearly enough. >> no apologies necessary. >> i think we can all agree this wasn't a red meat kind of donald trump speech. we've heard those. and we've heard them on the campaign trail. and he didn't do that.

he didn't do that. he didn't reach out much on immigration. this is going to be where he is. as rick says, maybe it's because his base is already mad at him. >> he's already reached out a lot. >> huh? >> he's reached out a lot. >> yes, and maybe that's why he's recoiling a little bit. >> he stood by his proposal. he didn't -- i mean, it would not be unlike trump to back-pedal. he did not tonight. >> he outlined it. i don't think he advanced it. >> he outlined it. >> he had the opportunity of this giant crowd watching at home to put more pressure on both sides in the room. >> i think what he did -- and again, i know you disagree with this, but i think what he did by bringing up ms-13, by putting the bill in broader context about american dreamers and american workers, he told a narrative that he feels and i feel is not being told in america today. it's all -- like i said, every dreamer's a valedictorian. well, the fact is everyone is not. the reality is we need to talk about the truth --

>> quick question for the senator and the governor mostly. you know what's right before them, we're in an election year. we haven't talked about it but they have to try to raise the sequester caps on military spending. difficult for both parties, fiscal conservatives and democrats. then they're going to try to do this immigration thing. i'll believe it when i see it but they're going to try and they're going to start in the senate. we're in an election year. are they really going to do criminal justice reform? are they really going to do infrastructure? are republicans going to go back to an issue they're squeamish about as the primary calendar starts to approach? or what do we have? two months? three months? to get anything done in this -- >> i think it will be harder on criminal justice reform, honestly, but i think immigration, if it's narrow enough, it's ripe and infrastructure for sure is ripe. >> except, governor if you read the president -- >> amnesty -- >> i agree with john's point, which is i think given the election calendar and the politics of the moment and the fact that in the united states senate you have two republican senators who aren't even present

because of illness and a 51-49 margin anyway, the idea that you're going to get a lot done seems farfetched to me but on infrastructure, the phrase i think you should focus on is that the president said he wants a bill that would generate $1.5 trillion in infrastructure. that's not what democrats are looking for. they're looking for an investment in infrastructure. direct investment. >> people out there understand what this public-private partnership notion is is that basically wall street gets to take a big cut of the action and you end up paying for that because you pay for tolls. >> i've got to get to jake. he's got a guest standing by. jake? >> thanks, anderson. let's get reaction to the president's speech from democratic senator kamala harris of california. she's a democrat. she serves on the senate intelligence and the senate judiciary committees. senator, thanks so much for joining us. we really appreciate it. so, the president saw this speech as a bipartisan outreach in many ways.

he mentioned several things in his speech that i've heard you talk about. paid family leave, a path to citizenship for dreamers, infrastructure, prison reform. do you see potential common ground here with the president? >> well, conceptually of course. but the issue is that i had to put all of the words i heard tonight in the state of the union in the context of the conduct and the policies of this administration over the course of the last year. and i have a very difficult time actually reconciling the words with the way they've actually been prioritizing issues. so who knows where it goes? but, of course, i strongly believe that we need to invest in a number of issues. i heard you all talk about infrastructure. there's no question america's hurting in terms of needing to upgrade the infrastructure in all of our states. on the issue of criminal justice reform, yes, we need to do everything we can to be smart on crime, and that includes making sure that when people get out of the system, they don't reoffend. we'll see what the president does. there were a lot of words he spoke tonight. he talked about, for example, investing in training workers.

well, he also cut the budget of the department of labor and in particular that aspect of the budget that is focused on training workers. so i don't really know that we can rely so much on the words that were spoken tonight. and i think the american public really needs to hear the truth instead of just a lot of talk. >> there was an interesting moment during the speech when president trump mentioned that black unemployment is at its lowest level in years, which is true. and the cameras cut to a shot of the congressional black caucus, the members were sitting, most of them were not applauding. can you help explain that to viewers who might not understand why so few people were applauding that notion, that black unemployment is down so much? >> well, i didn't -- i wasn't watching on tv. i was there in person. and i'll tell you that many people including members of the congressional black caucus, were not applauding. and probably because we all know that the way that he should have made that statement is at the

end of that statement he should have said, thank you, president obama, because truly what happened is that it was because of the priorities of the previous administration that we saw a five-point drop in unemployment among the black population of the united states. and that trend has continued. but, frankly, actually last year by only 1%. so i'm sure that had a lot to do with the response by people who actually know what happened and what led to it. >> i feel like one of the things i'm kind of hearing you say and tell me if i'm inferring improperly, but you don't trust president trump and so you don't trust his words. and you think he had moments where he could have been more magnanimous and he didn't take them. >> well, i think that as a general matter, jake, the american public is at this point probably at the height of their distrust of government and its leaders. and if we're going to regain that trust, we have to speak truth, and that includes speaking truth about the economy, for example.

this is a president and an administration that has pushed a tax bill that benefits the top 1% of the population at the expense of working people in this country. this is a president who talks about the improvement of the stock market without mentioning the fact that 84% of the stocks in the united states are owned by only 10% of the american public. so if we're going to have confidence in our government and trust in our government, we need leaders who are going to speak truth, and i found the speech tonight lacking in a lot of truth. >> one last question because i know you have some things to do. you're on the senate intelligence committee. so i want to ask you about this. just before the speech the "washington post" broke some new reporting that the deputy attorney general, rod rosenstein, warned the white house chief of staff john kelly not to allow the release of this memo that the house intelligence committee republicans have, which allege fbi surveillance abuses of the trump team. republicans say the memo should be released for the sake of transparency.

democrats say the memo is full of cherry-picked information. what do you make of rosenstein asking kelly not to release it, and we haven't heard what the white house is going to do yet. >> i think it's a very serious matter when a top official in the united states department of justice says that a memo should not be leaked and should not be publicized because it may threaten our ability to gather intelligence and the people who actually gather that intelligence. and at the bottom line i think what the problem is here, jake, is that people are playing politics and actually weaponizing intelligence and classified intelligence. and that's a very scary moment for all of us as americans when we want to make sure we're supporting our intelligence community and protecting those things that need to be protected in the interest of our safety. >> senator harris, thank you so much for your time. always appreciate it. >> thank you. take care. >> anderson cooper, back to you, sir. >> jake, thanks very much. back now with our panel. to what she was saying about

african-american unemployment being at its lowest level ever, the camera cut away to members of the congressional black caucus who were not standing or applauding. >> yeah. you know, it's interesting because this should be another thing that brings us together. you have a bipartisan achievement over the past five to six years first under obama and then continuing under trump you've seen this decline in black unemployment. now, the reality is under obama you'd sometimes have 1.8% drops, 1.6% drops. under trump you had a 1% drop. so the fall is actually slowing under trump. but it's continuing. so you could celebrate it but you have to be honest about it. the problem you have is trump acts like -- and remember, when he was running for office he said all those unemployment numbers were false, in reality 50% unemployment and all the studies is just terrible, your community is awful. totally ignoring the progress that was being made. and so then he comes out and said look now i'm doing great. in some ways he's taking credit for a trend that was already going there. that's why we don't like it.

the other thing is the gap between black unemployment and white unemployment is so huge. 3% versus 6.8%. so if you want to talk about this, talk about it but then talk about what else you're going to do to close that gap. he never does that. that's why i think the congressional black caucus, it fits poorly in the mouth to hear him bragging. when obama was making bigger gains than he made he gave him no credit. and know wants to take all the credit. >> he actually has made comments about how it can help black unemployment. and that is immigration. he's saying if you're looking at folks entering into the workforce, lower wage workers that the people coming completely illegal, and that's the difference between your father and my father. my father and grandfather came here legally. >> everybody from europe came here illegally as far as i'm concerned. let's be fair. >> the reality is he directs a lost his talk about immigration to the minority community -- >> that's bad. >> no, it's not bad.

but it's true that that -- that undocumented workers in particular, lower wage undocumented workers do take jobs away from people who are at the lower end of the economic scale. that's just the truth. >> there's an effort, and i think it's one of the most dangerous things in the country, to get black folks and latinos fighting. i lived in california in the '90s when those fights were happening between blacks and mexicans over jobs. >> no one's trying to get anybody fighting. >> yes. that's what it seems like to me. let me tell you what i'm so proud of. >> we're just describing the reality. >> well, first of all, there's limited competition in a couple of sectors whether you're talking about some agricultural sectors, some service sectors, some trade. but in general the immigrant community actually makes all of our communities better including the black community. but let me tell you what i'm proud of. the black community has stood by the latino community despite all these numbers and despite all these arguments and said you know what, we do not want them to be subjected to discrimination. we don't want second-class citizens. we don't want jim crow in brown face here. that is a huge achievement on the part of the black community

to stand with this community, and i'm proud of it and i don't want to see it split apart. >> and i'm proud of it too when it comes to the legal community. and when you have, as we do. most of the people come into this country legally are low skilled workers and they come here and they do compete and i'm saying great. that competition is healthy and we have laws that allow them in. it's when you add on several million illegals that that's a problem. >> the economists will tell you that's a fallacy. we have doubled by far the workforce over the past 30 years and it is not double the unemployment rate. >> so we have a lot of low skilled jobs in america, is that what you're saying? >> you're saying it's a zero sum. >> that's the point, anderson. >> what is the likelihood of an actual deal? >> when you get in the senate, how do you get to 60? that's the question. >> when you get in the house -- [ all talking at once ] >> here's the real question. let's be real. when you get in the senate, how do you get to 60? >> i think you can get to 60 in

the senate more easily than if you goat to the house and paul ryan says you have to stick with the hastert rule and you have to have the majority of the republicans as opposed to -- >> 60 in the senate -- >> listen if you have -- >> just for the benefit of the viewers who do not pay attention to this stuff all day long, for the benefit of our viewers, let me just explain the challenge. the challenge is that it's not the majority of people in the house of representatives that count under the way paul ryan's doing it. it has to be the majority of the republicans. under the hastert rule. so you have to be able to pass something with 60 votes in the senate that then the majority of republicans, not the majority of congress -- >> how many times has nancy pelosi passed a bill with a minority of democrats? let me answer that. never. you don't remain speaker you're passing things the majority of your party doesn't want. you don't do it in a parliamentary system -- you certainly don't do it in -- >> just curious, what if they got a deal and the president weighed in on the house? would the house come forward? >> look -- >> if they got a deal. >> let him answer. >> but, rick, the deal that's

going to come out of the senate as you know is going to be much narrower. it's going limited. >> my view is that there's probably only one person who can make this happen and that's the president of the united states. >> sure. >> if he puts his imprimatur on a deal, then -- >> but you know it's going to be -- >> if he doesn't it won't. >> it's going to be shrunk down to something that could pass the house and the senate. >> yeah, but, again, the president has to let people know what he's willing to take. lindsey graham was right. >> the obamacare where we were all waiting for the president -- and it didn't happen. senator santorum worked months on that and they could not get the president of the united states to close the deal on his own party, then to try to broaden it out. it did not happen in year one. there was zero evidence that the president was willing to do what it takes or move his party to do it in year one. has he learned a lesson? can he do it in year two? we're going to find out in the next couple of months. >> the question is you talk about it's an election year. congress doesn't typically like to do very difficult things in off election years.

>> the president's asking his own base to walk into a land mine in an election year. >> will democrats go for 18 to $20 billion for a wall? >> i think they would, yes. >> it's never going to happen. the wall will never actually be built because it will be tied up in lawsuits over eminent domain. i think they will agree to it. >> that's not the part i think is the stumbling ground. but i'll tell you what also is difficult and maybe steps will be taken to defer it. but the specter of tens of -- or hundreds of thousands of these young people being forcibly deported is not a scenario i would want in either party going into the fall election. but particularly the republican party. >> that's why you're going to get a deal, david. it's going to be much more confined. as you said, some security money, a daca deal -- >> but that's what the democrats wanted before the government shutdown. >> and that will never pass the house of representatives. >> we're going to take a break.

>> and i would not support it. >> we're standing by for an exclusive poll of speech watchers. their reaction to the president and his policies. that's ahead. stay tuned. don't let another weekend pass you by. get the lowest price when you book at hilton.com whhe's happy.im? your family's finally eating vegetables thanks to our birds eye voila skillet meals. and they only take 15 minutes to make. augh! (family giggling) oh my. birds eye voila! so veggie good. coming at you with my brand-new vlog. just making some ice in my freezer here. so check back for that follow-up vid. this is my cashew guy bruno. holler at 'em, brun. kicking it live and direct here at the fountain. should i go habanero or maui onion? should i buy a chinchilla? comment below. did i mention i save people $620 for switching?

chinchilla update -- got that chinchilla after all. say what up, rocco. ♪ say what up, rocco. ♪ ♪ i'm jimmy, this is my definition of fresh since 1983. ♪

you won't see these folks they have businesses to run. they have passions to pursue. how do they avoid trips to the post office? stamps.com mail letters, ship packages, all the services of the post office right on your computer. get a 4 week trial, plus $100 in extras including postage and a digital scale. go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again. s

and welcome back. we've just had a commercial break in which all the panelists were talking over each other. it's not just on camera. it's off camera as well. it's exhausting. senator joe manchin is saying he doesn't think the democrats showed the president enough respect. >> he's in a state that i think trump won by -- >> what does he want them to do? are we supposed to stand up and had shout because somebody who's insulted us for the entire time he's been president got up there and read a teleprompter? what did he want them to do? the congressional black caucus showed up there, they were wearing kinte cloth in solidarity. they were not going to be emotionally bullied or blackmailed into performing some stunt that this was a good presidency. and i don't understand -- i love

this man but i don't know what he wanted them to do. >> they want safe spaces. isn't that what they're looking for? >> he didn't want -- manchin did not think the democrats should have sat on their hands the entire time. and manchin, don't forget, comes from a state where trump is very popular. trump has dissed him a little lately. maybe trump wants to get in his good graces to a certain degree. this is a senator that walks a fine line. >> he walks a fine line. he's a hero. i love what he's been trying to do, stick up for coal country. but i want to tell you right now, if he wants the democrats to respect him and have a big enough caucus to include him and his needs, he needs to respect the democrats. >> what we saw tonight, is that any different than what we always see in the state of the union? senator santorum, one side always sits down, it seems like it happens all the time. >> and nobody shouted. >> no booing. >> it's hard to see because as i commented several times to van that many times at least as i'm watching here, many times where that was the divided

thing, they only showed the republican side, so we never got a chance to see the democratic side. >> we were trying to support the president. >> i don't know what was going on with who was picking camera angles but many of these divided things i didn't see what the democrats -- it's hard to get a feel as to what was actually going on. >> but it's really interesting, what senator manchin said. i'm not questioning anybody's sincerity in all of this. but everything is organized around donald trump. he's such a lightning rod. so for people who are in the progressive wing of the democratic party, it is not good for their politics to respond positively to the president. for joe manchin it's good for his politics to say they should have reacted more enthusiastically. so this is politics. [ all talking at once ] >> this is not a hard one for joe manchin. the president won his state by 42 points. >> right. >> it's not like trump just won -- >> he's up for re-election,

right? >> yeah. >> he essentially said this job sucks. >> the hard call for joe manchin is the "d" next to his name in west virginia. >> the other thing senator kamala harris was talking about is such deep distrust exists between both sides. there's no sign -- i mean, to your point, there's no sign in the coming year this speech is going to make a difference or that that's going to change anytime -- there's no reason for it to change. >> occasionally you see the brief flashes of what they call now the chuck and nancy meetings, the chuck meetings. the president does have an instinct to reach out to the other side, he does have an instinct to deal but we haven't seen him bring one to fruition. senator santorum and david know it better than me. he's just asking his party to do an incredibly hard thing in an election year when just during the break i was walking over, i had the primary calendar in front of me. most of the primaries are later in the year. so you're going to ask conservatives who for years, who ran tv ads saying i will never vote for that, it's amnesty, i will never vote for that, it's amnesty, not i'll think about it, i'll never vote for it it's amnesty. you're going to ask them in

february or march to cast a vote. when somebody can still jump in. to joe manchin most politicians i'm not saying they're not principled. i'm not saying they don't care what they believe in. but they're about survival. especially in an election year. your survival instinct kicks in. you're going to ask people to vote for something they promised they would never vote for when they can still be primaried. good luck, mr. president. >> yeah, but you can also structure these votes in such a way that you can give a pass to some of these people that have those difficult situations. >> do the math. you're running out of numbers. >> the hastert, you can probably observe the hastert rule and still do that but you would need large numbers of democratic votes. >> and also we're talking about this speech and what the president was talking about tonight, immigration, in a vacuum here. don't forget what was going on when he walked into that chamber. the president was meeting with his deputy attorney general and his head of the fbi about the release of a memo regarding the russia investigation. >> chief of staff.

>> sorry. right. the chief -- he was meeting with kelly. excuse me. you're right. and this hangs over everything like a wet tent. and i think that the president is asking -- and the american public thinks that the president should testify when you look at all the polling, they say the american president should talk. so, that hangs over this too. on top of what john is talking about, asking these people to make really tough choices and tough decisions, and if they are in conservative districts voting for so-called amnesty, which by the way he campaigned against himself. >> that's the thing, yeah. >> on top of the question of -- the big question marks about what's going to happen to the president in the russia investigation is a heavy load. >> but you also have in addition to districts like you're talking about, you've got people who are in marginal districts. and, david, you're the political analyst. if they don't do anything on daca in those districts, you're opening up -- >> it's going to be very, very tough.

rick, i disagree with you. just the image of that one man in detroit who was separated from his family was a heart-wrenching story. you multiply that in every local news market in the country, and i think you're going to find it's hard for these people in marginal districts and in the few marginal states that exist in next year's senate races to -- particularly in the suburbs. >> i would make the argument to republicans that it's more important for them to get a health care bill passed because health insurance is still going up, and if you look at all the polls, and i've been talking to folks running for congress, running for the senate, that's at the top of the list. daca is way down there. >> but the problem with that -- >> as far as the saliency to the

people and their own pocketbook. >> but the problem with that, rick, is you have this march deadline where they've got to make a decision about a lot of people. there's no such date certain on the calendar for health care. >> but they can extend that deadline, right? >> keep kicking it down the road. that was done because -- >> do you agree with david -- >> because lots of attorneys general are going to file suits at some point. >> do you agree with david that -- >> i don't. p.a. 18, big swing district you have coming up, looked at as a bellwether. >> special election. >> yeah. that's being looked at. you have connor lamb who said i'm not running against nancy pelosi the democrat, i'll work for president trump i won't vote for nancy pelosi for speaker. big race. >> that's a tough district for democrats. >> but i'm saying -- >> that would be an earthquake if -- >> if you put that ad in the charlie dent seat, if you put that ad in any of these open seats in pennsylvania, i don't think that's going to move the needle. >> but then if you combine it, not doing anything on that and not doing anything on infrastructure and the only thing you've got is this tax bill --

>> not the only thing -- you say the only thing. the only thing is -- listen, the only thing is an all-time high in consumer confidence in america. an all-time high in the stock market. >> but, dave, you also have a president who has historically low approval ratings amid all that good news. >> i understand, david. to your point earlier, somebody mentioned this. president clinton won a re-election with a very strong economy despite being impeached. james carville said it. it's the economy, stupid. >> he had a higher approval rating. >> what happened tonight gets overshadowed by midday tomorrow with the news about the lawyers saying he shouldn't meet with mueller, with -- >> the memo comes flying. >> does this just disappear tomorrow? >> well, look at what happened last year when the president gave a speech and said put trivial matters aside and then a few days later he tweeted about president obama wiretapping trump tower. boom. >> this was an hour and a half interregnum in what i suspect

will be the political wars continuing tomorrow morning maybe as early as when the president wakes up and grabs his device and starts tweeting. >> this is not a presidential year, but we're also having a national conversation, which is sometimes useful and sometimes useful in a midterm election year. there were districts republic republicans that were carried by hillary clinton who have very different political calculations than republicans in other districts who could still face primary battles. house republicans have announced their retirement. i think one of the interesting things to watch out of this speech, does the president help himself? does he start moving up a little bit to make some of those marginal republicans from clinton districts or the ones that did the polling, if they see the president going like this, if they see at least some of that economic benefit, people feel good about the economy. if his numbers don't move at all in the next six weeks, you're going to see more retirements throughout those six weeks. >> my experience has been that these speeches have a half-life.

and, you know, when we would get a bump when i worked for presidential obama after a great speech, but after a while things settle in. so it really takes a sustained campaign around elements of the speech -- the things you're trying to dry. in this case it might be the economy. what the white house hasn't shown is the discipline to drive on a consistent basis the message. >> you guys would go out on the road. >> yeah. >> and talk about it. >> i tell you what would be a positive, that infrastructure piece. i can't tell you -- i'm from tennessee born and raised. it takes ten years to make a new road. we've got some existing roads that could use some help. we've got some existing bridges. we've got some existing sewage -- there's real work that can be done. i understand there's a difference about how to get the work done. people say it's all about wall street.

it's all about incentives, but can we just fight -- let's fight from 9:00 a.m. to noon every day and then from noon to 1:00 work on criminal justice and infrastructure and then fight again from 1:00 to 6:00? because there was stuff out there that i think could actually get done if -- >> no one disagrees with you, van, but people disagree how to get there. so on infrastructure who's going to vote for gas tax? everyone knows gas tax hasn't been raised since 1993. everybody in washington knows that's true. >> but you could get support for rural internet broadband. i mean, bringing the world to communities all across the country. don't you think? in rural -- >> there's a lot of things people agree about. when it comes time to having to pay for it, everybody disagrees. >> because they gave it all away in the tax cut. >> i want to pick up on something david said, and i'm going to disagree with you because i think we have a unique case here when it comes to this president. and that is you said the half-life of a speech. i agree with you that state of

the union addresses are -- you have your moment. it's an important speech. it does set, but it dissipates over time. i think we're different here because president trump has been under so much attack, questioning his mental competency. i mean, all of these things that have just been an anchor on -- dropping on this guy, anchors dropping on him day after day, and this is the first time in a long time that a huge swath of america is watching him on television for a period of time. and i think he did a very good job. van and i were talking. it was like a "newsweek." it was sort of an eighth grade level of conversation. and i don't mean to -- >> i'm not bad. [ all talking at once ] >> i'm not talking the president down. i'm saying, he talks --

he was talking to the common man, if you will, and he did it in a way that democrats do it so much better than we do, which is to use feelings and emotion and examples and real people. and it showed a sign of him that says maybe he isn't all of these things -- >> but, rick, here's the challenge, though, is for him to show that side consistently -- >> i agree. >> right. >> and that is what's missing because if tomorrow morning everybody has nicknames and is a jerk and all that, then all of that embroidery we saw tonight doesn't mean that -- >> i agree with you. and, mr. president, if you're watching i don't want to encourage you to do anything of those things on twitter. so don't take this as an encouragement to go back to your own ways. >> you've been saying that for a year. >> i know. i've been talking to the camera for a long time. but i will say that even if he does do that, and again, i'm

asking you not to do that. [ laughter ] but even if he does do that, it's through the prism of what the media's reporting that he's saying. okay? i mean, the media's the one that's going to broadcast out oh, here's what he's saying and in a sense put their own spin on it. and here they had pure unadulterated -- >> if you look at that speech, it's hard to argue with van's side. >> he's like a normal president. >> can i just try what rick did for a second? mr. president, i want to apologize. you did mention russia in one fleeting sentence in the speech, and i missed it. so i apologize. >> to your point though, i think what you're saying and tell me if i'm wrong, you saw the president exhibit empathy, which is something he doesn't exhibit very often and you would like to see more of that and less of the tweeting which you talked about because he undermines himself. >> he has a great message and tonight showed how great that message could be. >> right, but it's got -- it's

got to last. >> yeah. but i'll tell you, the great, great tragedy is structurally that was a brilliant speech and it was an innovation in terms of presidential oratory. you haven't really seen the entire speech built around stories. for somebody who just likes speeches, it was great. hold on a second. i'm saying structurally -- >> jones for trump. >> structurally it was a brilliant speech. but nobody can believe a word that he says in the speech because -- >> that's your piece. >> that's not true. >> that's not -- >> i do think, just for a second, when you guys bang on stephen miller and rob porter and the folks that worked on that speech and wrote that speech, you should give them credit for doing a great job in that speech. >> listen, i call it fair. but you can't trust the results. we'll take a short break. an unw fast food drive thru lane.

but what a powerful life lesson. and don't worry i have everything handled. i already spoke to our allstate agent, and i know that we have accident forgiveness. which is so smart on your guy's part. like fact that they'll just... forgive you... four weeks without the car. okay, yup. good night. with accident forgiveness your rates won't go up just because of an accident. switching to allstate is worth it.

the energy conscious whopeople among usle? say small actions can add up to something... humongous. a little thing here. a little thing there. starts to feel like a badge maybe millions can wear. who are all these caretakers, advocates too? turns out, it's californians it's me and it's you. don't stop now,

it's easy to add to the routine. join energy upgrade california and do your thing. welcome back. welcome back, we are getting the results of the instant poll of people that watched the president speak. give us the numbers and give us the explanation that this is not

necessarily a national poll. >> well, it's not, it's not representative of the country over all, it's a poll of people who watched the speech. who watches a state of the union address? fans of the person giving it. so, it is definitely an audience that is more republicans than democrats in the obama years it was the reverse. here is what we found out. 48% of those that watched the speech had a very positive reaction to the speech. 22%, somewhat positive, 29%, negative. last year, when thepresident gave a speech, that 48% was 57%. so, he did a little worse this year than last year, but still a positive reaction from speech watchers. how about will his policies move the country in the right direction or the wrong direction? 62% of speech watchers said that donald trump's policies as laid out tonight will move the country in the right direction and of course, we asked about confidence in donald trump's ability to carry out his duties as president as you can see, among those watching the speech

tonight, 42% very competent. and 15% somewhat confident, and 43% not confident that he has the ability to carry out duties. >> how does it compare historically with other presidents? >> here is an interesting statistic, we went back to look at the state of the union address in the beginning of a election year where the president's party was facing head winds. 48%, positive reaction across the board. barack obama at the beginning of 2010, he had 48% very positive reaction. george w. bush at the beginning of 2006 in his second mid terms, 48%. very positive. and as you know, those mid term elections did not go well for bush or obama. donald trump the same place tonight, 48%, very positive in the reaction from speech watchers. >> if a president looks at the numbers of people that watched the speech and there were more republicans that watched than democrats, he will be cleared pleased. >> no doubt bit, he -- no doubt about it, he is getting a good

response from those that are inclined to like him. when you look at a poll that said 48% positive, you will like the numbers a lot better than over all national numbers. >> the 29% that hate todd the speech, why didn't they change the channel? >> maybe they were involved in a drinking game. >> were they involved in a hate watch? >> i think the people that stayed with the speech as you can see from the results are people that are inclined to like the president. >> just wonderings. >> what do you think of the numbers? >> well, look, i think that any chance for this president to be fair, any president, but this one in particular, is on be sesed about poll numbers, he is going to glom on to this, it was a moment for him. it was an important moment for him by any standard, he did pretty well with regard to the delivery and certainly with regard to even van was saying

over there, to the structure of the speech. this almost this time last year, in february, when he gave his first joint address, he had gotten very high praise and a few days later he was tweeting about bad ratings on "the apprentice" and then tweeted about barack obama wire tapping him at trump tower and so on and so forth. so he can very easily do what rick santorum was begging him straight to camera not to do and it is hard to imagine that suddenly that is going to change because of these numbers. >> these marks are g b-- these marks are good, but on each metrics, he is down in each one of the categories from where he was a year ago. so, you do see the wear and tear of a year of his presidency, even though it's good marks from the fans. >> he did good grades a year ago. it was not the state of the union address, it was an address

before a joint session of congress and he did get a lot of praise for that speech, which as was pointed out sort of went away relatively quickly. anderson, back to you. >> yeah, and notice the point gloria was making, what then dominates the news cycle. again, senator santorum was saying it's relatively short. >> what is the shelf life of this had? will the president be consistent? he was not consistent in the first year of deciding this is the most important thing to me. i will talk about it today, later today and tonight, and ignore the noise around him. >> that seems impossible to imagine. >> it does, his success in the second year of office, when look, he did not get a lot done. he got a tax cut done, but not as much as first year presidents normally get done. it's going take a lot of discipline and focus, because both parties are fractured. a lot of things do not have anything to do with president

trump, but will he have the ability to sustain this? or will other ratings send him off. you talked about the anchors, but he drops a lot on himself. >> to be fair, tomorrow, if the president came out and started to talk about immigration, the media will talk about the nunez memo. >> if he releases it. >> no, people would be shouting as he walked away, what about the memo. he can talk about whatever he wants to talk about, the media will cover what they want. >> you and i both know he hurts himself. let's talk about what was not in the speech that i refuse to not talk about. in california we had fires that we have never seen before. we have had floods we have never seen before. the climate disruption is real. he did not say a single thing about it and it's important to point out. and not only that, he is kind of praising us moving in a pro pollution direction when it comes to energy policy. i think, you want to talk about things that we will look back on and regret. the fact that we could not come together as a country and look

at the science and look at the fact that we have got floods and fires and all kind of problems here and deal with it as a country is terrible. >> have to take a break, stay with cnn for more coverage of the president's state of the union address ahead. ♪ ♪

i'm jimmy, this is my definition of fresh since 1983. ♪ and i'm the founder of ugmonk. before shipstation it was crazy. it's great when you see a hundred orders come in, a hundred orders come in, but then you realize i've got a hundred orders i have to ship out. shipstation streamlined that wh the order data, the weights of , everything is seamlessly put into shipstation, so when we print the shipping ll everything's pretty much done. it's so much easier so now, we're ready, bring on t. shipstation. the number one ch of online sellers. go to shipstation.com/tv and get two months free.

as long as we are proud of who we are, and what we are fighting for, there's nothing we cannot achieve. >> president trump mixing a devicive agenda for calls of unit ity, he talked about threats foreign and nedomestic. we are live, and around the world, good morning and welcome to "early start." >> chris is working the